[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.


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...
>>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 
>>>‘firirst draft’ of f the privacy stuff, 
>>>I couldn̢۪t, and so put stuff in tn the 
>>>‘comment’ ¬â„¢ space.  While that whole 
>>>wiki reflects pretty much what the discussion 
>>>was, it doesn̢۪t follow the concept of firfirst and final draft
>>>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.
>>>>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 
>>>>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?
>>>>ALAC mailing list
>>>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>At-Large Online: 
>>>>ALAC Working Wiki: 
>>>ALAC mailing list
>>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>>ALAC Working Wiki: 
-------------- 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