RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] REVISED Proposal-support poll
- To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] REVISED Proposal-support poll
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:32:20 -0700
Didn't mean to imply that you were up to anything. I apologize if it
came off that way.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] REVISED Proposal-support poll
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, June 11, 2010 5:33 pm
ok with me.
interesting that you immediately think of stuffing the ballot box
though. never occurred to me. the people who were going to take the poll
were actually against CAM and would have used their names so you would
have known who they were.
but they asked, so i asked.
On 11 Jun 2010, at 18:25, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I object. It would make the poll meaningless. There would be no way to
> confirm who is who. But if we go that route I'd like a day or two notice so I
> can get the word out to all of our staff :)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:05:57
> To: Avri Doria<avri@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] REVISED Proposal-support poll
> as your co-chair and scribe, i don't have any objection to others taking the
> poll. but it would make my life a lot easier if they indicated that they are
> not WG members when they fill out their entry so i can tell who is who when i
> summarize the poll. i admit, i worry a little bit about craziness and pranks,
> but i'm willing to wait and cross that bridge if we come to it.
> Roberto? you have any thoughts either way on this?
> On Jun 11, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> that is what I have assumed it meant all along.
>> silly me.
>> of course doodle only has 3 states as far as i know.
>> by the way any objection to people not on the VI list, but who have been
>> following, taking the poll?
>> Also we have more than 25 members on the VI list. where are the others?
>> On 11 Jun 2010, at 16:04, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>> Too late now, but in retrospect, a fourth option of "I could accept this
>>> WITH some modification" might have been interesting. I would have included
>>> JN2 in that category, as an example.
>>> At 10/06/2010 04:39 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>>>> i so horked up the poll i decided to redo it. same URL, but i deleted the
>>>> 4 answers that were there -- so please revisit the poll if you filled it
>>>> out. apologies for that.
>>>> - - - - - - - - -
>>>> phone 651-647-6109
>>>> fax 866-280-2356
>>>> web www.haven2.com
>>>> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone 651-647-6109
> fax 866-280-2356
> web www.haven2.com
> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)