<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] DRAFT version of "atoms" survey
- To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] DRAFT version of "atoms" survey
- From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:19:30 -0400
Don't forget, "This is not applicable."
On Jun 15, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>
>>
>> In my opinion this was the first useful tool you've come up with.
>
> LOL. thanks! i think... :-)
>
>>
>> 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".
>
> i've added a little blurb on the first page, and figured out how to turn on
> "sharing" so that everybody can download the results. it's still pretty
> massively clunky, but at least it's there.
>
>>
>> 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%?
>
> hm... here's another try;
>
> - I'm willing to discuss a wide range of options
> - I'm willing to discuss, but only within a narrow range of options
> - I'm not willing to discuss, this is a critical position for me
>
> better?
>
>>
>> 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?
>
> yep, i get that. how about this -- "Should the Vertical Integration
> framework (as ultimately established by the Board, and embodied in the
> Applicant Guidebook) be reviewed again later?"
>
> thanks Eric. i'm still editing, so things may change some more.
>
> mikey
>
>
>>
>> Eric
>
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone 651-647-6109
> fax 866-280-2356
> web www.haven2.com
> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
> Google, etc.)
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|