RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Some "do" and "don't" ideas -- hat-tip to Wendy

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please see my responses below.  Please except my apologies for not being able 
to participate today but hopefully my input below will help.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 11:58 PM
> To: Mike O'Connor; gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Some "do" and "don't" ideas -- hat-tip to
> Wendy
> 
> 
> I think the 2nd and 3rd from the end are a bit much (deep reviews
> every 2-3 months and weekly status reports). I think the issue is
> that chartering organizations (or perhaps the chartering organization
> leadership) should NOT just forget about the CWG. But lets keep the
> bureacracy light.

[Gomes, Chuck] I agree that the bureaucracy should be kept light but also 
provide some personal thoughts below to specific do's and don'ts provided by 
Mikey.

> 
> Alan
> 
> At 23/11/2011 10:34 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> 
> >hi all,
> >
> >i was quite taken with Wendy's idea to develop a list of "do"s and
> >"don't"s on our call yesterday and thought i'd devote my first cup
> >of coffee to starting a list like that.  here's the result.  feel
> >free to ignore any and all of these -- made for a great
> >thought-exercise.  my son is flying home for Thanksgiving today (the
> >worst travel day of the year in the US), so airplanes are on my
> mind...
> >
> >
> >Do -- devote a lot of time and effort to develop a detailed charter
> >for the CWG working group that is deeply endorsed by the sponsoring
> >organizations.  Don't -- put the WG leaders in the position of
> >having to invent pieces of the charter while the working group is
> >under way -- this is like repairing an airplane while it is flying

[Gomes, Chuck] The charter certainly needs to be as detailed as possible but we 
need to be honest and realize that we will often have to ask the CWG to explore 
detail that we do not have in advance.  We shouldn't ask WG leaders to invent 
pieces of the charter but I think we will inevitably have to ask CWGs to do 
some exploration and investigation of issues that we need more information on.  
On another point, what does 'deeply endorse' mean? I would avoid terms like 
that; each AC/SO has approval procedures so I do not believe that we should 
invent new terminology in that regard. 

> >
> >Do -- ensure that the puzzle that's to be solved by the WG is
> >extremely clear and includes a chronology of how the puzzle came
> >about (including other WGs that have attempted to solve the same
> >puzzle in the past, descriptions of other unresolved conflicts,
> >etc.).  Don't -- put a WG to work on a puzzle that is ill-defined or
> >addresses deeper/hidden issues -- this is like launching an airplane
> >without maps or a destination.

[Gomes, Chuck] Agree.

> >
> >Do -- include as many affected stakeholders in the WG as possible
> >(radical thought -- if staff or Board are affected-stakeholders,
> >include them as sponsors and members).  Don't -- consciously leave a
> >stakeholder group unrepresented -- this is like leaving passengers
> >at the terminal.

[Gomes, Chuck] Agree.

> >
> >Do -- define the scope of the work to be done with bright-line,
> >easy-to-understand language that is again deeply endorsed by the
> >sponsors.  Don't -- leave blurry edges for WG leaders to interpret
> >on their own -- this is like flying an airplane without closing the
> >doors before takeoff.

[Gomes, Chuck] Okay but avoid "deeply endorsed" as I mentioned earlier.

> >
> >Do -- break the work into manageable "chunks" that it can be
> >completed within 8-12 months (18 at the absolute outside).  Don't --
> >knowingly set up extremely long efforts -- this is like trying to
> >fly a plane from London to Wellington, NZ without stops or alternate
> crew.

[Gomes, Chuck] Agree but I would say "TRY TO break the work into . . ."

> >
> >Do -- include the approach and methods that the WG is expected to
> >follow in the charter (at least at a high level).  Don't -- leave
> >the job of methods-development or selection to the WG team -- this
> >is like asking the pilots write their own pre-flight checklist.

[Gomes, Chuck] This is a worthy objective but it may not always be possible so 
I think we should allow some flexibility here.

> >
> >Do -- identify and address WG-readiness issues before launching the
> >effort.  Don't -- start up a WG without providing time and resources
> >for the members to "get ready" for the work to follow -- this is
> >like putting an unprepared crew on the airplane.

[Gomes, Chuck] Agree.

> >
> >Do -- entrust a couple of WG-liaisons from each AC/SO to form a
> >Steering Committee for the WG.  Don't -- require the whole AC/SO to
> >arrive at consensus over every issue that the WG needs guidance or
> >feedback on.  Don't -- put WG leaders in the position of avoiding
> >getting feedback because the process will take several months --
> >this is like requiring the airline Board of Directors to approve a
> >decision to hold a flight due to bad weather.

[Gomes, Chuck] I think this is probably okay but we probably should discuss it 
further.  It should be made clear that the steering committee has no authority 
to speak for the entire CWG without their consent.

> >
> >Do -- conduct deep reviews of WG progress every 8-12 weeks with the
> >Steering Committee.  Don't -- wait until major deliverables are
> >complete before conferring with WG leaders over issues and concerns
> >-- this would be like not checking to see if the plane is following
> >its flight plan.

[Gomes, Chuck] What's a deep review? The frequency of reviews should be a 
function of the estimated length of the effort as well as of the frequency of 
the CWG meetings.  I doubt that it is practical to do 'deep reviews' as 
frequently as 8-12 weeks.

> >
> >Do -- establish a weekly routine of status and progress
> >reporting.  Don't -- make this so complicated or time consuming that
> >the reports don't get completed -- this is like making the
> >instruments so complicated that the pilots don't have time to look
> >out the windows to see what's in front of them.

[Gomes, Chuck] Agree.

> >
> >Do -- strive to make the job of leading and participating in WGs
> >work that can be accomplished by people of ordinary ability.  Don't
> >-- set the work up in such a way that it requires "super-heros" to
> >get the work done -- this would be like setting up airplanes so that
> >only test-pilots would have the skills to fly them.

[Gomes, Chuck] Agree with the exception of cases where specialized expertise is 
needed.

> >
> >now *that* was some fun to write.
> >
> >i hope this brightens up your next cup of coffee.
> >
> >
> >
> >mikey
> >
> >
> >- - - - - - - - -
> >phone   651-647-6109
> >fax             866-280-2356
> >web     http://www.haven2.com
> >handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
> Google, etc.)