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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mikey, I think you are pushing too hard and not giving us enough time.
There is no reason this initial report has to be published for comment
as quickly as you're pushing for. 

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] POLL Deadline -- 0600 GMT tomorrow --
proposal for poll-usage
From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, July 16, 2010 8:11 am
To: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx, RA <ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


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.)