RE: [wg-review] work - Standardized Procedures

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Thank you Luca. I now know why I have been sitting on the fence.

I agree that both summaries and voting are valuable parts of the process and
neither should be sacrificed to the other.

Without voting, a summary could be viewed as an individual's report (hence
the criticism leveled RTF Report) and if the group were to swell suddenly to
previous numbers, claims that the report represents the views of all
interested persons could be disputed. Summarization without voting doesn't
scale for large groups where it can be difficult to determine consensus
using only comments posted to the list.

Equally, I do not disagree with the opposing viewpoint that a WG comprised
of fewer than 20 people can uncover consensus by other working methods and
where the requirement to vote could be limited to the ratification of
documents it proposes to publish, in the same way that the NC and the BoD
would take a vote to approve the draft minutes of a meeting.

Therefore, while I'd like to see a formal vote on the final draft of any
document produced by this WG, in the interests of flexibility, I will
support the preparation of documents without formal voting as part of the
writer(s) procedure.

If it is decided to drop voting at this stage, it will be important to keep
tabs on the numbers of subscribers to the list. Could this be done as part
of standardized procedures on a weekly basis? And what is the minimum number
of subscribers that would require voting procedures to be re-introduced?

Regards,
Joanna


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Luca Muscarà
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 9:40 PM
To: Greg Burton; wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] work


Greg Burton wrote:

Voting - I think you, bukko, and Gene Marsh, so far
Summarization - Marilyn and Kent.

Not sure about Phil King - Phil, should I count you in favor of both? :)


Actually just before I read this, I was thinking I'm in favour of both,
after
observing my own ability to follow this group.
I found both means very useful, but at different times: voting when I'm
focused on a topic in order to allow fast expression of my position and
check
out others' (not as fastly though) ;
and reading summaries in order to catch up, when I'm late to find the
point...

Luca Muscarà

--
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

--
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