Re: [ALAC] Suggested revision of At-Large Policy Development template
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 is 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)
If we are working towards an appropriate statement that reflects all related views then, does it matter? The page can be as long as we like as long as we get to the end product. You asked for our opinions but you are still stating your own as THE view. (and I'm not being grumpy about it, Im just stating my piece. :)) And as you say it happens infrequently, but when it does, why are we sticking to a dumb rule. On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> 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 is 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)
Hi all, I agree with Maureen Best Judith Sent from my iPhone Judith@jhellerstein.com Skype ID:Judithhellerstein
On Feb 2, 2018, at 10:09 AM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
If we are working towards an appropriate statement that reflects all related views then, does it matter? The page can be as long as we like as long as we get to the end product.
You asked for our opinions but you are still stating your own as THE view. (and I'm not being grumpy about it, Im just stating my piece. :))
And as you say it happens infrequently, but when it does, why are we sticking to a dumb rule.
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> 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 is 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...)
I agree with Maureen. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 2 févr. 2018 à 09:09, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> a écrit :
If we are working towards an appropriate statement that reflects all related views then, does it matter? The page can be as long as we like as long as we get to the end product.
You asked for our opinions but you are still stating your own as THE view. (and I'm not being grumpy about it, Im just stating my piece. :))
And as you say it happens infrequently, but when it does, why are we sticking to a dumb rule.
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 is 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 <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <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+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <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+(ALA...) <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...)
I agree on using the current draft box for as many versions as we wish (unless there is a limit to the size of the box, however this could be easily adjusted) , where each version would have a date and the editors name with the latest being on top. I see no drawback to this. Hadia From: ALAC [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tijani BEN JEMAA Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2018 9:05 PM To: Maureen Hilyard Cc: ALAC; Alan Greenberg Subject: Re: [ALAC] Suggested revision of At-Large Policy Development template I agree with Maureen. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 2 févr. 2018 à 09:09, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> a écrit : If we are working towards an appropriate statement that reflects all related views then, does it matter? The page can be as long as we like as long as we get to the end product. You asked for our opinions but you are still stating your own as THE view. (and I'm not being grumpy about it, Im just stating my piece. :)) And as you say it happens infrequently, but when it does, why are we sticking to a dumb rule. On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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 is 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<mailto: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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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...)
Hello, I like the "new draft box" idea as it makes things look much neater and organized, though I wonder if there is a way for contributors to do that themselves instead of asking staff (may be something to look into by TTF). Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Feb 2, 2018 5:56 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> 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 is 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)
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi -
Judith Hellerstein -
Maureen Hilyard -
Seun Ojedeji -
Tijani BEN JEMAA