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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 11:50 AM Eliot Lear <[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.

-Ekr

Eliot
>
> --
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>