Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] - informal snap poll

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 09:43 PM 12/28/00, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
>Interesting attempt at polling, but many of the questions really only allow
>for binary choices for answers.

Interesting observation, since only the first question requires only a "yes 
or no" answer. Have you looked at the actual poll, and compared it to the 
questions we're supposed to be looking at for our report? I think the poll 
does a far better job of allowing for a range of answers than the board 
questions do, but I'm no doubt biased :)

>  I am not sure who drafted the questions for the informal poll,

I drafted it as a snapshot poll to see where the group is at currently, and 
as a quick method for seeing where major agreement and major disagreement 
occur. I am not trained in polling, but I have extensive experience in 
consensus process - take it for what you will.

>  but the yes/no questions in this poll will lead to
>unreliable results.

See above. The first question is a question about philosophy of structure, 
not a question about specifics.

>The first question, for instance, requests that the respondent provide an up
>or down on whether the current constituency structure of the DNSO is
>functional.

No, it doesn't. It asks if a constituency structure is a functional method. 
If I'd wanted to ask about the current constituency structure, I would have 
been specific. I think you misread the question :) If so, you're not the 
only one - someone else has too, but they misread it because they thought 
of "constituency" in a wider sense than the type of constituency provided 
by the bylaws.

>If I answered yes, I might still agree with those who answered
>no...that the structure needs change. Hence, the first question will tell us
>nothing about what we really need to know and, in fact, might produce
>misleading results.  Functionality is a very low threshold.

Actually, almost all respondents so far have indicated that the structure 
needs change, regardless of their answer to the first question.

>In fact, I think it is difficult to argue that the current structure of 
>the DNSO does
>not perform some useful subgrouping function (if that is what is meant by
>functional).

Almost half the respondents have answered that it isn't a functional 
methodology, so others don't seem to have that problem.

>  In addition, many of the questions ask about the performance of all of the
>constituencies, which I doubt any respondent can answer with first hand
>knowledge.

I agree with you. Perhaps you should also read the board questions from the 
board on which I based this, compare it to the way I phrased them, and then 
critique from that?


Regards,
Greg

sidna@feedwriter.com