Comments on: You Have a Friend Request from The White House http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/06/web-2-0/ Progressive approaches to science policy Sat, 20 Mar 2010 04:19:09 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Michael F. Sarabia http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/06/web-2-0/comment-page-1/#comment-5385 Michael F. Sarabia Fri, 05 Jun 2009 05:02:21 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=3243#comment-5385 Two suggestions, if I may. 1. Allow some of us to select our limited fields in which we think we can contribute some expertise and experience with at least two or three in the same topics. 2. We would then evaluate, rank and comment on whatever is send to us, including "No Comment" and "Unable to Comment". Each comment to be consider by three or more volunteers. I think the problem I have seen in some local forum is that everyone seems to have a vested interest and bias response. By matching individual skills to the subject of a proposal or a view, we are more likely to consider what may have been ignored by others. Just because a group claims to have "studied" or "evaluated" something, the very people that did the work may be more interested in giving the "expected" answer to keep their job or gain a promotion and stay among those with Recession-proof salaries. I imagine the tens of thousands comments can be divided into enough groups to keep each volunteer from dealing with more than a 200 suggestions. Perhaps, you already have a better scheme in progress, please disregard this distraction. I'd volunteer to review matters related to Technical Aspects of Global Warming and Aviation Infrastructure Activities. Michael F. Sarabia Two suggestions, if I may.
1. Allow some of us to select our limited fields in which we think we can contribute some expertise and experience with at least two or three in the same topics.
2. We would then evaluate, rank and comment on whatever is send to us, including “No Comment” and “Unable to Comment”.
Each comment to be consider by three or more volunteers.

I think the problem I have seen in some local forum is that everyone seems to have a vested interest and bias response. By matching individual skills to the subject of a proposal or a view, we are more likely to consider what may have been ignored by others. Just because a group claims to have “studied” or “evaluated” something, the very people that did the work may be more interested in giving the “expected” answer to keep their job or gain a promotion and stay among those with Recession-proof salaries.

I imagine the tens of thousands comments can be divided into enough groups to keep each volunteer from dealing with more than a 200 suggestions.

Perhaps, you already have a better scheme in progress, please disregard this distraction. I’d volunteer to review matters related to Technical Aspects of Global Warming and Aviation Infrastructure Activities.

Michael F. Sarabia

]]> By: Fredric Spain http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/06/web-2-0/comment-page-1/#comment-5361 Fredric Spain Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:02:21 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=3243#comment-5361 Hello We are building a carbon free city in Charles Town and Ranson, West Virginia, only 35 miles NNW of Dulles International. We are using the latest in conservation techniques and a Hydrogen Generator patented and ready. We can produce all the power the new city will demand without using any carbon products to power our houses and buildings. Please take a look. This ia a breakthrough technology. Thanks FRED 703 963 0547 email: fredspain@ransongreen.com Hello

We are building a carbon free city in Charles Town and Ranson, West Virginia, only 35 miles NNW of Dulles International.

We are using the latest in conservation techniques and a Hydrogen Generator patented and ready.

We can produce all the power the new city will demand without using any carbon products to power our houses and buildings.

Please take a look.

This ia a breakthrough technology.

Thanks

FRED
703 963 0547
email: fredspain@ransongreen.com

]]>