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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

I think there's an analogy here with the history of DISCUSS.

Once, there was no such thing as the IESG "DISCUSS criteria" document,
and occasionally ADs would use a DISCUSS to attempt to override
WG consensus because they personally disagreed. This could lead to a
deadlock and was viewed as an abuse of process. Hence, we got the
DISCUSS criteria.

I may be wrong, but I think Alvaro is trying to avoid the same
thing here. But I also think that the CONCERN rules in the draft
already provide criteria ("three reasons why an RSAB member may
file a position of CONCERN") and an override ("If at least three
voting members vote YES, the proposal is approved"). So for me,
we've already covered this.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 10-Mar-22 10:16, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> If you are asking that the wording be strengthened to prohibit the RSAB
> from raising a CONCERN about any issue that has been discussed by the
> RSWG, then I strongly disagree with such a sugestion.  (If you mean
> something else, then please clarify.)
> 
> The whole point of the RSAB is to look at things from a separate
> perspective.  While we hope and expect them to raise things with the
> RSWG during discussion, doing so does not mean that they are not allowed
> to have that CONCERN.
> 
> And conversely, failing to have raised the issue does not prevent them
> from raising it.  While we dislike late surprises, it is clearly better
> to raise it during the process rather than discover afterwards that we
> have a serious problem.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> PS: Note that an AD having raised an issue with a working group during
> document development does not prevent him from raising it again as a
> DISCUSS if he feels it is important enough.
> 
> On 3/9/2022 4:00 PM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
>>    On March 9, 2022 at 3:46:48 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 12:07 PM 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?
>>>>
>>>> The document should explicitly mention that issues already raised and
>>>> discussed in the RSWG should not be brought up again as a CONCERN
>>>> position.
>>>
>>> What do you believe the impact of this "should" would be?
>>
>> It would avoid the re-discussion of issues that have already been
>> considered by the RSWG.
>>
>>
>> Alvaro.
>>
>