Re: [ALAC] Suggested revision of At-Large Policy Development template
We have again had a problem with the original comment being changed without clear notice and causing confusion. I have investigated whether Maureen suggestion is possible (have additional DRAFT boxes be added as needed) and found that this is not practical for a number of reasons (a) it would have to be done by staff since non-staff do not have the privileges to alter these macros; b) few staff have the skills; c) having specific staff do it on a tight time-frame is not practical). In light of that, I have instructed that staff modify the pages to give clear instructions for what can be done without extensive training or staff time to address the issue. Alan At 01/02/2018 11:07 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
This happens relatively infrequently. Why create a new process that requires staff intervention when simply stacking the version in the box now called DRAFT(s) will do. And it allows for more than two version is required?
At 01/02/2018 09:54 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
But as Holly said, sometimes you just need another space to reorganise your thoughts before it becomes the final draft... although sometimes it ends up as the final draft..
But you are only currently given 2 options, first and final..
There should be two boxes to start off with, and the penholder can ask for another one if required as a transition section before the final statement . But it should be highlighted in another colour what changes have been made.
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: When I was drafting more statements, I also would often post my "first draft" in the comment area and move it up if it had general acceptance. But there will always be cases where there are multiple draft versions posted and I was trying to find a really easy path for doing that without losing history along the way. Having staff create new boxes along the ways seems likea much more challenging way to address the problem... Alan At 01/02/2018 04:33 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
I think there is room for having personal comments remaining at the bottom of the wiki page, but drafts of the statement should be able to be inserted as they develop. It might mean teaching penholders how to create these boxes for new drafts or asking the new policy support staff person to create one for them.
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Holly Raiche <<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net> h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote: Makes sense to me. When I died to post a âfirirst draftâ of f the privacy stuff, I couldnât, and so put stuff in tn the âcomment⠬⢠space. While that whole wiki reflects pretty much what the discussion was, it doesnât follow the concept of firfirst and final draft Holly On 2 Feb 2018, at 6:40 am, Maureen Hilyard <<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Sounds good to me because when you don't see the developments as new contributions are incorporated into the statements, it may seem as if its only just been ONE or only a few contributors Some statements go through several transitions. M On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:42 AM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: It has been pointed out to me that the template we use has a space for "First Draft" and then "Final Draft". This works for issues that do not generate a lot of dialogue and revision of the statement. For such statements, there is no specific place to post the revised version(s). Simply changing the first draft does not really work, because then we are left with Wiki comments on that draft that refer back to something that s no longer there (unless you go to the trouble of finding the correct earlier version). I suggest that we change the title from "FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED" to "DRAFT STATEMENTS" and add instructions saying that if multiple draft versions are posted, old versions should remain, with the newer version posted at the top of the box, prefixed with the date posted and author, and separated from earlier versions by a horizontal line. That way we have a full history of the draft evolution. Does anyone see a reason not to do this? Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
Folks I would hope this becomes an item for the revised policy committee. We do need a better way to handle statements when there are numerous comments - particularly when there is disagreement amongst them Holly On 11 May 2018, at 4:37 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
We have again had a problem with the original comment being changed without clear notice and causing confusion.
I have investigated whether Maureen suggestion is possible (have additional DRAFT boxes be added as needed) and found that this is not practical for a number of reasons (a) it would have to be done by staff since non-staff do not have the privileges to alter these macros; b) few staff have the skills; c) having specific staff do it on a tight time-frame is not practical). In light of that, I have instructed that staff modify the pages to give clear instructions for what can be done without extensive training or staff time to address the issue.
Alan
At 01/02/2018 11:07 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
This happens relatively infrequently. Why create a new process that requires staff intervention when simply stacking the version in the box now called DRAFT(s) will do. And it allows for more than two version is required?
At 01/02/2018 09:54 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
But as Holly said, sometimes you just need another space to reorganise your thoughts before it becomes the final draft... although sometimes it ends up as the final draft..
But you are only currently given 2 options, first and final..
There should be two boxes to start off with, and the penholder can ask for another one if required as a transition section before the final statement . But it should be highlighted in another colour what changes have been made.
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: When I was drafting more statements, I also would often post my "first draft" in the comment area and move it up if it had general acceptance. But there will always be cases where there are multiple draft versions posted and I was trying to find a really easy path for doing that without losing history along the way. Having staff create new boxes along the ways seems likea much more challenging way to address the problem... Alan At 01/02/2018 04:33 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
I think there is room for having personal comments remaining at the bottom of the wiki page, but drafts of the statement should be able to be inserted as they develop. It might mean teaching penholders how to create these boxes for new drafts or asking the new policy support staff person to create one for them.
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Holly Raiche < h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote: Makes sense to me. When I died to post a ‘firirst draft’ of f the privacy stuff, I couldn’t, and so put stuff in tn the ‘comment’ ¬â„¢ space. While that whole wiki reflects pretty much what the discussion was, it doesn’t follow the concept of firfirst and final draft Holly On 2 Feb 2018, at 6:40 am, Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Sounds good to me because when you don't see the developments as new contributions are incorporated into the statements, it may seem as if its only just been ONE or only a few contributors Some statements go through several transitions. M On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:42 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: It has been pointed out to me that the template we use has a space for "First Draft" and then "Final Draft". This works for issues that do not generate a lot of dialogue and revision of the statement. For such statements, there is no specific place to post the revised version(s). Simply changing the first draft does not really work, because then we are left with Wiki comments on that draft that refer back to something that s no longer there (unless you go to the trouble of finding the correct earlier version). I suggest that we change the title from "FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED" to "DRAFT STATEMENTS" and add instructions saying that if multiple draft versions are posted, old versions should remain, with the newer version posted at the top of the box, prefixed with the date posted and author, and separated from earlier versions by a horizontal line. That way we have a full history of the draft evolution. Does anyone see a reason not to do this? Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
We may well need a better process to handle issues where there are differeing opinions. To be honest, at times we have not had sufficient differeing opinions for that to matter, so if we do have such a situation now, I find it rather refreshing. But to be clear, the change documented here is just to better track revised drafts as they come up, not necessarily due to differing opinions (although there was a bit of that here). ALan At 12/05/2018 09:33 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Folks
I would hope this becomes an item for the revised policy committee. We do need a better way to handle statements when there are numerous comments - particularly when there is disagreement amongst them
Holly On 11 May 2018, at 4:37 am, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
We have again had a problem with the original comment being changed without clear notice and causing confusion.
I have investigated whether Maureen suggestion is possible (have additional DRAFT boxes be added as needed) and found that this is not practical for a number of reasons (a) it would have to be done by staff since non-staff do not have the privileges to alter these macros; b) few staff have the skills; c) having specific staff do it on a tight time-frame is not practical). In light of that, I have instructed that staff modify the pages to give clear instructions for what can be done without extensive training or staff time to address the issue.
Alan
At 01/02/2018 11:07 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
This happens relatively infrequently. Why create a new process that requires staff intervention when simply stacking the version in the box now called DRAFT(s) will do. And it allows for more than two version is required?
At 01/02/2018 09:54 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
But as Holly said, sometimes you just need another space to reorganise your thoughts before it becomes the final draft... although sometimes it ends up as the final draft..
But you are only currently given 2 options, first and final..
There should be two boxes to start off with, and the penholder can ask for another one if required as a transition section before the final statement . But it should be highlighted in another colour what changes have been made.
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: When I was drafting more statements, I also would often post my "first draft" in the comment area and move it up if it had general acceptance. But there will always be cases where there are multiple draft versions posted and I was trying to find a really easy path for doing that without losing history along the way. Having staff create new boxes along the ways seems likea much more challenging way to address the problem... Alan At 01/02/2018 04:33 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
I think there is room for having personal comments remaining at the bottom of the wiki page, but drafts of the statement should be able to be inserted as they develop. It might mean teaching penholders how to create these boxes for new drafts or asking the new policy support staff person to create one for them.
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Holly Raiche <<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net> h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote: Makes sense to me. When I died to post a âfirirst draftâ of f the privacy stuff, I couldnât, and so put stuff in tn the âcomment⠬⢠space. While that whole wiki reflects pretty much what the discussion was, it doesnât follow the concept of firfirst and final draft Holly On 2 Feb 2018, at 6:40 am, Maureen Hilyard <<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Sounds good to me because when you don't see the developments as new contributions are incorporated into the statements, it may seem as if its only just been ONE or only a few contributors Some statements go through several transitions. M On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:42 AM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: It has been pointed out to me that the template we use has a space for "First Draft" and then "Final Draft". This works for issues that do not generate a lot of dialogue and revision of the statement. For such statements, there is no specific place to post the revised version(s). Simply changing the first draft does not really work, because then we are left with Wiki comments on that draft that refer back to something that s no longer there (unless you go to the trouble of finding the correct earlier version). I suggest that we change the title from "FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED" to "DRAFT STATEMENTS" and add instructions saying that if multiple draft versions are posted, old versions should remain, with the newer version posted at the top of the box, prefixed with the date posted and author, and separated from earlier versions by a horizontal line. That way we have a full history of the draft evolution. Does anyone see a reason not to do this? Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;YTOPR01MB0396;27:QYr8Y9Ox0YnsrsnLZjDWsvZ24tyPxMo1skhm2PbqDCXszxoCKcOJxg8nvSym6NFkHpKSeHPYKi1afUXKrDFOtIgsNFsh/KhqaKE6pChO+bsVU0JLM0Tx47NkPtRrtCIM X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info:
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
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
There was a time when despite putting out numerous calls to At-Large/ALAC for responses for public comment, there was nil response. so that the fact we are getting comments at all is a refreshing change. On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
We may well need a better process to handle issues where there are differeing opinions. To be honest, at times we have not had sufficient differeing opinions for that to matter, so if we do have such a situation now, I find it rather refreshing.
But to be clear, the change documented here is just to better track revised drafts as they come up, not necessarily due to differing opinions (although there was a bit of that here).
ALan
At 12/05/2018 09:33 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Folks
I would hope this becomes an item for the revised policy committee. We do need a better way to handle statements when there are numerous comments - particularly when there is disagreement amongst them
Holly On 11 May 2018, at 4:37 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote:
We have again had a problem with the original comment being changed without clear notice and causing confusion.
I have investigated whether Maureen suggestion is possible (have additional DRAFT boxes be added as needed) and found that this is not practical for a number of reasons (a) it would have to be done by staff since non-staff do not have the privileges to alter these macros; b) few staff have the skills; c) having specific staff do it on a tight time-frame is not practical). In light of that, I have instructed that staff modify the pages to give clear instructions for what can be done without extensive training or staff time to address the issue.
Alan
At 01/02/2018 11:07 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
This happens relatively infrequently. Why create a new process that requires staff intervention when simply stacking the version in the box now called DRAFT(s) will do. And it allows for more than two version is required?
At 01/02/2018 09:54 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
But as Holly said, sometimes you just need another space to reorganise your thoughts before it becomes the final draft... although sometimes it ends up as the final draft..
But you are only currently given 2 options, first and final..
There should be two boxes to start off with, and the penholder can ask for another one if required as a transition section before the final statement . But it should be highlighted in another colour what changes have been made.
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote: When I was drafting more statements, I also would often post my "first draft" in the comment area and move it up if it had general acceptance. But there will always be cases where there are multiple draft versions posted and I was trying to find a really easy path for doing that without losing history along the way. Having staff create new boxes along the ways seems likea much more challenging way to address the problem... Alan At 01/02/2018 04:33 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
I think there is room for having personal comments remaining at the bottom of the wiki page, but drafts of the statement should be able to be inserted as they develop. It might mean teaching penholders how to create these boxes for new drafts or asking the new policy support staff person to create one for them.
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Holly Raiche < h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote: Makes sense to me. When I died to post a ‘firirst draft’ of f the privacy stuff, I couldn’t, and so put stuff in tn the ‘comment’ ¬â„¢ space. While that whole wiki reflects pretty much what the discussion was, it doesn’t follow the concept of firfirst and final draft Holly On 2 Feb 2018, at 6:40 am, Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Sounds good to me because when you don't see the developments as new contributions are incorporated into the statements, it may seem as if its only just been ONE or only a few contributors Some statements go through several transitions. M On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:42 AM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: It has been pointed out to me that the template we use has a space for "First Draft" and then "Final Draft". This works for issues that do not generate a lot of dialogue and revision of the statement. For such statements, there is no specific place to post the revised version(s). Simply changing the first draft does not really work, because then we are left with Wiki comments on that draft that refer back to something that s no longer there (unless you go to the trouble of finding the correct earlier version). I suggest that we change the title from "FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED" to "DRAFT STATEMENTS" and add instructions saying that if multiple draft versions are posted, old versions should remain, with the newer version posted at the top of the box, prefixed with the date posted and author, and separated from earlier versions by a horizontal line. That way we have a full history of the draft evolution. Does anyone see a reason not to do this? Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;YTOPR01MB0396;27:QYr8Y9Ox0YnsrsnLZjDWsvZ24tyPxM o1skhm2PbqDCXszxoCKcOJxg8nvSym6NFkHpKSeHPYKi1afUXKrDFOtIgsNF sh/KhqaKE6pChO+bsVU0JLM0Tx47NkPtRrtCIM X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: zKcJgtPuDrOZXbyI1AFtP2eCObowbrVu4NYpwW6xPWkfmI0UMO839TB68R6E FCurwV+A+kvpZdOkYMpo3zTI3D7DsnpN9MDu6c6uTD+rt0ElpX2RXrSbKVlxsM4vWrsk3BDMa 2/4NSb64qRKptB+8Sy4+uox7BdwG4ABFK4Is4+cwlT6iUOH7j2SOnBKApC58thT7ONnu NunL3YFIafjk3S68enquutjJGf0uCVcjYW7XTxk3hQn9k6zVinNmy5ro1Hd+ ktcHglaz1jwbdYAGy2jhj4J86keZs6FqzkCsMpKDgFjz9jjUs8lGxbH4YMLu RhUmqucPB7oLDPrdla0AIvNniOGQj+tmmLuNAXusp9J7tKaeJMwvPNKH9pJI RJjse8OBvCdQfCAs6jpfa/UB+a18Yg7PNnBfOvnf0+ctwKk6/ tfLPZEHqK3plKQxwpAkdlSv35KQq+QL9rS01SeX8pzoNn6qCdrq3B/ Bu5apX+7Up/7Q8FmQiEuHMjay2B1
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC ) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
This was never an elegant solution but I assumed that enough of us agreed it was better than the status quo. Therefore, its perhaps a case of us ALAC members needing to remember to implement it when we have meaningfully divergent views rather than having multiple staff members trained in the ancient art of wiki-fu. == Bart From: Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 2:44 PM To: ALAC Cc: ALAC Subject: Re: [ALAC] Suggested revision of At-Large Policy Development template We have again had a problem with the original comment being changed without clear notice and causing confusion. I have investigated whether Maureen suggestion is possible (have additional DRAFT boxes be added as needed) and found that this is not practical for a number of reasons (a) it would have to be done by staff since non-staff do not have the privileges to alter these macros; b) few staff have the skills; c) having specific staff do it on a tight time-frame is not practical). In light of that, I have instructed that staff modify the pages to give clear instructions for what can be done without extensive training or staff time to address the issue. Alan At 01/02/2018 11:07 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: This happens relatively infrequently. Why create a new process that requires staff intervention when simply stacking the version in the box now called DRAFT(s) will do. And it allows for more than two version is required? At 01/02/2018 09:54 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: But as Holly said, sometimes you just need another space to reorganise your thoughts before it becomes the final draft... although sometimes it ends up as the final draft.. But you are only currently given 2 options, first and final.. There should be two boxes to start off with, and the penholder can ask for another one if required as a transition section before the final statement . But it should be highlighted in another colour what changes have been made. On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: When I was drafting more statements, I also would often post my "first draft" in the comment area and move it up if it had general acceptance. But there will always be cases where there are multiple draft versions posted and I was trying to find a really easy path for doing that without losing history along the way. Having staff create new boxes along the ways seems likea much more challenging way to address the problem... Alan At 01/02/2018 04:33 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: I think there is room for having personal comments remaining at the bottom of the wiki page, but drafts of the statement should be able to be inserted as they develop. It might mean teaching penholders how to create these boxes for new drafts or asking the new policy support staff person to create one for them. On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Holly Raiche < h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote: Makes sense to me. When I died to post a âfirirst draftâ of f the privacy stuff, I couldnât, and so put stuff in tn the âcomment⠬⢠space. While that whole wiki reflects pretty much what the discussion was, it doesnât follow the concept of firfirst and final draft Holly On 2 Feb 2018, at 6:40 am, Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: Sounds good to me because when you don't see the developments as new contributions are incorporated into the statements, it may seem as if its only just been ONE or only a few contributors Some statements go through several transitions. M On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:42 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: It has been pointed out to me that the template we use has a space for "First Draft" and then "Final Draft". This works for issues that do not generate a lot of dialogue and revision of the statement. For such statements, there is no specific place to post the revised version(s). Simply changing the first draft does not really work, because then we are left with Wiki comments on that draft that refer back to something that s no longer there (unless you go to the trouble of finding the correct earlier version). I suggest that we change the title from "FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED" to "DRAFT STATEMENTS" and add instructions saying that if multiple draft versions are posted, old versions should remain, with the newer version posted at the top of the box, prefixed with the date posted and author, and separated from earlier versions by a horizontal line. That way we have a full history of the draft evolution. Does anyone see a reason not to do this? Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Bartlett Morgan -
Holly Raiche -
Maureen Hilyard