Re: [council] Fw: [wg-review] Concerns
I entirely agree. I dropped of the wg-review list for precisely the reasons
However, I think this has been a very useful exercise - just because it has
brought into clear focus the need for structure and method. In my
experience, it is very difficult for wg to achieve good results without
support from a professional secretariat experienced in project management
and policy analysis. In this, I think we have much to learn from the
processes developed for Standards Associations.
I'm not sure what happens in other countries, but in Australia, the
Australian Standards Association relies heavily on working groups. However,
it provides the WGs with strong support in the form of booklets detailing
the responsibilities of the Chair and WG members, details of the entire
process involved in the development and adoption of new standards, and
professional project managers to support the WGs and ensure that the proper
processes are followed.
I envisage that the proposed NC professional secretariat will establish
similar processes to facilitate the development of consensus policies for
the technical administration of the DNS.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Digitel - Ken Stubbs" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "names council" <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:31 PM
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
> without a definitive, understandable, methodology, it is very difficult
> 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
> and constructive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dr. Michael S. Gendron" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > discussions, set interim goals so we know when we have accomplished
> > something - not goalss like "get the report done," develop
> > that discuss particular topics then bring the issues back to the full
> > for a discussion, employ better collaborative technologies. We have to
> > something.
> > I am willing to help, get involved, get more people involved, but we
> > organize this WG.
> > Dr. Gendron
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> > Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html