[gnso-wpm-dt] FW: WPM-DT: Summary of 7 January 2010 Teleconference (Step 5-In Progress)
RESEND. Same error as last time. Ken From: Ken Bour [mailto:kenbour@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 5:19 PM To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx Subject: WPM-DT: Summary of 7 January 2010 Teleconference (Step 5-In Progress) WPM-DT Members: As a result of our call today, the following is a summary of key actions and decisions: 1) We agreed to work on both the Y and X axis definitions via the email list. I changed the title of the X axis to "Resources Needed" (per Chuck's suggestion) and attempted to capture my understanding of how the definitions might be amended - submitted for confirmation or further refinement by the team. Y - Value/Benefit . this dimension relates to perceptions of overall value and benefit primarily for the GNSO, but also considering ICANN's stakeholders and the global Internet community. 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 - Resources Needed . 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. [Note: for projects already in progress, estimates include only those resources remaining from the point of assessment through to completion of the final recommendation; prior historical/sunk resources are not factored into this dimension]. 2) Attached is a revised GNSO WPM Projects & Short Descriptions document (now KBv3) in which I attempted to incorporate changes the team discussed (see page 2). I altered Table 1's title from "Active Projects" to "Prioritized Projects" and Table 2 from "Removed Projects" to "Non-Prioritized Projects." Although not exactly what was discussed on the call, I hope that this nomenclature is in keeping with the team's wishes. You will also note that, instead of single letters, I am suggesting the use of a longer word/fragment as the category indicator. In that regard, I changed "I" to "Pending," "X" to "Inactive," and added a new category called "Implem." I also inserted placeholders for three Implementation projects that were briefly discussed. We should probably add short descriptions and confirm the abbreviations. For your convenience, I copied/pasted the new category descriptions (page 2) below: "The following projects were removed from the original list by the Drafting Team for one of four reasons (ref. "Category" column), but will be maintained in Table 2 so that the team does not lose track of them: 1) Community Pending ("Pending"): the work effort has been put on hold status and 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 ("Monitor"): 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 ("Inactive"): the work effort is not or not yet a GNSO initiative and cannot be properly evaluated (ranked/rated) and prioritized by the Council. 4) Implementation Phase ("Implem"): the work effort has completed the recommendation phase, has been approved, and is ready to begin or has already started implementation. While such projects are not consuming large amounts of community resources, the Council needs to understand the impact on Staff as it considers the adoption of new project work within the GNSO. " 3) We also discussed creating parameters around what it means to be a "Prioritized Project." Ken submits the following language for consideration: For the purposes of GNSO Work Prioritization, a Prioritized Project is defined to be one that is initiated by a GNSO Council decision to commit GNSO resources with the expectation that such efforts will impact the community's overall work capacity sufficient to warrant its relative placement among all other GNSO prioritized projects. Examples of projects that would be included under this definition include, but are not limited to: policy development initiatives and requests made by the Board (e.g. GNSO Improvements) and/or other SO/AC. For these purposes, a Prioritized Project commences when chartered or otherwise commissioned by the GNSO Council and terminates when the resulting Working Group or team delivers its final output(s)/recommendation(s). For next week's session (TBD-Doodle coming), I suggest that we continue where we left off on the agenda. Items remaining: 1) Two-dimensional model and definitions for X and Y: a) Ken posted modified definitions to the email list.any further changes? b) Should Y and X be rated by DIFFERENT parties to avoid cross-correlation between X and Y? 2) Ratings scale 1-7 from Far Below Average to Far Above Average: a) Is the team still OK with the 7 point scale for both dimensions? 3) Individual vs. Group Ratings: a) What is the team's assessment of the pros/cons between individual vs. group ratings? b) If we recommend group sessions, would we recommend that Councilors struggle to complete individual ratings first? Would they be submitted and analyzed for commonality as we did in our test? c) If group ratings are recommended, what sizes and configurations would the team recommend? d) Should this WPM-DT perform another sequence of tests using smaller groups (e.g. 2 or 3)? Considerations from my previous email summary: . After having rated all 15 projects both individually and in one large group (of 5), what new information might be learned by breaking into smaller groups of 2-3? . What, if any, criteria, should be applied in constructing small groups? For example: (a) experience/knowledge (pairing senior Councilor with new member); (b) heterogeneous or homogeneous by Constituency and/or SG; (c) contracted party vs. non-contracted; . others? . If small groups are constructed, should they be facilitated by Staff using an Adobe Connect room or should individuals get together independently to discuss and agree upon ratings to be submitted (e.g. using form similar to the one provided earlier for individual ratings)? e) Should GNSO Council rating sessions be facilitated (by Staff?) using Adobe Connect with polling feature? Assuming no further changes to the testing process after this step, the team could then focus on HOW (Step 6) it might utilize the data in terms of developing a prioritization (the ultimate goal of this effort). If there is anything else that I might do in preparation for next week's session or beyond, please let me know. Regards, Ken Bour Attachment:
GNSO WPM Projects & Short Descriptions (KBv3).doc |