[IGFmaglist] IGF 2017 MAG WS Selection Process - a proposal

[Jac sm Kee]

agreed with flavio and elizabeth as well


---------------------------------
Jac sm Kee
Manager, Women's Rights Programme
Association for Progressive Communications
www.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net | erotics.apc.org
Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe

On 12/06/2017 11:50, Carolyn Nguyen (CELA) wrote:
> +1 on Flavio's proposal and Elizabeth's concerns.
> 
> Best regards,
> Carolyn
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Flávio Rech Wagner
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 10:40 AM
> To: igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] IGF 2017 MAG WS Selection Process - a proposal
> 
> Dear Lynn and MAG members
> 
> If I have the right recollection, in previous years we have used the ranking (made according to the online workshop evaluations) to automatically select a percentage of the workshops which was smaller than the proposed 90% for this year (72 out of a total of 80 slots). 
> This means that, in previous years, we had more room to select additional workshops after a debate during the MAG face-to-face meeting, aiming at a better balance of subjects, regions, and stakeholder groups among the selected workshops.
> 
> Please notice that, looking at the ranking, proposals ranked between positions 60 and 96 have very similar average notes (from 4.09 to 4.00). 
> So, in fact, they were evaluated almost as equally good by the MAG. 
> Therefore, if we decide, just as an example, to automatically select the first 64 proposals, instead of 72, we would be accepting proposals with average note above 4.062, instead of 4.055 (all proposals ranked between positions 65 and 71 have the same average note 4.055).
> 
> In this case, automatically selecting 64 instead of 72 proposals (so 80% instead of 90% of the final number of workshops to be selected), we would have room to select 16 additional proposals during our face-to-face meeting, instead of only 8 proposals. This would give us more room to look for a better balance of subjects, regions, and stakeholder groups.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Flavio
> 
> 
> 
> Em 11/06/2017 16:35, Lynn St.Amour escreveu:
>> Dear MAG members,
>>
>> As discussed during the last MAG calls/MAG list and building on the past 3 - 4 years practices, I would like to propose the following methodology for our WS selection process:
>>
>> 1 -  MAG precedes on the assumption that the number of Workshop slots to be allocated by the MAG will be 80.
>> 	• The first 72 proposals have been highlighted based on the MAG workshop evaluations and following the new process.
>> 	
>> 2 - The MAG evaluates those (72) highlighted against the profile of all WS proposals submitted, paying attention to any imbalances or over- representation against our diversity criteria (topic (tags), regional, SH, developed vs. developing, gender, 1st time proposers vs. returning proposers, session types, etc.), and identifies any general reflections or concerns.
>>
>> 3 - Using the “wildcard” process: each MAG member (if they so choose) can identify one additional WS to be further evaluated by the full MAG due to extenuating circumstances or in response to any perceived imbalances.  As part of this step, MAG members should review the list of WS proposals with the highest standard deviations to see if there are any proposals that should be included in this wildcard process.
>>
>> 4 - Secretariat can capture Mergers supported by the full MAG.  And, each Merger candidate should have a minimum of 1 (2?)  MAG member(s) to lead the merging discussion as they do not come together easily.
>>
>> 5 - The entire MAG will participate in this process (no breakout groups), and we will work to find consensus on the chosen Workshops.  Consensus will be judged based on the level of support and the absence of any strong reason based objections.
>>
>> I hope you find this proposal acceptable.  If something concerns you, please suggest an improvement.
>>   
>> Best regards, and look forward to seeing everyone soon.
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Igfmaglist mailing list
>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fintgov
>> forum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Figfmaglist_intgovforum.org&data=02%7C
>> 01%7CCarolyn.Nguyen%40microsoft.com%7C026e514712274814487008d4b16ecf31
>> %7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636328536863344994&sdata
>> =p4F4DNf12njJTUw50EjnKxP2zCrEaZe9NXjWR11UHCA%3D&reserved=0
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at 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%7C026e514712274814487008d4b16ecf31%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636328536863344994&sdata=p4F4DNf12njJTUw50EjnKxP2zCrEaZe9NXjWR11UHCA%3D&reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20170612/ab9a5ffe/attachment.sig>