diff --git a/rfc/1/reviews/2b/index.md b/rfc/1/reviews/2b/index.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..2a8b657a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/rfc/1/reviews/2b/index.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+# RFC-1: Review 2b
+
+## Contributors
+
+The contributors to this review were John Bogovic, Michael Innerberger, and Virginia Scarlett (referred to in this document as 'the reviewers'). This review does not represent the opinions of any other individuals, nor of HHMI Janelia as an institution.
+
+## Decision: Accept
+
+John Bogovic: Accept  
+Michael Innerberger: Accept  
+Virginia Scarlett: Accept  
+
+## Decision Statement
+
+The reviewers appreciate the changes made to improve the proposal, including updates to versioning and decision-making. 
+While only time will reveal how the process functions in practice, the reviewers agree with the author that moving forward is paramount.
+
+Given the author's confidence that the RFC process has broad community support and requires no major revisions at this time, the reviewers doubt that it would be fruitful to delay the process further by insisting on their stance. 
+Most of the present reviewers feel that the proposed review process remains overly complex, and lacks mechanisms to swiftly address divergent recommendations. 
+Nevertheless, even though the reviewers feel that the proposal still requires major changes, they change their recommendation to 'accept', acknowledging the importance of forward progress. 
+As the OME-Zarr community moves forward using this proposed process, the reviewers hope that their concerns will be kept in mind and revisited if / when these concerns become practical issues.
+
+Below are some minor changes the author may consider. If the author chooses not implement them, the reviewers will not contest that decision.
+
+## Suggested Minor Changes 
+
+1. Typo: “The RFC process can be represented as a state diagram with the various stakeholders (in ~~bold~~ capital letters) responsible for forward motion.”
+2. Regarding this sentence: “An attempt MUST also be made to select both positive and negative voices from the community.” This sentence seems to refer to positive and negative *people*. 'Endorsers' and 'objectors' would be better.
+3. Specification Versions, Work Groups, Advisory Board, and Editorial Workflow: These sections describe future possibilities, and so should go in the Future Possibilities section.