Re: [gnso-trans-wg] Priorities Data
At 09:56 AM 11/23/2007, Ross Rader wrote:
On 23-Nov-07, at 10:49 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:- by using averages, we mask what is in fact a disagreement.I actually used the median. The mean and average didn't quite get close enough to what I intuitively saw as the consensus view. I'll take a look at your attachment and the rest of your response later today when I get a few more minutes than I have now. Thanks for the detailed response!
now you've done it. your compliment inspired me to go one level deeper. the result is attached.
here's an explanation of each page; - i highlighted where each person placed the item in their ranking- i noted who placed the item either in their top-3 or their bottom-3 ranked list
- i nominated those folks to be "advocates" on one side or the otherhere's a link to a pretty good (and pretty short) summary of a consensus decision-making process that explains some of the terminology you'll see on those pages;
one of the things you'll note as you flip through the pages of my little attachment is that there are sometimes only advocates on one side of an issue, and sometimes there is only one advocate. this very important -- because by letting those folks be advocates, we'll go a long way toward avoiding the "tyranny of the majority".
my suggestion would be to go through each issue on the conference call -- i don't think it will take long, especially as themes emerge. if nobody else feels like taking on the role, i'd be happy to be the facilitator (except on a couple issues where i'll have to wear an "advocate" hat). i used to facilitate meetings like this a lot when i worked for a living and got pretty good marks.
question - how long is the conference call scheduled to take? given the dispersion in our answers, my guess would be that we would need a couple hours to get through all these. are we on for that long?
onward, m voice: 952-232-5181 fax: 866-280-2356 web: www.haven2.com