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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

I thought it was clear from the numbers that not all members participated,
as we have the total count.
But we can be more explicit about that. Maybe we can have a "did not vote"
group that accounts for that, rather than artificially lumping them together
with "no opinion".
After all, they might well have an opinion, but chose or were forced by
external circumstances not to express it.
Cheers,
Roberto

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 July 2010 01:10
> To: Roberto Gaetano
> Cc: 'Mike O'Connor'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] polling -- picking up the pieces
> 
> 
> 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.)
> >
>