[IGFmaglist] FW: IGF 2017 WS proposal statistics

[Carolyn Nguyen (CELA)]

Thank you Flavio for this suggestion. I agree.

Best regards,
Carolyn

From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Flávio Rech Wagner
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2017 5:18 PM
To: igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] FW: IGF 2017 WS proposal statistics


I don't think we should disclose who were the evaluators of each proposal. This could lead to fingerpointing at individual MAG members by workshop proposers, which would be highly unfair, since we must assume that all MAG members will evaluate proposals in good faith and with the best of their capacities.

We have collectively decided that each proposal would be evaluated only by 12 randomly selected MAG members. But we continue to be collectively responsible for the result of the evaluation of each proposal, as if all of us had evaluated each of them.

This does not mean that the Secretariat should not keep the names of the evaluators of each proposal. This information, to be used only internally, may be useful for a later assessment of the new evaluation process.

Best

Flavio

Em 14/05/2017 16:44, Renata Aquino Ribeiro escreveu:
Hi

I think publishing who were the evaluators is interesting.
The more transparency, the better.

Em 13/05/2017 18:33, "avri doria" <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>> escreveu:
Hi,

Been thinking of the process we are using. There may be concern in our
results based on normal suspicion of new methods.  One worry I have
already heard concerns the distribution of evaluators among the
stakeholders for each of workshops.

It might be worthwhile documenting the randomization process that was
used and to create a some stats that show the distribution across
stakeholder groups for each of the sets of 11 evaluations done on a
workshop.

We may even have to consider, for transparency sake, listing the names
of the MAG members who evaluated for each workshop.  In the past the
community knew everyone n the MAG had all worked on all of them and we
had collective accountability for the results.  Now they may wonder
exactly who evaluated their proposal.

thanks
avri


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fantivirus&data=02%7C01%7CCarolyn.Nguyen%40microsoft.com%7Cab28c1b0b01d492367fa08d49b0ee41a%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636303935641897371&sdata=ZqKW2lLyZZdGawIU4HjN6%2BHjSlqwFxknLPxElkowLGc%3D&reserved=0>


_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org<mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fintgovforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Figfmaglist_intgovforum.org&data=02%7C01%7CCarolyn.Nguyen%40microsoft.com%7Cab28c1b0b01d492367fa08d49b0ee41a%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636303935641897371&sdata=%2FiKB4GDclKkJMnZqHTjJVBEv1VhKy670PJ3kW1w0Ji4%3D&reserved=0>




_______________________________________________

Igfmaglist mailing list

Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org<mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>

http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fintgovforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Figfmaglist_intgovforum.org&data=02%7C01%7CCarolyn.Nguyen%40microsoft.com%7Cab28c1b0b01d492367fa08d49b0ee41a%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636303935641897371&sdata=%2FiKB4GDclKkJMnZqHTjJVBEv1VhKy670PJ3kW1w0Ji4%3D&reserved=0>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20170515/7ff6a5ae/attachment.htm>