[rfc-i] REOC membership
Glenn at riveronce.com
Wed Jan 26 09:23:17 PST 2011
On Jan 26, 2011, at 11:55 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> I was going to say "it doesn't really matter", especially because we have adopted a strategy
>> of figuring out various details, and only when we've nailed down all those details do we slap
>> a label on them.
>> However, on reflection, using REOC seems somewhat less error-prone.
>> If we call it RSOC, somewhere, sometime, some folks are going to think that means
>> "RSE Oversight Committee" (as in: RFC Series Editor Oversight Committee) only to find out
>> quite some time later that they've got the entire scope wrong; a real disservice to the required
>> breadth of the oversight function -- and far too much focus strictly on the RSE, which would be
>> counterproductive as well.
> I don't have a strong opinion, both will work. I do note that people will tend to forget what the acronym means and focus on what the group actually does over time. So I don't think any harm will be done.
Most likely so on both points.
> RSOC is easier to say, while REOC will tend to get spelled out. I suppose someone might think RSOC means the RFC Society :-)
Excellent point. This may in fact be the best reason for selecting REOC: having an I-SOC, and R-SOC, and so on could get mightily confusing.
>> So, REOC seems the safer, less error-prone label. (I've tried to find similar sorts of mis-
>> interpretations of REOC, but have yet to find one.)
>> Also, I'm reminded that we rarely refer to the "RFC Series", except in a few rather formal
>> references. In practicse, we refer to the "RFC Editor". So REOC is a bit more in line with
>>> Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs
>>> Science Park 140,
>>> http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest