Re: [Rfced-future] Comments on draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model

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

Hi. Comments inline.

On 3/10/22 5:30 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Hey Peter,
> 
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 12:57 PM Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     On 3/10/22 10:57 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>      > I think my review of this is informed by my experience on the IESG.
>      > The IESG has a ballot position called "DISCUSS" that lets us require
>      > further discussion in several situations before the document under
>      > review can advance to publication.  Four prime examples of this
>     are: (a)
>      > a document that is trying to present a good idea, but does it quite
>      > poorly; (b) a document that is trying to advance a bad idea, even if
>      > clearly; (c) a document whose development process was not properly
>      > followed; and (d) a document that was tainted by a process abuse
>     of some
>      > kind, such as a conflict of interest or improper use of discretion.
>      >
>      > As I read the proposed "CONCERN" criteria, they cover some but
>     not all
>      > of those possibilities, and that's what caught my attention.
> 
>     The Program discussed the CONCERN criteria in fair detail. My read is
>     that (a) and (b) would be solved by having RSAB members involved in
>     RSWG
>     discussions and that (c) and (d) could be appealed.
> 
>     [...]
> 
>      > Now, it
>      > could be the case that "serious harm" and "serious problem" in the
>      > "CONCERN" criteria are meant to cover all of those possibilities,
>     but
>      > that wasn't evident when I read it.  I suggest that be made
>     explicit if
>      > that's the intent.
> 
>     IMHO "the proposal would cause serious harm to the overall Series,
>     including harm to the long-term health and viability of the Series"
>     is a
>     more specific and clearly defined criterion than "is trying to
>     advance a
>     bad idea" in your (b) clause.
> 
>     As to your (a) clause, if the proposal is defined so poorly that it
>     can't be implemented then I would expect an RSAB member to raise a
>     CONCERN that the proposal causes serious harm, as above.
> 
> 
> OK.  I didn't read (a) and (b) as being covered by the current proposal 
> as presented, but thanks for clarifying.
> 
> If possible, I'd suggest this be made more explicit; a later iteration 
> of the IAB, RSAB, RSWG, etc., might not automatically inherit that context.

We did go back and forth on many aspects of this document, trying to 
strike the right balance between helpful direction and too much detail. 
This seems like another spot where that balance might be important. If 
we mention now that Factors A and B are good reasons for an RSAB member 
to raise a CONCERN, but we don't mention Factors C and D, how should a 
future RSAB member proceed? Could someone file an appeal if an RSAB 
member invokes Factor D?

As I see it, the RSAB member would need to make a case that a proposal 
would cause serious harm to a stream or the Series; as long as they can 
make a plausible or reasonable argument for that, I don't see why we 
need to tie their hands now.

That said, I'm merely the document editor and I'll add whatever text we 
agree on...

>      > It's been pointed out to me separately that there's an
>     expectation that
>      > the RSAB will be more directly involved with the development of a
>      > proposal in the RSWG than would be the case with similar work in the
>      > IETF stream.  If so, then a "CONCERN" would indeed be unique
>     (just like
>      > me putting a "DISCUSS" on a document that I approved at the WG level
>      > would be pretty weird), but it also means this expectation of direct
>      > involvement was not sufficiently evident in the document when I
>     read it.
> 
>     The document says this several times, specifically in Section 3.1.1.2
>     and in Section 3.2.2 points 3, 9 & 10. Do you feel it should also be
>     mentioned elsewhere (e.g., in the section about the RSAB)?
> 
> 
> I do see it now that I've read it all again.  Thanks (to you and Mirja) 
> for setting me straight.
> 
> It's still a little odd, however; by pushing for the RSAB to be 
> participants in the RSWG (which solves the first issue), it has the 
> appearance of the RSAB ultimately being the approvers of proposals they 
> helped to develop.

A few thoughts:

1. The expectation of this document is that people who know and care 
about the RFC Series will help to develop RSWG proposals by providing 
valuable input throughout the process, indeed as early as possible.

2. More specifically, the document says nothing about who may or may not 
author RSWG proposals. Thus an RSAB member, someone from the RPC team, 
the RSCE, the ISE, the IETF LLC executive director, and others could 
author or edit RSWG proposals.

3. The Program participants did not conclude that early involvement from 
any of the foregoing people (or anyone else) would constitute a conflict 
of interest, even if they co-author a proposal. Is that your primary 
concern here?

4. The Program participants weighed the cost and benefits of RSAB member 
involvement in the RSWG and concluded that it would be more effective to 
have them involved (which is why the document actively encourages them 
to do so).

This is my recollection, anyway. Others can correct me if I'm wrong.

Peter