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

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

ah.  good stuff.  yep, this makes sense to me.

On Dec 6, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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.)
>> 
> 

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