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

["Berry Cobb" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I support 500 words in a narrative.  The bullets are really another form
within the Matrix.

The summaries should not include levels of support.  That can be found in
the polling results and left for the reader to interpret.

I will take point for the Free-Trade summary and submit to those proponents
for review.

What I have not seen yet, when is the deadline for the proposal summaries?

Thx, B


Berry Cobb
Infinity Portals LLC
berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://infinityportals.com
866.921.8891

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 10:02 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] "Rules" for proposal-summaries and
Principles-summaries


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.)
>