[Rigf_program] Revised evaluation system for APrIGF proposals

[Hong Xue]

Happy to volunteer on this. I trust I'm from the "Technical and
Academic" stakeholder
group--I'm truthfully academic if not that technical-:)

Hong
-- 
Professor Dr. Hong Xue
Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
Beijing Normal University
http://www.iipl.org.cn/
19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
Beijing 100875 China


On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I have revised the proposal evaluation system as follows, which I believe
> takes into account all comments made at the meeting today.
>
> I hereby call for volunteers for the Selection Committee to please
> indicate your interest on the mailing list.  The deadline for volunteers
> will be 23:59 on 14 June 2013, UTC (or when 20 members have been selected,
> if that comes first).
>
> NOTE: Volunteers MUST indicate their stakeholder affiliation (section B)
> and cannot be considered without this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul.
> =====
>
>
> APrIGF Proposal evaluation system
> ---------------------------------
>
> Version: 1.0, June 2013
>
> This document describes the mechanisms for evaluating session proposals
> (for workshops, plenaries or other sessions) submitted to the APrIGF, and
> for selecting successful proposals.
>
>
> A. Selection Committee
> ----------------------
>
> A volunteer subcommittee (Selection Committee) of the MSG will be
> assembled for the purpose of rating the proposals, as follows:
>
> 1. After a call issued by the MSG chair, volunteers will submit their
> names and stakeholder affiliation (see below) to the MSG mailing list
>
> 2. Names will be accepted in order of appearance on the list, providing
> that no single stakeholder grouping is represented by more than 40% or less
> than 10% of committee members.
>
> 3. Up to 20 volunteers will be accepted by this means (less if the
> deadline passes before reaching this number)
>
> 4. The selected members of the Selection Committee will be published on
> the MSG mailing list.
>
> Committee members serve in their individual capacity to further the aims
> and success of the APrIGF, and not in a representative capacity for their
> stakeholder grouping or organisation.
>
>
> B. Stakeholder Groups
> ---------------------
>
> The APrIGF recognises 4 stakeholder groups as follows:
>
> 1. Civil Society
> 2. Technical and Academic
> 3. Business
> 4. Governmental
>
>
> C. Criteria for Evaluation
> -----------------------
>
> Proposals will be evaluated according to 3 criteria, interpreted according
> to the following guidance:
>
> 1. Relevance
>
> Is the proposal relevant to the themes of this APrIGF meeting?  Are the
> themes clearly stated and/or evident in the proposal?  Are the specific
> issues to be addressed by the proposal also clear and relevant?
>
> 2. Completeness
>
> Does the proposal provide all information as requested in the CFP,
> specifically:  discussion theme and issues, format and approach, and
> panelists.  Is this information clear and complete enough to properly
> describe an acceptable proposal?  Does it appear than panellists are
> actually confirmed, or are they just invited, or only proposed?
>
> 3. Diversity
>
> Will the proposed session represent viewpoints from multiple stakeholder,
> geographic, economic and/or cultural perspectives?  Are listed panelists
> properly qualified to represent one or more distinct stakeholder groups?
>  Will the session contribute to the overall diversity and multi-stakeholder
> representation of the APrIGF event?
>
>
> Each proposal will be evaluated on each criterial, with a score between 1
> and 4 as follows:
>
> 4 = criteria is fully satisfied
> 3 = acceptable
> 2 = needs improvement
> 1 = absent
>
> (giving each proposal a total score between 4 and 12.  For averaging
> purposes, a rating of 0 will not be counted)
>
>
> D. Proposal Ratings
> -------------------
>
> Following the assembly of the selection committee, committee members will
> submit their proposal ratings to the APrIGF secretariat, using the agreed
> ratings form. After the deadline for submission, the secretariat will
> publish a report of proposals showing the anonymised ratings received,
> average rating, and rank order from highest to lowest average rating.   The
> ratings given by specific (named) individual committee members will not be
> published.
>
>
> E. Selection Process
> --------------------
>
> As its next meeting after publication of proposal ratings, the MSG will
> consider the list of rated proposals and select proposals in order of
> average rating, in consideration of diversity of the proposals, and
> possible merger of proposals which involve duplication of content, theme or
> issue.
>
> During this discussion, selection committee members may modify their
> ratings, providing this can be achieved in a secure real-time manner.
>
> The final decision of the MSG will be made by consensus.  MSG members with
> personal involvement in any proposal (as proponent, panelist, subject, or
> otherwise) may submit rating for such proposals and participate in the
> discussion but may not block not the consensus of the MSG.
>
> After this meeting, the selected proposals (including proposals for
> mergers) will be published on the MSG mailing list and APrIGF website.
>
> ---
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rigf_program mailing list
> Rigf_program at aprigf.asia
> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.dotasia.org/pipermail/rigf_secretariat/attachments/20130611/bbb47d23/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Rigf_program mailing list
Rigf_program at aprigf.asia
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program