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

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 1/6/2022 9:24 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 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.
>
Delete "serious" in both of the first two bullets.   Serious is way too 
subjective, and pretty meaningless here as the voter gets to decide 
whether or not the problem creates an actionable concern.  If you think 
this demands an adjective then "unmitigable" is probably the right one 
in both locations as it would prompt a discussion of how to make things 
work.

Add a 4th:

* The RSAB member believes that based on the results of the community 
call(s) for comment {{cfc}} there are previously valid unraised issues 
that need to be addressed by the RSWG prior to publication.

I.e., a CONCERN based on community call may be issued to due to either a 
perception of  a lack of community consensus, but an raised and valid 
issue that  wasn't apparent to the RSWG for some reason

> ###
>
> 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.

Delete "important" for the same reason.   Also, there's some 
plural/single issues here with respect to who "concludes" and an and/or 
issue so:

The RSAB is responsible for considering comments received during a 
community call for comment.  If [one or more | an ] RSAB member(s) 
conclude that such comments raise issues that need to be addressed, they 
should do so by discussing those issues with* the RSWG.  If they believe 
an issue meets the criteria specified under step 9 of {{workflow}}, they 
should also lodge a position of "CONCERN" during RSAB balloting.

*I believe "with" is more correct than "within" as this is RSAB to RSWG 
rather than the RSAB member as a participant in the RSWG. The former is 
an individual opinion, the latter is a positional opinion based on RSAB 
membership.  Yeah, it's a nit.

Mike


>
> ###
>
> Peter