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

Makane Faye fmakane at gmail.com
Wed Apr 15 05:59:44 EDT 2015


Dear Colleagues,

The evaluation is not easy and will be further complicated if we want to
add comments on how to improve submissions on the low scorers. This will
also take a big amount of time.

What we did last year was to provide a justification to low scorers on why
the project was not selected. We also had decided to provide mentoring to
submissioners who needed support and requested for it to have a better
chance for next IGF(s).

On merger issues we need to take into account what Janis, Subhi and Mark
have said and come up with a mid way proposal. During the past 2 IGFs, most
of the recommendations for merger were not accepted by the workshop
organizers, hence we need to come with a more subtile way of requesting for
mergers independently from the scores of workshops.

Best regards,

----------------

Makane Faye (Mr.)
Chief, Knowledge Services Section  ---
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) ---
Limpopo Building ---
P.O. Box 3001 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia ---
Tel: +251 11 5443563; Ext. 33563 // Fax: +251 11 5514416 / +251 11 54411458
---
Email: mfaye at uneca.org; faymakane at gmail.com ---
http://facebook.com/makane.faye.eca // twitter: @makaneeca // Skype:
makaneaddis

Makane Faye (M.)
Chef de la Section des Connaissances ---
Commission Economique des Nations Unies pour l'Afrique (CEA) ---
Bâtiment Limpopo ---
BP. 3001 Addis Abeba, Ethiopie ---
Tel: +251 11 5443563; Ext. 33563 // Fax: +251 11 5514416 / +251 11 54411458
---
Courriel: mfaye at uneca.org; faymakane at gmail.com ---
http://facebook.com/makane.faye.eca // twitter: @makaneeca // Skype:
makaneaddis






On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Mark Carvell <mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>
wrote:

> Marilyn
>
> 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
>
> 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
>>
>> *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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150415/2938cec7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list