Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Evaluation team -- the last first call for volunteers

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>]

I would appreciate having the privelge to constructively participate
in the Evaluation team

Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax



On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:57 AM,  <stevepinkos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'm happy to assist with the "evaluation" team.
>
>
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:05:56
> To: Avri Doria<avri@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Evaluation team -- the last first call for 
> volunteers
>
>
> i think Avri's got it exactly right -- eventually, we are *all* evaluators 
> (well, except for us co-chairs).  that's why i called it "evaluation" rather 
> than "evaluators".   the evaluation team is going to help us structure the 
> information about the proposals in a way to make that evaluation more 
> consistent.  that framework will also provide a way for proposal-advocates to 
> understand where the gaps are in their proposals, issues that need further 
> work, etc.
>
> at the same time, i think it's a good idea to only do one thing -- either be 
> an advocate for a proposal, or work on structuring and facilitating the 
> evaluation.  partly because it avoids the appearance of conflict, but also 
> because doing both is going to be a boatload of work.  :-)
>
> carry on -- i'm about to drop off the 'net again for the rest of the day (i'm 
> on holiday) but i'll look in again later this evening...
>
> mikey
>
> On Apr 14, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 14 Apr 2010, at 09:40, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>>
>>> Evaluation is not the place for advocates.
>>
>> A subject where we might agree.
>>
>> Though I think 'evaluation team' may be a confusing misnomer as it makes it 
>> seem that they are doing the evaluation as opposed to setting up the 
>> methodology and tools for the evaluation.
>>
>> But i do think we will have the chance to comment on their work and its 
>> appropriateness in coverage of all of the issues.
>>
>> And i think that _if_ their method includes a matrix of characteristics, we 
>> will also be able to advocate for our model's fits into that matrix.
>>
>> And i think that _if_ they take a case study approach we will all be able to 
>> offer up scenarios that we feel have not been included in their initial set.
>>
>> And in the final analysis, since the entire WG needs to come to rough 
>> consensus at the end of the day, it is hoped that modelers and evaluators 
>> will come together in a model that aggregates the concerns and needs of the 
>> WG at large.
>>
>> In any case, i did not think i saw any advocates with proposals volunteering 
>> for the evaluation team (assuming we are participating as individuals except 
>> for those who say they are putting for company XYZ proposal).
>>
>> a.
>
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone   651-647-6109
> fax             866-280-2356
> web     www.haven2.com
> handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
>
>
>
>