ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< 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 >>>