Subject: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:18:15 -0400

Section 6.2 - Periodic review

The RSEA must be provided with copies of any comments including their 
general source (e.g. individual submission, IAB member, IESG member, 
IESG formal consensus, etc ) and must be allowed an opportunity to 
answer any negative comments either in writing, or in person to the LLC 
board.  The comments must be provided to the LLC board un-anonymized.

Again, goes to fairness and transparency.  I wouldn't actually have any 
problem with requiring all comments to be made public with their 
originators names attached.

Nit:  Last paragraph ignores the reality that the RSEA gets a vote.    
E.g. "in negotiation with the RSEA".

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:44:40 +0200

Issue 49.

> On 27 Apr 2021, at 04:18, Michael StJohns <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> The RSEA must be provided with copies of any comments including their general source (e.g. individual submission, IAB member, IESG member, IESG formal consensus, etc ) and must be allowed an opportunity to answer any negative comments either in writing, or in person to the LLC board.  The comments must be provided to the LLC board un-anonymized.
> 
> Again, goes to fairness and transparency.  I wouldn't actually have any problem with requiring all comments to be made public with their originators names attached.
> 
> Nit:  Last paragraph ignores the reality that the RSEA gets a vote.    E.g. "in negotiation with the RSEA".
> 
> --
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future