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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

The atoms and molecules idea, while a little obscure to start with ;), sounds 
like a great way to take us towards the next step: a unified group proposal.

Mike's matrix is a great help towards doing that.

Stéphane

Le 30 avr. 2010 à 14:20, Mike O'Connor a écrit :

> 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.)
>