Re: Reminder: Poll about restructuring options

avri@psg.com Tue, 28 September 2004 18:30 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10229; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:30:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CCMrr-000724-5F; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:38:28 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CCMZk-0000p9-Qt; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:19:44 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CCMRV-0007wP-SD for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:11:13 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08857 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:11:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: avri@psg.com
Received: from tla.crepundia.net ([194.71.127.149] helo=report.tla-group.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CCMZM-0006Z0-W0 for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:19:22 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (report.tla-group.com [194.71.127.149]) by report.tla-group.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id i8SHoMep008265 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:50:23 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
In-Reply-To: <200492894121.406856@bbprime>
References: <200492894121.406856@bbprime>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <C5EE5DFB-1179-11D9-ACC2-000393CC2112@psg.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:11:09 -0400
To: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619)
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Reminder: Poll about restructuring options
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

While I agree that the poll should have provided more options, such as:
   - neither 0 nor c
   - indifferent
   - need more info/discussion

The fact that it does include a box for comments mitigates the absence 
somewhat.  Especially if in reporting the results, the comments are 
included as well (without attribution).

But yes, a poll needs better design for full validity.

a.

On 28 sep 2004, at 12.41, Dave Crocker wrote:

> It is very unlikely that there is any language on this planet
> that would equate ""No, I do not wish to state an opinion" with
> "I wish to state an opinion but you have no provided a category
> that covers my opinion".
>
> What is normal for surveys that wish to represent the responses
> of those who are not represented by the provided categories is
> "none of the above".  And there is no language on this planet
> that would equate "none of the above" with "No, I do not wish to
> state an opinion".
>
> More generally, you should review John Klensin's brief comments
> on this thread.  Your response to him suggests that you did not
> understand his point.


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf