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

Well, it's not an *additional* bullet but rather a replacement bullet, I
think.

I think this also still leaves the question of whether it's exhaustive.

-Ekr

On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 12:45 PM Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> wrote:

> Ok, if I understand correctly, you and EKR are aligned with an additional
> bullet about lacking community consensus.  Unless people object, why don't
> we run with that?
>
> Eliot
> On 04.01.22 21:09, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
> On 1/4/2022 2:50 PM, Eliot Lear 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.
>
> Eliot
>
> Hi Eliot -
>
> My first thought was this was spot on.  More thought suggested otherwise.
> The problem is that language suggests the RSWG chairs would be evaluating
> community consensus rather than just WG consensus and that's probably not a
> useful model.  Maybe instead:
>
> Leave 8 as it is.  Add "LACKS CONSENSUS" to the vote possibilities in 9.
> It's a more specific subset of CONCERN that generally suggests that the
> voter believes that community comment indicates fundamental flaws in the
> proposal.  I.e., this is not "the document reads poorly or has fixable
> bugs", but "the community thinks the overall idea lacks merit and changes
> to the document are unlikely to change that".  The document is still
> returned to the RSWG.
>
> And that's conditional on any changes EKR proposes to the other text.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> --
> Rfced-future mailing list
> Rfced-future@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>