Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] POLL Deadline -- 0600 GMT tomorrow -- proposal for poll-usage

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

hi Ron,

once upon a time, a band i was playing in led off a set with Chuck Berry's 
"Johnny B. Goode".  the lead guitar player stepped up front, reared back and 
screamed out that famous opening riff.  unfortunately, his amp wasn't turned 
on, so no sound emerged.  as we all giggled in back, he turned to us and said...

        so who's perfect?

sorry about my wavering on the poll.  i was put a little off my stride on 
yesterday's call because i knew that i had intended to put in that explanation 
of the way the poll was going to be used, but i thought i must have forgotten 
it.  when i went back later and realized that it was indeed there, i changed my 
mind about the direction to go with the poll.  so who's perfect?

so let's restate the situation in a slightly different way...

-- the term "unscientific" confuses me (in a deep way -- my Dad was a 
heavy-duty scientist and i grew up having a very good understanding of what 
"scientific" means pounded into me).  this is just a poll - an opportunity for 
people to raise their hands in support of a variety of documents and concepts 
that we've been working on for a long time.  there's no "science" (collect data 
through observation and experimentation, formulate and test hypotheses, rinse 
and repeat) here.  

-- there **are** parts of the poll that are difficult to answer because of 
internal inconsistencies in the language of the items we were polling on 
(Amadeu's point).  there's a flaw in the poll in that i didn't provide an 
answer that allowed people to say that.  easily remedied in a new version, and 
a great source of information for people who want to continue refining our 
proposals and conclusions.  duly noted for the next round of polling.

-- regarding the deadlines -- yup, at this stage of the game i'm assuming that 
people are monitoring the list pretty carefully, but that's a self-centric view 
and your point is well taken.  what?  you're not reading every note within 10 
minutes of its arrival??  how is that possible??  i haven't gotten around to 
the poll yet (i'm with Cheryl -- coffee, not tea, is critical in the morning), 
so i'll just leave it open for now.  my inclination at this point is to leave 
the results out of the Initial Report (because they're flawed) but put a 
placeholder in for the final report.  right now that placeholder is the stuff i 
sent out for yesterday's call but that's easily removed in the draft we 
finalize today.

-- regarding whether to include a poll in the Final Report.  people, we *are* 
going to include a tally of who supports what proposal, and who supports what 
conclusion, in our final report.  we've been asked for that information by all 
of our customers right up to and including the Board and NOT doing it rings a 
lot of "transparency" alarm bells in my head.  besides, it's something i've 
gotten used to in all the other working groups i've been involved with.  

so let's reframe this discussion and get the polling process fixed in time for 
the final report, OK?  i'm fine with leaving a placeholder in the Interim 
Report -- especially since positions may change.  but i don't want to get down 
to the wire on the Final Report and then have the poll blow up again.  help me 
out here.

thanks,

mikey


On Jul 16, 2010, at 2:06 AM, Ron Andruff wrote:

> Mikey, 
> 
> You stated in very clear terms when I asked on the call: When was the cutoff 
> date/time for the poll, and when I asked specifically when we would we see 
> the  results of a complete polling, that you were not going to do this work.
> 
> Now those that may or may not have completed it, based on the co-chair's 
> comment that he was not including these incorrect results, are being 
> excluded.  It is incorrect and unfair to expect the entire WG to be focuced 
> exclusively on VI 24 x 7. Sympathetic to those that appreciate the polls or 
> not,  your after-the-fact deadline cannot stand.
> 
> At the end of the day it is about doing this right over doing this on time. 
> 
> RA 
> 
> ------Original Message------
> From: Mike O'Connor
> Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Jul 15, 2010 18:43
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] POLL Deadline -- 0600 GMT tomorrow -- proposal for 
> poll-usage
> 
> 
> hi all,
> 
> just to clear up one little thing.  let's set a hard cutoff for the poll.   
> noon GMT (7am Eastern) tomorrow morning.  
> 
> here's the real link to the poll
> 
>       http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Initial-report-poll
> 
> i'll try to crunch out a repeat version of the summary in time for the phone 
> call -- and push out the details right away for those who want to do their 
> own analysis.
> 
> and how about this for a proposal on the inclusion of the information in the 
> report.  i note that on the first page of the survey, my first paragraph 
> reads "This is a poll to determine levels of support for various proposals 
> (aka "molecules") and components of proposals (aka "atoms). The results of 
> this poll will be included in the Initial Report that the WG will be 
> submitting soon."  so, i'm less sympathetic to the "we didn't know how this 
> was going to be used" argument than i was on the call.  
> 
> on the other hand, i agree that the "atoms" part of the poll was pretty 
> confusing.  so here's my proposition (i'm starting to run out of synonyms for 
> "proposal").  
> 
> -- exclude the "atoms" portion of the poll from the initial report -- too 
> confusing, too much information, not much actionable knowledge anyway
> 
> -- include the poll on the proposals 
> 
> -- include the poll on the three "conclusions" (Exceptions, Compliance, 
> SRSU), noting that these are still moving and opinions may well change over 
> the next few weeks
> 
> that concludes my report.  remember, if you want to stand up and be counted, 
> noon-tomorrow GMT.  if you'd like to be removed from the tally, let me know 
> by that same deadline and i'll take your answers out.
> 
> 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.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> Ron Andruff
> RNA Partners, Inc.
> randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.rnapartners.com

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