|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Frankly, I’m with Paul. My experience is many people don’t comment unless they have to. If something has too many flaws to count, then I can accept a comment which says so, and perhaps details two or three big ones. And the response can be rough without a specific solution. So I don’t accept it is purely a question of formatting. Unless you hold a stick over their heads some people simply won’t make time to participate. I think Paul’s suggestion might require some refinement. But I think we want to put some teeth into the rules concerning ballot responses. We have it on the WG level. We should have something on the EC level.
Paul, I’m with Geoff on this one. For some issues, there are so many things wrong that writing out comments on all of those is a non-productive process, and DNV is the reasonable alternative.
If you want to get better return rates on ballots you need to spend more time up front on crafting the text being balloted and responding to discussion comments. Rewriting a document by ballot comments is a very inefficient process and should be avoided at all cost. Circulation of drafts for comments and responding to inputs received is more efficient and less redundant, prior to going for a ballot. Ballots where most folks can vote Approve without comments always get good returns.
Dear EC members,