Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] The missing part

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

hi Kristina,

i think that will work out OK.  here's a longer version of that answer, aimed 
at you and anybody else who's dealing with the same schedule constraint.

as you can see from Mike Zupke's 1st-draft matrix, we're beginning to 
transition from the "idea-generating, brainstorming, 
improve-understanding-of-positions" part to the "see if there is stuff we can 
agree on" part of this first phase of our work.  Roberto and i agree that the 
clumps-of-ideas called proposals have served us well, but that now we need to 
start to focus on the ideas ("atoms") rather than the clumps ("molecules").  

so if you review Mike's matrix (with Berry's formatting enhancements) and find 
that all of the ideas in your proposal are in the matrix, we're in good shape.  
if you have some ideas in your proposal that AREN'T in the matrix, this next 
week would be a good time to get them inserted.  the working group is going to 
be really focusing on getting the matrix right over the next week or so and 
we'll fold the public comments and constituency statements into the list right 
at the end of that (the timing's not perfect, but close enough). 

so if you could "preview" any missing-ideas during the working-group 
conversation over the next week or so, i think we can formally/finally add them 
to the list when your constituency-statement officially comes in on the 6th.

mikey


On Apr 29, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

> All,
>  
> The IPC anticipates putting forth a model.  However, because of the process 
> required for constituency support, we will not meet this deadline.  We hope 
> to have it finalized in time for inclusion in the IPC statement to be 
> submitted on May 6.
>  
> K
>  
>  
> 
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 7:18 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] The missing part
> 
> In a previous message of mine I wrote "see below", and…. There was nothing 
> below. 
> The point I wanted to make is that it is high time to close the 
> door/window/hole/pipe/… for new proposals. 
> Mikey and myself had a chat today, and ended up in agreement (this is 
> actually becoming boring, where are the good old times when co-chairs where 
> bitterly fighting?) that we are moving from a phase in which we have 
> proposals to choose from to a phase in which we have to analyse the items in 
> each proposal.
> 
> In simple words, if anybody would present a new proposal now, I bet it would 
> be at least 90% covered by some other proposal already on the table. So why 
> not simplify the life of everybody, and instead of presenting a full 
> proposal, you don't just say: "On item XYZ, we believe the right approach is 
> blahblahblah".
> 
> We are already starting identifying the "atomic elements" (please forgive me 
> for the reference to my day job) in the "molecular" proposals, Mike Zupke has 
> already a first shot on this. I think that more molecules would not add much 
> more to the discussion, so why don't we focus on the atoms? Mikey and myself 
> would be inclined to close the window for new proposals, so if you *really* 
> have a new approach you want to submit as a proposal, please do tell us in 
> the next 24h, otherwise we will close the window.
> 
> Cheers, 
> Roberto
> 

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