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

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Brian -- you explained it better than I did. :-)

Yes, I was trying to avoid a possible deadlock from raising an issue to the
RSWG, not liking the result of the discussion, and bringing it up again as
a CONCERN.

It seems that everyone considers this case already covered.

Thanks for the discussion.

Alvaro.

On March 9, 2022 at 4:38:11 PM, Brian E Carpenter (
[e-mail]) 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