[IGFmaglist] Evaluating workshop proposals - Standardized reasons for scores of 3 or less

Mark Carvell mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk
Wed Apr 15 07:05:22 EDT 2015


Dear Flavio

Many thanks. This list captures very effectively and comprehensively the
key evaluation criteria so is very helpful and I support.

I have just one query regarding 4 in both lists: I accept that "first-time
proposers are preferred over repeat-proposers" serves to re-fresh active
stakeholder participation in the IGF but I hope the intention is not that
having previously submitted a proposal should be a decisive negative
criterion when comparing with other similar proposals. If it were, we would
have to explain that to the applicant.

Kind regards

Mark

On 15 April 2015 at 11:33, Flavio Rech Wagner <flavio at inf.ufrgs.br> wrote:

>  Dear MAG members
>
> As already mentioned by Susan, I volunteered during the yesterday's
> virtual meeting on workshop evaluation to propose "standardized reasons" -
> kind of "buttons" the evaluators could easily click on - for why a proposal
> received a score of 3 or less.
>
> These reasons would match the "Considerations when Evaluating Proposals",
> which have been already defined by the MAG and are copied at the end of
> this message for your reference.
>
> Based on the "considerations", I suggest that the online evaluation form
> includes two sets of "buttons". The reasons directly match each of the
> considerations.
>
> For each proposal, each evaluator may click on one or more buttons, as
> s/he thinks appropriate.
>
> * FIRST SET OF REASONS*
>
> The first set gives reasons that, after aggregation by the secretariat,
> will be sent to the proposers to explain the final average scores their
> proposals received (numbers before the reasons correspond to the numbers of
> the "considerations").
>
> (1) The proposal is either (a) not well thought-through or (b) incomplete.
> (2) The proposal is not relevant to Internet Governance.
> (3) The proposal does not include either (a) a list of proposed speakers,
> participating individuals and organizations, or (b) a description of how
> different stakeholder perspectives will be represented.
> (5) The workshop description is not consistent with the format listed.
> (7) There is no diversity amongst the participants (gender, geography,
> stakeholder group, perspective).
> (9) The description does not clearly specify the Internet Governance
> problem/question/challenge to be addressed during the workshop.
> (10) The proposal does not include a well-considered plan for remote
> participation.
>
> *SECOND SET OF REASONS*
>
> The second set corresponds to reasons that justify the subjective score
> given by the evaluator, in comparison with other proposals, but do not
> necessarily represent a weakness of the proposal, so that these reasons do
> not need to be sent to the proposers:
>
> (4) This is not the first time this individual or organization has
> submitted a workshop proposal to the IGF.
> (6) This is not a proposal for a new format (Break-out Group Discussions,
> Debates, Flash Sessions, Birds of a Feather, Roundtables and Other formats
> are encouraged over the Panel format).
> (8) There is no participation from developing countries.
>
> I am looking for your feedback.
>
> Best
>
> Flavio
>
> ----------
>
>
>
> *Considerations when Evaluating Proposals *from
>
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/mag-workshop-review-and-evaluation-process-for-igf-2015
>
>  1.    Is the proposal well thought-through and complete?
> 2.    Is the proposal relevant to Internet Governance?
> 3.    Does the proposal contain a list of proposed speakers, participating
> individuals and organizations, or a description of how different
> stakeholder perspectives will be represented?
> 4.    Is this the first time this individual or organization has submitted
> a workshop proposal to the IGF? (first-time proposers are preferred over
> repeat-proposers),
> 5.    Is the Workshop description consistent with the format listed (for
> example, if the format is Debate, then does the proposal describe how the
> debate will be set up, with timings, etc.,  indicated, are all sides of the
> issues represented)?
> 6.    Is the proposal for a new format? (Break-out Group Discussions,
> Debates, Flash Sessions, Birds of a Feather, Roundtables and Other formats
> are encouraged over the Panel format),
> 7.    Is there diversity amongst the participants (gender, geography,
> stakeholder group, perspective)? (as a general matter, greater diversity is
> encouraged),
> 8.    Is there developing country participation? (as a general matter,
> developing country participation is encouraged),
> 9.    Does the description clearly specify the Internet Governance
> problem/question/challenged to be addressed during the workshop?
> 10.    Does the proposal include a well-considered plan for remote
> participation?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e95ebe36/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list