2019-08-20 PDP3.0

Notes/ Action Items

ACTION ITEMS

- Darcy to further refine the anonymous survey related to #13 and share with the Small Team an updated version to review.

- Staff to proceed with finalization of the document(s) for #16 and post the relevant link(s) in the status tracking spreadsheet. Staff to assign final call/interim finalization date for #16.

- Staff to work with Rafik in seeking Small Team’s direction on #11.

NOTES              

1. Welcome and roll call

2. #13 Anonymous Survey

- Who receives the raw results? Who receives the aggregated results? What type of transparency we want?

- Match the survey questions with the expected standards of leaders (Improvement #6).

- 360 review for Nomcom is a similar effort. Maybe this survey can follow the practice of 360 review, as the survey results are public. Check whether the 360 review can be duplicated.

- Assuming “raw” is still anonymized data – available to Council on request, but generally a summary. Provide the raw data to Council leadership & liaison AND WG leadership. Surely the goal is to be able to check & change course if appropriate?

- What is the frequency of the survey? Regular, but hard to envision the exact frequency. It should correspond to the scope / timeline of the PDP.

- We should not misuse the survey results for people to complain. It should not discourage leadership to leave a PDP. Survey is to provide the WG members’ view of PDP leadership.

- It should have the name of a particular PDP on top of the survey so respondents don’t get mixed up. Have the survey period for at least one week.

- If a PDP is only one year, the survey can be conducted at the end as a retrospective type of review. If a PDP lasts multiple years, the survey can be conducted in the middle of the PDP. Frequency is impacted by the length of a PDP.

- We may need additional tools to review PDP leadership.

- You could pick a fixed timeframe and determine which PDPs are ready for a leadership review? It could have a ‘needs to be in operation for a minimum of x months’? Minimum 6 months, but it remains flexible as if there is something seriously wrong, you don’t even need 6 months to figure that out.

- The survey should not be the end of PDP evaluation, but an ongoing evaluation.

- So maybe the question is about setting the conditions that can trigger survey before or ahead of scheduled time. The survey is just one input among others to review WG leadership. Regular schedule but with ability to trigger it if there is an indication that something might be amiss? You will also need to factor in the work load for Council leadership, liaison, staff as well as subsequently Council for managing and reviewing the surveys.

- ACTION ITEM: Darcy to further refine the anonymous survey and share with the Small Team an updated version to review.

3. #16 Criteria for PDP WG Updates

- Presentation of project status and condition procedure document, part of the “work product”

- These products provide certain details to show the challenge the PDP is facing.

- Budget, it ties with #17. Question about bandwidth. That is one of the main improvements related to #17. Costing of a group is different from its financial resources.

- “Overall hours consumed” is not a perfect indicator on the overall resources spent on a PDP. It is a guestimate. Some of these tracking elements will be linked to CRM / Salesforce.

-. Reluctant to minutely include/assess/... volunteer/community time; we need to make something out of that piece information, but it's not as if that were a pool of resources which can be shifted to other PDPs.


-  We can spend more time on the resourcing of current and future groups. Staff and Community size is complicated. The end goal is that someday we can assign a number to a planned PDP and be able to assign a $$$$ number and the Council make a decision whether that is a PDP they want to launch and expend resources.

- Even if it is not a PDP, just understanding how much the effort costs, it can better inform the Council whether the effort should be done or not.

- Making rough estimations about how many people are needed from the community?

- Can close #16 out based on the discussions today. The only question on #16 is how it gets deployed. Staff will need to make decisions on whether to move toward the same level of consistency across PDP WGs, especially as they have been ongoing with existing methods of providing WG updates.

- In several "SDOs/regional organizations" (ITU, IETF, GSMA, ETSI...), none of them measure nor manage volunteer/membership/community time.

- We should be conservative about community resources and so having thing in mind when planning activities. We can put some criteria like how much WIP we can cope with, determining the skills needed(from basic to advanced) to make decision.

- The SSAC has implemented a max. # of working parties that can be active at the same time. If there are new topics to be dealt with, they are added to the pipeline and only start when another closes. It is trickier in a GNSO environment, but similarly there is a limit here of how many projects can be dealt with at the same time.

- SSAC may be different, but in a way this is exactly what the Council has been discussing … we can’t do everything at once. We have to prioritize the work.
Be conscious of workload and what we can do at one time.

- ACTION ITEM: Staff to proceed with finalization of the document(s) for #16 and post the relevant link(s) in the status tracking spreadsheet. Staff to assign final call/interim finalization date for #16.

4. #11

- Get input on the first three bullet points in the implementation plan.  

- Create check-list for items that need to happen at the outset of PDP which includes Council / Council leadership to meet with the PDP WG to brief the PDP Team on the charter and its expectations. – This has already been done in certain degree. Need more direction for creating check list for stuff that has already been done. More about documenting these activities and checking whether there are related materials.

- ACTION ITEM: Staff to work with Rafik in seeking Small Team’s direction on #11.

5. AOB