On 04-Jun-20 08:10, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > 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. Yes, but I think it also set of your (and my) buzzword detector. I think we should make an effort (and I mean "we", not Jay in particular) to use plain English and not jargon terms like "journey" in this sense, which might be unfamiliar to many people. It's not as if the LLC has to impress shareholders and analysts by its command of current business-speak. > >> 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. Right, and typically the IESG publishes its tactical and strategic statements as "IESG Statements". The IAB and the IRSG seem to do it by email when needed. I don't see a problem here - when they feel the need to utter collectively, they do so. >> 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. Huh? I think all the draft plan says is that the LLC will align its strategy with whatever strategies the I* have. If they don't have a strategy, there's nothing to align with. And if this does in fact give them an incentive to do some strategic thinking, wouldn't that be a good thing? Don't you think we are sometimes a bit *too* tactical? Brian
