Subject: [Rfced-future] Issue #80: name of RSWG

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 08:10:25 +0200

Lars,

In your review you mentioned that you thought that using the name "WG" 
would cause confusion in that people might think that the group is an 
IETF activity.

Questions:

 1. Do I have that point correct?
 2. Do others agree?
 3. Is there some alternative that you (and others) would prefer?

Eliot

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 16:45:33 +1000

Just off the top of my head, what about RSSG - RFC Series Strategy Group?

> On 6 Sep 2021, at 4:10 pm, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Lars,
> 
> In your review you mentioned that you thought that using the name "WG" would cause confusion in that people might think that the group is an IETF activity.
> 
> Questions:
> 
> 	• Do I have that point correct?
> 	• Do others agree?
> 	• Is there some alternative that you (and others) would prefer?
> Eliot
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 17:18:36 +0900

> 3. Is there some alternative that you (and others) would prefer?

I may have said it before, or others may have said it. I think WG is the 
right way to go. It makes it clear to everybody in the wider IETF realm 
that it's an open group. Any other name will easily give the impression 
that this group may be only by invitation or otherwise restricted. Also, 
the internal mechanics are very close to an IETF WG. And the term WG is 
used in many other organizations and contexts with a very similar 
meaning, too.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 16:06:50 -0400

>  3. Is there some alternative that you (and others) would prefer?
To paraphrase - "Working Group" is the worst name, except for all the 
others or not.  But I take Lars' point.  This isn't a IETF working 
group, and has behaviors not strictly in keeping with the IETF's view of 
a working group.   The IRTF uses Research Group and avoids that 
confusion.  Perhaps we should do the same.   How about Task Group?  E.g. 
RSTG?

>From 
https://www.allbusiness.com/barrons_dictionary/dictionary-task-group-4944778-1.html:

>
>   task group
>
> Dictionary of Business Terms for: task group
> task group
>
> similar to a work group, but operating within a larger organizational 
> context. A task group is charged with the responsibility for making a 
> specific contribution to the goals of the parent organization. Some 
> task groups may pursue ongoing responsibilities, such as a pension 
> review board, while others are oriented to a short-term task, such as 
> preparing a new product proposal.
>
Mike

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 10:16:37 +1200

> used in many other organizations and contexts with a very similar 

Agreed. In our community, "WG" sets certain expectations about behaviour
and process, and that seems more important to me than possible confusion.

"Strategy Group" and "Task Group" don't do that IMHO.

Another formulation that might work, and also conveys that this is a
distinct activity, is "RFC Series Task Force". After all, WGs were
an add-on to the original IETF.

    Brian

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 18:33:04 -0400

> and process, and that seems more important to me than possible confusion.

IETF Working  Groups have a mutable charter approved by the IESG, a 
limited lifetime (ideally), a set of deliverables (driven by the 
charter).   Not a single one of those appears to apply to this 
activity.  Even the process is different.

This creation bears little resemblance to the IETF's concept of a 
working group.  We may borrow some procedures and concepts as a starting 
point, but if those procedures change external to RS?G, that does not 
necessarily mean that the change in procedures applies here.

So I'm not as wedded to the name "Working Group" with respect to this 
activity as others might be.

Later, Mike

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 09:21:17 +0300

Hi,

On 2021-9-7, at 1:33, Michael StJohns <[email-masked]> wrote:
> IETF Working  Groups have a mutable charter approved by the IESG, a limited lifetime (ideally), a set of deliverables (driven by the charter).   Not a single one of those appears to apply to this activity.  Even the process is different.
> 
> This creation bears little resemblance to the IETF's concept of a working group.  We may borrow some procedures and concepts as a starting point, but if those procedures change external to RS?G, that does not necessarily mean that the change in procedures applies here.

Mike restated my point much more clearly. Basically, we (= RFCEDP) might look at this new type of group and say "oh, that's pretty similar to an IETF WG with some key differences". I'm pretty sure the average IETF participant, when they come across this group, will say "this is not a WG, it's all different, what is this?"

Thanks,
Lars

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 08:42:25 +0200

Hi Lars,

> Mike restated my point much more clearly. Basically, we (= RFCEDP) might look at this new type of group and say "oh, that's pretty similar to an IETF WG with some key differences". I'm pretty sure…

Ok.

If I may be so bold as to class the two arguments, the above is one 
side.  The other is stated by Martin, as follows:

> I think WG is the right way to go. It makes it clear to everybody in 
> the wider IETF realm that it's an open group. Any other name will 
> easily give the impression that this group may be only by invitation 
> or otherwise restricted.

We have intended for the new group to operate much as an IETF WG would 
operate, the key differences are (a) the scope of the work and (b) the 
approval process.

To achieve consensus now, we really can go down several paths:

 1. Come up with a term that incorporates the openness and transparency
    principles that Martin and others are aiming to articulate.  This
    often involves including words like “open” or “community”.
 2. Continue to use the term "WG", but otherwise make clear to those who
    join that this is not an IETF activity.

Before we consider (2), maybe we could have some ideas on (1)?

Eliot

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 09:51:05 +0300

Hi,

On 2021-9-7, at 9:42, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 	• Come up with a term that incorporates the openness and transparency principles that Martin and others are aiming to articulate.  This often involves including words like “open” or “community”.

I'll point out that IETF participants seem to understand just fine that, e.g., research groups and BOFs are open, and that directorates, design teams, etc. are not. I don't agree that we need to call it "WG" to make sure people understand it's open.

> 	• Continue to use the term "WG", but otherwise make clear to those who join that this is not an IETF activity.

RFC Series...
...Strategy Group
...Community Group
...Policy Group

Thanks,
Lars

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 09:16:33 +0200

> ...Community Group

… Community Working Group

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 11:37:11 +1200

>> Before we consider (2), maybe we could have some ideas on (1)?

...Debating Society  ?-)
 
Of Lars's suggestions, I prefer "Community Group". I think it conveys the 
correct ethos.

   Brian

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 16:46:09 -0700

On 9/7/2021 4:37 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 2021-9-7, at 9:42, Eliot Lear<[email-masked]>  wrote:

Either that or "community working group".

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 09:47:33 +1000

'Community Group' is used in the W3C to mean something that we'd express as 'just a mailing list'. 

There is some overlap in participation.

Cheers,

> On 8 Sep 2021, at 9:37 am, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 15:47:50 -0600

Of these, "Policy Group" seems best, since the group is explicitly
chartered with defining policies regarding the RFC Series.

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 12:51 AM Lars Eggert <[email-masked]> wrote:

> >       • Come up with a term that incorporates the openness and
> transparency principles that Martin and others are aiming to articulate.
> This often involves including words like “open” or “community”.
>
> I'll point out that IETF participants seem to understand just fine that,
> e.g., research groups and BOFs are open, and that directorates, design
> teams, etc. are not. I don't agree that we need to call it "WG" to make
> sure people understand it's open.
>
> >       • Continue to use the term "WG", but otherwise make clear to those
> who join that this is not an IETF activity.

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 15:21:23 +1000

WFM

> On 14 Sep 2021, at 7:47 am, Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Of these, "Policy Group" seems best, since the group is explicitly chartered with defining policies regarding the RFC Series.
>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 07:27:00 +0200

Just for completeness, that would be RFC Series Policy Group.

Further comments?

Eliot

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 11:02:06 -0400

> Just for completeness, that would be RFC Series Policy Group.

To further misquote - that's the worst name.... period.

The RSWG (whatever we call it) may propose policy - as one of the things 
it does - but it does not approve, mandate or implement policy - all 
things that would be implied by "Policy Group".   I say "one of the 
things" because I don't consider the style guide nor even the XML schema 
to be policy per se - but implementation guidance perhaps.  I'd prefer 
not to mislead the community or the members of the group as to the scope 
of their authority by giving them a name that could be taken to expand 
their scope.

I would expect the RS?G to initially spend a bit of time reviewing 
existing policy as codified in the existing RFCs, tweak a few things 
here and there, and ask the RSAB to bless them.  Then move on to 
implementation guidance.  Note that I've asked for a proposed work plan 
for the RS?G a number of times so we can actually figure out the real scope.

So - No - let's not let the last name proposed be the one we select just 
because it sounds nifty.

I can live with Working Group - but I agree with Lars' points on the 
possibility for confusion.    Task Group is descriptive without being 
proscriptive.  Development Group or Community Group (from Lars' list) 
would also work.  Strategy Group ... maybe.

Mike

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 10:31:55 +1200

> To further misquote - that's the worst name.... period.

Agreed, and I have the same issue with Strategy Group.

I still prefer WG but if there's no consensus for that, Community Group
conveys the right message. The fact that W3C uses the same phrase slightly
differently seems minor to me. But if that doesn't fly, try RFC Series
Consensus Group.

   Brian

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 16:43:52 -0600

Without my editor hat on, I think "Working Group" is fine and I don't
believe that folks will find it confusing.

With my editor hat on, I'll change it to whatever has consensus here.

---

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 10:18:25 +1000

I'm comfortable with Working Group.  Positive and negative connotations fully considered, it's still a fine name.

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021, at 08:43, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 4:32 PM Brian E Carpenter 
> <[email-masked]> wrote:

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 10:40:22 +1000

Same. Lars' concerns are worth considering, but it seems like the least bad option.

> On 15 Sep 2021, at 10:18 am, Martin Thomson <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 19:43:03 -0700

I also am fine with WG

On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 5:40 PM Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > I'm comfortable with Working Group.  Positive and negative connotations
> fully considered, it's still a fine name.
> >

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 08:21:29 +0300

I can live with being in the rough here, if that’s how the chairs end up calling it.

-- 
Sent from a mobile device; please excuse typos.

> On Sep 15, 2021, at 05:44, Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> I also am fine with WG
>

---

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 08:45:32 -0400

I see a lot of people who prefer working group and a few who don’t.
Who else who has not opined on this thread is opposed to Working Group?

If you can live with Working Group, but prefer another name, please tell us what that is.

Let’s give it a day or two for other opinions and see where we are.  

Brian

> On Sep 15, 2021, at 1:21 AM, Lars Eggert <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 5:40 PM Mark Nottingham <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> > On 15 Sep 2021, at 10:18 am, Martin Thomson <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> >>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>> >>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>
>> >> -- 
>> >> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>> >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>
>> >> 
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>> > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>
>> 
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/ <https://www.mnot.net/>
>> 
>> -- 
>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>
>> --

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 09:52:37 -0400

--On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 08:45 -0400 Brian Rosen
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I see a lot of people who prefer working group and a few who
> don't. Who else who has not opined on this thread is opposed
> to Working Group?
> 

Well, you asked.

I can probably live with Working Group.  I could probably live
with Heffalump too and it would have some advantages.  In the
long run, once things have settled in and worked well for
several years, it will probably make little difference what it
is called.  However, in the near term, it makes me very
uncomfortable for reasons others have given, particularly the
risk of potential confusion about applicable processes.

Similar comments apply to most or all of the other terminology
questions including the title for the RSE replacement:  If all
of this works, and works smoothly for several years, whatever we
call it will probably make little difference.  However, getting
it wrong in the short term, including use of terms that mean
something else in our community or that could cause outsiders to
hesitate about taking newly created positions, could be bad
news.  FWIW, the mathematician and statistician John Tukey often
pointed out that, if one was doing something new and none of the
traditional terms fit, it was better to invent a completely new
one than to complicate things by encouraging people to wonder
whether the traditional meaning or the newly applied one was
intended.  Hence, e.g., "box and whisker plots".

best,
   john

--On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 08:45 -0400 Brian Rosen
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I see a lot of people who prefer working group and a few who
> don't. Who else who has not opined on this thread is opposed
> to Working Group?
> 
> Let's give it a day or two for other opinions and see where
> we are.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 11:18:09 -0600

> risk of potential confusion about applicable processes.

Although I expect that folks are mentally flexible enough to handle the
differences, if that's not really the case then (not as editor) I'd be
fine with "RFC Series Community Group" (recognizing that the W3C also
has community groups, which function in quite different ways).

Or there's always "RFC Series Task Force". ;-)

Peter

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 10:01:10 +1000

> On 16 Sep 2021, at 3:18 am, Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Huh. There is sort of a logic to it -- it's not subservient to the other TFs, it's a peer with a limited scope.

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 20:27:16 -0400

> Huh. There is sort of a logic to it -- it's not subservient to the other TFs, it's a peer with a limited scope.
*sigh* No.

As an equivalent to the IRTF and IETF, the RSTF would be the RSAB 
(filling the role of the IESG or IRSG) and the RS?G collectively, not 
what we're calling the RSWG individually.   Which is why I suggested Rfc 
Series Task Group.  The RSWG is in no way a peer of the IETF.

Later, Mike