Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: draft Report

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

hum...

i was thinking along Berry's lines, that the short summaries were aimed at 
Section 6 rather than the Exec Summary.  i agree -- summarizing the debate over 
those proposals in any kind of neutral way is a monumental task.  it goes on 
the "too hard" pile in my view.  so my thought would be that Section 6 has the 
short summaries that y'all are preparing, the Exec Summary merely notes that 
there *were* a number of proposals.

i'm also OK with a Section 6 that is 5 - 10 pages long (250 to 500 words for 
each proposal).  it's one of our major work-products and worthy of the space.

not a strongly held view, but my two cents.

mikey


On Jul 18, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Richard Tindal wrote:

> 
> 
> I meant the Exec Summary,  but I think we have the same problem with Section 
> 6.
> 
> As I understand it,  Section 6 is intended to reflect the to and fro debate 
> on each proposal over the last three months.  The advantages and support 
> claimed by its advocates,  the disadvantages and opposition claimed by its 
> critics,  the nature of discussion in the group,   etc.    Presumably there 
> would be one per two pages per proposal -- so probably a 10 to 20 page 
> Section.
> 
> If the advocates of each proposal  are writing these sections I think its 
> going to be very difficult for them to not slant the record in their favor.   
> If I'm the writer for BRU1, for example,  I can use differing emphasis,  
> omissions of detail,  and simply the nuance of words to give the report 
> reader a more favorable view of my proposal.   Even with good faith on my 
> part, my recollection of the BRU1 debate is going to be different from others 
> in the group.
> 
> Given the difficulty I perceive in writing Section 6,  and the clear absence 
> of consensus on any proposal,  I'm wondering about the value of this section.
> 
> If we feel we must have the section, I'm wondering if there's a more 
> objective way to produce it than have proposal advocates create the draft.
> 
> Comments welcome on this.
> 
> RT 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 16, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Berry Cobb wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Correct me if I am wrong, I thought these 250 or 500 word summaries were
>> going in to section 6, and just high-level mention of the proposals in the
>> Executive Summary.
>> 
>> If not, then yes, I would support a 250 word limit for the executive
>> summary.
>> 
>> 
>> 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 11:57 AM
>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] "Rules" for proposal-summaries and
>> Principles-summaries
>> 
>> 
>> 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.)
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

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