Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+==== Conversation between Nicole Harris & Licia Florio, co-chairs of REFEDs, and Heather Flanagan, RSE ====
+On 02/07/2012 22:21, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
+> Hi Licia, Nicole -
+>
+> I'm the IAOC for budget), and
+> the different components within the RFC Editor.
+>
+> The Series was structured this way specifically to allow us to accept
+> new streams if and when requested and appropriate.  That said, there is
+> nothing currently documented regarding how a new stream is introduced in
+> to the Series queue.  Let's break some ground!
+>
+> So, with that background, I have a few questions to get us started:
+>
+> 1 - Why the RFC Series and not Kantara or OASIS or another umbrella
+> organization?  What are you hoping to achieve by publishing RFC and not
+> documents on your wiki as you do today?
+Consistency, structure, clarity are the main points. I don't think Kantara has an evolved enough 'process' for this as yet, and OASIS is too unwieldy. The RFC process better matches the openness of the REFEDS group and our general working approach (which is still evolving itself).  As we want to get things in to a format where we are pushing towards clear recommendations if we don't use something like the RFC, we will only have to invent something ourselves and why reinvent the wheel?
+I think we will continue to have a hybrid approach and there will be outputs that are different (e.g. the Discovery Project) but Leif has already demonstrated the RFC approach for several minor areas (entity categories etc.) and I think we can build on this well.
+The biggest concern I have at the moment is upskilling the REFEDS people in writing RFCs, but I think that's a nut we can crack
+>
+> 2 - REFEDs has a limited mandate and is at a point of change in the
+> organization.  Do you anticipate REFEDs being a persistent entity for
+> the next 5-10 years?
+I can only see REFEDS growing at the moment.  We've just been busy hawking REFEDS to the EC as the equivalent of IGTF in the federation space.
+>
+> 3 - The RFC Series has some particular points of style and format that
+> must be consistent across the streams.  Today that means ASCII only,
+> fixed line and page lengths, and a fairly common document structure
+> (Abstract, Introduction, Headers, Footers, etc.)  Is REFEDs willing to
+> accept those constraints and participate in the discussions regarding
+> potential changes to those constraints?  Do you have any format
+> requirements of your own, such as a UTF-8 character set or inclusion of
+> graphics or HTML-style links?
+Personally, I don't think so.  I'd rather keep the purity of the RFC structure as supporting material can always be held elsewhere - we can always have pretty flyers and more PR friendly work on the wiki and the website.  I can't think of anything specific we might have that would mean we would have to have a specific requirement.

RSE Wiki Archive

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools