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

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 3/10/2022 10:37 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:10 PM Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     The philosophy behind CONCERNs is that they should be rare, and
>     that the
>     community really should be taking responsibility for the content of a
>     document.  Thus, unless something truly rises to a threat to a
>     stream or
>     the long term health of the series, the RSAB should stay out of the
>     way.  Those two CONCERN criteria are sufficiently broad to permit
>     members to act if the policy truly looks like it will cause harm
>     in some
>     way.
>
>
> If we are to think of the RSWG as a typical working group (which the 
> document otherwise suggests is how we should think of it), then I 
> can't discount the possibility that something might be handed to the 
> RSAB that is not really ready for consideration, for whatever reason.  
> As I read what you're saying here, this proposal presumes that can't 
> (or won't) happen.  I'm thinking defensively here; what do we do when 
> it does happen?  It seems to me the RSAB needs a path to deal with 
> such a situation, and they don't with "CONCERN" constrained the way it 
> is here.
>
> -MSK
>
I had a view and arguments related to that view similar to what you 
indicate above.  I wasn't successful getting those reflected in the 
text.  I gave up mainly because the reality is that the document can't 
actually force an RSAB member to give up a CONCERN that they lodge for 
any reason they, and only they, feel is sufficient.

Basically, I assume that an RSAB member will refuse to remove the 
CONCERN in such circumstances regardless of what the document says (e.g. 
people aren't protocol elements are are not necessarily bound to 
adjudicate as described), and that if less than three RSAB members vote 
yes, the path for the RSWG is to appeal the vote.

We keep talking about "community" as if the RSAB isn't part of it.  It 
is - but documents don't get published in this series without their 
approval.   That's their part of "taking responsibility for the content 
of the document" as community members.

I tend to agree with you about the language, but I doubt the reality 
will be so clean as the language implies.  Feel free to push back - the 
IAB and IESG have to be comfortable with making sure that this new model 
does not impede their missions and that there are sufficient guard rails 
in place to gain that comfort.

Later, Mike