[IGFmaglist] Workshop evaluation call

Subi Chaturvedi subichaturvedi at gmail.com
Wed Apr 15 00:12:38 EDT 2015


Thank you Susan, extremely helpful call.. Janis thanks, for the recognition
of a complex issue.

1.. On the Merger specially - Peter some insights on mergers and why there
are no easy answers.

 Mergers were first initiated in 2013 , when we a review process to
retrieve proposals was put in place which had not made the cutoff. Well
intentioned attempt to stave for balance, thematic, regional etc.

The cutoff is arrived at depending upon the overall quality of all the
workshop proposals submitted and a number of slots available.

It was suggested that similar proposals:

A. High ranking one which has made the cutoff and has a slot be encouraged
to merge with a low ranking proposals.

While there was incentive for a low ranking proposal there was none for the
high ranking one.

The following problems arise.

1. It is a decision taken in retrospect. Hence cannot be binding on either
parties especially not the high ranking one.
Who already have a full panel and have done a good job with the proposal.

2. Information was sometimes missing for the low ranking ones to make the
connections/ outreach.

3. Low ranking proposers sent emails to high ranking ones and were often
met with a stoic NO or silence.

4. As MAG many a times it was suggested that a proposal merge with another
because they were discussing the same issue. It was later discovered that
they were discussing two different aspects of the issue and there was no
common ground. We err because this would require a disportioncate amount of
time vis a vis the overall evaluation process.

5. This is an extremely time consuming process and requires MAG members or
the secretariat to broker consensus. Not a good place to be at for a host
of reasons for either. Also different form mentoring or capacity building.

B. The very important issue of how are we treating the proposals especially
from developing countries and first timers if they specifically say they
need help from the MAG and the Secretariat remains unanswered for
soliciting experts/ speakers.

I believe we need to arrive at a decision. If we give them this option and
then judge them for what they have , as is, it is unfair.


C. I do not support the tick box, because it is akin to placing the cart
before the horse. It will not be a mere data point. It will end up creating
a bias in evaluation and I would prefer to err on the side of caution.

D. We also agreed to make an attempt at giving feedback especially to the
low scoring ones so that they may improve and wherever possible if there is
a constructive suggestion for the high scorers to make it better.

E. We strive for quality but we as MAG remain committed to the principles
of inclusiveness and transparency and bring new voices into the discourse
and not merely incentivising veterans or disincentivsing expertise.

F. I support the idea of standard responses. Save time in addition to the
comment box.

G. I also support the idea of sharing all feedback, automated via radio
buttons and those in the comment box with workshop proposers.

Regards

Subi


----

Subi Chaturvedi

Twitter:@subichaturvedi




On 15 April 2015 at 08:54, <karklinsj at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Peter,
> Such a statement will put one of the proponents in weak position.
> Discussions on merger are not going well. That is fact based on previous
> experience.
> If the statement is sent to both, that puts the Secretariat in weak
> position as at one point one of two should be selected.
> In my view mergers should be handled on case by case basis thru direct
> contact with proponents.
> JK
>
> Sent from Surface
>
> *From:* Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister at chambers.gen.nz>
> *Sent:* ‎Wednesday‎, ‎April‎ ‎15‎, ‎2015 ‎3‎:‎53‎ ‎AM
> *To:* igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>
>
> On 15/04/2015, at 4:24 am, Susan Chalmers <susan at chalmers.associates>
> wrote:
>
>
> snip
>
> Third, the MAG will have to find agreement on how we wish to handle
> "merger" workshop proposals. It would be good to start this conversation
> online, in the lead up to the May meeting.
>
> Sorry to miss the call.
>
> I'm not quite sure if there is disagreement about this....
> I assume we are talking about competing proposals that each make the grade
> on the score card.
>
> Wouldn't competing proposers get a message from the Secretariat saying:
> *"The proposals from you and X have been considered and found to have
> potential for inclusion in the IGF programme, but have considerable overlap
> with each other. *
>
> *We invite you to consult with each other ( contact details provided -
> possibly need to get permission to release these first) to see if a single
> proposal can be formulated. *
>
> *Unless we hear from you by (due date) that one of the proposals has been
> withdrawn or a single, merged proposal agreed upon, we shall have to
> decline your proposal. We reserve the right to review any composite
> proposal for its suitability"*
>
> Perhaps older hands at this can indicate what the problems areas in this
> issue are?
>
> Thanks
>
> Peter
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150415/bf7afced/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list