Re: [Rfced-future] WGLC Review of the draft

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 1/6/22 7:15 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 1/4/22 1:36 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 11:50 AM Eliot Lear <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Mike,
>>
>>     Just to preface, I'm offering some text below just to clarify a
>>     point on which I suspect the group agrees.
>>
>>     On 04.01.22 19:52, Michael StJohns wrote:
>>>
>>>     It wouldn't work for me.
>>>
>>>     What I think EKR is saying - and let me use a concrete example -
>>>     is that if 5 people that think changing the numbering system of
>>>     the RFC series proposes that in the RSWG, gets RSWG consensus, but
>>>     then the community overwhelmingly thinks that's a bad idea - well
>>>     so what?   The RSAB still has to approve the document?
>>>
>>>     I would hope not.
>>>
>>     Perhaps a tweak to Step 8 might help?
>>
>>     OLD:
>>
>>>         8.  Once the RSWG chairs confirm that concerns received 
>>> during the
>>>             community call(s) for comment have been addressed, ...
>>
>>     NEW:
>>
>>>         8. Once the RSWG chairs confirm that concerns received during 
>>> the
>>>            community call(s) for comment have been addressed*and that 
>>> ****there is rough consensus of the community for the result*,...
>>
>>     Or some such?  And the RSAB could send out further calls for comment
>>     based on revisions, just to be certain.
>>
>> Or some such. I also would not object to adding there not being 
>> consensus of the community to the RSAB CONCERN
>> reasons.
> 
> IMHO that's a reasonable path forward.

Here is proposed text:

###

There are three reasons why an RSAB member may file a position of CONCERN:

    * The RSAB member believes that the proposal represents a serious
      problem for one or more of the individual streams.
    * The RSAB member believes that the proposal would cause serious harm
      to the overall Series, including harm to the long-term health and
      viability of the Series.
    * The RSAB member believes, based on the results of the community
      call(s) for comment {{cfc}}, that there is no consensus to advance
      the proposal.

###

Then I suggest we clean up my proposed text in the CFC section, too:

###

The RSAB is responsible for considering comments received during
a community call for comment. If RSAB members conclude that such
comments raise important issues that need to be addressed, they
should do so by discussing those issues within the RSWG or (if
the issues meet the criteria specified under Step 9 of {{workflow}})
lodging a position of "CONCERN" during RSAB balloting.

###

Peter