Gibson writes:
> Some process improvement suggestions:
> 1. Have HP review the raw list to determine which they will wish to
> implement before we vote.  This would give us the chance to have influence
> not only on the technical merit of the request but also the political
> process.
> OR
> 2. Have us vote on the list of selected items that HP will implement after
> the original vote to provide more input into the priority and
> timing.  This
> second vote would further guide HP.

That's almost exactly what happened this year.

The individual SIGs put together their own laundry lists of enhancement
requests and the individual SIGs voted on what together was the "raw list",
after which HP went through and said which items would be impossible for
them to do, and the top 30 odd remaining items went on to the final SIB
ballot.

So what you saw was precisely the "second vote" that you suggest, and as a
result there's a good chance that HP will be able to implement many of the
top vote getters on the final ballot.

G.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *