[Rfced-future] WGLC Review of the draft

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

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)
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


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.

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


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


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


-Ekr