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

Juan Fernandez Gonzalez juan.fernandez at mincom.gob.cu
Fri Apr 17 11:27:51 EDT 2015


Dear Colleagues:

I want to express my support to Marilyn point of view, that I share completely.

In the face to face MAG meeting I said that we were like "wedding planers".

And as good wedding planers we have to ensure the success of the IGF, not its organization, but also its "substance", this is, the quality of the debates and dialogues.

In this sense, and to continue with the analogies, our function is not that of  "doormen", who are limited to select who goes in and who stays out of the wedding party, without any concern of what will happen inside.

We have substantive work to do. And after reviewing only about one fourth of the workshop proposals, I can say that it is hard work.

I think that mergers are an essential tool to achieve a high quality of the discussions in the IGF and at the same time be as inclusive as possible.

Let me put you only one example:

I have identified 15 workshop proposals about child and youth issues (6, 28, 49,, 51, 88, 89, 95, 115, 127, 128, 149, 178, 191, 212, 221) and many more that touch that issue from a rights or security perspective (i.e.: 91, 145, 180, 217, 254, etc.)

What to do with all that proposals?

How to eliminate some and to approve other? How to select which aspect to retain and which to discard of that broad and important issue?

I think that mergers can be the solution.

But I recognize that it will require hard work from all: the workshop proposers, the MAG and the IGF secretariat.

But I think that we have no alternative.

Because as Marilyn said: that's why we are MAG members.

Best

Juan

De: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com]
Enviado el: viernes, 17 de abril de 2015 9:43
Para: Susan Chalmers; Mark Carvell
CC: igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
Asunto: Re: [IGFmaglist] Evaluating workshop proposals - Standardized reasons for scores of 3 or less

I am hoping that through mergers, we will be able to be more open and receptive to bringing in more proposers.

All of the submitters want to attend, and contribute.

IF the MAG earns a reputation for negativity toward applicants, rather than an accommodating perspective. We must
make efforts to be inclusive, while maintaining a focus on a high quality IGF.

BUT, we need to also ensure that we are being the open, and 'place to come'.
Suggesting we would reject 150 workshops shocks me.

IF that is the MAG objective, we should stop with welcoming proposals, and write a script that says
only those who meet MAG criteria need 'enter here'.

That is not why I am a MAG member.

NO one who submitted did so thinking that we would casually dismiss their interests.

SOME will not fit, and some can be merged, and some may fail on sufficiency.

BUT, to just announce that we will reject 150 of the workshops seems quite negative.

Of course, our MAG list is posted, so all can see what we discuss, and for me, I hope for as much
flexibility and openness as we can provide, while achieving a high quality event, focused on the
main and sub themes, but allowing for some flexibility in Emerging Issues.

This is a critical year for inclusiveness.

Marilyn Cade

________________________________
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:38:38 +1200
From: susan at chalmers.associates<mailto:susan at chalmers.associates>
To: mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>
CC: igfmaglist at intgovforum.org<mailto:igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] Evaluating workshop proposals - Standardized reasons for scores of 3 or less

Dear Flávio, Mark,

Flávio, I appreciate your approach, thank you kindly for suggesting standardised reasons for workshop proposals that have a score of 3 or less.

For those workshops which must be respectfully declined - which will be about 150 - proponents will be provided with this feedback.

These tick box options will exist alongside a free text box, where we can submit additional thoughts on the proposal. Please word your thoughts constructively and compassionately for the proponent.

Unless there are any strenuous objections, I suggest that we submit these to the Secretariat, so that the IT person can get started on adding these to the website. Is that okay with everyone?

Mark, in regards to your observation, there are a few "positive discrimination" elements - in favour of developing countries, first time proposers, new session formats - upon which the MAG has found rough consensus. MAG members are asked to reflect these elements in their overall score. These elements are not individually weighted. That is a conversation that the next MAG may wish to entertain.

Sincere regards,
Susan




On Wednesday, April 15, 2015, Mark Carvell <mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>> wrote:
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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>
tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062


--


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

CHALMERS & ASSOCIATES
http://chalmers.associates


_______________________________________________ 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/20150417/bcd109f8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list