<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Leave the Mumbo-Jumbo ICF, CHAT Needs Clean Copy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thinknola.com/post/chat-needs-clean-copy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thinknola.com/post/chat-needs-clean-copy/</link>
	<description>A Community Notebook</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:42:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Alan Gutierrez</title>
		<link>http://thinknola.com/post/chat-needs-clean-copy/comment-page-1/#comment-49038</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan Gutierrez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 18:59:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thinknola.com/post/leave-the-mumbo-jumbo-icf-chat-needs-clean-copy/#comment-49038</guid>
		<description>Frank

CHAT needs to distinguish between documents used in negotiation, and messages used in outreach. The Bill of Rights/Statement of Principles has moved on. It has a new function now. It is an accomplishment. No doubt.

Can we have a number list, what we want. It needs to be about as simple as the message, &quot;The Road Home is complicated, I challenge anyone to do it right.&quot;

Melanie our yourself can respond to that statement, but you don&#039;t want to make the person who says it feel stupid. (Read: &quot;Writing Copy Even Grandma Wil Love&quot;:http://www.copyblogger.com/writing-copy-even-grandma-will-love/.) We need to have a simple message so that the rest of us can give a simple answer, not a point by point analysis.

What is that message?

* There is no way for us to know if ICF is doing a good job, because they have absolutely no independent oversight.

That&#039;s a simple one. The contract being a 5 year contract, paid hourly, that&#039;s simple too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Frank</p>
<p>CHAT needs to distinguish between documents used in negotiation, and messages used in outreach. The Bill of Rights/Statement of Principles has moved on. It has a new function now. It is an accomplishment. No doubt.</p>
<p>Can we have a number list, what we want. It needs to be about as simple as the message, &#8220;The Road Home is complicated, I challenge anyone to do it right.&#8221;</p>
<p>Melanie our yourself can respond to that statement, but you don&#8217;t want to make the person who says it feel stupid. (Read: &#8220;Writing Copy Even Grandma Wil Love&#8221;:http://www.copyblogger.com/writing-copy-even-grandma-will-love/.) We need to have a simple message so that the rest of us can give a simple answer, not a point by point analysis.</p>
<p>What is that message?</p>
<p>* There is no way for us to know if ICF is doing a good job, because they have absolutely no independent oversight.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s a simple one. The contract being a 5 year contract, paid hourly, that&#8217;s simple too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: franks</title>
		<link>http://thinknola.com/post/chat-needs-clean-copy/comment-page-1/#comment-49035</link>
		<dc:creator>franks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 18:31:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thinknola.com/post/leave-the-mumbo-jumbo-icf-chat-needs-clean-copy/#comment-49035</guid>
		<description>It was a lot simpler when it started 10 or 11 , and left pretty intact by the parish councils who got it.

When the LRAturned it into a statement of principles it grew to 18 and turned out as all things do by committee, more than was needed

Kind of like OCD and ICF&#039;s handling of what could have been a simple grant program, but for the reinventing of several wheels, the creation of a few un-needed cottage industries (fraud verification and inferior appraisals) and &quot;how many more steps can we add to this before you get near a check?&quot; thinking.

fas</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It was a lot simpler when it started 10 or 11 , and left pretty intact by the parish councils who got it.</p>
<p>When the LRAturned it into a statement of principles it grew to 18 and turned out as all things do by committee, more than was needed</p>
<p>Kind of like OCD and ICF&#8217;s handling of what could have been a simple grant program, but for the reinventing of several wheels, the creation of a few un-needed cottage industries (fraud verification and inferior appraisals) and &#8220;how many more steps can we add to this before you get near a check?&#8221; thinking.</p>
<p>fas</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
