Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] DRAFT version of "atoms" survey

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In my opinion this was the first useful tool you've come up with.

Some questions could be phrased differently, a paragraph of difficult
to write (so that will never happen) issue explanation copy would
help, and due to the relative unfamiliarity of the form there will be
errors. It is worth pointing out that the answers are optional, and
the respondent is free to go forwards and backwards ... until clicking
"submit", and there is no instant gratification showing that 9 out of
10 dentists use Crest(tm) after clicking on "submit".

The "I'm willing to compromise" is awkward. Is "compromise" around the
15% position 20% or 200%? Is "willing to discuss" on the same question
16% or 15% or 10% or 20%?

The final question is misleading, is this reviewing the work product
of this working group, as processed by the Council, then by the Board,
and then again by the Staff, plus a couple of loops through the public
comments process, or the "rules change for some operators at some
offset from time zero" question?

Eric