PWPB2012 Proposal Scoring: Behind the Curtain
|Don’t worry, your proposal is in here somewhere.|
I haven’t had much time for blogging because this is notification week for those who proposed sessions for PWPB2012. Don’t panic if you haven’t heard from me; I’m going slow because I don’t want any errors.
The compendium of proposals runs about 300 pages (9 point sans serif). Eight people read everything; four of them scored every one. A separate cadre of subject matter experts were assigned to one of six themes: Advocate + Include; Design + Engineer; Plan + Connect; SRTS + Beyond; Invest + Govern; and Healthy + Safe. By the time the scores were added, averaged, and ranked, six persons had scored each proposal, and each had been read by ten reviewers.
Reviewers were asked to score proposals on a scale of 0-5.
0 = reserved for a proposal that is incomplete, counterproductive, or commercially self-serving.
1 = the proposal is on-topic, but is not necessarily offering a new perspective or a new idea.
2 = good, but a well-developed proposal on the same topic has already been submitted.
3 = interesting! Could work well as a Poster Session or could be combined with a similar proposal.
4 = great, with a potential to be superb.
5 = an absolute must-include session.
4.13 points: what it took at make the top 60 panel sessions for 2012.
126 proposals rated at least a 3.5.
Above is a panorama of Bikefedistan. Today’s history lesson is that the National Center for Bicycling & Walking and Pro Walk/Pro Bike started out life as the Bicycle Federation of America and Pro Bike, respectively. Eventually we wised up and added walking to our name and our mission because we recognized a common cause: the street that is difficult to bike along is–invariably–difficult to cross. As a bonus, the pedestrians also made us look much more like regular people. (They still do.)