Re: Consultation on *revised* IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 04/06/2020 05:41, Jay Daley wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 4/06/2020, at 8:10 AM, Stephen Farrell
>> <[e-mail]> 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.
> 
> It would be helpful to understand which of those you think it is as
> they are quite different criticisms.

If you read my mail, the comment was that all this
"journey" stuff was either waffly or over-reach and
that ditching the fashionista term and using clear
English would be needed to determine which. I think
that's a clear comment.

> 
>> 
>>> 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.

That's not the problem. The problem is that the LLC if
it "extrapolates" badly (which is always possible),
because of it's better stability, could end up determining
something the IESG ought have decided. Tail-wagging-dog
is the risk. That's made worse by how you've structured
the document to talk about the LLC extrapolating from a
non-existent thing.

> 
>> 
>>> 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:

No. That summaries an example. The problem is with the
bad logic in the document, a point you have not addressed,
and that doesn't require support from others - the logic
is either good or bad not fuzzy.

Cheers,
S.

> 
> 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>
>