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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 7:05 PM Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 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
>

I am not in favor of this. It brings in precisely the concern I had on
reading this
text of the RSWG laundering otherwise inadmissable objections that happen
to be raised by a community member.

-Ekr


>
> > 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
>
>
>