Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 143: RSAB mailing list archives

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Lars,

Adding to what Martin just wrote...

On 11.01.22 08:10, Lars Eggert wrote:
> so maybe my understanding about the new model is off, but: I have 
> understood the proposed structure to be such that the RSAB really 
> doesn't have a lot of leeway when it comes to not approving proposals 
> by the RSWG, especially not without immediately needing to take the 
> discussion back to the RSWG in such cases. In other words, I'm 
> struggling to come up with examples where significant discussions 
> would happen inside the RSAB only. 

In general, yes conversation to happen in the RSWG, but there reasons 
why the RSAB members might discuss matters among themselves, 
particularly when it comes to implementation of policies.  For example,  
“I believe I am running into an issue with the RPC over how they are 
implementing this new tool- we don't have permissions or the states we 
need”, so that they can reflect that back to the RPC.  That may not even 
entail any changes to policy, but simply to implementation.

If someone later sees this discussion and decides that the RSAB has 
missed that indeed there is a policy issue, they can raise it in the 
RSWG, but only if the list is publicly archived.  That is- having the 
list archived publicly can help keep the community informed about policy 
implementation.

While there is indeed a trust motivation, as you have mentioned, and 
having things open and transparent *mig**ht *help with that, what we 
cannot do is stop all potential bad behavior. We should be careful just 
how far we go.

Eliot