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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

Hey Peter,

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 12:57 PM Peter Saint-Andre <[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.


> > 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.

-MSK