> On 6/06/2020, at 2:28 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> 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.) My text above was not intended to (mis)represent your position, only to summarise the areas of the strategy you object to. The alternate wording you provided seemed to take this in a very different direction. I will look at the “extrapolate” phrase though to see if that can be sufficiently narrowed to a set of conditions that you would be comfortable with. > >> >> (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. As explained in a previous message, the LLC will not be calling consensus on this strategy but will at some point decided that it’s good enough to work with. > 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;-) No that’s not what I wanted to say - I thought your message implied there were additional issues that has not been identified. It is reassuring that you don’t have any. Jay > > S. > > <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>
