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

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 1/3/2022 7:43 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>     > 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.

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.

EKR - you've been using various forms of "let the community decide" in 
your arguments over the last year.  This "ignore the community unless 
they raise specific narrow technical exceptions" argument seems 
inconsistent with your claimed approach.

There are a lot of minor things I expect the RSWG will propose that 
won't raise an eyebrow in the broader community, but there are a few 
that may cause some substantial pushback.   If the RSAB goes ahead and 
approves something against community consensus, we're going to be right 
back here again.

Leave the text as it is.  Trust the RSAB and the community to do the 
right thing.

As for (1), no, these aren't exhaustive as they don't comprise all of 
the "harmful to the system" reasons.

Later, Mike

ps - Eliot - unfortunately, broader review might not cause RSWG 
participants that made the proposal to shift RSWG consensus, and not a 
lot of people will have the time to invest to attempt to do that shift.  
Also, they will face pushback as being too late to the party to 
contribute.   We need the RSWG to be subject to the will of the 
community, not just of its current participants.