Subject: [Rfced-future] Issue 45: When do the WG chairs call rough consensus and what happens next?

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2021 10:55:09 +0200

Hi Joel,

> Joel Halpern issue JMH5
> Reading the process, I was struck by a minor gap in the process items. 
> specifically in item 4 on issueing the last call. I think the text 
> should include that the WG Chairs consider the proposal to be 
> sufficiently developed and refined. We sometimes have situations where 
> there is rough consensus for something, but it really needs a little 
> more work before it is sent out. Obviously, we do not want to require 
> perfection. But we do want to give the chairs room to say "this needs 
> more work".

This is from an issue in April.  Since then we discussed several 
eventualities, including what happens if the chairs attempt to block 
consensus.  The outcome of that conversation seems to be the following:

>    Community members who have concerns about
>    the performance of an RSWG chair should direct their feedback to the
>    relevant appointing body.  Each appointing body shall have the power
>    to remove its appointed chair at its discretion.

That's looking at this issue from the other side, as it were. The way I 
read this text, the chairs have some latitude on when to start a 
consensus call, but if it goes too far, complaints will get to the 
appointing bodies.

With that in mind, do you believe the issue is addressed?  If not, is 
there text you would want to add to address the matter?

Eliot

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2021 11:21:24 -0400

I was trying to make sure we paid attention to the both sides of the 
tension.  As written, step 4 of section 3.2.2 (combined with other text 
about the chairs respecting the process, which we need for other 
reasons) requires that if there is rough consensus the chairs are 
required to move things forward.

I was trying to leave a little room for the case, which I have seen, of 
"yes, thereis rough consensus, but really, the document isn't done." 
Now, one can argue from Pete's informational RFC on rough consensus that 
we do not really have such rough consensus in that case.  If folks want 
to take that tack, I can live with it.  I was trying to be clear that 
document quality is important for these documents.

Put differently, no, I do not think the current text really addresses 
the issue.  On the other hand, it is not the among the most important 
issues we need to address.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2021 08:49:15 +1200

Up levelling slightly, I think it's the case that when we have closed
all the major issues, and the text has been updated accordingly,
we'll all have to read the document with some care, to detect remaining
issues. At the moment I'd put Joel's issue into "fix later" rather than
"closed". 

Regards
   Brian

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:32:09 -0400

After discussing the below with Eliot, he raised an idea which I think 
will work.

What if we added a little text saying that:
o chairs call consensus
o chairs do their best to judge the actual rough consensus of the WG
o chairs are also expected to participate as individuals in the work of 
the WG
o chairs are expected to consider their own input as individuals along 
with all other input in judging rough consensus.

That seems to give them the room to raise "but this isn't good enough", 
but require them to move the document forward if the WG does not agree.

This is how I tend to assume things work in IETF WGs.  It seems to me to 
be worth stating here since this is not an IETF WG.

Yours,
Joel

PS: I am happy to leave the task of weaving that into the existing text 
to the editor :-)  If it is harder than I think, I am also happy to help.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 14:54:09 +1200

> o chairs do their best to judge the actual rough consensus of the WG

These two points are covered by RFC2418, so could be supported
by a reference.

> with all other input in judging rough consensus.

I think that's true (and it's why we like to have two chairs) but I'm
not sure it's actually written in the RFC process documents. However,
we do expect chairs to be alive to the potential for conflict of interest
-- so a friendly rewrite:

o chairs are also entitled to participate as individuals in the work of 
the WG
o chairs are expected to consider their own input as individuals along 
with all other input in judging rough consensus, paying attention to
their possible conflict of interest.

   Brian