Meeting minutes
New Business
Fazio: Need someone to update the github
Sheri_B-H: Stacey to own the intro -- she will get github assist
… Sheri will own the use cases and spreadsheet
… still open, get Susie's changes from the spreadsheet (in the support dimension) into the narrative
… Lionel will enter the stakeholder material
… Spell chack and broken link check: Janina to task Roy with that
CharlesL: Need to update information on the location of the Excel sheet and a link to it.
Sheri_B-H: I'll take that
Fazio: We are shooting for 28-June publication
janina: I recall we do working draft on 28-Jun, as ramp up for publication in July
Stakeholder Spreadsheet
Roles discussion for RACI spreadsheet. Completed a draft. Need to come back to the list of roles. Stacey, Jeff and Lionel worked on this.
we decided that these were internal roles
bit fuzzy and messy, struggled the with roles as the list was originally made in other work. Propose curating a list that's more suited for maturity model roles
To complete, why we're doing this - the person in charge of a dimension will look to the roles as who to engage for the proof points
Sheri - it all looks correct to her. Waffling a bit on trainer/instructor as not involved with ICt so don't know if push or pull model. ICT people need training...
This is where the fuzziness comes in with roles and definition of roles as some things may be "it depends"
Designer for example - designer of the product or the courseware?
If we curate the role list it should have comments/definition.
Involved a lot vs those not involved as much into secondary group?
Maybe a subset isOK, but we might run into trouble if we define things differently
<Fazio> Agreed eliminate the specific roles keep more general
Perhaps we should honor list of roles from AGWG, but look at a subset?
list of roles...what is the value depending on how different people/companies will look at it? Look at the proof points, they pick a dimension then pick a person/role to work on or assign the work. Based on the proof points they're going to figure out who's going to be needed to be involved.
Giving a starting point to complete the dimension analysis is good to get them started and helps us continue the work that AGWG started.
Instead of discreet roles, what if we established different disciplines that go into the proof point? If the "head person" doesn't understand what to do or how to get started, then you might assume no one below that knows either. Maybe we create a more instruction for each dimension on how to approach it, or what discipline that should be involved, this might add some value.
We had a lot of discussion on the roles, if we're having these discussions then others will as well.
Why not both? Don't want to hold the update, but no reason we can't do both and people can absorb and adapt to the size of org and how they're structured
Spoke with Gene, she'll join us in about three weeks
Jean (spelling?)
stacey: This is what I am hearing
… (1) is there harm in publishing the roles in the way we did it, with explanation
… then beyond that explore it more
… we also discussed the Spider Graph approach done previously
Fazio: OK to publish and ask, is this useful
stacey: "We dont want to be precious with our work, but we don't want to cause harm with what we do."
Our sub-group worked out the roles here, https://
https://
Jeff: I suggest we publish it as a seperate document
janina: That's not an option
Fazio: I suggest an appendix
+1 to the Appendix idea
Jeff: Appendix sounds fine with me.
Fazio: Any objections to adding the stakeholders document as an appendix?
RESOLUTION: TO publish stakeholders document as an appendix, with an editor's note