RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Workgroup process

["Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for this note of clarification. Given the ALAC's role and my
consumer background, the best fit for me would be in the evaluators
subgroup, as your note suggests. 

Also, it is possible that another member of ALAC will be joining the WG
soon, Mohamed El Bashir from the Sudan Internet Society.

Thanks
Beau Brendler  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marc Perkel
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:29 AM
To: Mike O'Connor
Cc: gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Workgroup process -- I'm failing you


Mike - this is just spirited debate. Ideas, positions, and differences
need to be expressed. You're doing fine.

Mike O'Connor wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm feeling like we're stuck (perhaps headed for process-failure), and

> I think it's my fault.  So I've put some cogitation into this note.
> For you people who hate "process" bear with me, I'm doing my best to 
> correct a series of mistakes and this is my best shot.  My sense is 
> that if we don't get this fixed that we're headed for a non-starter 
> deadlock, which would make me sad especially since it would be my
fault.
>
> We're all feeling our way through what a Working Group process ought 
> to look like.  I'd like to talk about my mistakes in that context and 
> offer some suggestions for going forward.
>
> Big mistake -- not recognizing the different roles that we play and 
> allowing the conversations to get all jumbled up.
>
> I think we've started to polarize our points of view on the list by 
> not separating our roles.  I think what's happening is that we have 
> Proposal Developers and Proposal Evaluators all mixed up in an amulet.

> This has led to a lot of frustration, and conversations at cross 
> purposes.  Lots of the "you aren't listening to me" posts stem from 
> this mistake.  It's the cause of my "sales memo" post yesterday.
>
> Big mistake -- departing from a neutral stance in my Chair role.
>
> I think I've gotten too close to the "developing the proposal" process

> and find myself advocating positions too much.  I think I confuse the 
> conversation when I do that, so I'm going to stop (or at least 
> severely restrict my role).
>
> Medium mistake -- encouraging a too-unfocused conversation on the 
> email list.
>
> Whew.  This is a *lot* of email.  I'm kindof enjoying the breather on 
> the list today.  Just like we tend to get tired and cranky at the end 
> of the phone calls, I think we get tired and cranky in the blizzard of

> email.  It's especially hard when the conversation seems to move away 
> from agreement rather than toward it -- but I'm not sure which causes 
> which.  It also leads to a body of information that's almost 
> impossible to summarize fairly.
>
> Suggestion -- clarify roles and responsibilities
>
> I'd like to propose that we define some roles, and that people decide 
> which ones they'd like to take on.  My initial idea is that we have 
> Proposal Developers (use "DTeam" in email headers for filtering) and 
> Proposal Evaluators ("ETeam").  There may be others, but I think this 
> will get us started.
>
> Suggestion -- form a Developers subgroup
>
> Proposal Developers write proposals, refine proposals, gather needed 
> facts and information, argue the merits of various solutions, refine
> proposals based on reactions and input from Evaluators.   The goal -- 
> a finished proposal that gets a thumbs up from all Evaluators.
>
> Suggestion -- form an Evaluators subgroup
>
> Evaluators hold the "customer" role I alluded to in my sales-memo post

> yesterday.  They get to say "no, that part of the proposal doesn't cut

> it for me or my constituency and here's why."  They *may* suggest 
> improvements, but they don't have to -- that's up to the Developers to

> tease out through questioning and conversation.
>
> Suggestion -- structure the conversations between Developers and 
> Evaluators with proposal drafts
>
> I think we need to develop revisions to the proposals, and then review

> those revisions as a clump rather than piecemeal.  Developers crank 
> away on a draft until they feel like it's ready for review, then the 
> Evaluators provide feedback on the draft and it's back to the 
> Developers to hammer in the changes.
>
> Suggestion -- Developers appoint spokespeople
>
> Let's face it people, some of us rub others the wrong way.  So 
> Developers should decide on one or two folks who will "pitch" the 
> proposal and the others will be available for comments when needed.
> Evaluators might need to do this too, but I don't think so.
>
> Suggestion -- People can participate in both groups
>
> I don't want to totally divide the house.  But if you want to 
> participate in both groups, make sure you know which hat you're 
> wearing at any given time.  Participation by observing is easy, just 
> read all the email.  Beyond that gets tricky, so just be careful what 
> you say and how you say it.
>
> Suggestion -- Chairman Mikey's nominations
>
> Developers; Dave, Joe, Marc, Rod R, Mike R and others who'd like to 
> join them.  Rasmussen is the pitchman.
>
> Evaluators; Constituency reps and others who'd like to join them
>
> Suggestion -- First draft, first pitch
>
> I'm going to take a stab at a first-draft Proposal (in Powerpoint) 
> over the next few hours and post it to the DTeam sub-list.  I'd love 
> to see a revised draft out in time to be pitched to the ETeam during 
> the phone call this Friday.
>
> Again, sorry to all for leading us to this place.  As I've said 
> before, all the successes will belong to you, and the failures to me.
>
> Thanks folks,
>
> mikey
>
>
>
> voice: 651-647-6109
> fax: 866-280-2356
>
> web: www.haven2.com
>
>
>
>   
>

***
Scanned

****************************************************************************
********
SCANNED

****************************************************************************
********