[IGFmaglist] Workshop grading- linguistic considerations

Juan Fernandez Gonzalez juan.fernandez at mincom.gob.cu
Tue Apr 7 18:09:30 EDT 2015


Dear Colleagues:

I urge you to take into consideration that many workshop proposals have been submitted in a language that is not native for the authors.

So in those cases the proposals may not be well articulated to defend their case.

The submission form is a bit intimidating for non-English speaking persons.

So we have to try not to be overcritical.

Best regards

Juan


De: Virginia Paque [mailto:virginiap at diplomacy.edu]
Enviado el: martes, 7 de abril de 2015 13:07
Para: Susan Chalmers
CC: MAG-public
Asunto: Re: [IGFmaglist] Webinar on workshop grading

Perhaps another way of approaching the evaluation is to take the 10 stipulated points, and assign a value of 0.5 to each one if they are fulfilled, resulting in a score of 5 for a proposal that fulfills all of the criteria. While the mathematical formula need not be strictly applied, it might help us get a general idea of how well-structured the proposal is:

1.    Is the proposal well thought-through and complete?
2.    Is the proposal relevant to Internet Governance?
3.    Does the proposal contain a list of proposed speakers, participating individuals and organizations, or a description of how different stakeholder perspectives will be represented?
4.    Is this the first time this individual or organization has submitted a workshop proposal to the IGF? (first-time proposers are preferred over repeat-proposers),
5.    Is the Workshop description consistent with the format listed (for example, if the format is Debate, then does the proposal describe how the debate will be set up, with timings, etc.,  indicated, are all sides of the issues represented)?
6.    Is the proposal for a new format? (Break-out Group Discussions, Debates, Flash Sessions, Birds of a Feather, Roundtables and Other formats are encouraged over the Panel format),
7.    Is there diversity amongst the participants (gender, geography, stakeholder group, perspective)? (as a general matter, greater diversity is encouraged),
8.    Is there developing country participation? (as a general matter, developing country participation is encouraged),
9.    Does the description clearly specify the Internet Governance problem/question/challenged to be addressed during the workshop?
10.    Does the proposal include a well-considered plan for remote participation?

Ginger (Virginia) Paque
DiploFoundation

DiploFoundation upcoming online courses: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Susan Chalmers <susan at chalmers.associates<mailto:susan at chalmers.associates>> wrote:
Thanks, Marilyn, for your email. I'm certainly not the best diplomat, but I do mean well!

I'd only used the "poor to excellent" scale as an example, and did ask everyone for alternative wording, for the precise reason that there are better ways to express the scale.

You seem to be on a much better path. Perhaps you could finish your thoughts for us all? That would indeed be very helpful and constructive.

Sincerely,
Susan



Susan Chalmers
susan at chalmers.associates<mailto:susan at chalmers.associates>

CHALMERS & ASSOCIATES
http://chalmers.associates

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:44 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>> wrote:
Susan,
WOW, a bit negative.

How about
1 - lacking ..WHAT
2 - lacking - what
3 - meets criteria on ???
4 - fully meets... criteria

5 - excells on criteria

I think that a rating that is poor, without criteria is offensive and not actually in line with our role as MAG
who want to advance engagement of all who are interested.

Or perhaps I am confused with MAG role?

M
________________________________
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 00:21:41 +1200
From: susan at chalmers.associates<mailto:susan at chalmers.associates>
To: lea at gp-digital.org<mailto:lea at gp-digital.org>
CC: Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org<mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] Webinar on workshop grading

*I think it would be helpful if someone could give descriptions for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Perhaps someone could suggest alternative wording for the below idea?

1 = Poor
2 = Fair
3 = Good
4 = Very Good
5 = Excellent



Susan Chalmers
susan at chalmers.associates<mailto:susan at chalmers.associates>

CHALMERS & ASSOCIATES
http://chalmers.associates

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Susan Chalmers <susan at chalmers.associates<mailto:susan at chalmers.associates>> wrote:
Hi Lea, all,

The word "webinar" might be confusing to some - so far as I understand we are scheduling a normal WebEx call, which can be recorded for MAG members to listen to afterwards.

Just a few thoughts to share as the doodle poll is being filled out...

We all have a little bit of homework to do before the call. Please read the evaluation guidelines<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/mag-workshop-review-and-evaluation-process-for-igf-2015> before the call so that we all begin with a basic understanding of the process.

I'd also strongly suggest that everyone take a "test drive" of the guidelines by reviewing at least 5 workshop proposals, which are published on the IGF website<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals>.

MAG members give each workshop proposal a score from 1 to 5, with 1 being the least favourable score and 5 the best.*

This score is based upon the following considerations, from the evaluation guidelines<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/mag-workshop-review-and-evaluation-process-for-igf-2015>:

1.    Is the proposal well thought-through and complete?
2.    Is the proposal relevant to Internet Governance?
3.    Does the proposal contain a list of proposed speakers, participating individuals and organizations, or a description of how different stakeholder perspectives will be represented?
4.    Is this the first time this individual or organization has submitted a workshop proposal to the IGF? (first-time proposers are preferred over repeat-proposers),
5.    Is the Workshop description consistent with the format listed (for example, if the format is Debate, then does the proposal describe how the debate will be set up, with timings, etc.,  indicated, are all sides of the issues represented)?
6.    Is the proposal for a new format? (Break-out Group Discussions, Debates, Flash Sessions, Birds of a Feather, Roundtables and Other formats are encouraged over the Panel format),
7.    Is there diversity amongst the participants (gender, geography, stakeholder group, perspective)? (as a general matter, greater diversity is encouraged),
8.    Is there developing country participation? (as a general matter, developing country participation is encouraged),
9.    Does the description clearly specify the Internet Governance problem/question/challenged to be addressed during the workshop?
10.    Does the proposal include a well-considered plan for remote participation?

The way that you grade each proposal is up to you. People devise their own systems. Personally, my "code" when evaluating the proposals is: be neutral, be thoughtful, be fair.

I'm hoping that some veteran MAG members can join us to share their workshop evaluation experiences.

I hope this helps in preparation of the call.

Sincerely,
Susan





Susan Chalmers
susan at chalmers.associates<mailto:susan at chalmers.associates>

CHALMERS & ASSOCIATES
http://chalmers.associates

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org<mailto:lea at gp-digital.org>> wrote:
Dear Chengetai,

Thank you for making these arrangements. I'm afraid I won't be attend either of the two dates proposed due to travel - would it be possible to record the session and view it later on?

Warm wishes,
Lea

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Chengetai Masango <cmasango at unog.ch<mailto:cmasango at unog.ch>> wrote:
Dear All,

Please find below a link to a doodle poll to set the time for a webinar on workshop grading. I would be grateful if all interested parties would fill it out.

http://doodle.com/unyf76macnqmcwvz

The Poll will close on Thursday 12 am UTC.


Best regards,

Chengetai


_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org<mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org


_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org<mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org



_______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org<mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org


_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org<mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20150407/0ed2a390/attachment.html>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list