9.3 Not Active 0-40%
Hi everyone.. I am having problems getting into the comments boxes below. Many thanks to you all for your valuable contributions. 24/11/13 (and still on 03/12/13)
Glenn McKnight (03/12/13)
Hi ..At the metrics meeting on the Sunday I tried to bring up the issue of punishment vs reward.
It didn't seem to take on great interest and it was dismissed
For the record, this onus on punishment which has been central to US jurisprudence has been reconsidered
Here is an article
Ali AlMeshal (01/12/13)
Thank you Tijani for your input. I can see that in principle you are agreeing with me in some of the below if it is not all. To comment on your feedback please allow me to crystallize my below views.
If you may notice that I have listed my points below in logical sequence , staring from what is on the table as a points to what do I see as a proposal.
My first point:
- “Attending meetings by itself is not a goal or objective therefore it cannot be part of the measuring criteria independently.”
- Also participation and contribution to the meeting discussion cannot be evaluated as a performance measure
Therefore to make it part of the criterion I suggested this
- ALAC members should be assigned to Chair a WG’s
§ With this type of assignment the member will logically be accountable and responsible of a set deliverables that he/she have to achieve, and this can be measured and evaluated for the following set of KPI’s
- · Time to deliver
- · Commitment
- · Team working
- · Developing others (member of the group)
- · Others
So by doing the above we are fulfilling the attending and contribution part of the criteria , but the major different hear is that the member is not attending or participating for the sack of showing up or to record his attendees only , No he is attending to update , discuss and participate and give feedback on action item that he is in-charge of and so on.
My Second point:
- ALAC members and chair of RALO’s jointly should be responsible for engaging the ALS’s in work and activities related to the rejoin at least and should provide a monthly call report on this.
§ This is different activity from the RALO monthly call; this should be done separately to reach out the ALS’s through a pre-plan agenda and time frame.
§ The objective is to get in touch with ALS’s members outside the official call and tries to understand their needs and requirements and also will be a good tool maybe to get them engage in if they are not active. So this is more of OUTREACH on a small scale and more of direct communication.
- On the assumption that this point is clear, then for the parameter, what I have thought about for the time being is the Call Report that need to be presented in the monthly call meeting. The call report for example should look like
Comments and feedback
Bahrain Internet Society
Should you or any other have more thoughts of this then it would be very much helpful to enrich this fruitful discussion.
Hope I manage to answer and clarify your enquiries and doubts .
From Tijani Benjemaa (30/11/13)
Thank you very much for your comments
- Attending meetings by itself is not a goal or objective therefore it can not be part of the measuring criteria independently.
Ali, ALAC can’t decide on anything without quorum, and members who don’t attend the ALAC meetings may break its functioning. Also, I may agree with you that attending is not a goal and shouldn’t be part of the criteria, but the attendance is absolutely necessary for any contribution during the meeting/call. It’s the elementary duty for the ALAC members. Attendance is proposed as one of the metrics element
- Also participation and contribution to the meeting discussion can not be evaluated as a performance measure
If the participation and contribution to the ALAC meetings is not considered as a performance criterion, that means that all the ALAC members can decide not meet at all and they can be considered as having good performance.
Thereafter to have a process in place that gives an indication of the member performance I would suggest the following
o ALAC members should be assigned to Chair a WG’s
This is another criterion listed in the proposal
o ALAC members and chair of RALO’s jointly should be responsible for engaging the ALS’s in work and activities related to the rejoin at least and should provide a monthly call report on this.
What are the parameters of measurement you propose for this?
Thank you again for your contribution
Fouad Bajwa (28/11/13)
I believe one of the most important metrics component should be built on the fact that if a member suggests something, how many of those suggestions were actually accepted and incorporated into the system. One small example is that I've proposed individual membership in the past during 2010, created the paperwork suggesting the policy reform in the APRALO articles, presented it and then silence. This would have enhanced participation, inclusion of more productive talent and people that are sensitive about ICANN and IG related issues. Such talent thus has to move under a narrower scope into the ncuc/ncsg and APRALO loses out.