[IGFmaglist] May evaluation procedure (Was Online registration for May Open Consultations and MAG meeting)
Susan Chalmers
susan at susanchalmers.com
Wed Apr 30 18:41:22 EDT 2014
Dear Bill, all,
Bill, thank you for raising these questions, and you are not the only MAG
member without funding to come to Paris -- I will be joining you as a
fellow remote participant.
Below some thoughts on the May meeting procedure:
- This is of course up to our Chair, but I'd suggest that the procedure
for the May evaluation meeting ("Procedure") should be developed, agreed
upon, and understood before the meeting takes place.
- In February the MAG adopted a 3-stage process. Stage 1 - *Initial
Screening** / Stage 2 - Evaluation process *to be completed by MAG
members by May 2nd*** / Stage 3 - Discussion and Finalisation of
Programme.
- I believe that development of the Procedure should be guided by what
the MAG has agreed upon and adopted. (I have attached that document to this
email - there was interest expressed in seeing the document during the last
call). In relevant part, during Stage 3:
- MAG members look at the results to ensure an overall balance of the
themes/topics covered;
- MAG members discuss *5-10 proposals just below the threshold of
space availability**** to determine if improvements can be made to
overcome proposal deficiencies;
- Proposers contacted by May 26th and asked to submit revised
proposal to address deficiencies by June 16th. If the proposer
responds the
expectation is they will get a workshop slot;
- Final schedule published by June 30th.
- Based upon these guidelines I do not see any reason for MAG to break
into groups, especially since we decided *against* assigning subsets of
proposals to evaluate, to subgroups within the MAG. In other words, it's
expected that all MAG members commit to grading all 200-odd workshop
proposals. Also, as a matter of logistics, plenary would be much easier for
remote participants.
- The score for each proposal is tabulated by the Secretariat. Per what
was agreed in February, proposals are ranked in order to scale to space
availability, which means that we need from the Secretariat a blank
template for the IGF programme, with a predetermined number of slots. The
"5-10 proposals just below the threshold of space availability" are then
discussed by the MAG in concert.
- Perhaps then it would be most appropriate to take an overall look at
the programme and determine subject matter balance.
As part of the team that kicked off the workshop evaluation process, I had
hoped to be present in May to observe how we all worked through it
together, to take notes on the strengths and weaknesses of the process, so
that the MAG could re-examine and improve the process for next year.
Unfortunately I won't be able to, so might I ask if all MAG members
wouldn't mind jotting down a few notes as they go through the process? I'd
be willing to work with some others in digesting these and suggesting
improvements following the IGF in September.
I'd really like to hear everyone's thoughts on the above, and would love to
work with others on implementation of what we agreed upon. What have I
missed?
I believe that if we work together we can improve by leaps and bounds the
process that so many found disappointing and frustrating last year!
Warm regards,
Susan
* Re Initial Screening - Chengetai, were any proposals rejected during the
initial screening?
** Re Grading - Has everyone graded their proposals? :-)
*** Re Space Availability - May we have an update on the schedule template?
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:37 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> There was some discussion on the last call about the Paris meeting
> breaking down into groups to consider proposals according to themes. I
> would have some concerns about that procedure if it were to lead to
> outcomes like last year’s, in which some groups were very strict and didn’t
> approve workshops that didn’t surpass the numerical cut-off point, while
> other groups were more permissive and for various reasons approved
> workshops that hadn’t made the numerical cut-off. There was also some lack
> of clarity as to whether we were trying to adjust to achieve some measure
> of comparability across themes, e.g. since some themes attracted @ 50-60
> proposals while others got @ 10, did we need to ‘prune’ more in the former
> case, etc.
>
> So I’m wondering what the thinking is regarding break out sessions by
> themes, e.g. dis/advantages relative to doing everything together in
> ‘plenary.’
>
> If this approach is to be followed, it’d also be good to know how remote
> participation would be accommodated. I don’t imagine I am the only MAG
> member without funding to come to Paris….Actually, it might be worth
> knowing, when making decisions on how to organize the work, how many of us
> will in fact be remote?
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Apr 28, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Chengetai Masango <CMASANGO at unog.ch> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> Online registration for the May Open consultations and MAG meeting is now
> open until the 15 of May.
>
>
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/registrations-for-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting-paris
>
> I will send out the draft agenda soon.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Chengetai
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
>
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
> ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
> www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
>
--
Susan Chalmers
Consultant, Internet Policy
+1 269 324 4101
www.susanchalmers.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140430/3a1fc871/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: FINAL workhop process (1).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 121361 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140430/3a1fc871/attachment.docx>
More information about the Igfmaglist
mailing list