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

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

I appreciate the three-way discussion.

Regarding WG reports, I want to add a few thoughts.  I appreciate that regular 
WG reports can be a useful management tool; I use them that way myself.  But 
'weekly' reports probably may not make sense when a group meets biweekly or 
monthly, so I think that we should consider something like this:  "brief status 
reports following each WG meeting providing at least 48 hours in advance of the 
next meeting".  Regarding reports for the Councils, I would suggest providing 
those at the same frequency as Council meetings, at least 8 calendar days in 
advance of those meetings and would also suggest that they be provided at a 
high level, no longer than one page, shorter if possible.  I think that more 
comprehensive reports should be provided at least 3 times a year at least 15 
calendar days in advance of ICANN international meetings or such other time as 
might be needed.

Chuck



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 12:50 PM
> To: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Some "do" and "don't" ideas -- hat-tip to
> Wendy
> 
> 
> 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.)
>