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

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

I think we agree on the goal.  At the moment, I am not confident that 
the words match the goal.

Given the wording we have, assuming there is clear rough consensus of 
the community against a document advancing, on what basis would the RSAB 
be able to send the document back to the RSWG for rework / 
reconsideration?  It is possible we have that in Peter's wording, but I 
don't see it.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/6/2022 11:37 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 8:18 PM Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     top-posting, as I think there is sufficient context.
> 
>     If I understand you correctly, you are concerned that the RSWG should
>     not be forced to reconsider because a few people just don't like what
>     has been agreed with the RSWG.
> 
>     But what happens in the more extreme case.  Suppose that the RSWG
>     agrees
>     to something.  The RSAB does not conclude that it is harmful to the
>     series or any particular stream.  And then the community at large
>     clearly and explicitly says "no, we do not want to do that."   It seems
>     that should have some standing, shouldn't it?
> 
> 
> Thanks for your note. I see I have expressed myself unclearly,
> so let me try to clarify.
> 
> 
> My overall position is that the judgement of the community should
> determine the direction of the RFC stream, subject to supervision by
> the RSAB in specific cases, namely (1) harm to one of the streams or
> (2) harm to the series as a whole. Now, to map that onto process.
> 
> Let's assume that the RSWG had rough consensus on a document and
> it goes to LC.
> 
> 1. If some set of people object, but in small enough numbers that
> they would not threaten the overall consensus, then the RSAB should
> be able to insist that the RSWG go back and confirm that it has
> not changed their thinking. However, if they do so, then this should
> be treated as community consensus and the RSAB should not be able
> to block the document aside from for the reasons stated above.
> 
> 2. If enough people object that it threatens the overall consensus
> (i.e., that if you put them together with any dissenters in the
> WG, you would not have rough consensus) then the document should not
> advance and the RSWG bears the burden of going back and creating
> a document that could get consensus. This applies no matter what
> the objection is.
> 
> So, in both cases, I think the question is what the consensus of
> the community is.
> 
> 
> Now, it is also possible that during LC someone will raise an
> objection that would be a valid reason for the RSAB to block
> the document on its own (as stated above). In that case the
> RSAB can of course object, but the fact that someone objected
> in LC does not give them more power to do so then they otherwise
> would.
> 
> 
> Hopefully that's clearer, though of course you may disagree.
> 
> -Ekr
> 
>     Yours,
>     Joel
> 
>     On 1/6/2022 11:03 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>      >
>      >
>      > On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 7:05 PM Michael StJohns
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      > <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>     wrote:
>      >
>      >     On 1/6/2022 9:24 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>      >      > On 1/6/22 7:15 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>      >      >> On 1/4/22 1:36 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>      >      >>>
>      >      >>>
>      >      >>> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 11:50 AM Eliot Lear <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>      >      >>> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>> 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.
>      >      >>>
>      >      >>> Or some such. I also would not object to adding there
>     not being
>      >      >>> consensus of the community to the RSAB CONCERN
>      >      >>> reasons.
>      >      >>
>      >      >> IMHO that's a reasonable path forward.
>      >      >
>      >      > Here is proposed text:
>      >      >
>      >      > ###
>      >      >
>      >      > There are three reasons why an RSAB member may file a
>     position of
>      >      > CONCERN:
>      >      >
>      >      >    * The RSAB member believes that the proposal represents
>     a serious
>      >      >      problem for one or more of the individual streams.
>      >      >    * The RSAB member believes that the proposal would cause
>      >     serious harm
>      >      >      to the overall Series, including harm to the long-term
>      >     health and
>      >      >      viability of the Series.
>      >      >    * The RSAB member believes, based on the results of the
>     community
>      >      >      call(s) for comment {{cfc}}, that there is no
>     consensus to
>      >     advance
>      >      >      the proposal.
>      >      >
>      >     Delete "serious" in both of the first two bullets.   Serious
>     is way too
>      >     subjective, and pretty meaningless here as the voter gets to
>     decide
>      >     whether or not the problem creates an actionable concern.  If
>     you think
>      >     this demands an adjective then "unmitigable" is probably the
>     right one
>      >     in both locations as it would prompt a discussion of how to
>     make things
>      >     work.
>      >
>      >     Add a 4th:
>      >
>      >     * The RSAB member believes that based on the results of the
>     community
>      >     call(s) for comment {{cfc}} there are previously valid
>     unraised issues
>      >     that need to be addressed by the RSWG prior to publication.
>      >
>      >     I.e., a CONCERN based on community call may be issued to due to
>      >     either a
>      >     perception of  a lack of community consensus, but an raised
>     and valid
>      >     issue that  wasn't apparent to the RSWG for some reason
>      >
>      >
>      > I am not in favor of this. It brings in precisely the concern I
>     had on
>      > reading this
>      > text of the RSWG laundering otherwise inadmissable objections
>     that happen
>      > to be raised by a community member.
>      >
>      > -Ekr
>      >
>      >
>      >      >
>      >      > Then I suggest we clean up my proposed text in the CFC
>     section, too:
>      >      >
>      >      > ###
>      >      >
>      >      > The RSAB is responsible for considering comments received
>     during
>      >      > a community call for comment. If RSAB members conclude
>     that such
>      >      > comments raise important issues that need to be addressed,
>     they
>      >      > should do so by discussing those issues within the RSWG or (if
>      >      > the issues meet the criteria specified under Step 9 of
>     {{workflow}})
>      >      > lodging a position of "CONCERN" during RSAB balloting.
>      >
>      >     Delete "important" for the same reason.   Also, there's some
>      >     plural/single issues here with respect to who "concludes" and
>     an and/or
>      >     issue so:
>      >
>      >     The RSAB is responsible for considering comments received
>     during a
>      >     community call for comment.  If [one or more | an ] RSAB
>     member(s)
>      >     conclude that such comments raise issues that need to be
>     addressed,
>      >     they
>      >     should do so by discussing those issues with* the RSWG.  If they
>      >     believe
>      >     an issue meets the criteria specified under step 9 of
>     {{workflow}},
>      >     they
>      >     should also lodge a position of "CONCERN" during RSAB balloting.
>      >
>      >     *I believe "with" is more correct than "within" as this is
>     RSAB to RSWG
>      >     rather than the RSAB member as a participant in the RSWG. The
>     former is
>      >     an individual opinion, the latter is a positional opinion
>     based on RSAB
>      >     membership.  Yeah, it's a nit.
>      >
>      >     Mike
>      >
>      >
>      >      >
>      >      > ###
>      >      >
>      >      > Peter
>      >
>      >
>      >
>