RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 3a (Rating Test #1 - In Progress)

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

Please see my responses below.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Jaime Wagner [mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 2:01 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Ken Bour'
        Cc: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 3a (Rating Test #1 - In 
Progress)
        
        

        In fact I tend to agree with Stéphane with respect to the resource 
consumption axis estimation.

         

        For me the difficulty is very close to impossibility.

         

        What brings about my suggestion of uneven weights, which in view of the 
situation, should be discarded. 

         

        We do this when we have a good sense of resource capacity, which is not 
the case, at least in my case.

         

        So let me pose some questions: 

         

        1)      how could we have an estimate of capacity?[Gomes, Chuck]  
Capacity as you know depends on both the # of resources available and the 
workload those resources are already devoted to.  As the GNSO gets more 
volunteers, the capacity increases. As our projects increase, our capacty 
decreases.  One can offset the other.  If we make this too scientific, it will 
take too long and not help us, so we will need to do our best to estimate 
capacity at a high level. 

         

        2)      Which capacity are we talking about? Staff's work hours? 
Councilors'? Budget?[Gomes, Chuck] All of these. 

         

        Jaime Wagner
        j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>              

        +55(51)8126-0916
        skype: jaime_wagner
        
        

         

        From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: segunda-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2009 13:49
        To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Ken Bour
        Cc: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 3a (Rating Test #1 - In 
Progress)

         

        Please see my responses below.

         

        Chuck

                 

                
________________________________


                From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
                Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:40 AM
                To: Ken Bour
                Cc: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
                Subject: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 3a (Rating Test #1 - In 
Progress)

                Thanks Ken, 

                 

                Please find attached my contribution.

                 

                A few comments:

                 

                - I did not deem it necessary or even desirable to take the 
time to go back to the RrSG in order to get feedback on rating. I consider this 
a test and the points awarded only reflect my own personal judgment or 
experience.

                - For the X axis, I consider the higher the number of points, 
the less desirable the project (as it is consuming more resources).
                [Gomes, Chuck] Not sure I agree with this if I correctly 
understand.  New gTLDs would have been an undesirable project using this logic. 
It certainly would have been rated very high on the X axis and rightly so but 
that would not make it undesirable.  Maybe it is just a matter of not 
suggesting that a high X axis rating does not mean desirable or undesirable 
projects.    This is reversed for the Y axis (the more points awarded, the more 
a project is worthy of the GNSO's attention).[Gomes, Chuck]  Again, I am not 
sure this will always be true.  If this is consistent with everyone else's 
understanding, it may be worthwhile making this very clear once the definitive 
rating instructions are sent to the Council.

                - I found the X axis very difficult to rate. It is impossible 
for me to have a clear idea of the amount of budgetary resources a project 
requires without having some kind of figure in front of me from staff. Would it 
be worthwhile thinking about putting such a figure next to each project 
description listed in the word document that came with Ken's email?[Gomes, 
Chuck]  Keep in mind that budgetary info is just one aspect and that it may be 
very difficult to get reasonable budgetary estimates early in the game.  For 
existing projects it will be much easier to estimate budget impact; for new 
ones, it will be more challenging.  If we ask for budget estimates from Staff 
to perform this exercise, it will take us too long to do it. At the same time, 
each Councilor should be able estimate resources required on a comparative 
basis at a high level so as to be able to complete the exercise.

                - I was surprised when rating to find that projects that tended 
to be of lower value (according to me) also tended to require less resources 
(less man hours spent on them, less expensive). I think there's something in 
that, still trying to work out what it is ;)[Gomes, Chuck]  I think this 
illustrates what I tried to say above.  Just because something requires smaller 
amount of resources doesn't mean we should do it. 

                 

                Thanks,

                 

                Stéphane