[Bug 9729] Straw poll method hides or discourages gathering essential information

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9729





--- Comment #1 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>  2010-05-13 23:34:22 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> When reviewing the results of a straw poll, it's often essential,
> when assessing the state of agreement, to know the difference
> between:

The survey is an aide to assist the co-chairs in managing dissent:

http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#managing-dissent

In particular, the goal of co-chairs is to select the proposals that creates
the weakest objections.

> a)  They care a lot but their opinion has already been expressed better
>    than they think they can

You are asserting that the above information is essential to selecting the
proposal that creates the weakest objections.  Can you substantiate your claim?

> b) they really don't care

You are asserting that the above information is essential to selecting the
proposal that creates the weakest objections.  Can you substantiate your claim?

> c) They think they might care but haven't had time to decide

You are asserting that the above information is essential to selecting the
proposal that creates the weakest objections.  Can you substantiate your claim?

> d)  They're not really following the working group
> 
> The current survey methodology doesn't allow an observer
> to distinguish between these states -- in all of these cases,
> people  are discouraged from expressing any opinion at all.

We have a venue for discussion where people can, and do, state what they are
for and what they oppose.  From that we have a process that culls out from that
discussion concrete and actionable proposals.  From that, we solicit objections
to those proposals.  At no point are people discouraged from expressing their
opinion -- on the proper venue.

> I think everyone who isn't (d) should respond to the sraw polls,
> even if to say (a) or (b) or (c).

I think everybody should participate in the discussions on the mailing list.  I
think everybody should collaborate on creating concrete proposals.  I think
everybody who has an objection should state such.

I do NOT believe that everybody should use every possible venue to do all
three.

> As long as the responses are brief, there shouldn't be any downside to
> gathering more information from everyone. Right now the chairs are telling
> people if they respond with (a) (b) or (c) that their answer
> will be IGNORED, which doesn't actually make sense because the
> results are public and they may or may not be IGNORED by the
> chairs.

We have ample, and specific, evidence of downsides:

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-76-objection-poll/results

> This information should also help the chairs be more neutral
> in deciding whether they think an argument is "strong", because
> it allows individuals to indicate in situation (a) how much
> they agree or disagree.

If you have evidence of the chairs not being neutral, I encourage you to bring
such evidence to the attention of the Interaction Domain Leader.

> This would be much better than relying on the chair(s) to decide
> whether they personally think an argument is "strong", because of
> course, different people are moved by different kinds of arguments,
> agree or disagree with assumptions, etc.

If you believe that the W3C policies for managing dissent need to be revised, I
encourage you to bring that to the attention of the AC.

http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#managing-dissent

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 13 May 2010 23:34:24 UTC