RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Preliminary Status: Step 2

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

Thanks Ken.  I am comfortable with you sending the letter without our
review, if you need a set of eyes and no-one else volunteers, I will
help.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:09 PM
To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Preliminary Status: Step 2

 

WPM-DT Members:

 

I thought you might appreciate receiving a brief status report
concerning Step 2-Individual Councilor Ratings... 

 

As of this afternoon, 8 June, I have received 12 Councilor ratings
spreadsheets.   The deadline, as you may know, has been extended to 9
June (tomorrow).   Happily, other than a few names/dates being left off
(I am saving the emails and renaming the attachments so that I can
positively ID each one), the data aggregation process is going as
planned and tested.   No one, thus far, has failed to provide a 1-7
rating for each of the Eligible Projects.   

 

You may be interested, if not surprised, to learn that not a single
project can be excluded from discussion after the individual rating
step.   Every project's Range is already > 2 and, of course, it cannot
get any tighter as more results are received.   Of the 15 Eligible
Projects:   

*        11 or 73% have a Range >= 5 

*        7 or 46% have a Range = 6 (max)

 

I have developed a consolidation spreadsheet, which is automatically
color-coded to reveal the top/bottom ratings and the most prevalent
answer (or Mode).   Fortunately, several projects have pretty stable
Mode/Median/Mean results meaning that, while we might have a couple of
7's and 1's (thus Range=6), most participants rated the project
similarly.   In a few cases, the Mode, Median, and Mean are the
identical value indicating strong central tendency (so far)!   In those
instances, at least theoretically, it should be possible to influence
the small number of outliers to move closer to the group's most common
rating.   Even if that is not possible, after discussion, it will be
somewhat comforting to know that there was reasonably strong agreement
statistically.  

 

For Brussels, I estimate that we will have about 105 minutes net (if we
can hold preliminaries to 15), which leaves an average of 7 minutes per
project for discussion and polling.   

 

I am currently drafting a letter that I plan to send out early next week
(14th or 15th) addressing as many preliminaries as possible so that the
Brussels meeting (on Saturday morning) can be quickly focused on the
group ratings discussions.   This letter will cover such topics as:
Councilor Preparation, Meeting Setup, Guiding Principles, and Process
Flow (briefly).   I will be encouraging participants to arrive a few
minutes early so that we can speed up the routine process of settling
in... 

 

If WPM-DT members would like to preview the letter before it goes out,
please let me know.   Although I recognize that you are all very busy, I
would appreciate another set of eyes on this next communication...  

 

Regards,

 

Ken Bour