<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] GNSO Project Prioritization
I agree on your first point Chuck and that’s exactly what I meant – if the
process was flawed last time round and we all agree on that point, yes, we can
hardly expect to use those results but lets identify what went wrong and
improve the process going forward so we don’t face the same situation again.
I personally don’t believe the process was so flawed. It was not perfect by any
means but I assume that had it been seriously flawed in some way, hands would
have been raised long before we got to the end of the project.
Kind regards
Caroline.
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 09 August 2010 14:22
To: Caroline Greer; Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Project Prioritization
Let me try again.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments Caroline. You say below, “. . . the process
(ie, was it flawed in some way? If we all agree on that, then yes, we should
scrap the results that we have)”. Why should we necessarily scrap the process
just because it was flawed in some way? If we think that the flaws caused
invalid results, I would agree, but if not, why not try to improve the process
by fixing the flaws?
If there are those who think the results are invalid, please help me understand
why you think that? I can understand that some may believe that the results
may not provide as much direction as hoped, but that does not mean they are
invalid. I can also understand that some may think that the value of the
results might not justify the level of effort expended, but again, that does
not make the results invalid. Regarding the first scenario, it was stated up
front that the process did not cover how to use the results and that the
Council would have to work on that. Regarding the second scenario, maybe the
level of effort could be reduced to be more commensurate with the end product.
I personally don’t believe that the results provide a magic bullet but I didn’t
expect them to. At the same time I sincerely believe that they provide us
information that we could use in conjunction with other information as we
consider whether to initiate new projects in the coming months.
Chuck
From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 8:18 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Project Prioritization
Well, if I could throw it back Stéphane, when you say that the work done so far
did not produce the ‘desired results’, what is meant by that? What were our
needs and what was the objective? [and I apologize for lacking some of the
history here, as I believe this effort started before I joined the Council].
Surely we managed as a group to identify some projects of agreed high
importance and my thinking was to use that information when we face decisions
around prioritizing work – be that time spent by Council on a particular topic
at a meeting or whatever. For example, do the Chairs need / use that sort of
information when drafting meeting agendas, allocating time etc?
What was the expected output of this project – how can we all have got to the
end of this very long effort and have failed so miserably in the eyes of some,
to the extent that we cannot salvage anything useful whatsoever? I agree that
the process seemed rather laborious and complex but was there not some general
agreement on some aspects?
I should add at this point that I unfortunately has to miss the Saturday
session in Brussels that was devoted to the Work Prioritization effort and so
do not have the benefit of that Council discussion either and I failed to see
the project’s final stages in action. However, it would be useful for me to
hear again what went so disastrously wrong in the opinion of some – was it the
complexity / amount of effort spent relative to the value of the project (in
which case we can probably all agree on that but look to the results anyway and
try to use them in some way) or the process (ie, was it flawed in some way? If
we all agree on that, then yes, we should scrap the results that we have).
Alternatively, do we simply not know what to now do with the results, in which
case that requires group discussion in my opinion.
Many thanks,
Caroline.
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 09 August 2010 12:46
To: Caroline Greer
Cc: <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Project Prioritization
How would you suggest using the model already developed (ie making use of the
work done to date as you suggest)?
The very reason we are wondering how to continue our prioritisation project is
that people deemed the work done so far not to have produced the desired
results. We can recognise that the group who undertook this work deserve a
round of applause for their efforts while still considering that the result is
not applicable to our needs.
That being the case, if you feel this work can be used going forward, I think
it would help if you explained in greater detail how you think this can be
done, so we can all understand what you have in mind.
Stéphane
Envoyé de mon iPhone4
Le 9 août 2010 à 12:39, "Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
Chuck,
My ‘other’ selection was formed on the same basis. I’d like to think
that we can at least make some use of the work completed to date and then we
can focus on making the process even more efficient and useful going forward.
Kind regards,
Caroline.
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: 07 August 2010 05:12
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] GNSO Project Prioritization
In follow-up to the poll we took in our Council meeting this past week
regarding GNSO project prioritization, for those that selected the “Other”
choice. Please respond on this list with a description of what your “Other”
choice is.
I will start of by repeating mine: A combination of option 2 (use the
prioritization exercise results to make project decisions going forward) and
option 4 (improve the process).
For those who did not participate or did not vote, please feel free to
submit a new option if you have one.
Thanks, Chuck
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|