[IGFmaglist] suggested workshop grading scale descriptions - merging of proposals

Ana Neves Ana.Neves at fct.pt
Tue Apr 14 09:47:57 EDT 2015


+1

From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Miller, Cheryl A
Sent: terça-feira, 14 de Abril de 2015 14:24
To: 'Susan Chalmers'; 'Flavio Rech Wagner'
Cc: 'igfmaglist at intgovforum.org'
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] suggested workshop grading scale descriptions - merging of proposals

+1



Sent with Good (www.good.com<http://www.good.com>)


-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Chalmers [susan at chalmers.associates<mailto:susan at chalmers.associates>]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 09:11 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: Flavio Rech Wagner
Cc: Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] suggested workshop grading scale descriptions - merging of proposals
Dear Flavio,

This sounds like a good approach to me!

Sincerely,
Susan



Susan Chalmers
susan at chalmers.associates<mailto:susan at chalmers.associates>

CHALMERS & ASSOCIATES
http://chalmers.associates

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Flavio Rech Wagner <flavio at inf.ufrgs.br<mailto:flavio at inf.ufrgs.br>> wrote:
Dear Susan

Regarding the merging of proposals, I don't think we should consider the option "should be merged with another" in the same grading scale from 1 to 5.

If, as an example, a proposal receives scores 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, and 4 from six different MAG members, its final average score is 2.5. This does not mean, however, that people agree that this proposal has a good potential to be merged with some other proposal, since potential for merging can be evaluated acoording to different criteria.

I would prefer to have a "tick box" in addition to the score, whereby evaluators could indicate that the proposal, independently from the score it receives, has a good potential to be merged.

Best

Flavio

Dear MAG colleagues,

Based upon input from the last virtual meeting, how do the following grading scale descriptions sit with everyone?

1 = proposal has serious problems
2 = should not be accepted
(2.5 = should be merged with another)
3 = borderline
4 = could be accepted
5 = must be accepted

Please don't hesitate to share your thoughts.

Sincerely,
Susan


Susan Chalmers
susan at chalmers.associates<mailto:susan at chalmers.associates>

CHALMERS & ASSOCIATES
http://chalmers.associates




_______________________________________________

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20150414/a2900da4/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list