I do not endorse the conclusions of the IOM report at this time. I do not endorse the use of the term SEID, even spelled out. I especially do not endorse the process used to get to the report, though I think most of the problems arise from that process and the panel did very well in a poor situation.
However we cannot with surety say the recommendations are wrong, the name is bad, and the process failed in this case, though the process and the product are not the same. What we can say is its a starting point for further investigation, including independent investigation, as in independent of the IOM etc. There are reasons to go with something new, even if its flawed. There are reasons not to.
Yet I have no issues citing the report, or quoting from it. The failures leading to the report do not detract from the things it did right, or that can be used in advocacy.
On important goals, an open ended funding goal is critical right now. That is about developing the goal, not whether the goal is important. Vague is good at this point, as long as the goal can be clearly stated.
Let me elaborate. I have read that that the new funding claim that has been made is $250 million. If we investigate this, and find it a valid point, then we should not ask for anything less, and I could still recommend asking for more. These are all about how to develop the goal, not whether we have the goal. Its also the case that we would have to investigate, for example, CFSAC recommendations and find out what points have already been made about providing the funding, including mechanisms. NONE of this is relevant to agreeing on a goal, its about how to implement a goal.
This thread should not be about process. I think that is premature. That is a new thread. More to the point, I think we will need a thread on each and every goal. If someone wants a common action involving multiple goals, we can cross link the threads or create a new one if necessary.
If someone cannot agree on a particular goal, then they can refrain from involving themselves in that goal. Does that mean they cannot support the other goals?
Like it or not, if we go to the extreme and do not mention the IOM report, we undermine our credibility. Its fine to say we do not endorse the recommendations, in part or in whole, but that point X about issue Y is important.
1) One goal at a time vs. Several or Many
2) Including/Not including quotes from the report
One at a time versus several or many is actually an extreme position to take. Its a false dichotomy. It depends on the action taken. This cannot be bundled like that and be workable unless we are talking about one time limited advocacy. Different goals will have different methods, though with overlap, and will take different amounts of time, effort or resources. It is in no way necessary for such a decision to even be made, that is about activity planning not goal planning. There is no vote necessary.
Quotes from the report are fine, endorsing the report is something else. Advocacy without the report has largely failed to achieve its goals. This is a new tool we can use. Endorsing the recommendations is not necessary. If we don't cite the report we lose credibility.
To the people who want to not endorse the report recommendations, whether they have posted yet or not, how many of you are happy to quote the report, and cite the report, while acknowledging that there is not universal agreement as to the usefulness of the recommendations? That the recommendations have not been subject to empirical or scientific validation? Or that the recommendations might be good, but it cannot yet be established that they are good as the necessary work has not been done?
When we are talking of a broad medium or long term goal list, its fine to be a little vague. The details come from planning. If we pin the goals to too many details we lock ourselves in, especially with respect to medium and long term advocacy.
I think we have to separate goals and action planning. They are different stages of the process.
Somebody help me, I am starting to sound like a manager!