Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 1 [Revision]--Consolidated Project List with Descriptions
Thanks Ken. May I suggest some time off over the holidays ;) More seriously, one of the major uses I see this project as having is providing a comprehensive, organised list of current GNSO projects. I therefore think it is a mistake not to list it. However, I understand your point about the risk to the prioritization effort if this project gets downgraded. To address that, why not create another category so that we can put "un-prioritisable" projects in. This one would be in that class... Stéphane Le 11 déc. 2009 à 18:53, Ken Bour a écrit : > Stéphane: > > I think you make an insightful observation that I had actually considered > earlier, but I don’t recall that the team has discussed it. > > One way to look at this particular work is that it is a meta activity because > it is dealing with the subject of prioritizing all other projects. Although > unlikely (but theoretically possible), what if we ended up rating the WPM as > low value and heavy effort and, as a result, we prioritized it OFF the active > TO DO list? Yikes! Since its purpose is to develop a prioritization > scheme/process, it doesn’t seem to make sense to add it to the list of > candidates. I would take the same position with respect to the Council’s > actual prioritization work effort (when we get to that stage). > > This question reminds me of a paradox or one of those self-referential > circular puzzles (e.g. “Liar’s Dilemma”). Although certainly not an > iron-clad argument, perhaps the following triad will help illustrate this > line of thought: > > 1. All GNSO projects must be prioritized before they may be activated or > continued. > 2. WPM is a GNSO project to prioritize all projects. > 3. …but WPM is an un-prioritized GNSO project, therefore it may not be > activated or continued. > > J Just grist for the mill… > > Ken > > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 12:02 PM > To: Ken Bour > Cc: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 1 [Revision]--Consolidated Project > List with Descriptions > > That's really good Ken, thanks. > > Just one thing, which seems so obvious that this group has probably addressed > it already and I must simply have missed it: there an acronym missing from > your table: WPM. > > The prioritization work is crucial to Council and should included in the list > of live projects in my opinion. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > Le 11 déc. 2009 à 17:44, Ken Bour a écrit : > > > Team Members: > > As discussed during our teleconference on 10 December (2000 UTC), it was > agreed that Staff would combine the Short Descriptions that Liz assembled > with the two tables of Active and Removed Projects per my summary email of 4 > December. > > Attached is a Word doc that consolidates all of the information for the > team’s review and approval. > > Please note that, following Chuck’s suggestion, the Names in Table 1 and > Table 2 are bookmarked to short descriptions provided deeper in the same > document. With this approach, those who already know the projects do not > have to scroll past descriptive text. For those who are unfamiliar with any > project, they can simply click the link and be whisked to the description > including any external hyperlinks that have been inserted. > > Please let me know if this meets the team’s needs. > > I am moving next to the individual rating task instructions and procedures. > Hopefully, I will have them published later today (no later than Monday > morning) so that you have several days to work on them before our next > session on 17 December. > > Ken Bour > > P.S. I will make the change to add “budget” to the X-axis definition per > Stéphane’s input, but thought I would wait for Olga’s consensus call that all > members have signaled agreement to the Step 1 and Step 2 outputs. > > <Consolidated GNSO Projects & Short Descriptions (KBv1).doc> > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|