LaptopPolicy:Status
[[LaptopPolicy|
Status: YES
- We have 94% 17 YES of 18 Staff
DoneTimer Finished 23:12, 1 November 2007 (PDT)
NotYet ---------- NotYet
- Julia (AboutUsStaff)
- NotYet I believe this consensus poll has revealed some key points from other participants:
- the policy is more of a benefit to those who earn enough money to take advantage of it. Therefore, it is not entirely equitable, as those who can't afford a laptop on their wages cannot take advantage of the benefit.
- Interesting, but how would we make it equitable without making it different for different people and therefore inequitable? - RK
- the consensus poll revealed that Lahore & the US have different (and sometimes conflicting) needs.
- True, but in this case, I think this works for people in both countries - RK
- the consensus poll revealed that health care benefits have precedence over other benefits.
- Yes, and that recognition is a good additional outcome of this effort - RK
- the consensus poll revealed the need for a more comprehensive process of figuring out the benefits of working at AboutUs.
- Agree - RK
- I think there are more that I can't distill right now.
Essentially, I think that this policy should be ended in favor of articulating a benefits package for AboutUs.
- I think this can be completed and then folded into the overall benefits as we get that going - RK
edit
- I think this can be completed and then folded into the overall benefits as we get that going - RK
DiscussionThere is currently no procedure to end consensus polls. I think we should use this poll as a model to determine how best to end polls that need to be ended.
It is very possible that I am missing a critical and important component of consensus polls–that they never end. What do others think? I'm not sure if deleting the discussion was the right thing to do... but I'm afraid it wouldn't make sense to those who came after my edits. Julia
Julia, would morphing this consensus poll into the benefits consensus poll work for you? Obed
I think that's a good idea. I know it is very important to John who has good ideas about how to frame it. If John's in the process, or you can wait until the next iteration when he will have a chance to articulate his idea, then I will be very happy. (He goes on vacation next week). I can imagine that those who have put work into this policy might not want to wait for John...
Also, I wanted to put out there that as we learn how to use consensus polls, it is possible that, once in a while, one would need to be "retired". So, I thought it would be a good idea to practice retiring polls. Julia
- I think waiting is fine. As for retiring, I think it's okay for them to just fade away. For example, if Ray decided to buy everyone new laptops, the need for this process would disappear. There's no need to do anything, methinks. It can just wither on the vine. Do you think we need a more formal way to decide to give up the ghost? Or should we mix more metaphors until we agree? :-) TedErnst | talk 22:11, 3 October 2007 (PDT)
Well, I'm a beginner at consensus polls but there is something appealing to me about being able to say what happened & what we decided to do instead... rather than just letting it wither. I think it forces the next, more productive move... I'm not "married" to the idea, it's just something that has struck me as missing in consensus polls–a way to decide to stop it. Bottom line: I vote for a visit from the laptop fairy for everyone! Julia
- Well, someone could change the document to "We agree that laptops are satanic plots and that AboutUs really doesn't want to be supporting that kind of thing." and see what happens to people's status. If everyone says YES, then it does come to conclusion. TedErnst | talk 22:30, 3 October 2007 (PDT)
Hilarious! I double-dog-dare you to do it! Julia
- Major shift
Ray changed the document today. Check it out and update your status/note? peace, TedErnst | talk 10:29, 18 October 2007 (PDT)
- I think "equitable" is an interesting concept. And I'm not sure I'm in agreement with Ray. I'm also not sure how much it matters. Have to think about this more. TedErnst | talk 09:53, 28 October 2007 (PDT)
- timer running
Julia, anything we can do to get this policy to a place where it satisfies your remaining concerns? TedErnst | talk 09:40, 30 October 2007 (PDT)
YES ---------- YES
- TedErnst (AboutUsStaff)
- YES After taking out the wiggle and simply stating that Ray can go beyond the policy if the situation warrants it, I'm back to YES edit
Discussion - YES After taking out the wiggle and simply stating that Ray can go beyond the policy if the situation warrants it, I'm back to YES
- Ward Cunningham (AboutUsStaff)
- YES With the return of the $750 contribution, I feel it is necessary to either define more clearly the terms of this offer or leave it to the company's discretion. edit
DiscussionMohsen Gilani (AboutUsStaff)- YES I believe it will add value and productivity as well. At the same time policy needs to be more comprehensive. edit
DiscussionObed Suhail (AboutUsStaff)- YES I really like this project: Employee Benefits. Most of my concerns are now addressed. edit
DiscussionObed,
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Here's what I'm hearing.
- LaptopContribution is not the most important employee benefit of those that could be provided.
- If we could address employee benefits as a whole, that would be best.
- If we are not going to address employee benefits as a whole immediately, it might make sense to approve this policy, with the understanding that we would be able to address other employee benefits soon.
How did I do? TedErnst | talk 20:40, 19 September 2007 (PDT)
- Excellent! Yes, this is exactly what I am thinking. Obed Suhail
Obed, what do you think about a Benefits Consensus Poll? TedErnst | talk 21:01, 19 September 2007 (PDT)
I really like this initiative and the Employee Benefits project. Obed Suhail
- Major shift
Ray changed the document today. Check it out and update your status/note if necessary? peace, TedErnst | talk 10:33, 18 October 2007 (PDT)
Ali Aslam (AboutUsStaff)- YES This is a major improvement on the previous draft policy and looks fair to both the employee and the company. edit
DiscussionUmar Sheikh (AboutUsStaff)- YES Full marks for brevity! Simply beautiful and beautifully simple! edit
DiscussionNot participating
- TakKendrick (AboutUsStaff)
- Abstain The policy is certainly a lot simpler and clearer. Since this now no longer affects me in any way what so ever, I'm creating a new status for myself -- "Abstain". I'm content to watch if any other shifts to the document occur (and might change my status at that time), but don't want to be a gating factor on this right now and shouldn't be counted in the tallies pro or con at this point. edit
- It would still be great to have your thoughts, but "abstain" is ok too - RK
DiscussionComments and discussion related to my previous stance (re: health insurance) can be viewed in the history; they were taken out of this document because they've all been resolved or proven moot under the new policy.
- Abstain The policy is certainly a lot simpler and clearer. Since this now no longer affects me in any way what so ever, I'm creating a new status for myself -- "Abstain". I'm content to watch if any other shifts to the document occur (and might change my status at that time), but don't want to be a gating factor on this right now and shouldn't be counted in the tallies pro or con at this point.
- YES With the return of the $750 contribution, I feel it is necessary to either define more clearly the terms of this offer or leave it to the company's discretion.
