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

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ken,
thanks for the status report.
I will be happy to help you reviewing the letter.
Regards
Olga

2010/6/8 Ken Bour <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> 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
>
>
>