Subject: [Rfced-future] Consensus check til 9 June 2021: Issue 6: additional text to address conflicts

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 11:42:41 +0200

In the interim meeting we discussed two types of conflicts that we could 
address regarding time of publication.  The goal of this text is to not 
have the RPC be a final point of authority, while at the same time not 
having the RFCWG process excessively delay drafts.

Text proposed to be agreed:

Conflicts with cross-stream policies: RPC consults RSAB to determine 
whether issue is covered by existing policy and being interpreted correctly.

If so, policy applies.

If misinterpreted or ambiguous or not applicable, RSAB may make a 
decision in the specific case, but then MUST refer it to WG.

Please provide any concerns you might have by June 9th.

Eliot

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 12:05:34 -0400

I can live with it.  Given that it is a board rather than a person being 
consulted, it will frequently be slower.  I can live with folks who are 
arguing with the RPC getting their work slowed down (but not 
unilaterally blocked.)

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 09:11:55 +1200

Friendly amendment:

OLD:

NEW:
If misinterpreted or ambiguous or not applicable, RSAB may make a 
decision in the specific case, but then MUST refer the policy defect
(not the specific case) to WG.

Regards
   Brian C

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 12:31:47 +0100

Thanks Eliot,

No problem with this. 

Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Rfced-future <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
Sent: 26 May 2021 10:43
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Rfced-future] Consensus check til 9 June 2021: Issue 6: additional text to address conflicts

If so, policy applies.

Eliot