[wg-review] Re: [Work Plan] Let's just get it done

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Greg, 

I'm happy to hear that you liked the suggestion, and you're right, we don't need a title.  I agree, that the polls would be an excellent way to handle these 
issues.  The List can submit questions for consideration, as well as those framed by the co-ordinators for specific issues.  I'm also glad to hear that you're 
volunteering to  "take 3. constituencies, 4. GA,  7. Names Council, and 14.By Consensus."

Thanks Greg!  There may be some light at the end of this tunnel yet.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
         Hermes Network, Inc.
  

1/9/01 2:20:45 PM, Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com> wrote:

>On 11:41 AM 1/8/01, Sotiropoulos said:
>>We now have 7, I think, candidates left for the election for co-chair of 
>>this WG.  A thought crossed my mind which I'd like to share with the 
>>List.  How  about a revolving/delegated co-chair?  As we now have 14-15(?) 
>>issues to deal with and report, would it not be prudent to distribute the 
>>workload of  collating and directing discussion on each issue to all of 
>>the current candidates by allotting 2 of the issues to each of the current 
>>nominees.
>
>This was really a good suggestion. Unfortunately the candidate list seems 
>to keep dropping, but fortunately we don't need a title to do the work. I 
>like this a lot.
>
>One of the things we have to do is prepare the question responses for the 
>NC Review TF. What might work in a timely way would be for  different 
>people to select different areas - like you suggested you'd volunteer for 
>the [IDNH] and [DNDEF] issues coordination.
>
>As I recall, Philip has said that just a list of how many agree & how many 
>disagree with each question would be something he could work with. 
>Therefore, if each person who took on an area or two, turned their areas 
>into polls by way of pollcat.com, and published the urls for taking the 
>poll and viewing the results here, that could be provided pretty rapidly. 
>Text kind of answers require either a download or a manual check on each 
>question, so we could provide Philip with the pollcat account names and 
>passwords so that he could pull more detail out if he wanted it.
>
>This would do a several things - partially automate the summary process, 
>cut down on volume to the list, and provide a fast way for Philip to get 
>the answers he's been expecting.
>
>I'll volunteer to take 3. constituencies, 4. GA,  7. Names Council, and 14. 
>By Consensus.
>
>This leaves:
>
>  1. [Charter] Review Process Background and Charter Discussion
>  2. [Outreach and DNSO]
>  5. [Working Group]
>  6. [Secretariat]
>  8. [WG A, B, C and DNSO]
>  9. [DNSO Quality]
>10. 10. [The Board and DNSO]
>12. sTLDS
>
>
>
>Regards,
>Greg
>
>sidna@feedwriter.com
>
>
>
>



--
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