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

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

On 2022-01-07 12:05, Michael StJohns 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.

previously valid unraised issues -> valid previously unraised issues
(or previously unraised valid issues)

If an issue was previously valid, but is no longer valid, who cares.

Regards,   Martin.


> 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
> 
>> ###
>>
>> 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
>