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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 4:39 PM Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 1/3/22 5:19 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I have reviewed this document and feel that it is generally
> > in good shape. I have made a small editorial PR
> > (https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/pull/148
> > <https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/pull/148>)
> > and filed four issues. As I know some people don't like using
> > Github, I recap them here.
> >
> >
> > Issue 144: The current text seems to say that we would need
> > WG consensus for any other mode of operation than a mailing
> > list, including a meeting. I understand that people want
> > to require consensus to use Github and I'm not trying
> > to change that, but do we really need to require consensus
> > to have a meeting?
> > https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/144
> > <https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/144>
>
> I tend to think not.
>
> > Issue 145: I had understood that we believed that the only
> > two valid reasons for a CONCERN were:
> >
> >     * 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.
> >
> > I see that to this we have added
> >
> >     *  Comments received during a community call for comment need to be
> >        addressed, as described under Section 3.2.3.
> >
> > Two points:
> >
> > (1) I don't actually see clear text that the list isn't exhaustive
> > If we agree it is, we should say so.
> >
> > (2) Assuming we agree it's exhaustive, then the comments reason
> > allows non-conforming reasons to be used as the basis of
> > a CONCERN by just saying that a community member made them.
>
> Heh, I had not seen that backdoor.
>
> One way to look at it is that the community call for comment could
> surface issues that meet the first two criteria, and if so it's the
> responsibility of the RSAB to bring those back to the review process by
> raising CONCERN positions. This way, arbitrary community concerns that
> don't meet the first two criteria can't get special consideration.
>

Yes, that would work for me.



>
> > My proposal would be to state that it's exhaustive and to require
> > the comments to either be about one of the two reasons or that
> > the comment hasn't been responded to, but not that the response
> > wasn't to the satisfaction of the RSAB.
> > https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/145
> > <https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/145>
> >
> >
> > Issue 146: The current text describes the following core RPC
> > responsibilities:
> >
> >     The core responsibility of the RPC is continuous improvement
> >     regarding the implementation of RFC policies (including the
> >     dimensions of document quality, timeliness of production, and
> >     accessibility of results), while taking into account issues raised
> >     by the community through the RSWG and by the stream approving
> >     bodies.
> >
> > I agree continuous improvement is good, but I tend to think the
> > core responsibility is just to publish the documents at all.
> > https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/146
> > <https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/146>
>
> That's sensible.
>
> > Issue 147: This requires the RPC to keep certain records,
> > e.g., of dialogue with document authors. Does that formally
> > happen now, or is it just in people's e-mail folders?
> > Do these records need to be public?
> > https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/147
> > <https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/147>
>
> It's not clear to me whether all record-keeping needs to be public. It
> might be acceptable that records are kept and available on request if
> needed (e.g., in case of an appeal).
>

I think that would be OK. But do they keep records at all?

-Ekr


>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> Peter
>