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

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

hi Eric,

here's a quick reply, since some of your suggestions probably won't make it 
into the agenda.  i've been pretty roundly trounced for using call-time for 
process-stuff and several of your ideas are more process-stuff type things.  so 
i'm keen to address them, but think it would probably be better to do it on the 
list rather than on the call.

- two-sentence summary -- i am hoping that the matrix will address this (that's 
one of the drivers behind constructing it)

- matrix on the agenda -- i'm going to defer it one week, to give Mike Zupke 
time to check his draft with proposal-advocates

- economists -- we couldn't schedule them on the call, so we'll set up a 
separate call later in the week.  that gives people the option to hear from 
them if they wish

- questions to board -- i know the questions have been presented and that we'll 
hear in a heartbeat if we get a reply.  Margie?  any news on this front?  
forcing the Board to do things is above my pay grade, probably Margie's too.  

mikey



On Apr 23, 2010, at 12:18 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> Mikey,
> 
> I suggest that the purpose, and the content, of a poll be on the agenda.
> 
> I suggest that a two sentence summary of each proposal be on the
> agenda, as a tool for future use when we need to refer to a proposal
> as it is proposed.
> 
> I'm glad to know Mike is working on a summary and comparison. I
> suggest that be on the agenda.
> 
> As for the economists, they've been pretty good about keeping on
> message and not being distracted by industry-specific facts, so having
> had several passes through their presentations, I suggest, that if the
> co-chairs can schedule call time for those that haven't had these
> prior happy opportunities, that this repetition of opinions not be on
> the agenda, but on some other scheduled call time's agenda.
> 
> However, speaking to getting questions answered, please schedule 60
> seconds or so to explain what the co-chairs' understanding of Staffs'
> intentions to respond to questions presented directly, and through one
> participant, four weeks ago. As you'll recall, two weeks ago the
> co-chairs indicated that they would address this question to Staff,
> and it would be useful to know if this is an infinite delay path, or
> merely one with substantial delay, when additional questions to Staff
> arise.
> 
> Eric

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)