Hiya, On 03/06/2020 20:43, Jay Daley wrote: > I do not think it is appropriate that we are limited in our strategy > to concepts that every reader understands. Sorry, my point was not that I didn't understand but that it was either waffly or indicative of over-reach. > First, I should note that the term "collectively" is > something you have added and not something that comes > form this document. Yes, you have implicitly made that (false) assumption. I just called it out. In my experience there is often a significant and real difference between what some person perceives to be the position/opinion/strategy of the IESG and the reality of the situation. An IESG "strategy" could not be that were it not the collective consensus of the IESG. > If you want it formally recognised that those bodies cannot have > strategic objectives, or cannot have collective strategic > objectives, then you should really be taking that point of view to > them and asking them to affirm that in a statement rather than trying > to impose that view in a second order document such as this. That's actually a great example of why your text is wrong. If the upshot of your text were that the IESG or IAB went running about strategising to keep the LLC happy, then we would be entirely in tail-wagging-dog territory. (I can totally get why you may think exactly the opposite about that though.) In any case, building on an assumption known to be false is not only bad planning but also bad logic. Cheers, S.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
