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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Dumb question,  but are we not also including BRU1 and BRU2?  

They have different features to the proposals below.

RT


On Jul 20, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Ron Andruff wrote:

> How about a graph/pie chart that looks like this? (Of course we need to put 
> in the numbers of those that did not vote).
>  
>  
> Proposal Name
> In Favor
> Opposed
> In Favor + Could live with
> No Opinion
> Did not vote
> JN2+   
> 12
> 16
> 25
> 2
> ?
> Free Trade   
> 16
> 23
> 20
> 1
> ?
> RACK+   
> 13
> 23
> 18
> 2
> ?
> CAM   
> 2
> 25
> 16
> 2
> ?
> DAGv4  
> 0
> 27
> 14
> 2
> ?
>  
>  
> RA
>  
> Ronald N. Andruff
> RNA Partners, Inc.
> New York, New York 10001
>  
> + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
>  
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:43 AM
> To: 'Tim Ruiz'
> Cc: 'Mike O'Connor'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] polling -- picking up the pieces
>  
>  
> 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.)
> > >
> >