[governance] Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations]

[Avri Doria]

On 19 Feb 2012, at 14:04, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:

> 
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 

>> Two points:
>> 
>> - to not indicate how how small a percentage of people answered the poll in its documentation seems dishonest to me.
>>  
> It was mentioned in the report that 20 people participated. This is paragraph 3 of page 4 of the Report. Percentages revolve around this number. So if you see 10%,it simply means 10% of 20 which is 2. 


That is 10% of the subscribers to the list.  20 people of approx. 200 on the list.  That is what it should say in the document.
that is if you are sure only those subscribed to the list took the poll.

I find it hard to beleive you did not understand this point since I explicitely said:

>>> That is perhaps 10% of the IGF list population.

In the previous message you responded to.


>  
>> - for IGC to put out such information as somehow representing the view of IGC, puts IGC in a poor light.
> 
> There is nothing sinister and people are educated enough to know that it is only a sample space.

I did not say sinister - though I have nothing against left handed people, being one myself.  Putting words in other people's mouth is a frequent polemic (sometimes even considered slanderous) technique, but I deny these words.

i said it puts the IGC in a bad light.

>  
>> So I recommend editing the documentation and recommend against passing this on as anything other than the opinion of 20 self selected individuals.
>  
> The Survey was open to all the list and the list was invited to participate. People exercise their right to choose to participate. 
> 


In fact it was open to anyone who read the list or found out about the poll from someone else who read the list.  

Is there a way to know it was list participants who took the poll.  And that they took it just once?
And is there a way to know it was members (people who have accepted the charter)?

Also, in almost all cases, 24 hours is considered way too short for a poll to be valid.  For even rough consensus call, the charter calls for a 48 hour process:

"
When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the consensus decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty eight (48) hours of final discussion. As discussed under the role of the appeals team, a rough consensus call can be appealed to the appeals team.
"

I think it is meaningless.  And to put it forward as having meaning is an error in my opinion.

BTW, it we are going to restrict ourselves to the false choices that were put forward by the 2011 MAG, i agree with the choice made by most of the self selected group, but that is totally beside the point.  The IGC, if it wants to have a respected voice, has to behave seriously and has to not pretend to have caucus support when there is no way of knowing whether it has caucus support or not..


avri

Note: I should probably stop responding to your messages on this topic, next thing I know I will be accused of breaking the rule about repetitive posting.


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t