It is the responsibility of the party adversarial to the status quo to present a radical view of change that puts the entrenched entity on the backfoot.

If you were to do what Thor says and present an ironed-out compromise plan as your first card, you’re sacrificing your queen to capture an undeveloped pawn. You absolutely do not know ball. They’ll kill you.

I admittedly have no personal experience with these kinds of negotiations, but this is something that worried me about Ross' recent Q&A video. I think the intention was to assuage people that think the proposal is too extreme (misguided, IMO, since literally any regulation is viewed as extreme by his real opponents), but he gave his personal minimum non-negotiables that would be compromises from the currently stated position. He qualified this by saying that it's his own personal views and doesn't reflect the views of the movement as a whole, but surely you've got to show a united front on this, right? My immediate thought was that the EU software association negotiators would be kicking their lips, since that should establishing a ceiling for what they'd accept and they'd obviously go down from there.