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

[Kal Feher <kalman.feher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have not seen you become too partisan Mike, but I am concerned about the
unfocused discussion on the mailing list. I think it was fine initially to
find our feet, but a more focused approach is required to move from where we
are. From this stand point, I support your suggestion of splitting into
roles, so long as it doesn¹t ³lock out² members of the group.


On 6/8/08 2:31 AM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
> 
> 
> 
>    
> 
> 


-- 
Kal Feher