Dave,
you are talking about actions that could be taken by all the actors in the
system. I was talking about the actions that the WG could take on its own.
--On 10. juli 2003 16:24 +0200 Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
HTA> even if a WG feels abused by the IESG, or its AD, that's no excuse
for a WG not fighting back - in this case, by rapidly removing the
IESG's apparent excuses for delay.
In other words, you appear to be saying that a working group should be
expected to perform any action imposed on them, no matter how
unreasonable. Perhaps that is not what you meant, but it is the meaning
I take from your sentence.
OK, let abstract out the case, and let us go through this theoretical
example in more detail.
- A writer group is seeking to have a document published.
- A gatekeeper group is imposing a requirement that must be fulfilled
before the document can be published.
- The working group feels that this requirement is unreasonable.
Now, assume that both parties are acting in good faith, both parties are
reasonably competent at their work, and that both parties are interested in
seeing the document published.
Since we're assuming good faith, rationality and competence on both sides,
we must assume the gatekeeper group had what it thought was a rational
reason to impose the requirement. It would be irrational for the gatekeeper
group to drop the requirement without being convinced that its reason was
wrong or insufficient.
I see a number of rational actions from the writer group, which need not be
exclusive:
A - Try to convince the gatekeeper group to drop the requirement.
B - Try to fulfil the requirement with the minimum amount of energy.
C - Take their business elsewhere (give up).
In an ideal world, there would be dialogue enough between the writer group
and the gatekeeper group that one would convince the other about the
reasonableness of the requirement. In the real world, this doesn't always
happen.
What I was saying is that I don't see the group's action that seems to have
happened here (procrastination in fulfilling the requirement, after being
convinced that convincing the gatekeeper group to drop it won't work) as
rational. Understandable, but not rational.