[IGFmaglist] evaluation comments

[Renata Aquino Ribeiro]

Hi

Super in favor on discussing mergers

I've also, as suggested by Nacho, did notes on the sessions which I
thought would be best as innovative session format - lightning talk or
unconference

Went so far as to suggest to a proposer to actually get to know the
WGSF findings and see where it would take the work

Best,

Renata



On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Mamadou LO <alfamamadou at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Chair, MAG colleagues
> As Raquel stated, after evaluating workshops
> assigned to me, I still have one question in mind "how can we avoid same
> proposals on same subject to maximise diversity on items". I notice that we
> have lot of proposals similarities on subject like data protection and
> privacy. In evaluating, I sometime have a sentiment saying "it would be
> great if those two or three proposers knew each others (proposals) and made
> it together". To merge them after would be a solution but preventing this to
> happen is for me way to improve.
> Warm regards
>
> Mamadou
> Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.
>
>
> -------- Message d'origine --------
> De : Raquel Gatto <gatto at isoc.org>
> Date : 29/05/2017 14:52 (GMT+00:00)
> À : "Rhijn, mr. A.C.F. van (Arnold)" <A.C.F.vanRhijn at minez.nl>, 'Ginger
> Paque' <virginiap at diplomacy.edu>, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
> Cc : MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> Objet : Re: [IGFmaglist] evaluation comments
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> As it is the first time I am part of the evaluation process, it is
> reassuring to see your comments (the same I had in mind!).
>
>
>
> I have also commented on most of the workshop proposals rated above 3.0,
> especially for flagging a risk of time management when there are too many
> speakers listed or little time allocated for the breakout sessions. I have
> also found many proposals that would benefit from more speakers diversity.
>
>
>
> One interesting takeaway is that some of the new organizer’s proposals were
> even more prepared in content-wise than previous organizers, which shows the
> interest and commitment.
>
>
>
> I have kept a list of possible merging workshops to be discussed in the next
> call, and I do think there are many other potential merges by looking the
> full list of proposals. Some are indeed complementing each other (eg sector,
> geographical diversity). So looking  forward for the next steps.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Raquel
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Igfmaglist <igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org> on behalf of "Rhijn,
> mr. A.C.F. van (Arnold)" <A.C.F.vanRhijn at minez.nl>
> Date: Monday, May 29, 2017 at 11:20 AM
> To: 'Ginger Paque' <virginiap at diplomacy.edu>, Renata Aquino Ribeiro
> <raquino at gmail.com>
> Cc: MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] evaluation comments
>
>
>
> +1. I gave my comments on all designated proposals, even when I rated
> proposals over 3.0.  I was pleased with this year’s new way of evaluation.
> Let’s work on further improvements!
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Arnold
>
>
>
> Van: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] Namens Ginger
> Paque
> Verzonden: maandag 29 mei 2017 13:33
> Aan: Renata Aquino Ribeiro
> CC: MAG-public
> Onderwerp: Re: [IGFmaglist] evaluation comments
>
>
>
> Thanks Renata... I agree with you completely on comments. While optional,
> over 3.0. I comment on many proposals, even if they are over 3.0, because
> whether or not the proposal is accepted -- sometimes more importantly if
> they ARE accepted -- I think suggestions might help, and as you mention,
> often on RP.
>
>
> Virginia Paque
>
> DiploFoundation
>
> Upcoming courses:  Master in Contemporary Diplomacy; Education Diplomacy;
> Consular and Diaspora Diplomacy; Cybersecurity; Development Diplomacy;
> Economic Diplomacy; Language and Diplomacy http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> A few comments about the evaluation
>
> - Comments: perhaps it would be good to have them for all presenters.
> Certainly if a smaller number of evals this would be good
>
> - The picture on proposers' bio helped a lot getting to know if it was
> a manel or not
>
> - Format, unfortunately, continued to be a confusion. BOF w/
> roundtable theme and dynamic, flash sessions w/ many presenters and
> inadequate, panels abounded, break-out groups w/out reasoning or
> strategy for RP
>
> - RP remains poorly strategized in most cases
>
> - Diversity field seems to have confused many. Saw many "letter of
> intentions"
>
> Recommendation/suggestion for next year
> - comments guidelines
> - guidelines for remote participation
>
> Best,
>
> Renata
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
>
>
> Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u
> niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is gezonden,
> wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te
> verwijderen.
> De Staat aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor schade, van welke aard
> ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch
> verzenden van berichten.
>
> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you
> are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you
> are requested to inform the sender and delete the message.
> The State accepts no liability for damage of any kind resulting from the
> risks inherent in the electronic transmission of messages.