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

Mark Carvell mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk
Wed Apr 15 05:18:36 EDT 2015


I think you're right: need to retain a flexible and pragmatic approach -
while also not bending over backwards to be generous and keeping the MAG's
and the Secretariat's workload under control!

I said on the call yesterday that I would not find it easy to differentiate
between the negative scores in the range of 1-3 in the list in Susan's
e-mail. From my experience last year, there were obvious cases of failure
to meet essential IGF criteria so rejection in those cases was clear (need
to provide feedback so they learn for next year). I think "3.Borderline"
and "4. could be accepted" seem to me also to be difficult to differentiate
as scores - what exactly is the difference? I would prefer an approach
along the lines of
1. Rejection due to failure by applicant to meet all essential criteria and
nothing to be gained by trying to fix the proposal - ACTION: Secretariat
provides feedback on reasons for rejection;
2. Merger candidate due to i. obvious similarity with other proposal(s) -
or ii) having inherent merit but also weakness(es) that would be addressed
through merging with another similar but stronger proposal - ACTION:
 MAG-led dialogue with all applicants involved in mergers to help resolve;
3. Acceptable on topic/substance/potential contribution to IGF outputs but
conditional on improvements - e.g. achieving geo-diversity , gender balance
etc in a confirmed session panel or whatever....- ACTION: Secretariat-led
dialogue with applicants to resolve, prior to stage 3 face to face
discussion and decision by MAG on whether to proceed to confirm acceptance;
4. Accept as a robust proposal consistent with all IGF criteria.

I think another flexibility issue is uniqueness if for example the proposal
is about an emerging issue that is not covered by any other proposal,
should we mark it down and reject it if it falls down on the other
criteria; or should the MAG aim to work the applicants to upgrade it
because of the potential value on "new" substance in particular I can't
remember specific examples last year but I was very mindful of this in my
evaluations: I would score uniqueness and its value for the IGF highly even
if it was weak on other format and delivery criteria.

I hope these comments and suggestions are helpful.

best regards


Mark Carvell
UK Government: Global Internet Governance Policy

On 14 April 2015 at 15:02, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:

> This does not show the flexibility that the MAG should convey.  When the
> Secretariat publishes this , in the MAG's name, you are saying 1, and it
> has your name on it, as a MAG member.
> This is unfair and unkind to the submitter.
> Let's show a little compassion and a little innovation in the rating.
> 1) proposal does not meet [name the criteria] e.g. not linked to the sub
> themes, lacks geo diversity
> 2) proposal does not meet [name the criteria]
> 2.5) Proposal has potential, should be merged with other proposals [ offer
> guidance on which category]
> 3) Improvements in S, Y, A will enable acceptance, that may include
> merging...
> 4) Small changes needed - specify what those are
> 5) Approved
>  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
> http://chalmers.associates
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing listIgfmaglist at intgovforum.orghttp://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

Mark Carvell
Global Internet Governance Policy
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk
tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20150415/764848d5/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list