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

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 12:07:18 -0800

Peter:

Hi!  Thanks for such a clear document!

One part of the workflow described in §3.2.2 makes me feel uneasy.
Bullet point 9 says this:

        Because RSAB members are expected to participate in the
        discussions within the RSWG and to raise any concerns and issues
        during those discussions, most CONCERN positions should not come
        as a surprise to the RSWG.

While the statement is true (the concerns and issues should not be a
surprise), it opens the door to "double jeopardy" [1].

Earlier bullets mention how, participating as individuals, "RSAB
members will raise any issues or concerns during the development of
the proposal, and not wait until the RSAB review period" (3), and how
a proposal advances when the RSWG chairs believe there is rough
consensus (4).  If the RSAB member raised an issue to the RSWG and
there was rough consensus not to address it (or another similar
outcome), why is the RSAB member allowed to bring up the issue *again*
in the form of a CONCERN position?

The document should explicitly mention that issues already raised and
discussed in the RSWG should not be brought up again as a CONCERN
position.

I didn't follow the discussions on the rfced-future list in detail, so
this point may have come up before.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 12:46:09 -0800

> discussed in the RSWG should not be brought up again as a CONCERN

What do you believe the impact of this "should" would be?

-Ekr

> --
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 13:00:14 -0800

On March 9, 2022 at 3:46:48 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 12:07 PM Alvaro Retana wrote:
> > Peter:
> >

It would avoid the re-discussion of issues that have already been
considered by the RSWG.

Alvaro.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 22:06:57 +0100

Hi Alvaro,

> in the form of a CONCERN position?

Rough consensus of the community is not the only criteria for a document 
to be approved.  People on the RSAB are expected to use CONCERNS as a 
means to address problems when a proposal goes against interests of the 
streams they represent, or they perceive a long term issue that would 
harm the health of the series. Therefore, when a RSAB members 
participate in the RSWG they do so to telegraph those concerns so that 
they can be addressed earlier in the process, and hopefully avoided.  It 
would not be unlike an AD saying in a WG meeting, “I am likely to place 
a DISCUSS on this sort of text.”

Eliot

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 13:14:03 -0800

> It would avoid the re-discussion of issues that have already been

My question is whether it would have any actual force in terms of
prohibiting them from reraising it or would just an exhortation with
nothing backing it up.

-Ekr

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 16:16:44 -0500

If you are asking that the wording be strengthened to prohibit the RSAB 
from raising a CONCERN about any issue that has been discussed by the 
RSWG, then I strongly disagree with such a sugestion.  (If you mean 
something else, then please clarify.)

The whole point of the RSAB is to look at things from a separate 
perspective.  While we hope and expect them to raise things with the 
RSWG during discussion, doing so does not mean that they are not allowed 
to have that CONCERN.

And conversely, failing to have raised the issue does not prevent them 
from raising it.  While we dislike late surprises, it is clearly better 
to raise it during the process rather than discover afterwards that we 
have a serious problem.

Yours,
Joel

PS: Note that an AD having raised an issue with a working group during 
document development does not prevent him from raising it again as a 
DISCUSS if he feels it is important enough.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 10:38:05 +1300

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

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 08:40:59 +1100

+1

> On 10 Mar 2022, at 8:38 am, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 14:58:19 -0800

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 (
[email-masked]) wrote:

Regards
Brian Carpenter