[gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Meeting Summary: 23 Feb 2010

["Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck & Jaime:

 

Premise:  The Staff & Community should not continue absorbing more work in
the absence of detailed knowledge, fact, and intention.[Gomes, Chuck] What
do we mean by detailed knowledge, fact and intention?

[JW] Think I missed this premise also.

 

In reviewing my notes and the discussion, plus integrating an enlightening
conversation with my colleague, Rob, I carved out the above premise and
added the final clause which probably needs rephrasing.  What I intended to
state is that, if the community is already constrained (first premise), then
it should not take on any additional work UNLESS there are facts and
detailed knowledge (e.g. time records, absenteeism, inner workings of teams)
supporting the Council?s intention to do so.    Instead of simply accepting
and initiating all new project newcomers (status quo), the Council
stipulates that it be provided the data to enable defensible decisions.
This working premise supports the conclusion/recommendation to implement
some sort of project management discipline (and tools) within the GNSO.  

 

Does that help? 

 

Ken

 

From: Jaime Wagner [mailto:j.w@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 12:08 AM
To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Ken Bour'; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Robert Hoggarth'
Subject: RES: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Meeting Summary: 23 Feb 2010

 

I understand that our red team resigned.

At least Adrian did. Not sure about Stéphane.

Other comment below.

 

 

Jaime Wagner
j.w@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

cel: +55(51)8126-0916

 

 

De: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Em nome
de Gomes, Chuck
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 26 de fevereiro de 2010 01:24
Para: Ken Bour; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Robert Hoggarth
Assunto: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Meeting Summary: 23 Feb 2010

 

Thanks Ken.  Please see my comments below.

 

Chuck

 


  _____  


From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 3:20 PM
To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Robert Hoggarth
Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Meeting Summary: 23 Feb 2010

WPM Members: 

 

This email briefly summarizes the contents of the WPM call held on 23
February 2010.   

 

Attending:  Jaime, Olga, Wolf-Ulrich [Chuck Gomes-regrets]

Staff Support:   Gisella, Ken, and Rob   

 

The first half of the meeting centered around preparations for Nairobi and
discussions concerning the content of a status presentation that Olga will
give to the GNSO Council.   Generally, the presentation will follow the
outline below.   Ken agreed to draft the contents to be reviewed and
ratified by the team at its next meeting on 2 March 2010 (1700 UTC):  

 

1)      Summarize processes/models over past 4 months (briefly) to help
explain why it has taken time...  

a)      Emphasize that team is conscientious about saving the Council the
effort

2)      Team?s current status including key decisions made

a)      Model = (1-dimension) Value with Difficulty a tie-breaker

b)     Value and Difficulty definitions 

c)      Current issues under team consideration 

3)      Next steps and rough schedule for completion (Q:  Is ?Red Team? is
off the table?)  [Gomes, Chuck]  Because of the need to get this to the
Council as soon as possible, a red team should only be done if it can be
done in fairly short order. Because Stephane has not been able to
participate very actively, maybe he would be willing to serve as a
one-member red-team.  Thoughts?

4)      Q&A 

 

There was considerable discussion as to whether the team should conduct an
illustrative Council rating exercise at the Nairobi session, e.g. rate a few
projects on the Value dimension using the Delphi approach and Adobe Connect
polling process.   After taking note of uncertain Nairobi remote
participation logistics, short timeframe to prepare, and current status of
the team?s outstanding issues/decisions, the general consensus was not to
attempt any kind of structured rating exercise at this upcoming session.
[Gomes, Chuck]   I agree with this decision.  In the formal presentation, it
may be possible to explain how the process would work so that Councilors can
develop an appreciation of it if not a complete understanding.   [Gomes,
Chuck]  Personally, I think it would take too much time to do as part of the
presentation.  Moreover, explaining it will be a lot for useful shortly
before it has to be applied. 

 

The remaining meeting time was taken up with a question postponed from last
week?s meeting:  

 

What are the major process outcomes of this prioritization task?  

 

Some of the items captured during the discussion include:  

Premise:  Resources are constrained as evidenced by WG attendance records
presented in Seoul by Staff.[Gomes, Chuck]  Agree. 

Premise:  The Staff & Community should not continue absorbing more work in
the absence of detailed knowledge, fact, and intention.[Gomes, Chuck] What
do we mean by detailed knowledge, fact and intention?

[JW] Think I missed this premise also.

 

Conclusion:  The Council needs to begin administering the project workload
as part of its new role as Manager of the PDP.[Gomes, Chuck]  Agree with
this conclusion and those below. 

·         The first step in taking any Council action is to prioritize the
workload in a transparent manner.

·         The approach being taken by the team is to establish a simple
methodology which rates/ranks projects by Value.

·         An additional goal is to provide Council a set of tools to assist
with management of the project workload.  Prioritization is only the 1st
step in a sequence of disciplines that needs to be implemented.  

·         How is prioritization useful?  

o   Education:  establishes community and Staff understanding and awareness
of Council prioritization.

o   Resource Allocation:  may help the Council redirect limited resources
where needed.

o   Councilors may be informed by the project prioritization when discussing
issues and voting on particular motions.

 

Olga suggested that the team continue to work on the process methodology in
between calls.  

 

The next meeting is scheduled for 2 March 2010 at 1700 UTC.

 

Prepared by:  Ken Bour