I strongly agree with a direct and non confusing question in EVERY poll as well as with a cleaner & clearer design in the ballot. Regards Vanda via webmail
The Bigpulse page for an ALAS vote currently looks like this:
1. Should the regional advise from NARALO for applicant (114) Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities (FBSC) be rejected? The regional advise was to accept the application. Voting "No" means that you would like to accept this application.
__ No 100% __ Yes No votes
(with the 100% and "No votes" in a smaller, non-bold font)
I understand how we got here, but I have a very strong feeling that voting NO to accept an ALAS (that is, voting No to "not reject") is both counter intuitive and bad grammar!
Can we please schedule a SHORT discussion in Cairo to decide if I am in a minority, or if we should reverse the wording. That is, to vote on deciding to admit or not, with the regional advice CLEARLY being shown at the top of the poll.
Voting on whether to ACCEPT the regional advice would be a LITTLE clearer, but I still prefer voting on whether to accept the ALS.
Alan
PS I also find the sequence of Yes No on the second line less then clear. As stated before, I would prefer to not see the voting summary in this screen, but to be able to, at the click of a button, to see who voted and how.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 vanda wrote:
I strongly agree with a direct and non confusing question in EVERY poll as well as with a cleaner & clearer design in the ballot.
I thought this was settled. :-P What is wrong with doing (for all such votes): Regional advice for ALS application #123 (Name of Org) was to ACCEPT. Do you: __ Accept the application __ Reject the application __ Defer the application Why must this be so complex? (The "defer" choice allows an application to be sent back to the applicant or RALO for clarification.) - - Evan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI4+10B6WWYxnsgmwRAnnxAJ9Ksu3F3oieNDPXXGaqkUGau/BOTwCcDL00 IezaQs9uW0Gqrr6xNbu0zBE= =XcMA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
At 01/10/2008 05:36 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
vanda wrote:
I strongly agree with a direct and non confusing question in EVERY poll as well as with a cleaner & clearer design in the ballot.
I thought this was settled. :-P What is wrong with doing (for all such votes):
Regional advice for ALS application #123 (Name of Org) was to ACCEPT. Do you: __ Accept the application __ Reject the application __ Defer the application
Why must this be so complex?
(The "defer" choice allows an application to be sent back to the applicant or RALO for clarification.)
- - Evan
For historic reasons, we (or someone) decided on double and triple negatives. Perhaps we will change that. Alan
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Evan Leibovitch -
vanda