[ALAC] Suggested revision of At-Large Policy Development template

[bartlett.morgan]

As something of an aside, the underlying suitability of the current wiki to our policy drafting needs might need to be considered. TTF? Re the issue on the table. For right now, I'm drawn towards manually inserting the newer version of a statement at the top with relevant identifying info (date erc). The prior statement(s) would remain beneath for reference. Inelegant? Yes. Sent from Samsung Focus <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Judith Hellerstein <judith at jhellerstein.com> </div><div>Date: 2/2/18  5:12 AM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> </div><div>Cc: ALAC <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> </div><div>Subject: Re: [ALAC] Suggested revision of At-Large Policy Development	template </div><div>
</div>Hi all, I agree with Maureen Best Judith Sent from my iPhoneJudith at jhellerstein.com Skype ID:Judithhellerstein On Feb 2, 2018, at 10:09 AM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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) 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20180202/fe81ca8a/attachment.html>