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

Romero Caballero, Maria Victoria vromero at sre.gob.mx
Tue Apr 14 10:07:11 EDT 2015


Completely agree with Marilyn.

We cannot deny anybody a chance to participate and if necessary to guide the in to the process, otherwise we could contradict IGF inclusive spirit. I know it is difficult to accommodate all the request, but at least we should try to find ways to promote inclusion particularly new comers.

Thanks to Marilyn and Flavio.

Victoria




From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: martes, 14 de abril de 2015 03:56 p.m.
To: Flávio Rech Wagner
Cc: 'igfmaglist at intgovforum.org'
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] suggested workshop grading scale descriptions - merging of proposals


I suffer from a different hope, and that is that we want to bring more into the IGF, and if they are not 'there' according to
our somewhat mystical, magical, and frankly, top down assessment, as MAG, we should strive to find ways to allow participation,
NOT deny it.

Proposals will be rated with various individual biases. As a student of the father of organizational development, I learned early, and often, in my days as a student that we can only enable, we cannot control.  Isn't that our role as MAG?

Enabling, and perhaps this means that we add a category that is could be merged to fulfil our MAG criteria.

Shortly, I will not be a MAG member, as this is year 2 for me, and while I value this role, I worked as hard as a NON MAG member, as I work now, and I hope all will also do that, as MAG members, past MAG members, or future MAG members.

Let us focus on inclusiveness while focusing on quality and relevance.

Flavio, thanks for this suggestion.

Marilyn


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


_______________________________________________ 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/20150414/7c99d579/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list