DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Fw: [wg-review] Concerns

Ken I agree.  I have heard that again given the sheer number of emails,
meaningful participation in this WG has been difficult.  Philip, if it is
not already on our business plan, I think we need to add a project to finish
the work that WGD has accomplished so we have a set of procedures in place
soon before we create any new working groups.

-----Original Message-----
From: kstubbs@digitel.net [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 7:32 AM
To: names council
Subject: [council] Fw: [wg-review] Concerns

fellow council members

this independent analysis by one of the wg-review  participants represents
an excellent example of the reason why, in the future, some sort of
structure and methodology needs to be developed for managing working groups.

without  a definitive, understandable,  methodology, it is very difficult to
ascertain that the finished product really represents  legitimate,
broad-based, consensus opinions.

ken stubbs
p.s. i don't know who this gentlemen is but his comments are very insightful
and constructive

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Michael S. Gendron" <mgendron75@home.com>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 7:39 AM
Subject: [wg-review] Concerns

> To all:
> This has been an interesting experience......wg-review. I can understand
> many have dropped out.
> I believe in that if you want to have something down, that you ask the
> busiest person you know.  They know how to budget their time and thus get
> things done. This group surely takes that and more.
> BUT, this work group is almost impossible. I have several concerns:
> 1) Many emails are very personal in nature - flaming each other and not
> sticking to the issues.  This increases the about of reading immensely.
> 2) The discussions can only be likened to 30 people in a conference room
> where there are 10 different topics being discussed simultaneously, with
> people on the opposite ends of the room.
> 3) The lack of structure, policy, and direction makes this process
> untenable.
> 4) The few people that are left in this group cannot be called
> representative of the Internet.  This consensus (sorry) is not useful.
> Think about it, we publish a report...make a statement.  The someone does
> not like it - they have the option of negating everything we say because
> this groups is a small contingent that could no way represent the Internet
> as a whole.
> I think our work is vital, but we need to model ourselves on standard
> business processes.  Some ideas - set agenda's, have focus group/moderated
> discussions, set interim goals so we know when we have accomplished
> something - not goalss like "get the report done,"  develop sub-committees
> that discuss particular topics then bring the issues back to the full
> for a discussion, employ better collaborative technologies. We have to do
> something.
> I am willing to help, get involved, get more people involved, but we need
> organize this WG.
> Dr. Gendron
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>