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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think I have seen reference to a Fibonacci series since my days as a 
math student.  :)
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Jaime Wagner
        Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 6:19 PM
        To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Consensus on Step 1 and Step 2
        
        

        Yes Ken those are the cards we use.

         

        But I think a direct translation to our situation is not possible, 
since each "story" in SCRUM should be kept small enough to fit in a scrum cycle 
of typically 15 days.

         

        I think our projects' complexities are higher.

         

        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: domingo, 13 de dezembro de 2009 17:14
        To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Consensus on Step 1 and Step 2

         

        Jaime:

         

        I am familiar with AGILE software development methodologies, but I had 
not heard of SCRUM, so I did some research on it.  Are you, perhaps, referring 
to the use of the "Planning Poker" concept for estimating story (or project) 
complexity?   I found the following description at:  
http://www.crisp.se/planningpoker <http://www.crisp.se/planningpoker>  

        "Why the strange number series?

         

        The higher numbers have less granularity. Why?  Why is there no 21 for 
example?

        Several reasons:

        ·      Speed up the estimation process by limiting the number of 
choices (i.e. number of cards). 

        ·      Avoid a false sense of accuracy for high estimates.

        ·      Encourage the team to split large stories into smaller ones."

        For those unfamiliar with SCRUM, as I was, a "story" is a short 
description of a discrete software task to be performed.  

        When I researched the theory behind this concept, I learned that the 
card sequence follows a modified Fibonacci 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number>  series and uses a simplified 
version of the Wideband Delphi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wideband_Delphi>  
technique.  This method can be and often is applied to both Value and Cost/Risk 
estimation.  The non-linear values are based upon the principle that, as 
projects become larger and more complex, estimation also becomes increasingly 
inaccurate.  Stated another way, estimating variance increases with project 
size.  

        Before I explore this idea further and whether/how it might be adapted 
to our exercise, I want to verify that this is the methodology that your SCRUM 
process is using.   If not, could you point me to a reference link?

        Thanks,

         

        Ken

        ===

        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 

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.  

                         

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