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

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ken,
are we describing the different parts of the projects list somewhere? Where
will be posted for reference, glossary...
The rest looks ok for me.
Talk to you tomorrow.
regards
Olga

2010/3/23 Ken Bour <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> 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
>
>
>