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

Ljupco Gjorgjinski Ljupco.Gjorgjinski at mfa.gov.mk
Tue Apr 14 10:40:42 EDT 2015


Marilyn,

What is presented as inclusiveness can be an attempt to stifle by way of great numbers. In statistics, it would be called "confusing statistical significance with practical significance."  In thermodynamics, increase in entropy, or disorder, in a system. In politics: cunning tactics.

Having both quality and quantity is certainly the way forward.  That can be achieved by including everyone that should be/deserves to be included, but limiting the numbers of workshops by curating them intelligently. Therein lies the balance between quality and quantity.

Jivan.

P.S. Apologies to the group for my absence. My country has entered turbulent waters. But we are an anti-fragile lot. :)


From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 4:15 PM
To: Ljupco Gjorgjinski; Flávio Rech Wagner
Cc: 'igfmaglist at intgovforum.org'
Subject: RE: [IGFmaglist] suggested workshop grading scale descriptions - merging of proposals

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<mailto:Ljupco.Gjorgjinski at mfa.gov.mk>
To: marilynscade at hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>; flavio at inf.ufrgs.br<mailto:flavio at inf.ufrgs.br>
CC: igfmaglist at intgovforum.org<mailto: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<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/20150414/4cfdfb77/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list