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

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

Is that true?  

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 6:30 AM
To: Ken Bour
Cc: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Preliminary Status: Step 2

 

Thanks Ken for that update. I wonder if the reason we are not getting any 
projects with a lower score than 2 is that Councillors are note sufficiently 
aware that they can strike projects all together should they wish to when they 
rate them?

 

Stéphane

Le 8 juin 2010 à 21:08, Ken Bour a écrit :





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