Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Graph for Report

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1

I agree with *not* aggregating these columns, I think there is some
important subtlety that should remain present.

-Jothan

Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax


On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>wrote:

> I agree with Roberto and Ron.   I don't think we should aggregate
>  responses as it can be misleading.   Readers can do the math if they want
> to work out 'In Favour'   +  'Could Live With'
>
> I'm already uncomfortable that we're selectively pulling out pieces out of
> a poll that not everyone was happy with.   To also aggregate portions of the
> pieces makes me even less comfortable
>
> Lets just show the data like it was voted.
>
> RT
>
>
> On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Ron Andruff wrote:
>
>  I support that Roberto.  Indeed, that column (favor + could live with) is
> not necessary.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> RA
>
>
>
> Ronald N. Andruff
>
> RNA Partners, Inc.
>
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Roberto Gaetano
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:29 PM
> *To:* 'Tim Ruiz'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] polling -- picking up the pieces
>
>
>
> Yes, that was also what I had in mind, although I would not have aggregated
> "In Favour" with "Could live with", leaving rather the individual categories
> without aggregation. Aggregation can be done by hand by different people, as
> I am sure that there are different ways to lump votes together.
>
> May I ass that the "Did not vote" is easy to calculate, as it is the total
> number of members (which is known) minus the people who have voted.
>
> This, of course, once we have solved the issues of double voting, which we
> need to do anyway.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roberto
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Tim Ruiz
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 July 2010 17:44
> *To:* Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] polling -- picking up the pieces
>
> Thanks Ron. That's exacty the kind of thing I had in mind. For example, I
> know of at least two members who have been active on calls and who supported
> RACK that did not vote. Recent communications with them off list indicate
> they are still supportive of it. I'm not suggesting we add their support to
> the poll numbers, the poll is what it is. But the fact that they were
> members who did not vote is material, in my opinion. We should not try to
> second guess or make assumptions about why members chose not to respond to
> the poll, and we should not just ignore them as if they don't exist.
>
>
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] polling -- picking up the pieces
> From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <//randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> Date: Tue, July 20, 2010 9:58 am
> To: "'Roberto Gaetano'" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx <//roberto@xxxxxxxxx>>, "'Tim
> Ruiz'"
> <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx <//tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Cc: "'Mike O'Connor'" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx <//mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>, <
> Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <//Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>>
>
>
>  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* <//owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> [*
> mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx* <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* <//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* <//owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> > [*mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx* <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*<//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* <//roberto@xxxxxxxxx>>
>
> > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:03 pm
>
> > To: "'Mike O'Connor'" <*mike@xxxxxxxxxx* <//mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>, <*
> Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx* <//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*<//owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> > > [*mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx*<owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>]
> On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
>
> > > Sent: Monday, 19 July 2010 23:00
>
> > > To: *Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx* <//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* <http://www.haven2.com/>
>
> > > handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
>
> > > Google, etc.)
>
> > >
>
> >
>
>
>