[IGFmaglist] Workshop evaluations

[Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro]

Hi Sylvia,

   1. *Stage 1* involves participants marking per sample space and designed
   in a way to reduce possible "bias" as much as possible;
   2. When the platform is closed for marking, the IGF Secretariat then
   compiles the results of the grades and sorts the data so that when we have
   the Face to Face meeting in Geneva, we will have a baseline to work from;
   3. Without the baseline, working on the mergers (without this homework)
   will be chaotic and time consuming;
   4. *Stage 2* is the data sorting and aggregating scores and the list of
   mergers as suggested by MAG members will be viewed by ALL MAG members at
   the face to face meeting.
   5. *Stage 3* is when the MAG meets to have a holistic view of the entire
   scores and suggested mergers; This involves extensive discussions amongst
   and within the MAG as we make our final deliberations on finalizing and
   identifying workshops that will make the final cut *AND *those that will
   be merged. The suggested mergers from Stage 2 merely form a baseline to
   accelerate/expedite the process of synthesis because each MAG member is
   required to have read through all the workshop proposals within their
   allocated sample space which enables them to have a sense of similarities
   with the other workshops that may be within their sample space or within
   the wider General PDF containing all workshop proposals. Either way whether
   a MAG member has 3 workshops that could be merged or another identifies 12
   for mergers, the data sorting and the face to face meeting will be a second
   round for review of the suggested mergers.
   6. The baseline and suggested mergers done in advance, internal
   notes/comments or reflections helps reduce inefficiencies so that when the
   MAG meets, the grading is swift.
   7. In the face to face meetings, the MAG will by consensus make the
   final selections through open discussion, debate and dialogue.