Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] call today and summary for the Board

[Alex Gakuru <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Olivier,

Further, today's call chat log would be helpful in evaluating WG
members concerns over the (no) notice and conveyance process. I remain
of the view that the Board's request be posted on list.

Co-chairs may wish to decide at the earliest on our next call's time
allocation to help us block the time.

Regards,

Alex

On 4/12/11, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello Avri,
>
> On 12/04/2011 18:32, Avri Doria wrote :
>>
>> On 12 Apr 2011, at 18:27, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>>
>>> Please be so kind to explain how this working group got to be asked to
>>> provide a summary of work to the Board by Friday.
>>> Many thanks,
>>
>> Is it a problem to be asked?
>>
>> a.
>>
>
> It depends how - and with what deadlines. In business school I was
> always told about the conflict between writing progress reports on the
> work, and doing the actual work. So as far as progress report is
> concerned, if there is indeed a formal request from the Board, I'd
> suggest a bullet point list with progress marked as "completed", "in
> progress", "remaining" and "unknown" (or something along those lines).
> Something swift.
>
> Then, there's also a process to be used for asking reports etc. The JAS
> working group has two Co-Chairs, Rafik & Carlton and if the group was to
> be asked to produce a progress report, then this request should have
> been received by Rafik & Carlton. Has it?
>
> Last, there's a thing as "giving prior notice". IMHO, since I've first
> heard of this today, three days prior notice is unreasonable to ask of
> volunteers.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device