RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Consensus on Step 1 and Step 2

["Jaime Wagner" <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes Chuck, but I don?t have strong feelings about that. 

It?s just an idea because such a nonlinear scale is used to rate task
complexities under the SCRUM methodology.

At each scrum cycle we have a certain amount of complexity that the
development team can handle.

So, priority along with capacity usage determines which tasks will enter in
the next cycle.

Priority here is equal to strategic importance alone.

 

Jaime Wagner
j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx             

+55(51)8126-0916
skype: jaime_wagner



 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: domingo, 13 de dezembro de 2009 11:26
To: Jaime Wagner; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Consensus on Step 1 and Step 2

 

Jaimie,

 

Are you suggesting a linear scale on one axis and non-linear on the other?
I still don't understand the possible benefits but am open to exploring it
further if I understand the benefits.

 

Chuck

 


  _____  


From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jaime Wagner
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 7:39 AM
To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Consensus on Step 1 and Step 2

Ken and Chuck,

 

Indeed, when it comes to priority and value, a single order is enough and
anything else is unnecessary.

 

But, in terms of relative cost (broadly speaking Olga :)  or complexity or
use of a certain amount of fixed capacity items don?t relate to each other
linearly.

 

It remains the problem of finding a suitable scale. Anyway, to give an idea
of relative complexity, the span of a linear scale can be inadequate .

 

Jaime Wagner
j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx             

+55(51)8126-0916
skype: jaime_wagner

 

From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: sábado, 12 de dezembro de 2009 21:41
To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Consensus on Step 1 and Step 2

 

Jaime:

 

Like Chuck, I am also curious to understand how a non-symmetrical scale
would improve the prioritization process and, of equal importance, how it
might be defended.

 

We should keep in mind that the purpose of the rating scale is to allow
projects to be positioned on a two-dimensional chart relative to each other.
The numerical series does not have to be 1-7, but it is critical that the
7th value be the same distance or interval away from the middle value as the
1st one.  In other words, it should be symmetrical.  Your example scale
implies that projects rated above average on the Value/Benefit dimension
(for example) are exponentially more valuable than those that are below
average.  If you?ll pardon the analogy, it is similar to operating a see-saw
with double poundage on one side.   Secondly, once we leave a symmetrical
pattern, how would we select one that could withstand being challenged as
arbitrarily?  For example, starting with your series, why not this
alternative:  1-2-4-7-11-16-22?   (I incremented the intervals consistently:
1-2-3-4-5-6).  

 

I would suggest that, once we complete the first test, we should be in a
better position to evaluate alternative scaling options.

 

Regards,

 

Ken

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 8:18 AM
To: Jaime Wagner; Olga Cavalli; Ken Bour
Cc: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Consensus on Step 1 and Step 2

 

Interesting idea Jaime.  What advantages to you think this would add and
what is the value of increasing the delta between ratings as they increase?

 

Chuck

 


  _____  


From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jaime Wagner
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 7:19 PM
To: 'Olga Cavalli'; 'Ken Bour'
Cc: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Consensus on Step 1 and Step 2
Importance: High

Olga and all,

 

This is just to say that I?m okay with the progress and I?m in favor of the
ranking though numbers .

 

I would only remember a suggestion I gave since I don?t know if it was
considered:

 

What about using unevenly spaced weights? That means, instead of
1-2-3-4-5-6-7, for instance 1-2-3-5-8-10-15.

 

 

Jaime Wagner
j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx             

+55(51)8126-0916
skype: jaime_wagner

 

From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
Sent: sexta-feira, 11 de dezembro de 2009 09:39
To: Ken Bour
Cc: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Consensus on Step 1 and Step 2

 


Dear Working team members,

First let me thank Liz and Ken for an excellent work and support given to
this working team. 

During our conference calls and through the exchange of ideas in our email
list, we have agreed on a project list definition (step 1) and on the x y
axis for the two dimensions model (step 2). I have copied these outcomes in
this email for facilitating your review.

It is important that we all agree in the outcome of these two steps, as they
will be the basis of the next prioritizaton excersise.

In this sense I kindly ask those of you who could not attend the conference
calls to review the information included in this email and send a
confirmation to the email list saying that you agree with them or suggest
any changes, if needed.

Confirmations or suggested changes should be sent today, as we will start
our prioritization excersise imediately.

Best regards and have a nice weekend.

Olga


Step 1:

The following table shows the revised list of projects (and revised
abbreviations in red) that will be rated/ranked and ultimately prioritized. 

Active Project List


Seq No.

Name

Abbreviation

                        

1

New gTLDs-Special Trademark Issues

STI

                        

2

IDN Fast Track Implementation Plan

IDNF


3

Geo Regions Review Communitywide WG

GEO


4

Travel Policy 

TRAV


5

Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery

PED


6

Registration Abuse Policy WG

ABUS


7

Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN WG

JIG


8

PPSC-PDP Work Team

PDP


9

PPSC-WG Work Team

WG


10

OSC-GNSO Operations Team

GCOT


11

OSC-Constituency & Stakeholder Operations Team

CSG


12

OSC-Communications & Coordination Work Team

CCT

                        

13

IRTP ? Part B PDP

IRTB

                        

14

Registrar Accreditation Agreement

RAA


15

Internationalized Registration Data WG

IRD

                        

 

The following projects were removed from the original list for one of three
reasons (ref. ?Category? column), but will be maintained in a separate table
so that the team does not lose track of them:

 

1)      Community Inactive (?I?):  the work effort is waiting on or pending
another action (e.g. Staff report) or decision  (e.g. Council motion) and is
not currently consuming community resources.

2)      Monitor Only (?M?) :  the work effort is not fundamentally
prioritized by the Council, but it does maintain an interest from an
informational perspective (Note: also includes liaison activities).

3)      Not a GNSO Project (?X?):  the work effort is not or not yet a GNSO
initiative and cannot be properly evaluated (ranked/rated) and prioritized
by the Council.

 


Category

Name

Abbreviation


I

WHOIS Studies

WHO1


I

Fast Flux 

FF


I

Synthesis of WHOIS Service Requirements

WHO2


M

GNSO Constituency Reconfirmations

GCR


X

Registry/Registrar Vertical Integration

RRVI

 

The three category explanations above may need tweaking, but I hope I
captured the essence of the team?s discussion accurately.

Step 2:

The team solidified the definitions for the X/Y axes in the two dimensional
model that will be used to establish project prioritization for the GNSO.

Y ? Value/Benefit ? this dimension relates to perceptions of overall value
and benefit to:  1) the global Internet community; and 2) ICANN
stakeholders.  Components of this dimension may include, but are not limited
to:  new opportunities for Internet growth/expansion, enhanced
competitiveness, resolution/improvement of serious performance or
infrastructure problems, increased security/stability, and improved user
experience.  

X ? Resource Consumption ? this dimension relates to perceptions of total
human capital expenditure anticipated and also includes such factors as
complexity (e.g. technical), intricacy (e.g. many moving parts to
coordinate), lack of cohesion (e.g. many competing interests), length of
time/energy expected; availability/scarcity of resources -- all of which
contribute to the total resource consumption and overall cost (economic and
otherwise) required to develop a recommendation.