Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] REVISED Proposal-support poll

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Unfortunately, it is apparent that anything in our space that can be gamed, 
will be gamed.  No doubt.  

On Jun 11, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> 
> I just thought of the latest contentious issue, .XXX and the comment stuffing 
> that went on and what a stain it was on the process.
> I do not believe that this group would resort to that  and for the record, 
> Tim brought it up first :-)
> 
> Jeff Eckhaus 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Fri Jun 11 15:33:57 2010
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] REVISED Proposal-support poll
> 
> 
> hi,
> 
> ok with me.  
> 
> interesting that you immediately think of stuffing the ballot box though.  
> never occurred to me.  the people who were going to take the poll were 
> actually against CAM and would have used their names so you would have known 
> who they were.
> 
> but they asked, so i asked.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 11 Jun 2010, at 18:25, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
>> I object. It would make the poll meaningless. There would be no way to 
>> confirm who is who. But if we go that route I'd like a day or two notice so 
>> I can get the word out to all of our staff :)
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:05:57 
>> To: Avri Doria<avri@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] REVISED Proposal-support poll
>> 
>> 
>> as your co-chair and scribe, i don't have any objection to others taking the 
>> poll.  but it would make my life a lot easier if they indicated that they 
>> are not WG members when they fill out their entry so i can tell who is who 
>> when i summarize the poll.  i admit, i worry a little bit about craziness 
>> and pranks, but i'm willing to wait and cross that bridge if we come to it.
>> 
>> Roberto?  you have any thoughts either way on this?
>> 
>> mikey
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 11, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> that is what I have assumed it meant all along. 
>>> silly me.
>>> 
>>> of course doodle only has 3 states as far as i know.
>>> 
>>> by the way any objection to people not on the VI list, but who have been 
>>> following,  taking the poll?
>>> 
>>> Also we have more than 25 members on the VI list.  where are the others?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> a.
>>> 
>>> On 11 Jun 2010, at 16:04, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Too late now, but in retrospect, a fourth option of "I could accept this 
>>>> WITH some modification" might have been interesting. I would have included 
>>>> JN2 in that category, as an example.
>>>> 
>>>> Alan
>>>> 
>>>> At 10/06/2010 04:39 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> i so horked up the poll i decided to redo it.  same URL, but i deleted 
>>>>> the 4 answers that were there -- so please revisit the poll if you filled 
>>>>> it out.  apologies for that.
>>>>> 
>>>>>    http://www.doodle.com/3pzabi8d9frrpvb7
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> mikey
>>>>> - - - - - - - - -
>>>>> phone   651-647-6109
>>>>> fax             866-280-2356
>>>>> web     www.haven2.com
>>>>> handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, 
>>>>> etc.)
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> - - - - - - - - -
>> phone        651-647-6109  
>> fax                  866-280-2356  
>> web  www.haven2.com
>> handle       OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 
>> Google, etc.)
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>