This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
When reviewing the results of a straw poll, it's often essential, when assessing the state of agreement, to know the difference between: a) They care a lot but their opinion has already been expressed better than they think they can b) they really don't care c) They think they might care but haven't had time to decide 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. I think everyone who isn't (d) should respond to the sraw polls, even if to say (a) or (b) or (c). 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. 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. 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.
(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
> 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. but http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0344.html says > I encourage more of it, though the normal caveats apply: I would prefer > that we avoid repetition and "me too"'s, and would prefer to keep meta > discussion to a minimum, in separate threads, and ideally off list. So what is the proper venue for expressing "me too"'s, i.e., agreement with a previously expressed opinion? (more replies to other points to come)
(In reply to comment #2) > > 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. > > but > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0344.html > > says > > > I encourage more of it, though the normal caveats apply: I would prefer > > that we avoid repetition and "me too"'s, and would prefer to keep meta > > discussion to a minimum, in separate threads, and ideally off list. > > So what is the proper venue for expressing "me too"'s, i.e., agreement with a > previously expressed opinion? > > (more replies to other points to come) A wiki page would be a fine place to capture "me too"'s. At the present time, I don't see any point in the process where I would take that into consideration, but if others view this information as *essential*, then they are welcome to organize and pursue it. Brief and infrequent mentions and summaries on public-html would be fine.
So the "straw poll" isn't a straw poll in any common sense of the word, the voting rules are not part of the record, people are discouraged from "me too" indications in any venue except a wiki that doesn't exist. There is no place where one can get any sense of the leanings of working group members, since there are no other polls.
(In reply to comment #4) http://www.w3.org/html/wg/ contains the address of the wiki.