Dear Malcolm, I completely identify and appreciate that time is of essence and prioritization is the key. In fact this is what motivated me to suggest a matrix because such framework may give direction to assessment. But if there is none, I wonder what would be the approach for relative assessment of options? I'm afraid then evaluation would be subjective and not objective/accountable. On your contention that 'weights of different parameters are likely to be not equal', I again agree, and clarify that this why in my previous mail, I didn't state scale and scores, but rather categorically mention that weights may be assigned (please read after agreement). [On this @Roelof (in mail of Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:49 PM) suggested, "we could give different criteria different weights, according to importance." I second that.] Further, I submit that if exercise of having a scorecard to underpin the process is not undertaken, then - different assessors will have different notions of relative importance of a parameter, - this way they will end up deriving different conclusions, and - in effect there will be further deliberations and we will actually loose time. In my considerate view, this is essential. Seems @Roelof agrees. From my end if other colleagues agree, I stand to contribute on this further, and while doing so as suggested by @Mathieu (in mail of Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:54 PM), attempt would be to adhere to agreed upon definitions and to keep it simple. Best, Renu Sirothiya On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 2015-03-17 10:24, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Renu,
Many thanks for this great work. It definitely shows better in a spreadsheet.
I have attached a commented version of the document. In general I believe we should try and stay on the (safer) ground of agreed upon definitions for our parameters, that is the reason why I suggest several changes. I also raise some questions about the notions you put up when unsure what the definition would be. This should hopefully lead to a bit of simplification of the matrix.
I am a bit concerned a chart like this is apt to mislead as much as to inform. Its format carries an implication that all these factors are of equal weight; I do not agree that they are.
For example, in my opinion, the effectiveness of an accountability mechanism has primacy: does it actually deliver the remedy that it promises to the problem it is designed to address?
Questions of which mechanism is cheapest to implement, or simplest from a legal point of view, are rather secondary - at least having passed a basic minimum threshold (financially and legally possible).
If we're not careful we could divert a lot of time and effort into discussing the format of a chart like this, that could be better spent examining the proposals themselves. So rather than try to create the perfect chart, I'd rather say "use this if you like, but I don't think we should frame our discussion around it".
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA