RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] "atoms" survey
- To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] "atoms" survey
- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:45:33 -0400
Before I commit the time required to take the poll, can you tell me whether the
results will be suppressed if a few large suppliers don't like the results?
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Mike O'Connor [mike@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 4:07 PM
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] "atoms" survey
here's a link to the "atoms" poll. it's not perfect, but fits nicely in the
"close enough" category for me. please take a few minutes to fill it out
here's a little blurb that i wrote for the first page of the survey;
This is a poll that is trying to discover areas of agreement across the topics
listed in the headings of our proposal matrix. In the language of consensus
decision-making, this is a "call for consensus" in which we give ourselves the
opportunity to make our views known to the rest of the group. Or, to use our
informal language, this is a way to identify "atoms" around which we may be
able to find agreement.
This is not a "vote" -- we will not use these results to summarize our views
for somebody else. It will not be used as a substitute for consensus. It is
only intended as a tool to help us find areas where we may be able to **reach**
consensus during our meetings in Brussels.
thanks all, see you in Brussels.
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)