Re: [Rfced-future] CONCERN positions after RSWG discussion (draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model)

+1

> On 10 Mar 2022, at 8:38 am, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I think there's an analogy here with the history of DISCUSS.
> 
> Once, there was no such thing as the IESG "DISCUSS criteria" document,
> and occasionally ADs would use a DISCUSS to attempt to override
> WG consensus because they personally disagreed. This could lead to a
> deadlock and was viewed as an abuse of process. Hence, we got the
> DISCUSS criteria.
> 
> I may be wrong, but I think Alvaro is trying to avoid the same
> thing here. But I also think that the CONCERN rules in the draft
> already provide criteria ("three reasons why an RSAB member may
> file a position of CONCERN") and an override ("If at least three
> voting members vote YES, the proposal is approved"). So for me,
> we've already covered this.
> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
> 
> On 10-Mar-22 10:16, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> If you are asking that the wording be strengthened to prohibit the RSAB
>> from raising a CONCERN about any issue that has been discussed by the
>> RSWG, then I strongly disagree with such a sugestion.  (If you mean
>> something else, then please clarify.)
>> The whole point of the RSAB is to look at things from a separate
>> perspective.  While we hope and expect them to raise things with the
>> RSWG during discussion, doing so does not mean that they are not allowed
>> to have that CONCERN.
>> And conversely, failing to have raised the issue does not prevent them
>> from raising it.  While we dislike late surprises, it is clearly better
>> to raise it during the process rather than discover afterwards that we
>> have a serious problem.
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>> PS: Note that an AD having raised an issue with a working group during
>> document development does not prevent him from raising it again as a
>> DISCUSS if he feels it is important enough.
>> On 3/9/2022 4:00 PM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
>>>   On March 9, 2022 at 3:46:48 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 12:07 PM Alvaro Retana wrote:
>>>>> Peter:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi! Thanks for such a clear document!
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> One part of the workflow described in §3.2.2 makes me feel uneasy.
>>>>> Bullet point 9 says this:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Because RSAB members are expected to participate in the
>>>>> discussions within the RSWG and to raise any concerns and issues
>>>>> during those discussions, most CONCERN positions should not come
>>>>> as a surprise to the RSWG.
>>>>> 
>>>>> While the statement is true (the concerns and issues should not be a
>>>>> surprise), it opens the door to "double jeopardy" [1].
>>>>> 
>>>>> Earlier bullets mention how, participating as individuals, "RSAB
>>>>> members will raise any issues or concerns during the development of
>>>>> the proposal, and not wait until the RSAB review period" (3), and how
>>>>> a proposal advances when the RSWG chairs believe there is rough
>>>>> consensus (4). If the RSAB member raised an issue to the RSWG and
>>>>> there was rough consensus not to address it (or another similar
>>>>> outcome), why is the RSAB member allowed to bring up the issue *again*
>>>>> in the form of a CONCERN position?
>>>>> 
>>>>> The document should explicitly mention that issues already raised and
>>>>> discussed in the RSWG should not be brought up again as a CONCERN
>>>>> position.
>>>> 
>>>> What do you believe the impact of this "should" would be?
>>> 
>>> It would avoid the re-discussion of issues that have already been
>>> considered by the RSWG.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Alvaro.
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> Rfced-future mailing list
> Rfced-future@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/