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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

i'll chime in with inline comments here too.  unfortunately, *I* won't be able 
to make a call next week.  :-)

On Dec 6, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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.

i'm not a big fan of bureaucracy either, but this is really more a 
project-management thing than a bureaucracy thing.  just two clarifications -- 
the weekly status reports i'm talking about are really light.  here's a gaggle 
of them that we maintain for the DSSA;

        https://community.icann.org/display/AW/Status+Reports

they're just one page long and only take me about 15 minutes to prepare each 
week.  i don't expect anybody to read them unless an issue comes up (in which 
case i let the co-chairs know that there's something we need to talk about in 
there).  i certainly don't expect the Council to read all those -- but it's 
really easy to summarize them if the Council ever does want a status update.

they also serve a couple other purposes.  they chronicle the work of the group 
and they provide the co-chairs a vehicle to talk amongst themselves about 
what's coming up over the next week.  another thing they provide is a moment 
for the project manager (mostly me on the DSSA) to reflect about how things are 
going and, if something is getting off track, things that can be done to bring 
the work back into balance.  

the deeper-review thing is something i'd like to defend as well -- i've got 
some give on the interval, but working-groups need a periodic opportunity to 
prepare an update to their sponsors, justify what they've been doing, hear the 
complements on a job well done and find out where they may have drifted off the 
path that was set out in the Charter.  *that's* what i mean by a deep review.  
again, it's mostly as a trigger for a certain kind of reflection by the people 
leading the group -- where are we now, where are we going, how are we doing, 
how are we going to get things done, etc.  simply the act of *preparing* the 
materials for that review is very healthy for the group.  but even better is if 
the sponsors can really dig in and actively participate -- it'll save heartache 
down the line.

> 
>> 
>> 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. 

i'm fine losing the word "deeply" -- it's mostly trying to say "the opposite of 
casual/passive endorsement."  :-)

we just had an issue like this come up in the DSSA.  it turns out that we're 
just wrapping up a few weeks of work picking a methodology that we'll use to 
finish up the analysis we're doing.  the question was -- should we go back to 
the sponsors with that decision?  our charter gave us the answer -- it said 
"subject to the limitations above, the DSSA should do whatever it deems 
relevant and necessary to achieve its objectives" and we decided that meant we 
could go ahead an pick our own methods without bothering the sponsors with that 
decision.

so we've got some leeway to invent our own approach -- but any preliminary 
thoughts from the sponsors would be really helpful.


> 
>>> 
>>> 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.

fine here…

> 
>>> 
>>> 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 . . ."

OK with that…

> 
>>> 
>>> 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.

see above -- i think that many of the WGs could get off the ground a bit faster 
if their sponsors gave them as many hints as possible about methods that have 
worked in the past.  i would expect that by the time we've been at this for 
*another* decade, we should be able to say "consider doing this WG the way that 
other one did."

> 
>>> 
>>> 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.

yep -- this is really trying to identify a few folks from the sponsoring 
organization who are really actively engaged in the working group -- and can 
serve as a first line of conversation with the WG leaders.  they can also help 
the WG leaders decide which issues need to go back to the sponsors.  but just 
as the CWG can't speak for their sponsors, so the steering committee can't 
speak for the CWG. 

> 
>>> 
>>> 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.

i'm thinking mostly of the ICANN-meeting frequency -- which i guess is a little 
longer.  but mostly i'm just hunting for active/engaged reviews rather than a 
trainwreck at the end.  :-)

> 
>>> 
>>> 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.

yep.

> 
>>> 
>>> 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.)
> 

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)