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

Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> Wed, 03 June 2020 20:54 UTC

Return-Path: <resnick@episteme.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 666033A0F95 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:54:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YLuXsVFrynOW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6D2D3A0F48 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A461EAF5A425; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 15:54:51 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from episteme.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (episteme.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sM_O1UDGNq6v; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 15:54:50 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [172.16.1.10] (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB679AF5A418; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 15:54:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Pete Resnick" <resnick@episteme.net>
To: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Consultation on *revised* IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 15:54:49 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5683)
Message-ID: <E8296955-54C3-461E-9FC0-E8C58D9E3704@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <5435ade6-fdaa-4793-e5cd-438f6a0298d4@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <159115348321.13976.12703268950916172390@ietfa.amsl.com> <5435ade6-fdaa-4793-e5cd-438f6a0298d4@cs.tcd.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IerCrafvimObh9naBhuMbEbdexg>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 20:54:57 -0000

On 3 Jun 2020, at 9:26, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> - Saying "LLC strategy closely aligned with the strategic
> objectives of IESG, IRSG and IAB" still indicates a fundamental
> misunderstanding IMO. Those bodies cannot, collectively, have
> an agreed set of such "strategic objectives" at any given
> moment in the sense meant here.

Surely there's a way to express that the LLC should make sure that what 
they're planning to do, even in the long term, stays in line with what 
the IESG, IRSG, and IAB say they're planning to do, over whatever term 
they happen to be planning for today. That's not controversial, is it? 
Can you propose some text?

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best