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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

but these poll counts, which people seem to want to trash, are so much higher 
(3-4x) than the criteria we use in meetings where 8 or 9 people are sufficient 
for making so called 'consensus' decisions.

in meetings we have had a tyranny of a minority who now want to suppress the 
voice of the majority in addition to text they do not like.  I just want it to 
be clear that even though CAM did not do as well as I would like, I would not 
care to see the voice of the poll suppressed.

a.

On 20 Jul 2010, at 07:42, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> 
> 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.)
>>> 
>> 
>