RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Section 6 (Draft #5) and Annex (Draft #2)

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

Here are my comments.
 
Section 6

*       
        I prefer "eligible/noneligible" to "qualified/nonqualified" but
am open to other suggested terms.
*       
        I am okay with Section 6.

 
Annex

*       
        For step 3, if a Councilor does not submit individual ratings, I
think they missed their chance because to do otherwise would waste
everyone else's time. But I think they should be allowed to participate
in the discussion and submit new ratings with the group when that
happens.
*       
        Section 3.2.2 says, "Each Councilor is asked to honor a two
minute time limit in providing an explanation."  It seems to me that 1
minute should be enough; that would encourage Councilors to be concise
and to the point. Others could still ask questions about their point as
stated two sentences later, thereby allowing further explanation if
requested.
*       
        With the above suggestions, I am okay with the Annex.

 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Bour
        Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 5:06 PM
        To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Section 6 (Draft #5) and Annex
(Draft #2)
        
        

        WPM Team Members:

         

        Attached are two documents that I have modified based on our
discussion yesterday plus additional thoughts I had after multiple
readings.   

         

        Section 6: 

         

        1)      I reorganized Section 6 in parts to try and isolate the
"project management" issues and handle them more cleanly in the context
of Work Prioritization.  In addition, I relocated the "New Projects"
material to the Annex - Step 1.  

         

        2)      You will notice that I changed the title of
"Prioritized" and "Non-Prioritized" Projects to "Eligible" and
"Non-Eligible."   I am recommending this language or something similar
because, until a prioritization occurs, the list is actually not
prioritized.  Calling a group of projects to be prioritized as already
prioritized became confusing as I read and edited the material.   I
think it may confuse Councilors also since Section 6 is about the act of
prioritizing projects.   I thought it might work better find other
suitable nomenclature.   Does anyone like "Qualified" and
"Not-Qualified" better?   If so, it will be an easy find/replace once we
settle on something or, alternatively, I can put it back the way it was.


         

        3)      To improve clarity, I made a number of additional text
edits -- submitted for the team's review and approval.   I removed all
of the comments in this Section, but left track changes on so that you
could see what I did to the content.  

         

        ANNEX: 

         

        1)      Revised Step 1 so that both (a) changes to existing
projects and (b) adding new projects are now part of updating the
official lists vs. appearing to relate to the Council's ongoing
management responsibilities.   

         

        2)      In 2.3, I provided for a 10 calendar day period during
which Councilors would rate individually (Jaime's recommendation).

         

        3)      I also took Jaime's suggestion and created 2.3.1 to
highlight the calculation of the Range statistic.

         

        4)      In 3.1.1, I thought we might try leaving out a specific
time requirement.  I generalized the procedure and added a specific
footnote about duration and how it might be reduced as the Council gains
experience.   Does that work for everyone?   

         

        5)      I made several changes to 3.2 to reflect the comments
that were inserted by Liz, Chuck, and Jaime.   I left all embedded
comments intact since we have not discussed them yet.  

         

        6)      I did not introduce a new section (yet) for "Tie
Breaking" until we have an opportunity to discuss whether or not it
belongs in the current ANNEX.   It is mentioned in Section 6, but
without any specific details.  I am still concerned that rating
Difficulty will only arise when there is resource contention and an
inability to handle multiple projects.  When that happens, the Council
would then rely on Difficulty to break a tie on Value -- if needed.   I
don't see it coming up in the context of prioritizing.  

         

         

        Hopefully, we can work toward approving Section 6 via the email
list, then clean it up and mark it DONE on, if not before, our next
session.   Then, we can focus most of our time on the ANNEX and maybe
make significant progress on it this coming Monday.  

         

        We only have two remaining sessions after Monday, 29 March.   I
think we should reserve the last one, 12 April, for discussion of
logistics, e.g. preparing/sending the documents to the Council,
approving an email cover letter (I will take a shot at drafting one),
thoughts about training, and any other questions that we think might
come up once the Council receives both Section 6 and the ANNEX.
Perhaps we can allocate some time to discuss what the team will
recommend to the Council as it concerns the continuation of the WPM-DT.
One possibility, for example, could be the continuing evolution of these
procedures, which could be extended to address the Council's managerial
role and how project prioritizations factor into its decision-making.   

         

        Ken Bour