Post by craigwood on Jun 15, 2012 3:09:18 GMT -5
A solution to the "legal text of Grievances" problem was posted, but remove June 6 on the old forum. The key text of this solution is in blue below:
Your forum post has been rejected by the moderator. The old forum moderator system, not this open form -- the rejected text is below:.
We need to recognize that a grievance can have three diverse functions/audiences -- thus one grievance may well need to have language that is different to be functional for each audience. Trying to design one vehicle that is a sports car, a truck and a bus is likely to produce frustration and a dysfunctional vehicle for every customer.
To mitigate our grievance design frustrations lets have a Litigation Committee to draft an independent list of grievances with language for that specialized “legal” function.
The other functions and audiences are the “public” and “legislators”. Legislators act upon bills organized by committee subjects -- we need to have committees by subjects to organize separate grievance lists. We need public support and they have many grievances which should not be ignored by just a top ten focus list. Different committees can produce some duplication; we can work or live with that. Lay person language for the “grievance identification” and then “solution working papers” with different solutions for legislative actions or analysts is the objective. The first focus should be just on the grievance identification step for lists approvals with solutions suggested in draft grievances placed into the start of working papers.
We should not be planning a list(s) dump date for every grievance, rather a timed disclosure of grievances over months when the work is polished by reviews and ripe for that subject -- like election grievances during elections.
Your forum post has been rejected by the moderator. The old forum moderator system, not this open form -- the rejected text is below:.
We need to recognize that a grievance can have three diverse functions/audiences -- thus one grievance may well need to have language that is different to be functional for each audience. Trying to design one vehicle that is a sports car, a truck and a bus is likely to produce frustration and a dysfunctional vehicle for every customer.
To mitigate our grievance design frustrations lets have a Litigation Committee to draft an independent list of grievances with language for that specialized “legal” function.
The other functions and audiences are the “public” and “legislators”. Legislators act upon bills organized by committee subjects -- we need to have committees by subjects to organize separate grievance lists. We need public support and they have many grievances which should not be ignored by just a top ten focus list. Different committees can produce some duplication; we can work or live with that. Lay person language for the “grievance identification” and then “solution working papers” with different solutions for legislative actions or analysts is the objective. The first focus should be just on the grievance identification step for lists approvals with solutions suggested in draft grievances placed into the start of working papers.
We should not be planning a list(s) dump date for every grievance, rather a timed disclosure of grievances over months when the work is polished by reviews and ripe for that subject -- like election grievances during elections.