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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

berry

i could live with 500 words,  but that's a page each (i think) , so we'd have 
11 pages of proposals description in the Exec Summary

i think for readability it'll be better to have 250 or less words per proposal

maybe even better as bullets for each 

R

 
On Jul 16, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Berry Cobb wrote:

> 
> 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.)
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>