Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Call for agenda items

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi

As an additional agenda item, i would like to suggest discussing the idea of 
using test case (such as those offered by MMA augmented by others) as one 
aspect of evaluating the models.

One advantage of having such a large group of WG particpants is that if we took 
a broad range of cases and had each of the members of the group evaluate each 
of the models using a range against various aspects of the testcases, then took 
the aggregate and using a few stats (e.g. average, stddev) to look at the 
response we might get a pretty good picture.  Such as exercise also often has 
the value of getting people to focus on the elements that work well and those 
that don't work as well so that putting together a composite model based on the 
necessary elements becomes possible and can be accelerated.

at least sometimes.

Please note: I said as one aspect of evaluating.  obviously various group's 
political absolutes will also have to factor in the evaluation, though 
sometimes stddev evaluation brings those things into stark relief.

a.

On 3 Apr 2010, at 10:09, Mike O'Connor wrote:

> 
> good deal.  
> 
> i've been having a sidebar conversation about a possible proposal and came up 
> with a little series of questions.  what if each proponent took 5-10 minutes 
> to walk us through their ideas, touching on these questions in addition to 
> whatever else they want to tell us.  at least for me, i sometimes find it 
> helpful to write a series of "FAQ-like" questions and then answer them as a 
> way to quickly sketch out an idea.  anyway, here's a starter-kit, feel free 
> to add/subtract...
> 
> Pretty-Good Proposal FAQ:
> 
> - what is the proposal?
> 
> - are there changes needed in the Board resolution for this to work?
> 
> - is this a policy thing or a best-practices thing?
> 
> - what are the barriers in the way of doing this?
> 
> - what are the pros and cons?
> 
> - how do consumers fare?  
> 
> - is there experience out there already?  how about research or analysis?  
> any "foundation" documents that could be referenced?
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
> On Apr 2, 2010, at 5:24 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Would be good for the proponent of each model to take 5 minutes and walk us 
>> through the detail of their proposal.  Not the pros and cons (yet) -- just 
>> how their proposal  would work
>> 
>> Also, would be good to start with a quick re-statement of definitions - so 
>> we're all speaking the same language. I've seen cross-ownership and vertical 
>> integration used interchangeably on this list,  though the WG has defined 
>> them differently.
>> 
>> RT
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 3, 2010, at 6:33 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> hi all,
>>> 
>>> we have a few agenda items (that won't take long and can go towards the end 
>>> of the agenda) for the call next Monday.  most of the time can be devoted 
>>> to whatever you all would like to discuss.
>>> 
>>> how would you like to use the time?  
>>> 
>>> the proposals, use-cases and scenarios seem to be evolving nicely on the 
>>> list.  would a discussion of some of those be useful?  any 
>>> proposal-champions want some real-time discussion time with the whole group?
>>> 
>>> are there background documents that would provide a good discussion?
>>> 
>>> we're building the agenda right now, so this is a good time to steer us 
>>> towards things that would help you advance your work.
>>> 
>>> thanks,
>>> 
>>> mikey
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - - - - - - - - -
>>> phone       651-647-6109  
>>> fax                 866-280-2356  
>>> web         www.haven2.com
>>> handle      OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 
>>> Google, etc.)
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone         651-647-6109  
> fax           866-280-2356  
> web   www.haven2.com
> handle        OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 
> Google, etc.)
> 
>