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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jaime,
you are right that linear scales are not used in some models, just because
they are not useful.
I am not sure that this is our case, and my only concern about using a
logarithmyc scale or other is that we should keep our model as simple as
possible.
Linear scales are visually simpler to review.
Regards
Olga



2009/12/13 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
>
> TRA*V*
>
> 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
>
> GCO*T*
>
> 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.*  *
>
>
>
>


-- 
Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing.
www.south-ssig.com.ar