[IGFmaglist] Webinar on workshop grading

Virginia Paque virginiap at diplomacy.edu
Tue Apr 7 08:25:14 EDT 2015


It would be particularly helpful if the grading system is put into context,
like:

1 = Poor - Not a good proposal, even with mentoring, probably should not be
accepted
2 = Fair - Good base, but needs work/mentoring before being accepted
3 = Good - Good proposal, comments needed/mentoring not needed
4 = Very Good - May need some finalising, but basically ready
5 = Excellent - ready to go

Ginger (Virginia) Paque
DiploFoundation

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

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Susan Chalmers <susan at chalmers.associates>
wrote:

> *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
>
> *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES
> http://chalmers.associates
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Susan Chalmers <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, **b**e 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
>>
>> *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES
>> http://chalmers.associates
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Lea Kaspar <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>
>>> 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
>>>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Igfmaglist mailing list
>>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> 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/20150407/269b2965/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list