[IGFmaglist] Proposal for Modification for the Workshop Review and Evaluation Process

Ginger Paque virginiap at diplomacy.edu
Mon May 30 10:51:31 EDT 2016


Thanks to those who worked on this, especially to Rasha for pushing it. I
have to admit I was not sure we could find a way to implement a strategy of
not having each MAG member evaluate each proposal, but I like this in
general. I have still a few questions:

1. Will there be a possibility to put a proposal in a provisional status,
allowing for correcting some details, such as balance on the panel
(gender/stakeholder/other, if appropriate and suggested); a clear proposal
for including remote/online participants, and other necessary details?

2. Will we work towards an ideal number of workshops? Should we be thinking
about comparing workshops, if we know that only half of them can
practically be accepted?

3. Should workshops be evaluated in groups with similar themes, so that the
'best' proposals in certain thematic areas can be approved?

Best regards,
Ginger

Virginia Paque
DiploFoundation

*Upcoming online courses: *Humanitarian Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy,
Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, Internet Technology and Policy:
Challenges and Solutions, Multilateral Diplomacy.
http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses
<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=26d5253c70&e=bc0aff4eba>

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Rasha and all
>
> Thanks for submitting this proposal on workshop evaluation to MAG
> members analysis.
>
> Proposal:
>
> http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20160529/77dcfc15/attachment-0003.docx
>
> Along the main lines of the proposal, it provides a good way to modify
> the evaluation and streamline the process.
> I am in agreement.
> Thanks also to the team who participated on this.
>
> I do have a few doubts, one of them to Secretariat
>
> * ****Secretariat please see*****
> From the text:
> "The secretariat will provide information on whether or not this is a
> debut (first time) proposal. There could be a separate pool for debut
> presentations, or a certain number of points could be added to a debut
> presentation. Such point value would be determined for the first year
> once all the scores come in. This could be done at the NYC MAG
> meeting.
> Does the Secretariat have this info?
>
> * Question to MAG Members (and all who would like to pitch in)
> From the text:
> "If all feedback is given to workshop proposers (including the
> scores), they would be able to know the strengths and weaknesses of
> their proposal just by looking at the different scores and knowing
> which items scored less than others. This would also help them make
> better proposals the following year."
>
> Is it possible, to have a second chance evaluation for some workshops?
> Could this same feedback be directed to that?
>
> My ask comes from the fact that sometimes works just need minor
> modifications to be adequate to presentation. Should this be taken
> into account here?
>
> Also another issue
> As the MAG members are still discussing the adequate criteria for MAG
> members participation, it should be clear whether the rule applied
> would result in modification of workshop proposal and it would be
> important this is in the evaluation process publicly shared.
>
> Thanks
>
> Renata
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Dr. Rasha Abdulla <rasha at aucegypt.edu>
> wrote:
> > Dear MAG members,
> >
> > Following the Secretariat's green light, I have finalized the proposal
> for
> > modifying the Workshop Review and Evaluation Process. This proposal
> tackles
> > only the second stage of the review process, that of evaluation by MAG
> > members. The first stage (the Secretariat screening), as well as the
> third
> > stage (final decisions re borderline cases, mergers, etc) remain
> unchanged.
> >
> > I hope this proposal arrives at a middle ground for this year that takes
> > care of most of the concerns raised. It also reduces the subjectivity in
> > evaluation, and it considerably reduces the work load per MAG member.
> Many
> > thanks to Flavio, who suggested the work distribution among MAG members,
> and
> > to Susan for her comments on the whole process. I'm attaching the new
> > proposal on the second stage of reviewing as well as the current document
> > for the whole review process.
> >
> > In the interest of time before our next virtual meeting, and since there
> was
> > little interaction on the WG mailing list, I'm hereby offering the
> proposal
> > to the full list of MAG members for consideration. I request that the
> > Secretariat include this on Wednesday's meeting agenda if possible.
> >
> > Best regards.
> > Rasha
> >
> > Rasha A. Abdulla, Ph.D.
> > Associate Professor and Past Chair
> > Journalism and Mass Communication
> > The American University in Cairo
> > www.rashaabdulla.com
> > Twitter: @RashaAbdulla
> > <http://twitter.com/rashaabdulla>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20160530/96d9460c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list