AW: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Section 6 (Draft #5) and Annex (Draft #2)
- To: <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: AW: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Section 6 (Draft #5) and Annex (Draft #2)
- From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:44:24 +0200
One comment to Section 6 (6.1.1) which seems to be a fundamental section and
therefore may need more broad discussion on council level. As "project
management" is a general item and may be understood in different ways we should
not put the council on a "company approach" and start developing procedures in
this direction before we've reached a common understanding. So I modified the
footnote to "...May be developed..."
Regarding the Annex I'm ok with Chuck's comments
Von: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. März 2010 23:20
An: Ken Bour; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Section 6 (Draft #5) and Annex (Draft #2)
Here are my comments.
I prefer "eligible/noneligible" to "qualified/nonqualified" but am open
to other suggested terms.
I am okay with Section 6.
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.
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
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.
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
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.