[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire

[Ken Bour]

SCI Members:



I have been thinking about the topics raised by Mikey and Avri in their
first impressions of the Draft Self-Assessment Questionnaire. Something was
definitely missing from the original formulation, which led to an “Aha!”
moment spurring me to create a second design which, I hope, addresses a few
of the comments expressed thus far.



I have reconstituted the questionnaire (still five sections but renamed),
reorganized some of the original questions, and added a few new ones. In
order not to lose track of the first iteration, I made a completely new page
and will henceforth house all questionnaire versions under a new heading:
Questionnaire Drafts/Versions (https://community.icann.org/x/ai5-Ag).



In this new Draft v2 iteration (https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag), I am
attempting to take into consideration the dimension raised by Mikey that was
only partially accommodated in Draft v1. To evaluate any dynamic system, we
could subdivide it into three basic or core components: Inputs → Processes
→ Outputs. In the first version, I captured many of the processes, the
outputs, but only a few of the inputs, namely, team member
representativeness, tools, and outside experts. I did not ask about the
other critical inputs that impinge upon the success of a WG, e.g., its
charter/mission (including time or other constraints) and team member
expertise. That led to a reconceptualization of the external resources
questions into three buckets: administrative, technical, and human.



This Draft v2 also shifts the rating scale to 7 points and adds “Background
Contributor” to the Role list as suggested by Avri.



I thank Mikey and Avri for their ideas/suggestions and look forward to
additional feedback from the team…



Ken



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130612/6c4bc2e9/attachment.html>