[IGFmaglist] Evaluating workshop proposals - Standardized reasons for scores of 3 or less

Flavio Rech Wagner flavio at inf.ufrgs.br
Wed Apr 15 06:33:25 EDT 2015


Dear MAG members

As already mentioned by Susan, I volunteered during the yesterday's 
virtual meeting on workshop evaluation to propose "standardized reasons" 
- kind of "buttons" the evaluators could easily click on - for why a 
proposal received a score of 3 or less.

These reasons would match the "Considerations when Evaluating 
Proposals", which have been already defined by the MAG and are copied at 
the end of this message for your reference.

Based on the "considerations", I suggest that the online evaluation form 
includes two sets of "buttons". The reasons directly match each of the 
considerations.

For each proposal, each evaluator may click on one or more buttons, as 
s/he thinks appropriate.
*
FIRST SET OF REASONS*

The first set gives reasons that, after aggregation by the secretariat, 
will be sent to the proposers to explain the final average scores their 
proposals received (numbers before the reasons correspond to the numbers 
of the "considerations").

(1) The proposal is either (a) not well thought-through or (b) incomplete.
(2) The proposal is not relevant to Internet Governance.
(3) The proposal does not include either (a) a list of proposed 
speakers, participating individuals and organizations, or (b) a 
description of how different stakeholder perspectives will be represented.
(5) The workshop description is not consistent with the format listed.
(7) There is no diversity amongst the participants (gender, geography, 
stakeholder group, perspective).
(9) The description does not clearly specify the Internet Governance 
problem/question/challenge to be addressed during the workshop.
(10) The proposal does not include a well-considered plan for remote 
participation.

*SECOND SET OF REASONS*

The second set corresponds to reasons that justify the subjective score 
given by the evaluator, in comparison with other proposals, but do not 
necessarily represent a weakness of the proposal, so that these reasons 
do not need to be sent to the proposers:

(4) This is not the first time this individual or organization has 
submitted a workshop proposal to the IGF.
(6) This is not a 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).
(8) There is no participation from developing countries.

I am looking for your feedback.

Best

Flavio

----------

*Considerations when Evaluating Proposals

*from*
*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?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20150415/85d2fc6a/attachment.html>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list