[IGFmaglist] Webinar on workshop grading

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Tue Apr 7 17:52:38 EDT 2015


Hi,

This could work.

avri

On 07-Apr-15 13:06, Virginia Paque wrote:
> 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
> 
>     *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 <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