Difference between revisions of "Talk:Item 11"
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
4. Enter your name, because we would like to know the preferences of all who care to express this. | 4. Enter your name, because we would like to know the preferences of all who care to express this. | ||
| − | |||
---- | ---- | ||
| Line 20: | Line 19: | ||
4. Anibal Jodorcovsky | 4. Anibal Jodorcovsky | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | 1. Especially important is a clear process for CPs in terms of how ballots are issued and how comments are submitted. I suggest using the same process as for supplements but a shorter time for reponses (2 weeks rather than a month). Also, discussion of "no" votes and "yes" votes with comments is needed. We should all know what our vote means. Also, please consider the process for making available for public comment. Consider consistency it document format, headings, footings, title pages, etc. Document the process by which a document is released for public comment and released for Trial implementation. All of this is word of mouth from prior co-chairs which is not the best approach. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 2. Priority 3 | ||
| + | |||
| + | 3. We had a problem just recently and there were lots of "no" votes and "yes" votes with comments that needed to be processed. We made up the process as we went. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 4. Karen Witting - co-chair ITI tech | ||
Latest revision as of 11:27, 19 December 2006
Analysis Questionnaire:
1. Do you have any comments on the topic: the results, workbreakdown, etc.
2. What should be the priority of this topic? Enter a 0, 1, 2 or 3, and 3 is the highest priority.
3. Why do you give this ranking?
4. Enter your name, because we would like to know the preferences of all who care to express this.
1. No comments
2. Priority 2
3. Very important to have an open process. It seems that the whole TF and CP process is not as open as it would seem and only the usual suspects know the ins and out of the process and can easily contribute to it. Having it documented publicly will be great to have more people able to participate.
4. Anibal Jodorcovsky
1. Especially important is a clear process for CPs in terms of how ballots are issued and how comments are submitted. I suggest using the same process as for supplements but a shorter time for reponses (2 weeks rather than a month). Also, discussion of "no" votes and "yes" votes with comments is needed. We should all know what our vote means. Also, please consider the process for making available for public comment. Consider consistency it document format, headings, footings, title pages, etc. Document the process by which a document is released for public comment and released for Trial implementation. All of this is word of mouth from prior co-chairs which is not the best approach.
2. Priority 3
3. We had a problem just recently and there were lots of "no" votes and "yes" votes with comments that needed to be processed. We made up the process as we went.
4. Karen Witting - co-chair ITI tech