User Tools

Site Tools


refeds

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

refeds [2012/08/27 11:28] (current)
rsewikiadmin created
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. ​
refeds.txt ยท Last modified: 2012/08/27 11:28 by rsewikiadmin