[governance] Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations]

Sun Feb 19 17:30:34 EST 2012

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
[You implied and insinuated through your comment that we did not indicate
how small a percentage of people answered the poll. I responded to say that
we advised that 20 people took part.]

>
>
> 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.
>

I did not to this as I am not debating that it is a small sample space.  I
responded to the insinuation of "dishonest".

>
> 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)?
>
> We trust that members on the list behave ethically and would only fill
this in once. We give them this benefit of the doubt. This is not the US
elections by the way, just a simple poll to assess what the general feel
was over the various themes that were discussed during the MAG Open
consultations. It is not meant to be relied on but serves to help us to see
how some of our members viewed the various themes.

>
>
>
> I think it is meaningless.  And to put it forward as having meaning is an
> error in my opinion.
>
> Everything to do with this poll remains an opinion and there is nothing
wrong with having a diversity of opinions.

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 false choices that you refer to are what was discussed during the MAG
open consultations that were floating around the Group Skype, pirate pad of
what others outside the IGC were putting forward. We added some choices
that members came up with.

> 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..
>
> I think you are making a mountain our of a molehill in this instance.

>
> 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.
>

You are free to post and we welcome your views. By the way I am editing the
Report to eliminate the conversation and we are not as pedantic as you
think we are.

>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120220/1b66fa98/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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