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

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Peter.  This looks to me like good text and a useful improvement.

Yours,
Joel

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.
> 
> ###
> 
> 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.
> 
> ###
> 
> Peter
>