RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] "Rules" for proposal-summaries and Principles-summaries

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

They would all just say no consensus. We can sum that up else where,
can't we?

I thought the suggestion was for *summaries* and I support that. I don't
think we should have to put a word limit on it. Just require them to be
a bullet list of what is proposed, period. Leave out any narrative about
justifications, background, or level of support. All of that is covered
elsewhere. There can be reference to the appropriate annex of the full
proposals.

Why does it have it be any more complicated than that? Anything else
will just create more endless debate.

Tim 
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] "Rules" for proposal-summaries and
Principles-summaries
From: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, July 16, 2010 11:27 am
To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Richard Tindal"
<richardtindal@xxxxxx>
Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>


I think the "level of support" descriptor should be binary...consensus
or no consensus. 

Regards, Keith

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 12:14 PM
To: Richard Tindal
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] "Rules" for proposal-summaries and
Principles-summaries


i'm going to hijack this thread, since Richard's already kicked it off.
:-)

we agreed on the call today that it would be very useful to have short
summaries of each of the proposals and each of the Principles for the
body of the report. we diverged a bit on what those should look like
and wanted to take the conversation to the list for resolution.

here are the parameters of the debate;

-- how long -- a certain number of words? if so, how many -- 200?

-- should those summaries describe levels of support, or leave that out?
that's the point that Richard raised with his email

-- anything else we should state in advance as guidance to
summary-drafters?

let's try to hammer this one out fairly quickly so drafting-teams can
get started with their summarizing.

hope you don't mind me hijacking your thread Richard,

mikey


On Jul 16, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Richard Tindal wrote:

> 
> Wanted to amplify the point i made on the call today
> 
> Executive summaries can be very powerful things as many will just read
that portion of the document. 
> 
> Given this, I don't think the summaries we provide for each of our
proposals should include any words about the level of support or
endorsement for our proposals. 
> 
> Kristina - I understand the response you made to this, but i just
don't think we'll get agreement on how support should be characterized.
I think we'll get into protracted and unsolvable debate over adjectives
like 'some', 'many', 'good', 'broad', 'strong' etc. Even a seemingly
benign statement like 'there was support from xyz' is going to be
debated as support for one piece of a proposal doesnt necessarily mean
support for all pieces.
> 
> My strong preference is to leave such descriptions of support out of
the proposal description.
> 
> RT

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