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

Virginia Paque virginiap at diplomacy.edu
Thu Apr 23 09:25:54 EDT 2015


Just a heads-up: if you have not gotten access to the online evaluation
form, I suggest you follow-up with Carl. I registered on April 13th, but
only got access yesterday (some glitch or other, not sure). I should have
checked with Carl earlier to straighten this out, instead of waiting
not-too-patiently. (Thanks, Carl)

Fiona, thanks again for responding to my request for assistance.

Ginger



Ginger (Virginia) Paque
DiploFoundation

*DiploFoundation upcoming online courses:* http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Virginia Paque <virginiap at diplomacy.edu>
wrote:

> Thanks Susan, and everyone for this valuable thread. Particularly as a new
> MAG member, I find the workshop evaluation process to be very important,
> and a bit daunting.
>
> Since we have a firm deadline for evaluations, some of us have begun
> evaluating, using our own Excel / database spreadsheets.
>
> Did I miss a link or instructions to an online evaluation format that we
> will use for final evaluations? Can someone please summarise the process we
> will use? I did attend the evaluation training webinar, but I must have
> missed this very important practical point.
>
> Thanks,
> Ginger
>
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> DiploFoundation
>
> *DiploFoundation upcoming online courses:*
> http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:53 AM, Susan Chalmers <susan at chalmers.associates
> > wrote:
>
>> Greetings all,
>>
>> Many thanks to all who have contributed to the various discussions on
>> workshop feedback and mergers. In terms of the tasks presently before us:
>>
>> 1. grading workshop proposals,
>> 2. highlighting them as possible mergers, and
>> 3. providing feedback for workshops scored lower than three points....
>>
>> thank you to Flavio for providing the 7 standardized reasons for feedback.
>>
>> To clarify, last year MAG members were asked to provide personalized,
>> written feedback for all workshop proposals they scored 3 or below. For
>> those who did it, this was incredibly time-intensive. The 7 standardized
>> reasons should reduce the time involved and provide ample information for
>> the Secretariat to in turn provide to workshop proponents. The text box
>> will remain available if we want to provide personalized comments.
>>
>> I also see general consensus in favour of Flavio's suggestion to add a
>> "merger" tickbox on the evaluation sheet, that will not factor into the
>> workshop score. It is for us to mark proposals if we believe that they are
>> good merger candidates, and discuss why in person at the meeting.
>>
>> In terms of mergers, thank you to all for your general thoughts and
>> concerns, sharing your past experiences, and to those who have shared
>> possible solutions. In terms of the latter, Avri, I really liked your
>> proposal to invite people who are interested in merging with others to
>> self-organise right now, before grading, but given that discussions on the
>> MAG take time to find consensus, I'm not sure if we have sufficient time
>> before the grades are due.
>>
>> I propose that the Secretariat implement the technical changes necessary
>> for the workshop evaluation sheets (i.e. adding the standardized reasons
>> and the merger tickbox), and that, before the MAG meeting, we develop
>> lightweight merger criteria, recognising that:
>>
>>    - if two groups are *asked* to merge, then either the Secretariat or
>>    a 2-MAG member team must assist the discussion Imbalances between groups,
>>    as the Chair and others have pointed out, sometimes means that a guiding
>>    hand is necessary;
>>    - if two groups *want* to merge on their own accord, then they should
>>    be able to signal their willingness and interest to the MAG before the
>>    meeting; and,
>>    - as Mark succinctly stated, mergers should occur based upon:
>>       - 1) obvious similarity with other proposal(s) - or
>>       - 2) having inherent merit but also weakness(es) that would be
>>       addressed through merging with another similar but stronger proposal.
>>
>> Above all, because this is a discussion in process, the "merger"
>> question should not figure into our workshop scoring. I think that's rather
>> important to make clear.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Susan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Susan Chalmers
>> susan at chalmers.associates
>>
>> *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES
>> http://chalmers.associates
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Makane Faye <fmakane at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20150423/22d9b95f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list