<div dir="ltr">Hi, <div>I will join the call today.</div><div style>And thanks Paul for the concise and clear guideline.</div><div style><br></div><div style>One point I like to ask, is, how to deal with the ratings on which the person is involved</div>
<div style><span class="GINGER_SOFATWARE_correct">with</span> the proposal. This question is raised at MAG as well. One way is to ask him or her</div><div style><span class="GINGER_SOFATWARE_correct">to</span> refrain from any rating. But if that is applied, that proposal will receive lower overall</div>
<div style>Score than others say up to 9 points. Another way is, which I suggest, declare the </div><div style><span class="GINGER_SOFATWARE_correct">involvement</span>, and then add the average score of others to the final total.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>I don't think it is THAT important, but still worth to consider.</div><div style><br></div><div style>Thanks,</div><div style><br></div><div style><span class="GINGER_SOFATWARE_correct">izumi</span></div>
<div style><br></div><div style><br></div><div style><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/6/7 Duangthip Chomprang <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chomprang@isoc.org" target="_blank">chomprang@isoc.org</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Paul,<br>
<br>
I am sorry to report that I will not be able to at ten today's call as I am hosting INET Bangkok 2013 today and tomorrow. I shall be joining all future meetings. My apologies and please excuse me.<br>
<br>
Cheers!<br>
Thip<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On 6 Jun 2556 BE, at 09:38, Paul Wilson <<a href="mailto:pwilson@apnic.net">pwilson@apnic.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Dear all,<br>
><br>
> here is a proposal for a lightweight evaluation system for APrIGF proposals.<br>
><br>
> for discussion tomorrow.<br>
><br>
> i will shortly also share a Google spreadsheet which should give a better idea of how the ratings system would work.<br>
><br>
> Paul.<br>
> ===<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> APrIGF Proposal evaluation system - Draft<br>
><br>
> Paul Wilson<br>
><br>
><br>
> Criteria for Evaluation<br>
> -----------------------<br>
><br>
> Proposals will be evaluation according to 3 criteria, interpreted according to the following guidance:<br>
><br>
> 1. Relevance<br>
><br>
> 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?<br>
><br>
> 2. Completeness<br>
><br>
> 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?<br>
><br>
> 3. Diversity<br>
><br>
> Does the proposal include panelists and viewpoints from multiple stakeholder perspectives, from multiple geographic, economic or cultural perspectives? Are all panelists properly qualified to represent one or more distinct stakeholder groups? Do the proposed panellists contribute to the overall diversity and multi-stakeholder representation of the APrIGF event?<br>
><br>
><br>
> Each proposal will be evaluated on each criterial, with a score between 0 and 3 as follows:<br>
><br>
> 3 = criteria is fully satisfied<br>
> 2 = acceptable<br>
> 1 = needs improvement<br>
> 0 = absent<br>
><br>
> (giving each proposal a total score between 0 and 9)<br>
><br>
><br>
> Selection Committee<br>
> -------------------<br>
><br>
> A volunteer subcommittee (Selection Committee) of the MSG will be assembled for the purpose of rating the proposals, as follows:<br>
><br>
> 1. After a call issued by the MSG chair, volunteers will submit their names and stakeholder affiliation to the MSG mailing list<br>
><br>
> 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 20% of committee members.<br>
><br>
> 3. Up to 21 volunteers will be accepted by this means (less if the deadline passes before reaching this number)<br>
><br>
> 4. The selected members of the Selection Committee will be published on the MSG mailing list.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> Proposal Ratings<br>
> ----------------<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> Selection Process<br>
> -----------------<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> During this discussion, selection committee members may modify their ratings, providing this can be achieved in a secure real-time manner.<br>
><br>
> 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 participate in the discussion but may not block not the consensus of the MSG.<br>
><br>
> After this meeting, the selected proposals (including proposals for mergers) will be published on the MSG mailing list and APrIGF website.<br>
><br>
> ---<br>
</div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> _______________________________________________<br>
> Rigf_program mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Rigf_program@aprigf.asia">Rigf_program@aprigf.asia</a><br>
> <a href="https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program" target="_blank">https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Rigf_program mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Rigf_program@aprigf.asia">Rigf_program@aprigf.asia</a><br>
<a href="https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program" target="_blank">https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program</a><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br> >> Izumi Aizu <<<br>Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo<br>Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, <br>
Japan<br><a href="http://www.anr.org" target="_blank">www.anr.org</a><br>
</div>