Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Early "atoms" poll responses

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

For what little it is worth I support this position.  And while there have been 
a few vocal opponents of the polls, i have found them quite helpful from at 
least 2 aspects:

1. the obvious one: it tells me more about what other people are thinking, 
especially those who unlike some of us don't write lengthy email missives

2. it forces me to focus in on some of the issues that tend to hang out on the 
periphery of what i think about. for the last poll, e.g., it forced me to 
reread all of the other proposals and really think them through in a 
comparative manner deciding which had aspects that i could support.  While I 
had read them before as they appeared, I had never read them in one sitting.  
Doing this helped me with my thinking about where compromise might lay.

so, although some may be inclined to take the polls the wrong way, or worse 
yet, to think that some of the powers that be might take them the wrong way, i 
have come to  think they are a good thing.  I might add that when the first one 
came out my opinion was, OMG what a hokey of waste of time, what hooey.  I have 
been converted and see their value - see it is possible for me to change my 
mind!

Although I must point out that you forgot to mention the old IETF tradition of 
the hum.

a.


On 16 Jun 2010, at 08:59, Mike O'Connor wrote:

> hi all,
> 
> a few of you have filled in your responses to the "atoms" poll and i thought 
> i would push the raw results out to the list to give you a feel for how 
> things are going.
> 
> regarding the conversation about polls -- let me reemphasis a few points...
> 
> --  this is a consensus process and consensus is highly dependent on frequent 
> polling of participants to get a "sense of the group."  in the old days when 
> these things happened in a room, people would raise their hands or hold up 
> different-colored cards to indicate their views.  we're in a virtual space, 
> so we need to do that polling virtually.  
> 
> --  these aren't votes -- that's a different decision making approach.  so 
> we're not going to use the polls to determine the decision.  we're using the 
> polls to help us identify areas of agreement (or non-agreement -- which is a 
> perfectly fine outcome in consensus decision-making -- it is often stated as 
> "we need to learn more").
> 
> --  these aren't scientific -- they're intended to be quick (almost 
> throw-away) tests of the sense of the group and are (hopefully) almost 
> immediately obsolete as people gain a deeper understanding of each others' 
> views and change their own positions accordingly.  nobody should feel that 
> they are making a final statement here -- it's a chance for you to tell the 
> rest of us where you are right now, that's all.
> 
> so, although i know it's somewhat outside the box for some of you, try to 
> view these as a vehicle for conversation and discussion.  thanks to you 
> "early adopters" for jumping in.  one observation, at least from the early 
> results -- there's a pretty substantial indication of flexibility in people's 
> views.  i find that a hopeful thing.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> mikey
> 
> <Atoms-Poll-v1.xls>
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone         651-647-6109  
> fax           866-280-2356  
> web   www.haven2.com
> handle        OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 
> Google, etc.)
>