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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

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
>
>
>