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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry I missed the call.   

Question: who is going to summarize the DAGv4 proposal?  It's no-one's favorite 
position, but it's an acceptable fallback for many.  (I am not volunteering.)

Antony

On Jul 16, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:

> 
> 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.)
> 
>