Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] CONSENSUS POLL OPEN -- please complete it before our call on Thursday

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

i think the changes are relatively minor and probably won't change the result.  
but if people would like, i can easily kick the poll off again.

mikey


On Jul 14, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 
> Do we have to redo the poll? 
> 
> Tim  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] CONSENSUS POLL OPEN -- please complete it
> before our call on Thursday
> From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, July 14, 2010 10:11 am
> To: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx"
> <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> hi Jeff,
> 
> thanks for the acknowledgement of my awesomeness. :-)
> 
> i've touched, and i hope fixed, all but the last point in your list
> Jeff. take a look and see how i did. i await the will of the group on
> point 5.
> 
> here's a new link to preview the poll without having to actually take
> it. it obsoletes the one below, which points to the old version.
> 
> http://bit.ly/afCGve
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
> On Jul 14, 2010, at 12:04 AM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
> 
>> A couple of quick comments on the poll:
>> 
>> 1- Awesome job putting this together. It looks great
>> 2 - The opening line of the BRU1 statement begins "There was strong 
>> consensus................" This is misleading as there was strong consensus 
>> of the RACK group that wrote BRU1. None of the other proposals state this 
>> and ask this be corrected immediately as it is misleading
>> 3 - Question 21 asks in addition to 2. Are these questions linked? It seems 
>> they are.
>> 4 - Why are we expressing minority opinions in Question 34? If Kathy 
>> Kleinman is opposed to Question 34 she can answer opposed. The other groups 
>> may have had consensus but I did not hear unanimous consent from other 
>> groups. They did not list all dissenting opinions from each member
>> 5 - I thought that BRU2 allowed self distribution up to the de-minimus 
>> amount , 2% or 5%. may need some help from others in group on this
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Jeff Eckhaus
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
>> Behalf Of Mike O'Connor [mike@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 6:40 PM
>> To: Jon Nevett
>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] CONSENSUS POLL OPEN -- please complete it 
>> before our call on Thursday
>> 
>> hi Jon,
>> 
>> egad... what a good idea.
>> 
>> here's a link to a "preview" of the poll -- it looks just like the poll, 
>> except it doesn't collect results. the only trick is, you have to put 
>> *something* in the required "name" question to get to the next page. my 
>> favorite answer is usually "sdsdsd"... your choice.
>> 
>> http://bit.ly/afCGve
>> 
>> m
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 13, 2010, at 7:57 PM, Jon Nevett wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Mikey:
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your hard work on this. Would you publish the poll questions for 
>>> review in an e-mail . . . just in case something got lost in the 
>>> translation in one of the questions.
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> Jon
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 13, 2010, at 8:28 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> thanks for all your hard work on various proposals, atoms, etc.
>>>> 
>>>> i've spent the afternoon cutting and pasting and have a (pretty long) poll 
>>>> put together for you. i found that i reviewed your work pretty carefully 
>>>> and learned a lot as i put the poll together. i'm hoping it will prompt 
>>>> you to look through your collective work with "fresh eyes" as you complete 
>>>> it.
>>>> 
>>>> here's the link to the poll
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Initial-report-poll
>>>> 
>>>> PLEASE try to complete it by 3 hours before our call on Thursday to give 
>>>> me a bit of time to scratch together a preliminary summary.
>>>> 
>>>> note -- i didn't get updated versions of the SRSU or Compliance writeups, 
>>>> so they're cobbled together from the drafts we had for the Monday call. 
>>>> try to imagine where we might take them as we continue to refine these 
>>>> drafts over the next few weeks (while the public comment period is open) 
>>>> when expressing your support...
>>>> 
>>>> thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> mikey
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> - - - - - - - - -
>>>> phone 651-647-6109
>>>> fax 866-280-2356
>>>> web http://www.haven2.com
>>>> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, 
>>>> etc.)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> - - - - - - - - -
>> phone 651-647-6109
>> fax 866-280-2356
>> web http://www.haven2.com
>> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
>> privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, 
>> Inc. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the 
>> intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are 
>> not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this 
>> message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone 651-647-6109 
> fax 866-280-2356 
> web http://www.haven2.com
> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
> etc.)
> 

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)