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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

So we're discussing:

Exec Summary:    Explains there were multiple proposals and names them

Section 6:    Provides a 200 word bullet-point description of each proposal -- 
but only its features, not its perceived pros and cons

Attachments ---   Contains the source documents for each proposal.  These are 
the documents that were written and submitted during the course of the WG -- 
but no edits or additions to these documents.


All -- Do we have consensus on that approach to the report?

RT


 
On Jul 18, 2010, at 12:55 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> For the record, I was also thinking in terms of having the summaries in
> Section 6. The exec summary should not have that level of details.
> R.
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
>> Sent: Sunday, 18 July 2010 18:33
>> To: Richard Tindal
>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: draft Report
>> 
>> 
>> 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.)
>> 
>