Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire (Draft v3)

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Ken,

Thank you very much for this helpful information and your continued
excellent work.  I just wanted to let you know that the SCI does not have a
meeting scheduled in Durban.  Ron will provide an update to the GNSO Council
on Saturday the 13th from 1730-1745.  Nathalie sent the dial up details to
the SCI list and you are of course welcome to join if that fits with your
schedule.

Best regards,
Julie

From:  Ken Bour <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:  Thursday, July 4, 2013 12:28 PM
To:  "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject:  [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire (Draft
v3)

SCI Team Members:
 
After our last teleconference (2 July), I continued my own evaluation of the
questionnaire looking for ways to sharpen and improve it including
addressing your feedback received thus far. I developed a new Draft v3 for
your review at: https://community.icann.org/x/eEZ-Ag.
 
In this version of the questionnaire, I made the following substantive
changes:
1. The "Expertise" question (Section II) was modified in an attempt to
address Ron's observation about the expected variability in team members¹
knowledge/skill. 
2. Tangential to Ron¹s concern, I added a new disclaimer in the note just
before Section II to explain how respondents might approach the challenge of
assigning individual ratings to complex dimensions.
3. In Section V, I substituted "Engagement" for "Participation" and changed
the wording of the first question to address Wolf-Ulrich's feedback entered
as a comment to Draft v2.
4. I elected to break out Personal Dimensions and Demographics into two
independent sections. Each one represents a logically distinct category;
furthermore, the table headings simply did not apply correctly to the
Demographics questions.
5. Added a third question to the Personal Dimensions which I labeled
"Willingness-to-Serve" for want of a better noun. This question seeks to
understand whether the WG experience influences one's propensity to serve
again in the future assuming all other conditions (e.g., topic, need/fit,
availability) are favorable. In other words, are we systematically building
or eroding volunteer capacity?
 
I look forward to your feedback on this third iteration of the WG
Self-Assessment instrument.
 
As you may know, I will not be present in Durban; however, if the team
wishes to continue working on this project and would like my involvement, I
am willing to join in any/all sessions remotely if technical conditions
(e.g., room connections) permit.
 
Regards,
 
Ken

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature