[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft WG Self-Assessment Design, Objectives, and Questionnaire

[Mike O'Connor]

hi Ken,

i really like the work you've done.  i've sprinkled reactions inline, but overall this is a great start.

thanks,

mikey


On Jun 10, 2013, at 3:43 PM, "Ken Bour" <ken.bour at verizon.net> wrote:

> SCI Team Members:
>  
> Since our last teleconference, I have been working on the development of a WG Self-Assessment instrument. Rather than inundate the SCI email list with multiple drafts and iterations during the incubation period, I thought it would be more helpful to post my work products to the ICANN Community Wiki. I have now reached a point where I think the material is ready for your review.
>  
> In particular, you will find the following pages under the GNSO tab (category) and Working Group Resources space. Below is the hierarchy including links:
>  
> WG Self-Assessments: https://community.icann.org/x/2Cp-Ag

really good introduction.  on second reading i realized that one thing that might need expanding in the "lower-level" chunks of work is the LOs and questions that try to tease out the effectiveness of the formally-documented processes (the newly-changed PDP, developed by all the WGs that came before us).  not a lot more, but just a bit.  i think one of the reactions i had to the first questionnaire was that it was too focused on the formal-process stuff.  so there's some balancing to be found.  i could certainly live with the balance you've struck in this first pass -- but if there was a graceful way to add just a little more review of the PDP framework, i'd like that too.  not too much though.  we're going for "just right."  :-)

> ·         Design Considerations: https://community.icann.org/x/USt-Ag


individual vs collective -- i like where you're going in the highlighted box -- some kind of hybrid between the two, maybe up to the WG.  if they get really stuck arriving at consensus, just let the discussion serve as documentation rather than trying for consensus.  i agree, it would be a shame to run a working group through another tough consensus process at the very end.  especially tough if they weren't at consensus on their findings and were reopening old wounds.

demographic information -- all good -- wisecracks about the NSA notwithstanding.  although another approach to consider might be to have the information be public.  i don't know -- tradeoffs.  something to puzzle about.

size, complexity, length -- yep, this is where i came into the discussion -- the previous questionnaire was really long/hard to fill out.  but it would be interesting to see if there's a way to build in "optional" sections if people had a lot to say.  my post-mortem on my experience chairing the Fast Flux WG took several days to write.  if somebody's got a will to do something like that, we should provide a way.

methodology -- no strong opinions either way here.  


> ·         Learning Objectives: https://community.icann.org/x/hit-Ag

first pass -- WOW!  i like these a lot.  there may be more, but this is a really good start.  good for: starting off the WG to set norms and expectations, periodically referring back to "mid flight" to offer course-corrections to the process as its's going, and reflection on opportunities for improvement at the end.

since we're a PDP-process focused group, i'm wondering if there's a way to work a couple of LOs in about the framework itself.  the goal being to see if there WG members noticed flaws in the process that got in their way.  a good source of ideas might be the questionnaire i was so cranky about.  i was mostly cranky because it was hard to answer, but maybe there's a way to rework some of those into LO's that fit in here?


> ·         Questionnaire (Draft v1): https://community.icann.org/x/EC1-Ag

this looks like it flows pretty directly out of the LO's -- so maybe we focus on those first?  i really like how the number of LOs is longer than the number of questions -- this looks like a questionnaire that could be filled out pretty quickly.  and maybe it's just distributed as a fill-in-blanks PDF or spreadsheet (to make scraping the answers easier)?  

same reactions on the "policy-process" part being a little light, perhaps.  not a bunch more questions, but maybe one or two for those reflective types who want a place to note something in the PDP that got in the WG's way?


>  
> If you want to follow my developmental logic path, I suggest starting at the top and proceeding in the sequence shown. If you want to skip to the actual draft questionnaire, it is contained in the bottom linked page. I included a few notes which you should bear in mind before perusing the actual questions.
>  
> At this stage, I would like to receive your feedback before proceeding further to be sure that I am on a productive track. You will certainly notice that this instrument is no longer focused on the WG Guidelines documentation (the original survey scope); instead, on the effectiveness of the WG’s operations, norms, logistics, decision-making, and outputs. I included my rationale for that shift at the top of the Design Considerations page.
>  
> Feel free to comment on the email list or add comments to the individual Wiki pages. I will attend to both sources over the next week or so as you have time to review and evaluate my recommended approach to the WG Self-Assessment.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Ken Bour
>  


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130610/3f3dbbb1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130610/3f3dbbb1/smime.p7s>