[statecom] Re: [Green-Rainbow] FW: Straw Poll

[Daniel Melnechuk]

Grace,

I'm not sure we are disagreeing, not that there is anything wrong 
with disagreeing. My comment (included below) about Peter's comment 
(included below) was mostly to start discussion going about content 
of the poll. I didn't think i said or implied anything about not 
liking a response being a reason to remove it. Indeed i agree that 
the response about "not forming coalitions" to the question about the 
joining of forces with Rainbow could misrepresent the impact the poll 
may have if the poll is not clear about what it is.

My main thrust of my email was to just state the concern that i do 
not want Green-Rainbow to fall prey to a poll where we frame the 
question and the answers as to sound like the crappy polls that are 
rigged to get an answer the poll takers want or at least to not have 
a wide enough range of answers. I want honest opinion and i thought 
GIl has done a good first pass at something to start us off with. 
Especially if we have an "other" section for a write in opinion.

Now as a State Com delegate, i would like to see this go to the 
committee that makes sense. This would give us a chance to get at 
least one of our joint Green-Rainbow working committees off the 
ground. Anyone interested in participating can of course come to the 
meeting. Off the top of my head this would fall under either 
media/communications or membership/diversity/volunteer. Perhaps it 
should be a joint committee meeting seeing that it is about 
communications with our membership. Please comment.

And with Betty who has taught survey research and written a book on 
the subject, i want to make sure Betty's input is included.

Peace,
Dan


At 8:50 AM -0400 5/2/02, GracCRoss at aol.com wrote:
>I do want to disagree with one thing Dan said - I think removing a questoin
>from the poll because it may misrepresent what impact the poll is capable of
>having is not the same as removing something because you don't like th
>eoption.  But I promise to read and be more thoughtful soon - Love to all,
>Grace

At 3:37 AM -0400 5/1/02, Daniel Melnechuk wrote:
>Peter, your comments about removing the possible response about not 
>forming coalitions seems to be a reasonable one -- at least one side 
>of me has that reaction. But if we are asking for the truth, we want 
>to know what people really think. Even if it goes against what i 
>believe where our power is and will be in building a larger and more 
>inclusive party.

At 2:11 PM -0400 4/30/02, peterawhite at excite.com wrote:
>Hi Gil, nice job on this draft!!  I only have two suggestions: 
>first, as the merger is a done deal, I would remove the options from 
>question 1 that suggest seperating from the Rainbow folks, it may be 
>devisive and confusing.

At 11:06 AM -0400 5/2/02, Betty H. Zisk wrote:
>having taught survey research methods for years and written a
>book about it; I want to be sure we ask the right questions and without
>bias-but just don't have time yet). Cheers. Betts