On Jan 10, 2026, at 00:23, Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alexis, > On 09.01.2026 22:11, Alexis Rossi wrote: >> RFC-to-be 9920 as already approved by RSWG says (in the Mode of Operation >> section): >> >> The RSWG shall operate by rough consensus, a mode of operation informally >> described in {{RFC2418}}. >> The RSWG may decide by rough consensus to use additional tooling (e.g., >> GitHub as specified in {{RFC8874}}), forms of communication, and working >> methods (e.g., design teams) as long as they are consistent with this >> document and with {{RFC2418}} or its successors. >> Absent specific guidance in this document regarding the operation of the >> RSWG, the general guidance provided in Section 6 of {{RFC2418}} should be >> considered appropriate. >> So is your concern that "or its successors" wouldn't be understood to >> include "and its updates"? > With apologies, I have to answer that question with several underlying > questions: > Should the modpod draft apply to the RSWG as an update to 2418? Put another > way, how would the reader expect disruptive behavior to be handled once both > documents are published?
They would know that there is an avenue, but they wouldn't be sure if the avenue would be taken, and that's fine. > Zooming in to one particular particular angle, how might any appeals be > handled? Who knows? We still aren't sure how the current process should work, which is why this 9920 is being published. > If the answers to those questions are clear, the document should just proceed > unchanged. If it's not clear, then perhaps we should ask the RSWG if they > want to make a change. Perhaps doing so would just inflame some people who might want to later become disruptive. A different alternative, one that I prefer as a WG member, is to wait until there is disruption and see how the chairs deal with it. --Paul Hoffman -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
