On Jul 29, 2013, at 3:59 PM, t.p. wrote: > I think the points you make below are good, once the newcomer to the > IETF has found their working group. This is not always easy. Fine if > your interest is in OSPF, ISIS, TLS, TCPMaintenance but in other > spheres, the IETF approach of choosing a 'witty' name seems to me less > than welcoming. Think about it as a stranger to these parts. What > comes to mind when you encounter; salud, straw drinks insipid lemonade - > behave, kitten vipr, cuss!
I was thinking this morning that clever short WG names are fine, but we shouldn't try too hard to make them acronyms - or at least, we shouldn't pretend that the acronyms suffice as descriptions for the WGs. In lists of WGs, we should include brief descriptions of the WGs, not the acronym expansions. Keith
