On 17 May 2010, at 15:24 , Marshall Eubanks wrote: >> I will NOT be modifying the statement wording during this poll. > > That's fine, but ...
It is simply a matter of practicality. If the statements are modified in the middle of the poll, then it is impossible to know how folks who voted before the modification feel about the revised statement. > - there is one statement of belief, where who is doing the believing is not > specified. They are all statements of belief (or disbelief) by the individual voting. Whoever votes YES believes in the statement. Folks who vote NO do not believe in the statement. > - there are 2 statements about RG consensus (or not) It is a vote about the idea, not about the existence of consensus. People who vote YES agree with the statement's idea, while those who disagree with the statement vote NO. (At the end, one hopes it will be clear whether the "consensus" part of the statement was true or false. :-) > - there is one statement of fact (or not) and They are all opinion/belief, as near as I can tell. (I will be startled if this group can agree unanimously on anything, including whether the Sun will rise tomorrow. :-) > so they should not be compared against each other. Agree. Each should be voted on individually. > Also, I do not think that #1 is well posed as written, and "voted" against > it, even though I have no doubt > that there are people who believe it, because I am also sure that there are > people who do not believe it. One should vote how one chooses to. :-) However, whether the RG had a unanimous opinion wasn't really the question on the table. The RG does not have a unanimous opinion about anything, AFAICT. The question was whether the voter personally agreed with the idea in the statement (or disagreed), just as with my prior straw poll. Cheers, _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
