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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

bullets are fine too

but if we go with narrative I do like the idea of a word limit

500 nicely framed words about a proposal can give that proposal more mindshare 
that 250 nicely framed words about another proposal

RT

On Jul 16, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 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.)
>