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

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

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.

Peter