Re: [wg-review] Preliminary Report - Consensus

[Bret Busby <bret@clearsol.iinet.net.au>]

Sotiropoulos wrote:
> 
> 1/16/01 1:39:10 PM, Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com> wrote:
> 
> >Questions that keeps coming up for me are:
> >How do we get more people to participate in such polls?
> 
> That's easy, make it a "work group" condition.  The purpose of a wg is to gather input for an output.  If people show up and don't offer any kind of input,
> what is their purpose in being there? as a head count?  What sort of work is supposed to go on here? non-work?  How do we measure work? input and
> outpout.  It happens every day in the real world.  people have a job, they got to work at a certain time;  their employers pay them for their input because
> they expect to make a profit on the output.  What's the problem here?

Here we go again. 

If voting is compulsory (so much for the freedom of choice), then, there
must always be extra options on each poll; "None of the above", "I don't
understand the question", "I don't understand the situation", "I don't
understand the voting method", "I object to the voting method", "I
object to/disagree with the wording of the question, as it is not
objectively worded", etc. The inclusion of such questions, would clarify
the results of any poll result, and, would be all essential, if voting
in polls is to be made mandatory

As was previously raised, regarding the election for the "co-chair", I
did not vote, in part, due to the method of voting. Thus, I could not
vote.

The insistence, that a person who does not vote on a particular matter,
be it an election, or, on a question, is not contributing, is completely
wrong.

I did not vote in the election of the "co-chair", and, I explained, on
request, my reasons. Yet, the contention is made, that, because I did
not vote, I have not contributed anything, and, have remained silent. I
believe that my postings refute that. 

Such contentions serve only to disenfranchise contributors, and, may
have resulted in some of the members leaving.

Thus, I again take issue, with the contentions of the poster above,
regarding not voting in polls.

> 
> >How can we consistently frame questions and statements for polling in the
> >cleanest, least-slanted way?
> 
> An elected Polling Committee should be established.
> 

Such a committee would slow the process further. It is just a matter of
wording questions objectively, clearly, and, unambigously. Simple.

-- 

Bret Busby

Armadale, West Australia

......................................
"So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the
answer means."
 - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 - Douglas Adams, 1988 
......................................
--
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