[CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion

[Seun Ojedeji]

On 20 Jan 2016 23:13, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> Seun,
>
>
> But I am not convinced that the number of the number of volunteers is
decreasing....... I know that many will not be active and some will drop
out over time, but that is an impressive start.
>
>
SO: When I say "number of volunteers is decreasing", last part of your
statement above was exactly my point. The CCWG/CWG does have remarkable
list of names of volunteers as well but we can agree that just having names
listed is not enough indicator for progress in building new set of
volunteers.

That said, the group you referred to is indeed starting up with an
impressive list, the leadership of the group will have to pay good
attention to their engagement methodologies with some level of
consistencies to ensure that not much of the flock is lost after some time.

Regards
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 2:47 PM
> To: James Gannon
> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion
>
>
>
> +1 and really beyond the 2 processes what you have said is one other
reason why some drastic approach needs to be taken towards getting the
community more engaged thereby raising new generation of volunteers as the
current pool of volunteers is obviously not commensurate with the various
tasks.
>
> If care is not taken (without being intentional), we will realise that
number of community members is almost equivalent with that of the board
which overall begs the question of diversity in community's view.
>
> This is sure not a CWG issue to address, but I thought it's worth noting
that number of volunteers are reducing and should really be a thing of
concern by chairs of different working groups and ICANN as a whole. Good
that CWG has completed the major part of his task but we all know the task
will be as good as undone without a workable ccwg outcome.
>
> Regards
>
> On 20 Jan 2016 20:25, "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
>
> For context some of this may be due to the incredible workload the CCWG
is under at the moment and with the large amount of overlap people may have
concentrated on that workload.
>
> -jg
>
>
>
>
> On 20/01/2016, 6:14 p.m., "cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
Paul M Kane - CWG" <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >At our last call it was decided we would have on-line discussion in
advance of
> >our next call ... this list has been silent.
> >
> >We have a call scheduled for tomorrow - what is the plan?
> >
> >Best
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> >CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160121/5a15202e/attachment.html>