On 06/06/2020 03:14, Jay Daley wrote: > The only two elements of the draft strategy that I am aware of you > still objecting to are > > - the linkage to IESG/IRSG/IAB strategy; and - the participant > journey The phrasing above indicates I've not explained my objections clearly I guess. I've argued that there really cannot be an "IESG strategy" and that the use of the "journey" phrase is either waffle or else over-reach. I don't therefore object to "the linkage to X" where X is a non-existent thing. (Well, other than it being an irritant on a purist logical basis:-) I do object to "the LLC will extrapolate to decide what that non-existent IESG strategy ought be" as I've tried to explain, as that is what the latest text says. (I did also suggest alternate wording to which I got no response.) > > (Notwithstanding your initial objection to the concept of the LLC > having a strategy framed this way) My initial objection was not to how text was framed but to the assumption that the LLC decide how to call consensus on this. I continue to see that as a problem that has not seen a response from the IESG. > It would be very helpful if you could point to those other elements > of the draft strategy where the role of the IESG in calling > consensus needs clarification. Now I'm confused. I think my objections above are sufficient and don't see why more are needed. If you wanted to say that you have disregarded my objections and are only willing to discuss if I find more then saying that would be clearer;-) S.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
