Dear Francesco and all,
Please find our final version of the country report for Sweden (where review comments from DIT have been considered) in the following Keybase folder:
K:\team\foss4smes\2. Implementation\Output 1\Final versions after review
Please also find the updated (and final) review report (where comments from DLEARN have been considered) in the following Keybase folder:
K:\team\foss4smes\2. Implementation\Output 1\Reviews\SKUNI
We also attach the files.
Francesco, concerning the comments you provided related to the Peer Review of the Country Reports we note that there seems to be some misunderstanding.
First, concerning the explanation of completeness, we do not follow what is referred to by "cover the objectives of the result?" For this reason, the outcome of our initial assessment was N/A. In our updated review report, we have now interpreted the criterium as "Are the contents complete?". The outcome of our assessment of this criterium is "No" for all country reports.
Second, the outcome of our review for each country report concerning "Clarity" can be found in each country report. The outcome of our assessment of this criterium is "No" for all country reports.
Third, the outcome of our review for each country report concerning "comprehensiveness" can be found in each country report. The outcome of our assessment of this criterium is "No" for all country reports.
Fourth, our evaluation of the three parameters completeness, clarity and comprehensiveness, are _not_ missing from the review report.
Fifth, we do not understand what you refer to by "you mostly kept a ‘proof reading’ approach to the review". It is unclear to us if you have read and digested the comments in the reviews? The reviews we have provided aims to improve quality of each report and it is our view that the comments we have provided go far beyond a 'proof reading' approach.
Finally, please note that the reviews were not discussed during the hour allocated for the telco last week (most, but not all, items of the agenda were covered during the hour allocated for the meeting). From the minutes we understand that these issues were discussed later, but due to other commitments just after the hour allocated for the meeting we were unable to attend continued discussions.
Kind regards, -- Jonas & Björn
On 2018-09-03 18:48, francesco.agresta@dlearn.eu wrote:
Dear partners,
I hope everything is fine with you and that you all had a nice summer!
In view of the Interim Quality Report due by September, you will find the 12^th month evaluation questionnaire at the link below:
èhttps://www.surveymonkey.com/r/YQDHCR2
Only one response per partner is required. Please fill it out by _next Monday (10.09)_, so we will have time to gather all the results and prepare the report.
Concerning the Peer Review of the Country Reports, first of all I would like to thank DIT and SKUNI for the work done and the inputs provided.
However, going through your revisions, we noticed that you mostly kept a ‘proof reading’ approach to the review, basically doing more than what was required by this task. Still, the only three parameters upon which the documents should have been evaluated, i.e. *_completeness_, _clarity_ *and *_comprehensiveness_, *are missing.
**
Ideally, the questions to be asked for each parameter should be:
-_Completeness_: Are the contents complete and cover the objectives of the result?
-_Clarity_: Is the document clear in its meaning, language and organisation of contents? Also, is the content adapt to the end users/beneficiaries of the result? Is the content of the document clear and logic? Are the conclusions drawn consistent and valuable?
-_Comprehensiveness_: Does it address all the issues described in the project plan? Is the deliverable/result coherent to the description in the work program? Is the product suitable the group?
Please note that results from the peer reviews are going to be submitted as part of the Quality Reports.
As such, a brief review (2 pages max) in accordance with these parameters is needed for each output. And the same for what concerns the review of IO1.A2 .
You don’t need to do all the work again (also because we are only going to make minor changes, as you discussed last week), but just adapt it in order to make it look more concise and to the point, responding to the three qualitative parameters.
Wish you all a good start of the week!
Best,
Descrizione: Descrizione: dlearn http://www.dlearn.eu/
Francesco Agresta
European Project Manager
European Digital Learning Network
Via Domenico Scarlatti, 30
20124 Milano
Mob. +39 3496027623
Email francesco.agresta@dlearn.eu mailto:francesco.agresta@dlearn.eu
www.dlearn.eu http://www.dlearn.eu/
Foss4smes-team mailing list Foss4smes-team@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4smes-team
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct