Thanks, both. Maxim – I think we also need to remember that regardless of where in the community the volunteer may have their home, they will usually be participating in a PDP in their personal/professional capacity and not representing their constituencies. They may not even be affiliated to any constituency. So while I see what you’re aiming at, the “breakdown by constituencies members for PDPs and other efforts” may not actually be that helpful, as it may give an inaccurate view. I guess it comes down to: we need to prioritise what needs to be done at one end of the scale, to the this-would-be-lovely-one-day at the other. M From: GNSO-PDP3Dot0-DT <gnso-pdp3dot0-dt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Maxim Alzoba Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 11:36 PM To: Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org> Cc: gnso-pdp3dot0-dt <gnso-pdp3dot0-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-PDP3Dot0-DT] Improvement #17 Discussion Paper & Examples Hello Berry, Thanks for quite interesting statistics (PDP Timeline might have a label of what is we measure for further clarity). I think that to address how we might reflect the community resources (issue of the volunteer burnout) we need to have a breakdown by constituencies members for PDPs and other efforts (and looking at the moment in time and number of participants of then current members we might see the load [in each constituency there are not so many active members who participate in GNSO activities, and if we see that the current/predicted load is higher than the average was - it might be a sign of the current/incoming lack of capacity ]). Sometimes sum of days in not what kills, the number of meetings and hours on an avg. day is (example - some PDPs used to have biweekly schedule, but due to being synced with other PDPs via ICANN meetings rule of 'no meetings in a week after the ICANN meeting), those weeks (sometimes even , sometimes odd) were hard. Having 3 calls on a particular day for the persons not fully devoted to the policy work is not what all members of community are able to do (obligations on a daily work, home e.t.c). Also members have to do some kind of reading or worse, writhing (the latter consumes more time) 'homework', which also tends to group at those weeks due to ongoing e-mail discussions [if you write something right after the meeting, there is a high chance that the item is going to be discussed till the next meeting, especially for somehow controversial items]). P.s: I wonder if it counts if I was on CWG‐UCTN(I thought it is not active), RDS, SSC and currently on SubPro, RPM and Council as 4 (or do we see people with numbers only for the current efforts :) ? P.P.s: I see more and more situations where people instead of saying, that they will not be able to participate in a particular community (not necessary GNSO wide) activity after a certain day - the situation, where someone says 'I am not able to continue, effective now', and to me it is a sign that the community is overloaded (none is able to replace the leaving person on a constant or temporary basis e.t.c. ). Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 11 Nov 2019, at 00:19, Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb@icann.org<mailto:Berry.Cobb@icann.org>> wrote: Hi All, Please find attached a discussion paper for Improvement #17 ”Resource Reporting for PDP WGs”. It started out as just trying to gather into one place what was listed in the PDP3.0 paper and the remaining action items flowing from SPSP2019 to get sense of what we’re trying to accomplish. My initial issue with how this was framed in the PDP3.0 workplan is the very broad use of “resources.” From a project management perspective, “resources” can mean several things to me and defining this should probably be one of the first actions to gain clarity and provide direction for what we ultimately declare the deliverable to be. I’ve also included some screen prints as examples of prior work products we’ve produced over the years, but only pieces of them start to address this topic and all these were very much working drafts. I believe this will be the primary agenda item the next time we meet. I think the super-duper-small-team for this improvement will meet prior to better prepare for deliberations on the call. We welcome comments and questions in the meantime. B Berry Cobb @berrycobb GNSO Policy Consultant _______________________________________________ GNSO-PDP3Dot0-DT mailing list GNSO-PDP3Dot0-DT@icann.org<mailto:GNSO-PDP3Dot0-DT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-pdp3dot0-dt _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.