[gnso-vi-feb10] Checkpoint on polling

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi all,

i promised to "restart the polling discussion" and kick this thread off while 
we were on the call yesterday.  then, well, i took a nap...  it turned into an 
EPIC nap...  and by the time i got up it was too late in the day to craft this 
note.  then the Luck Factor kicked in and a pretty lively discussion ensued 
about polling -- which i'm going to incorporate into this restart...

part of the trouble here is that i've said contradictory things at different 
times both on the list and on the teleconferences.  you'll be happy to know 
that you're not the only victims of this inconsistency, nor will you be 
surprised to learn that one of my favorite quotes is Ralph Waldo Emerson's "a 
foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little 
statesmen and philosophers and divines."  my family can testify that i flip 
flop all the time on stuff.  musicians will note that i can't read music -- i 
do everything by ear -- which makes me a better member of a band that 
improvises than a band that plays from a score.

so let me attempt a final flip flop and see how it flies (to paraphrase Big Joe 
Turner)...

i would like to use the poll as the basis of the tally of support for the 
various proposals -- and include that tally of views in the report.  

i would like to retain the "atoms" portion of the poll for the next phase -- 
because it's instructive about how we can do a better poll the next time and 
because it's part of the starting point for that post-Phase-I conversation -- 
but not include it in the report.  the "flawed poll" argument is persuasive to 
me when we talk about the Atoms part of the poll, although i have quibbles 
about how that argument was crafted.

i am persuaded by the argument that results should just be listed by name, not 
attaching affiliation.  people *are* speaking as individuals and many of you 
are diverging from the positions of your respective constituencies (and i 
commend you for that flexibility).  if anybody wants to match names and 
affiliations up, they're listed on the wiki now and that same list is the basis 
of Annex 2 (Members).  5 minutes with Excel will produce a chart for anybody 
who's that interested.

i think that summary data rather than detailed lists of supporters is the way 
to go in the body of the report (more readable).  detailed lists of supporters 
can be included in the Annex along with the proposals -- see page 74 of the 
draft for the current approach to this.  that format needs to change to reflect 
the choices in the poll.

i'm going to leave the poll open through tomorrow (responses are still 
trickling in, we up to  about 45 now), and i'll push the raw results out to the 
list on Monday morning.

for those of you who were caught by my click-through first page of the poll, 
i'm happy to remove your response if that would make you more comfortable

i think that covers the list of my flip-flopping.

mikey





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