[gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Approach to submitting comments on the report

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

ah!

Thanks Dave, good thought.

Rules of the road for submitting changes;

a) Work off of the PDF version of the report (which I'm attaching to 
this email, and have placed as a link under the "Initial Report" 
subsection of the "Working Group Deliverables" portion of the working 
group wiki).
b) If you would like to see changes, start a new email thread with 
each suggestion
c) Put the existing text at the top of your email, followed by your 
revised text
d) Please be succinct in your revised text.  If you feel the need for 
a longer rationale, put that rationale for your proposed text *below* 
your proposed revisions.
Rules of the road for debating changes;

a) Limit your comments/replies to the topic of the proposed text

b) Again, try to be brief, try to avoid bashing each other about the 
head and shoulders.
c) I will play the role of traffic-cop.  If there is no debate on a 
given change after a day, I'll push the proposal along to Marika and 
she'll substitute your draft for the existing one.
d) If there's debate, I'll watch until it becomes clear that we're 
either in agreement or not in agreement.  If we're in agreement, I'll 
push it along to Marika.  If we're not, I'll declare a lack of 
consensus and push it along to Marika and have her include it in the 
draft as a minority view.
Sound like a plan?

Have at it.

m

At 09:56 AM 9/2/2008, Dave Piscitello wrote:
> Do u have a preferred means of submitting comments?
>
> I imagine some members are not overly fond of marking up .doc files 
> using MSFT or Office comments and "track changes". Posting comments 
> via email, citing section, page and paragraph is one alternative; if 
> we choose this method, however, I would dearly like to avoid long, 
> nested threads that results in "comments and tangential discussions 
> on the comments" since this has proven problematic for us in the 
> past. Publishing the document on the private wiki for "Wikipedia" 
> style editing is yet another alternative (personally, this is the 
> least palatable to me since the resulting accuracy and degree of 
> consensus is iffy.)
>
> If you will, please, Mike, assert a convention and declare some 
> guidelines before we all dive into 60+ pages and overwhelm the group 
> and our editors.
>
> On 9/2/08 8:54 AM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> thanks Marika!
>
> a note to the rest of the group -- i've got my fingerprints all over
> this report.  i spent the weekend editing it and developing the "next
> steps" portion.  so all the good ideas belong to Marika and all the
> bad ideas are mine.
>
> here's my hope.  i'd like to give this a preliminary once-over on
> tomorrow's call, spend the week dinging away at the details and
> approve it next week so that we can launch the Constituency review
> and public-comment period.
>
> btw, Eric had trouble opening the file.  if others do to0, let Marika
> know and she can push along an RTF version that may be easier to digest.
>
> m
>
> At 05:32 AM 9/2/2008, Marika Konings wrote:
> >Dear All,
> >
> >Please find attached the draft Fast Flux Initial Report for your
> >review and discussion at tomorrow's conference call.
> >
> >With best regards,
> >
> >Marika
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>http://www.avg.com
> >Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.14/1646 - Release Date:
> >9/1/2008 6:03 PM
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.14/1647 - Release Date: 
> 9/2/2008 6:02 AM

Attachment: Fast Flux Initial Rep#ECE80.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF Document