[ALAC] Suggested revision of At-Large Policy Development template
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu May 10 18:37:31 UTC 2018
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 at mcgill.ca>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
>>><<mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net> h.raiche at 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 at gmail.com> 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 <<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at 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)
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20180510/b539e502/attachment.html>
More information about the ALAC
mailing list