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

Hi,

I’m perhaps confused, but doesn’t the current draft require the RSAB to "actively seek a wide range of input” from the community as part of the community call for comment? 

If we require the RSAB to seek such review, and I think we must, then there has to be a way for the RSAB to send a draft back to the RSWG for further review to think about those comments. I don’t believe we can remove the bullet point ("Comments received during a community call for comment need to be addressed, as described under Section 3.2.3.”) that permits that. 

(At this stage, it’s very hard to follow what specific text changes are being proposed – can the chairs summarise?)

Colin

> On 5 Jan 2022, at 07:24, Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> wrote:
> 
> Hi Peter & EKR
> 
> On 04.01.22 22:33, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 1/4/22 2:18 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: 
>>> Well, it's not an *additional* bullet but rather a replacement bullet, I think. 
>> 
>> That sounds right. 
> Yes, that's right.  I stand corrected.
> 
>> 
>>> I think this also still leaves the question of whether it's exhaustive. 
> Indeed.
>> 
>> IIRC, in our original discussion this was intended to be exhaustive. Personally (no editor hat on) I've only ever been ~90% comfortable with that, but I can certainly live with it. 
>> 
> I don't think we intended it to be exhaustive, but I will admit that I didn't get a strong sense one way or another from the group.  So let's discuss.
> 
> Allow me to attempt to frame this a bit with two questions:
> 
> When can the RSAB trigger a broader community review?
> What is the harm and redress if the RSAB triggers an "inappropriate" broader review?
> Imagine a proposal to change the archival format (for whatever reason– let's assume there's some good reason to do so).  This would NOT offend the principles in Section 7, but might be viewed as a sufficiently large change that perhaps a broader review would be considered appropriate.  I could envision two scenarios:
> 
> The RSWG asks the RSAB and the RSCE for help with a broader review.  One could envision such a situation where the RSWG participants believe they are either at their limits or beyond their expertise and really want to hear from others.  This is not controversial, and I would imagine it would just happen without much if any change to the existing text.
> The RSAB thinks the proposal is at or beyond the limits of the RSWG participants or that the proposal might be harmful to the long term health of the series or have impact that they do not yet see (say with accessibility), and wants that broader review, without a request from the RSWG.
> I think it's the 2nd scenario we need to discuss, and you might want to delve into it a bit.
> 
> And let's turn this around: what bad things happen if the RSAB triggers a broader review for something that is trivial?  Perhaps the answer is “not much”.  What would be the redress?  I see two answers to that:
> 
> Appeal on process failure.
> Complaint to the streams and NOMCOM (probably the IAB, as a practical matter) of unwise/inappropriate use of authority.
> I mention this because this group can afford to allow for some judgment on the part of the RSAB if we are comfortable with the risks of inappropriate use of the authority and the redress.  Otherwise, we should be more restrictive.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Eliot
> 
> <OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc>-- 
> Rfced-future mailing list
> Rfced-future@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future

-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/