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.
It would be helpful to understand which of those you think it is as they are quite different criticisms.
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.
I think you misunderstood my misunderstanding of how you used the term "collectively". I thought you meant the IESG, IAB etc getting together and collectively agreeing a set of strategic objectives, not each making a collective decision.
Yes I’m sure you’re right there’s a chance that the LLC might misperceive the IESG position/opinion/strategy and I’m equally sure the IESG will say so if that happens.
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.
To summarise your two objections, hopefully using your own words accurately:
You don’t think that the LLC strategy should reference the strategic objectives of the IESG, IAB etc because:
1. By having this, the LLC might push the IESG/IAB into running about strategising
2. Those bodies cannot, collectively, have an agreed set of such "strategic objectives" at any given moment in the sense meant here.
My response to 1 is that I understand why you think that, though from what little I know of the IESG and IAB they appear to have such a strong sense of purpose, strong personalities and full workload that tail-wagging-dog is a very, very low risk.
My response to 2 is that we just disagree and I don’t detect any support for your position or other indication of a path to resolve this and so I think we need to leave it here.
Jay
Cheers,
S.
<0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>
