Re: [Rfced-future] CONCERN positions after RSWG discussion (draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model)

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alvaro,

On 09.03.22 21:07, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> Peter:
>
> Hi!  Thanks for such a clear document!
>
>
> One part of the workflow described in §3.2.2 makes me feel uneasy.
> Bullet point 9 says this:
>
>          Because RSAB members are expected to participate in the
>          discussions within the RSWG and to raise any concerns and issues
>          during those discussions, most CONCERN positions should not come
>          as a surprise to the RSWG.
>
> While the statement is true (the concerns and issues should not be a
> surprise), it opens the door to "double jeopardy" [1].
>
> Earlier bullets mention how, participating as individuals, "RSAB
> members will raise any issues or concerns during the development of
> the proposal, and not wait until the RSAB review period" (3), and how
> a proposal advances when the RSWG chairs believe there is rough
> consensus (4).  If the RSAB member raised an issue to the RSWG and
> there was rough consensus not to address it (or another similar
> outcome), why is the RSAB member allowed to bring up the issue *again*
> in the form of a CONCERN position?

Rough consensus of the community is not the only criteria for a document 
to be approved.  People on the RSAB are expected to use CONCERNS as a 
means to address problems when a proposal goes against interests of the 
streams they represent, or they perceive a long term issue that would 
harm the health of the series. Therefore, when a RSAB members 
participate in the RSWG they do so to telegraph those concerns so that 
they can be addressed earlier in the process, and hopefully avoided.  It 
would not be unlike an AD saying in a WG meeting, “I am likely to place 
a DISCUSS on this sort of text.”

Eliot