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

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Tue Apr 14 10:15:23 EDT 2015


Jivan
I do not understand how providing inclusiveness is weakening. IN fact, as I understand our goal, inclusiveness is part of diversity and engagement.  
Let's assess how we bring forward workshops and main sessions, and also provide for inclusiveness.  I am from business, where generally, we want both quality and quantity. Surely, we can have both! 
M


From: Ljupco.Gjorgjinski at mfa.gov.mk
To: marilynscade at hotmail.com; flavio at inf.ufrgs.br
CC: igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
Subject: RE: [IGFmaglist] suggested workshop grading scale descriptions - merging of proposals
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:06:34 +0000









Another view would say: the more you add in numbers, the more you weaken the whole. The greater the focus, the greater the power. So, if you seek
 to add in quantity, you may in fact weaken in quality, instead of strengthening.

 
Jivan.

 


From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org]
On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade

Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 3:56 PM

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> 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



CHALMERS & ASSOCIATES

http://chalmers.associates







 
_______________________________________________
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/20150414/36924e5e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list