RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] polling -- picking up the pieces

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Roberto,

I think this is a reasonable approach. I would only ask that it be clear
that not all of the WG members responded to the poll, perhaps
considering them along with the No Opinion. 

Tim  
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] polling -- picking up the pieces
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:03 pm
To: "'Mike O'Connor'" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>


I would like to try to throw in a proposal. You might propose a poll for
accepting or rejecting it ;>)

Let me start by saying that the way the big poll was designed was not
for
public consumption but for indication to the WG on the areas on which we
were converging to consensus vs the areas on which opinions were
scattered
around. Let me also admit that the poll went a bit out of hand, as we
added
questions as ideas came, neglecting the fact that at the end the result
would have been a table far too detailed and therefore far too complex,
in
particular for the general public who has not followed the whole path we
went through to get there.

So, the main question is what could be useful (and simple enough) to be
provided for general availability. My personal answer is "the
proposals".
The results of this part of the poll are easy to understand, reflect the
positions of the group, show that there is a wide diversity and (for the
time being) lack of consensus. Moreover, part 6 will give the major
features
of the different proposals, and so people can immediately link the
proposals
with the acceptance figures. So, it is right on the scope, easy to
understand, and meaningful.

In terms of formats, I would not disclose who voted what, just give the
results. The percentages are meaningful, individual votes would only
create
unnecessary gossips on why somebody voted in that way. Also, a pie chart
visually showing the sizes of the "Yes";"No";"Maybe";"Uuh?" percentages
could give a more immediate picture to those who do not like going
through
the figures.

All the rest of the information, about the atoms, is something we will
have
to crunch and digest in the next weeks, so it is not wasted effort, is
just
something not ready for prime time. We can mention in the report itself,
though, that several polls were taken (we have consensus on this,
reading
the chat of today) to have a "show of hands" for checking whether we
were
converging towards consensus.

Cheers,
Roberto



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Monday, 19 July 2010 23:00
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] polling -- picking up the pieces
> 
> 
> oh well...
> 
> i, as the charter member of the O'Connor Foundation for 
> Continuous Polling (OFoCoPo for short) yield and cry "uncle"...
> 
> i would like to see a definition, from the group, as to what 
> constitutes an acceptable process to determine who supports 
> which proposals. i think releasing a report without that 
> tally pretty dramatically reduces the credibility of our 
> report and strains the limits of transparency.
> 
> it's clear that the current poll doesn't stand a chance of 
> getting through all of your objections.
> 
> so. how do we get that done? my preference would be if you 
> would point to a process that's been done in some other 
> Working Group and say "do it like that" so i could set the 
> staff folks on the task of getting something set up in time 
> for it to be completed by the time we release the Final Report. 
> 
> thanks,
> 
> 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.)
>