Hi @jblumenkamp,
The biggest problem with this rule that I have encountered are usually connected to the word substantially. The decision then boils down to the subjective view on what is and is not substantial original work, which does not necessarily need to be the same even among the members of the TC.
Making it mandatory is to some extend problematic, because as I see it we could run into issues with what does it actually mean to publish their development? Are blueprints enough? Would technical documentation accompanied with photos be sufficient? While we are at it, what actually is technical documentation?
I believe we are looking at a pretty big problem here and we are not alone. The scientific world has problems coping with at well. Despite various advantages of modern science communications, it is still quite problematic (and sometimes outright impossible) to reproduce published and well received scientific papers.
My personal opinion is that the least expensive way out may be via much bigger push for openness. I do not think that can be done on the rules side of things, but it can probably be incentivized by having specific rules for awards at the international competition, similar to what the scientific community does. A “No best paper award if we cannot reproduce your work” can be translated in RCJ terms as “No trophy if you do not publish sufficient information for building your robots”.
As we can see at this very forum, the interest for technical documentation does exist.
I believe this is sadly already happening to some extend, as the international competition seems to host more or less the same teams over the past few years. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but we may also view it as somewhat alarming, as it probably is increasingly difficult for new schools to participate as you note.
Thank you for staring this thread – I hope we can get something tangible out of it.
– Marek