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

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 1/4/2022 2:30 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 05-Jan-22 07:52, Michael StJohns wrote:
> ...
>> 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? 
>
> I'm confused. The RSWG is open to participation by anybody. How is the 
> RSAB going to conclude that the rough consensus of the community as a 
> whole is different from the rough consensus of a WG open to the 
> community as a whole?
>
> I see an infinite regression here. It's communities all the way down.
>
>    Brian
>
Simple example - 5 people in the RSWG saying yes, 10 people in the 
community who don't have time to consider the placement of every comma 
in a document saying no to the general idea of the document.

As I said, leave it to the RSAB to figure it out. If the RSWG thinks 
they got the call wrong, they can refer it to the IAB and IESG per the 
appeals process.

And I'm not sure what you mean by communities all the way down - I get 
the relationship to turtles all the way down, but see my email at 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/n60GyjkcFDnoLYL7h0di1doFX_c/ 
which should explain why I believe the infinite regression argument is 
specious.  E.g. this specifically:

> There's a hierarchy of folk in the community, and the Internet community
> is large when measured by "affected by".   That said, the question is
> NOT "What is the community?", but rather how much of it we can and
> should reach out to during our processes.   The answer is: As broadly as
> we can, but not assuming that we're going to get 100s of 1000s of responses.

Later, Mike