Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal C - correction

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

Thanks for your constructive response, Ken. I appreciate hearing your 
suggestion now, rather than later when there would be no time to modify it.

At 08:47 AM 1/2/01, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>the poll would be significantly more informative and useful if we knew what
>constituancies the voters represented.

Agreed. However, I believe the same or similar questions were directed to 
the constituencies as well as this WG. Is there any chance of that material 
coming from the constituencies?

>it would be quite troublesome if it ended up that 80 -90 % of the voters
>were members of just 1 or 2 constituancies yet their impressions of the
>effectiveness of their own constituancy were "blanketly attributed" to all
>current constituancies

Please remember that not all members of this WG are members of 
constituencies. It's also conceivable that 80% of the votes are coming from 
GA members who have no other means of communicating their opinion in 
something resembling a formal methodology.

Beyond that, some of the questions don't really need a constituency slant 
on them. For example, there is 1 response that individuals should not have 
a constituency, and 18 that they should. What constituency someone already 
belongs to is irrelevant in this case.

Perhaps the best way to handle this would be to do another poll, and 
separate the questions along the following lines: Instead of

8. Are the constituencies adequately representing the intended members?

approaching it as

8a. Overall, are constituencies adequately representing the intended members?
8b. Are the constituencies that you belong to adequately representing the 
intended members?

and adding a question about which constituencies the respondent belongs to.

If there is interest in this approach, I'll put one together in that 
format, or any other suggested one.

Regards,
Greg

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html