[gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Workgroup process -- I'm failing you

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

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