[IGFmaglist] Webinar on workshop grading

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Tue Apr 7 17:52:20 EDT 2015


Hi,

I like having an accurate scale.  We can probably find diplomatic
euphemistic ways to say poor.  But if something is below the acceptable
standard, it should be rated that way and a good reason should be given
to the proposer so they can do better in the future.

avri

On 07-Apr-15 10:51, Susan Chalmers 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
> <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
>     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
> 
>     *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, /*/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
>         <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
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
> 

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com





More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list