[IGFmaglist] Workshop evaluation call

Bhatia, Virat virat.bhatia at intl.att.com
Wed Apr 15 00:59:30 EDT 2015


Dear Susan, Subi, Peter and All,
What Susan is suggesting is perhaps the best way to approach mergers, i.e. have a guided process, since our experience in the past, consistent with what Subi has stated, has not been an encouraging one. Left to themselves, there is no incentive for a superior ranked proposal to accommodate a merger.
We end up raising hopes for those who have marginal scores, and after a painful, multi-week process, it falls apart. I have shared Subi’s experiences, including in 2013, as having submitted the highest scoring proposal below the cut-off mark, and yet being rejected on the grounds that “we are discussing 2 different aspects of the same issue”
I would suggest in addition to this guided process, we should limit the number of mergers to no more than 6-8.  Leaving some 15-20 merger options out there will make it overly burdensome on MAG members, in terms of time and effort. And in the end, we must realize that MAG only has “persuasive” abilities - no real authority to get the mergers accomplished.  Thankfully, this year the notice went out informing workshop submitters that mergers are a possibility, so unlike in previous years, a request for merger will not come as a surprise, or be rejected on those lines alone.
In summary, a 2 member MAG guided process, but with a cut off on the number of merger proposals, might yield better results than in the past.
Thanks for your suggestions and efforts. My two penny worth….
Regards,
Virat


From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Susan Chalmers
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 9:45 AM
To: Janis Karklins
Cc: igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] Workshop evaluation call

Dear Chair, Peter, all,

During the our recent workshop evaluation call, we discussed the option of a tickbox for each proposal, that each MAG member can check if they think that the workshop should be considered for a merger. This is a data point that we can use for discussion at the MAG meeting.

Perhaps it would help to first find consensus around what the reasons are for "merging" two workshops. At the next meeting, the MAG could have a fuller discussion on what procedure should follow.

I believe that the MAG wishes to solve a few different problems with the "merger process."

 *   We'd like to be as inclusive as possible, and encourage cross-community collaboration.
 *   At the same time, we would like to avoid having virtually the same workshop happen twice, though with different people.
 *   These considerations must be reconciled with the fact that there is limited time, resource, and space
I'd be curious to know what everyone else thinks on the above. In any event, if two workshops are asked to collaborate, then that collaboration should be guided either by the Secretariat or by willing MAG members - perhaps a new MAG member and a returning MAG member together, on one proposal.

Until we understand why we will be merging workshops, it might make the most sense to separate the "merger" consideration from the scoring of the workshop. If the box is ticked, then the MAG member must remember why, and can have the opportunity to raise the point during the meeting. It would be up to the Chair to determine when the merger discussion should happen during the meeting.

Does that seem like a workable course of action?

Sincerely,
Susan







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

CHALMERS & ASSOCIATES
http://chalmers.associates

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:24 PM, <karklinsj at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:barrister at chambers.gen.nz>
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎April‎ ‎15‎, ‎2015 ‎3‎:‎53‎ ‎AM
To: igfmaglist at intgovforum.org<mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>


On 15/04/2015, at 4:24 am, Susan Chalmers <susan at chalmers.associates<mailto: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<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/20150415/38ca3955/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list