Hi Ira,
Obviously, you may take the suggestions or not as you wish. My reaction to
your draft was that the information was there, but it seemed to lack
direction. (I am still not happy with my cut, but as you point out, we are
short in time.)
I moved your IETF activity statement up to bolster the point that things are
happening in power management, and that was the most recent event.
Certainly, remove mention of the IETF activity entirely if you wish
(including your question 10))
I do not recall support for the history, and with the reduction in the other
material, it did take up a lot of the article. It is unclear to me how this
affects MPSA members.
You are correct that the scale should be 1-5 on question 1. This scale
approach is a very typical mode of survey question, and provides more useful
information than a simple yes/no. I tend to dislike yes/no questions myself,
since things are seldom that clearly one way or the other. I agree that, if
you are making a presentation to a management sort, they typically prefer a
black or white response. But the real answer is some shade of gray and I
suggest that we are more interested in a valid understanding than material
for a specious argument.
My draft was intended as suggesting a slightly different approach to
presenting the information. I will not press it further.
Thanks,
Bill Wagner
From: Ira McDonald [mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 7:48 PM
To: William Wagner; Ira McDonald
Cc: wims at pwg.org
Subject: Re: [WIMS] Draft of MPSA Power article/survey (28 Nov 2010)
Hi,
Well - all these changes will take awhile to digest.
At our last WIMS teleconference there was support for leaving
the history in, but oh well...I just want some closure SOON.
I really dislike your raised emphasis on the newly chartered
IETF EMAN WG (especially given that MANY of the IETF
projects fail entirely or else drag out for years). Waiting for
IETF EMAN would be a serious mistake for HCD vendors.
And quickly, the first question has gone badly awry:
On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 corresponds to "no importance" and 10
corresponds to "critical consideration", ...
Is the scale supposed to be 1 to 5 or 1 to 10?
Do we really know how this will be represented in the survey?
WHY wouldn't we ask simple yes/no questions? This 1 to 5
stuff just makes summary results fuzzier, it seems to me.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Hardcopy WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Christmas through April:
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
734-944-0094
May to Christmas:
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 7:09 PM, William Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net>
wrote:
I have posted suggested revisions to the article and the questions at
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/white/mpsa-pwg-power-article-dec-2010-ww.pdf
and
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/white/mpsa-pwg-power-article-dec-2010-ww.doc.
I apologize, but these changes are to the original draft, not the latest.
Although a red-line MS Word view may appear to suggest drastic changes, the
changes are more to order than to content. However, I do suggest that we
drop the history, since I think MPSA interest will be more on what is going
to happen (that affects them) than what happened. Also, considering that
some portion of the audience is in the business of providing a service
including the devices, I suggested some rewording of the questions.
Thanks,
Bill Wagner
From: wims-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:wims-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Ira
McDonald
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 2:41 PM
To: wims at pwg.org; Ira McDonald
Subject: [WIMS] Draft of MPSA Power article/survey (28 Nov 2010)
Hi,
I just posted a slightly revised third draft of the December MPSA PWG
Power Management article (w/ survey questions at the end) at:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/white/mpsa-pwg-power-article-dec-2010-v3.doc
I changed the "Tech support..." use case per Andrew's comments (which my MS
Word 2007 didn't complain about in grammar-check) and cleaned up wording
in several other paragraphs.
I would like to give this to Jim Fitzpatrick by THIS Tuesday at the latest,
for
publication in the Monday 5 December MPSA newsletter.
Any last comments?
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Hardcopy WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Christmas through April:
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
734-944-0094
May to Christmas:
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/wims/attachments/20101129/7081d116/attachment-0001.html>