Re: [Rfced-future] Suggested text for issues #56, #57, #61, #62

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jun 23, 2021, at 11:58, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Ultimately, legally and effectively, the timing and priority of any work 
> by the RPC is an LLC/RPC decision.  Ditto for any hired/contracted for 
> RSA/E (mutual agreement consistent with the contract/employment 
> agreement).  So yes - the RSAB may say "deprioritize" vs RSWG 
> "emphasize" at which point if there's disagreement, that's going to be 
> an interesting contractual discussion between the LLC contract manager 
> and the RPC based on input from both the RSAB and the RSWG.  That's just 
> reality and I don't really thing we need to spend a lot of time on 
> trying to change how those levers of power are manipulated.  If there's 
> a massive failure later, AND someone has a better idea, AND it can be 
> implemented through contractual language, THEN we can readdress this point.

I wasn't suggesting that we needed to change the substance here, just to change the emphasis on the text.  You'll note that I just reworded Jay's text, not changed the bullet points.
 
> Which also has me asking a question:  Should the LLC provide a liaison 
> to the RSAB as mandatory requirement?

Not mandatory, and I don't think we need formal encouragement for everyone to be proactively consultative.  I'd rather stay silent (for reasons similar to those you outline above).