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