[IGFmaglist] Webinar on workshop grading

Virginia Paque virginiap at diplomacy.edu
Tue Apr 7 13:06:50 EDT 2015


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>
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
>
> *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES
> http://chalmers.associates
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:44 AM, Marilyn Cade <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
>> To: lea at gp-digital.org
>> CC: 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
>>
>> *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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150407/07c52033/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list