Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Poll -- NEW ONE -- looking at "atoms" this time

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Milton, 

Both you and I know that the argument against including the straw polls in any 
report has nothing to do with where each proposal faired, but rather because 
each and every one of them was so flawed WG members across the board weighed in 
with questions and doubts.  Please go back and re-read the comments on the 
list. While you appear to revel in adding more divisiveness to the issues, 
fomenting distrust within the WG where it is well-known that the polls. were 
solely meant to serve a simple purpose.  It would serve everyone better if you 
could try to respect the fact that many on this list are adding their voices to 
the debate with genuine concerns rather than continuing to try to exploit 
other's posts to serve your ends.    

RA 

________________________________________
Ron Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.rnapartners.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:41:58 
To: Ken Stubbs<kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Anthony Harris<harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 
gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Poll -- NEW ONE -- looking at "atoms" this time


I wish to express my view that the poll results should be used - they are an 
accurate reflection of the level of support enjoyed by various proposals. 
It would be a travesty to withhold this information from the report, and if 
that happens then I and others will make a public issue of it, 
It seems rather obvious to me at least that people whose proposals didn't do as 
well as expected are the ones calling fro suppressing the results of the poll

--MM
________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Ken Stubbs [kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 4:22 AM
To: Anthony Harris
Cc: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Poll -- NEW ONE -- looking at "atoms" this time

Ken Stubbs wrote:

I have the same concerns...


On 6/15/2010 11:28 AM, Anthony Harris wrote:
>
> I agree with Tim's suggestion.
>
> Tony Harris
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 11:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Poll -- NEW ONE -- looking at "atoms"
> this time
>
>
>>
>> I'm concerned abt how these polls will be used in the report. I agree
>> with Kathy abt the value of the matrix and its use in the report, but
>> these polls are confusing.
>>
>> I will try to get to the current poll later this week (traveling a
>> lot until Friday), but suggest that the poll results not be used in
>> the report to Council.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> ------Original Message------
>> From: Mike O'Connor
>> Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> To: Avri Doria
>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Poll -- NEW ONE -- looking at "atoms"
>> this time
>> Sent: Jun 14, 2010 2:28 PM
>>
>>
>> hi all,
>>
>> we had a pretty lively conversation on the call about the new poll
>> and concluded that we need a redo that makes the choices/answers
>> easier to understand.  Doodle seems to be at it's limit.  so i've
>> closed the Doodle one and will push a new one (probably SurveyMonkey
>> based, since i've got an account) Real Soon Now.
>>
>> 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.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>