<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] GNSO Project Prioritization
Chuck,
Your suggested steps are inline with my thinking. If the council is willing to
consider this plan, I would be very supportive of trying this method out next
time a new project comes along.
Stéphane
Envoyé de mon iPhone4
Le 9 août 2010 à 17:34, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> Please see below Stéphane.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 10:27 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Caroline Greer; <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Project Prioritization
>
>
>
> Chuck,
>
>
>
> The only reason I am saying the effort failed is that we are now considering
> alternatives as a way forward, as per our last meeting's agenda.
>
>
>
> Absent a feeling that the effort failed, why would the question of "what now"
> even be asked?[Gomes, Chuck] The drafting team knew that that question would
> have to be considered and decided that that should be a Council activity not
> a DT action. “What now” was supposed to be the next step so it does not
> indicate failure at all.
>
>
>
> As for the reasons for this failure, in my view the system devised was way
> too complex. Both to implement and to execute.[Gomes, Chuck] I believe that
> part is fixable. In fact some of us have already been thinking of ways to
> make it a lot simpler and less time consuming.
>
>
>
> I still favour what Adrian first proposed: that the Chair lead the decision
> making process as to what tasks are prioritised. Now in this, I am not
> suggesting that the Chair take it upon himself to allocate priority to
> existing GNSO projects. I am saying that the Chair could act as a custodian
> of GNSO resources and if a new project comes in and resources are lacking to
> deal with it, then the Chair either asks the council to put the project aside
> until the resources become available to deal with it, or asks the council
> which other project should be delayed in order to deal with the new project
> coming in.[Gomes, Chuck] Your clarification here is very helpful. The chair
> cannot be put in a situation to make prioritization decisions in a bottom-up
> organization, but providing leadership with regard to priorities that have
> already been set (e.g., the current results) along with other critical
> information sounds reasonable. How about steps like these as a first crack:
>
> [Gomes, Chuck] The next time we decide to initiate a new project or even to
> request an Issues report for a new project we do something like this:
>
> 1. Review the results of the prioritization exercise
>
> 2. Identify any projects that have ended or will shortly end
>
> 3. Try to develop a very high level estimate of the availability of
> community and staff resources at this time
>
> 4. Determine whether there would be any impact on existing projects
> (e.g., slow some down, defer some, etc.)
>
> 5. Using the data above, evaluate whether it makes sense to take the
> next step (Issues Report or WG initiation) at this time or defer it.
>
> The chair could take the lead on this with the help of key parties and
> provide a report and possibly advice to the Council.
>
>
>
> In my view, this would be a way of applying good management to our work,
> while still making sure that if new projects are deemed important enough by
> the council, they can still be undertaken.
>
>
>
> This was the main gist behind my "other" on the poll.
>
>
>
> Stéphane
>
> Envoyé de mon iPhone4
>
>
> Le 9 août 2010 à 15:21, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> 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.
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|