Re: [Rfced-future] Comments on draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 3/10/2022 8:35 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> OK.  I didn't read (a) and (b) as being covered by the current 
>> proposal as presented, but thanks for clarifying.
>>
>> If possible, I'd suggest this be made more explicit; a later 
>> iteration of the IAB, RSAB, RSWG, etc., might not automatically 
>> inherit that context.
>
> We did go back and forth on many aspects of this document, trying to 
> strike the right balance between helpful direction and too much 
> detail. This seems like another spot where that balance might be 
> important. If we mention now that Factors A and B are good reasons for 
> an RSAB member to raise a CONCERN, but we don't mention Factors C and 
> D, how should a future RSAB member proceed? Could someone file an 
> appeal if an RSAB member invokes Factor D?
>
> As I see it, the RSAB member would need to make a case that a proposal 
> would cause serious harm to a stream or the Series; as long as they 
> can make a plausible or reasonable argument for that, I don't see why 
> we need to tie their hands now.


"An RSAB member voted CONCERN (or not YES)"  can be evaluated on an 
objective basis - they did or they didn't.

"An RSAB member voted CONCERN for a good reason" can only be evaluated 
on a subjective basis and each individual hearing the reason may have a 
different idea of what's reasonable.  In the end *someone* has to decide 
what reasonable is, and AFAICT with the model, that's through the 
appeals process - the RSWG participants* may comment on what they 
believe to be reasonable, but that set of comments is not controlling on 
the appeals process.

Put another way, we can write down any (many?) constraints we want on 
the RSAB voting process, but unless the criteria for the constraint is 
objective and can be evaluated by each participant in the exact same 
way, all the constraint really does is push the objective evaluation 
problem to the appeals process.

In any event, if I were an RSAB member I would vote CONCERN if I had an 
issue, even if the issue was brought up and ignored in the RSWG because 
the RSAB has a different job from the RSWG and different 
responsibilities.  Right now, the RSWG has to convince 3 RSAB members to 
vote YES to progress the document, CONCERNS are not blocking except as 
they are not YES votes.  If there are 3 RSAB members with CONCERNs (e.g. 
only two YES votes out of 5), I would find it hard to believe that the 
appeals process would not take notice of this and fail to override what 
are essentially NO votes.


*The RSWG will be a group consisting of a varying number of participants 
with varying interests.  They will have a mechanism for establishing 
consensus within that group to advance a document, and - I would expect 
- any pushback on publishing a consensus document would get from them a 
general sense of unreasonableness related to that consensus.  Note that 
these both the request to publish and the pushback on a CONCERN will 
derive from the exact same process and shouldn't be given double 
consideration in the appeals process.

Sorry - all of this is a long way of saying that the vote "CONCERN" is 
the important part and the member can cast that for whatever reason THEY 
think is plausible and reasonable regardless of any external opinion.  
Whatever the RSAB member says next ends up needing to be evaluated in 
the appeals process - "plausible" and "reasonable" are subjective issues 
that can't be resolved mechanically.   In any event, if there are three 
YES votes for a document the appeals process will never be invoked - at 
least by the RSWG.

Later, Mike

ps - thought questions:  Has the IAB ever resolved an appeal in a manner 
that directed the IESG to approve the publication of a document?   Or 
for that matter ISOC directing the IAB?