Not all of these need to result in distinct entities. And it's very
important to keep the ability to have an unity of purpose within the
leadership - if we create distinct entities that pull in different
directions, we lose something important.
It is not only pulling in separate directions that can hurt. It can also
hurt to create entities that have little clout. What stick for saying No
does the "day-to-day followup" group have? I see limited clout unless
they are hierarchical/delegated from the group with document approval
authority.
I think we must have an organization that anchors things - one of the
things I think is critical is that peole know that if they act in concert
with their "superiors", they will not be second-guessed or undercut.It's a question of design: hierarchy or something looser.. What is the
distribution of the authority? This is not a question of authority for
the authority's sake, but because the ability to say No, or Qualified
Yes, along charter lines, will need a basis. I think we have to talk
about this explicitly.
I've got some ideas on how we can get there - but I'd like to float this
one by the IESG first to see what other people think.
I think a number of us are eager to share ideas at this point. And
perhaps the current plan is an IESG plan, based on what happened in the
plenary. Your reference is to that?