[IGFmaglist] When you have not been asked...

[Marilyn Cade]

Some submitters told me they were waiting for approval / which is understandable, sounds like we were not consistent as raterS. I gave lots of  Good/can be improved by: 
Including finalizing speakers. I was not so favorable when I saw just mag speakers and same speakers, whether bs, CS, govt. But asked for diversity there too. 
But there are lots of good proposals!

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 9, 2014, at 11:39, "CARVELL, Mark" <Mark.Carvell at Culture.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:
> 
> Filiz
>  
> This thought did haunt me as I did my scoring and I recognise the risk ultimately of poor delivery if the key panellists don’t actually come through. However, I came to the conclusion that the thematic relevance, concept, substantive issue and outcomes should be the key criteria for the initial evaluation – plus some recognition at least of the need for diversity of the lead participants in the workshop, panel, roundtable  or whatever. Otherwise we might well risk losing key workshops early on only because they had not yet lined up their confirmed panellists some 6 months before the event (and we do not receive updates on the proposals). That may be understandable in many cases as potential participants assess their ability to commit during a very intense event schedule. I agree this is a tricky point though.
>  
> Best regards
>  
> Mark    
>  
> Mark Carvell
> DCMS: Global Internet Governance
> UK Government
>  
> From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Yilmaz, Filiz
> Sent: 09 May 2014 15:43
> To: anriette at apc.org
> Cc: Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] When you have not been asked...
>  
>  
> Apologies for multiple-posting, I need to make a correction on my last paragraph in my previous mail. It should have read:
>  
> ---
> ...If I did NOT see clear confirmation of speakers, I found myself not being able to score a workshop with a high score. Panelists are an important integral of the quality of a workshop and I expect organisers to be sincere enough at least to have put the effort and contacted them as a general rule of thumb. 
> —
>  
> First sentence was missing a crucial “NOT” in the previous mail. 
>  
> Filiz
>  
>  
>  
> On 09 May 2014, at 16:38, Yilmaz, Filiz <koalafil at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
>  
> This is very bad. 
>  
> On a related point, in fact, during Bali this was one of my frustrations as a sole participant too. 
>  
> So you think there are certain people listed for a panel, maybe this is one of the reasons you even choose a workshop over an other one in the high volume programme and then the speakers listed do not fit with the speakers you actually see at the head table. 
>  
> I kept hearing this situation, recruiting speakers on the fly, was often spotted to happen at IGFs but actually was improving.
>  
> Coming back to Anriette’s point, this was also the main reason for me to score low in my evaluation of the proposals: If I did to see clear confirmation of speakers, I found myself not being able to score a workshop with a high score. Panelists
> are an important integral of the quality of a workshop and I expect organisers to be sincere enough at least to have put the effort and contacted them as a general rule of thumb. 
>  
> Kind regards
> Filiz
>  
>  
> On 09 May 2014, at 16:12, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear all
> 
> I want to note that there are some proposals in which I have been listed as a co-proposer, or presented without the organisers having asked me to play either role.
> 
> So don't be entirely surprised if you see my name on a proposal that does not look terribly well-developed.
> 
> Do any other people on the MAG find themselves in this position?
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>  
> 
> 
> This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
> ****************************************************************************
> This email and its contents are the property of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
> If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it.
> All DCMS e-mail is recorded and stored for a minimum of 6 months 
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140509/2f72a41a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org