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

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

That helps a lot Ken.  Thanks.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Ken Bour [mailto:ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 9:01 AM
        To: 'Jaime Wagner'; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: 'Robert Hoggarth'
        Subject: WPM Meeting Summary: 23 Feb 2010
        
        

        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