-
Re: A reply to Chico Whitaker's proposals for the future of the WSF
from mariangela on Mar 24, 2013 07:26 AMFantastic write to me privately and we Will exchange contacts mariangela Marisa Holmes <marisaholmes@...> ha scritto: >Hey Mariangela! > >I arrive on the 25th. We should definitely go to the university together. > >Marisa >OWS > >On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:42 PM, marita cassan <maciacia50@...>wrote: > >> Anybody coming in the eve of 25? I Will arriverà atto 8.30 pm in order TO >> go together TO University? Mariangela >> >> jasper teunissen <jasperteunissen@...> ha scritto: >> >> >Dear Chico, >> >Thanks for your reply and the attachments, will read them more carefully >> >as soon as possible. I will also leave for Tunis tomorrow and I will >> >stay after the forum to join the IC meetings (do you know where and when >> >they take place?), so we definitely can find some time to continue the >> >discussion. Looking forward! >> >greetings jasper >> > >> > >> >Op 22-3-2013 19:04, chico whitaker schreef: >> >> Dear Jasper, only now, some days before the beginning of th 2013 WSF, >> >> I am having a little bit of time to consider, as I promised, at least >> >> (as my time is not so elastic...) some of the questions you put in the >> >> mail you wrote in February. I think it is never too late, as this >> >> discussions will necessarily continue. As I hope we will have the >> >> opportunity to talk personally during the Forum, this may facilitate >> >> our interchanges. >> >> But let me at first thank your patience to read so many of my texts. >> >> Some others that you did not read (I wrote so many, during this 12 >> >> years...) could perhaps explain some misunderstandings. But no >> >> problems, let me do the possible now. >> >> I will write in italic characters under your questions, as they appear >> >> in your text below. So: >> >> >> >> Le 02/02/2013 18:26, jasper teunissen a écrit : >> >>> >> >>> *Re: World Social Forum: space or movement? * >> >>> >> >>> *A reply to Chico Whitaker's proposals for the future of the WSF* >> >>> >> >>> by Jasper Teunissen >> >>> >> >>> 2 February 2013 >> >>> >> >>> *Introduction* >> >>> >> >>> In the process towards the World Social Forum (WSF) in Tunis next >> >>> month, some efforts have been made to start a discussion about the >> >>> future of the WSF, but have so far found little resonance, at least >> >>> certainly not in the public domain. >> >>> >> >> /Let me say at first that you misunderstood the aim of my proposals. >> >> You say: "/a reply to Chico Whitaker's proposal for the future of the >> >> WSF/". it is not; it is for the future of the IC, only. //Both >> >> questions are naturally related but they are very different. About the >> >> future of the WSF I would write much more... I wrote even a book about >> >> the challenge the WSF faced from its beginning ... T//he discussion we >> >> began after the IC meeting in Monastir in June (I wrote also something >> >> specifically about this meeting) was not about the WSF future but >> >> about the IC future. So, my last four texts were about the IC >> >> problems. The texts (the mine and from others) had not so much >> >> resonance in the public domain because they were still to be discussed >> >> in the //working group created in Monastir "on the IC future". / >> >>> >> >>> Among of the contributions are a number of recent proposals by Chico >> >>> Whitaker, one of the founding figures of the WSF. I think these >> >>> proposals need attention and further discussion. Another reason to >> >>> write down some thoughts on Whitaker's texts is the fact that he >> >>> regularly refers to, speaks to, and even shares his dreams about the >> >>> so-called new movements of Occupy and Indignados (2011, 2012a, 2012b, >> >>> 2013b). >> >>> >> >> /Many of us are very interested in the so-called new movements >> >> experiences. And I am very glad to see how many activities they will >> >> realize in Tunis, overcoming some difficulties that appeared when they >> >> thought about coming to Tunis. / >> >>> >> >>> As a particpant in both a local social forum and Occupy related >> >>> initiatives, I'm especially interested to see how relations between >> >>> the two could evolve. >> >>> >> >>> And one last note: I don't doubt Whitaker's intentions concerning the >> >>> future of the WSF, and in fact I agree with many of the underlying >> >>> thoughts and I warmly support the search for radical improvements in >> >>> the WSF process. >> >>> >> >> /Here I think we need to identify two types of improvements: in the IC >> >> ans in the WSF process, without merging them./ >> >>> >> >>> Nevertheless, here I will concentrate on some critical points, trying >> >>> to get a better understanding of the ideas about movements and open >> >>> spaces on which Whitaker's proposals are based. >> >>> >> >>> *1. The dissolution of the IC and the start of a new movement* >> >>> >> >>> The first step in Whitaker's proposal is to dissolve the >> >>> International Council of the World Social Forum (IC). Looking at the >> >>> history and context of the current crisis within the IC, I think the >> >>> formal declaration of the end of the IC is just the final step in the >> >>> acceptance of an accomplished fact . Whitaker argues the IC has >> >>> 'already fulfilled the functions it could meet' (Whitaker, 2012c), >> >>> but I think we should be more direct: the IC has failed to fulfull >> >>> its role as a permanent body that will give continuity to the WSF. >> >>> >> >> /In this point this is absolutely not what I think nor what I intended >> >> to say. It would be too long to explain it, but you can read //the >> >> text I wrote after the Monastir meeting, that I referred to above. It >> >> is a //longer (14 pages...) explanation on how I see the IC history >> >> and its role in this 12 years (very important for the WSF success, >> >> specially in at least its first 9 or 10 years). I am annexing it to >> >> his mail, in case //you have the time to read it./ >> >>> >> >>> The reality is that the WSF 2013 is going to happen anyway, without a >> >>> functioning IC. >> >>> >> >> /Let me tell you a joke: in Dakar, most (not all...) of the FSM >> >> participants were able to re-organize the WSF from down, as the Forum >> >> Organizers had so many unforeseen problems that the first //two days >> >> of the //Forum were an authentic chaos. At the end of he Forum, some >> >> of us (IC members) said: this Forum proved that a WSF do not need >> >> "organizers"... Even we could say to them: don't try to organize (or >> >> even "facilitate") anything./ >> >>> >> >>> The second step of the proposal is the establishment of a new >> >>> movement that takes over the role of the IC as 'facilitator and >> >>> animator' of the WSF process, assigning to itself the power to decide >> >>> about the location of the next WSF, 'the only really important >> >>> decision that the IC takes' (Whitaker, 2012c). >> >>> >> >> /This was not a proposition but a matter of fact...//See the text >> >> annexed/. >> >>> >> >>> There is much to say about Whitaker's detailed vision of how such a >> >>> new movement would work (2013a, b), but here I will just mention a >> >>> few observations and concerns. >> >>> >> >>> First, the establishment of a new movement is clearly a step further >> >>> than the earlier proposal suggesting a power shift from the >> >>> Brazil-France tandem to a Canada-Mahreb tandem (Whitaker, 2012a), >> >>> >> >> /The power shift I suggested has nothing to do with the creation of a >> >> new movement, but with the need of new blood in the difficult tasks of >> >> "facilitating" and stimulating the WSF process. The tandem >> >> Brazil-France seemed to me, at that occasion, already a little bit >> >> tired, after so many years... And the Maghreb is showing its force in >> >> the 2013 WSF facilitation (and the Quebec is proving also it with >> >> their initiatives towards a pan-Canadian Forum). / >> >>> >> >>> but at the same time the creation of a new movement within the >> >>> context of the WSF has been tried before: 'The Network of the World's >> >>> Social Movements'. [1] I haven't heard anything about it ever since. >> >>> >> >> /I never said or thought about this type of proposal. Perhaps it was >> >> an idea of the author of the text you cited (Ezequiel Adamovsky?). I >> >> don't know who could have tried this before. / >> >> >> >>> Second, except from methodological adaptations, such as the >> >>> participation based on individuals instead of organisations, I don't >> >>> see any fundamental differences with the /intended/setup and goals of >> >>> the IC, that is: analysing the political situation in the world, >> >>> facilitating the WSF process and choosing the location of the next >> >>> WSF. In this sense the proposal is not as radical as Whitaker wants >> >>> us to believe. >> >>> >> >> /About the question of the creation of a new movement, and >> >> subsequently its eventual role in the definition of the WSF location, >> >> I did a revision in my firs proposal, after having discussed it with >> >> many people. And I wrote a last paper (the fourth, //bu//t only in 9 >> >> points in 1 and half page...), separating completely the two >> >> propositions: a new IC and a new Movement. I am annexing it to this >> >> mail too. / >> >>> >> >>> Third, I see a problem with the order of things. Whitaker proposes a >> >>> new movement based on a new Manifesto or Charter, initially crewed by >> >>> the current IC members, and then gradually add 'people that >> >>> constitute or constituted the Organization Committees of the >> >>> national, regional, continental or World Social Forums, and even >> >>> local ones [...]' (2013a para 1.4). After that, local chapters of the >> >>> new movement can be founded. >> >>> >> >>> In many ways this reminds me of a somewhat similar initiave, namely >> >>> the International Organization for a Participatory Society (IOPS), >> >>> which, to put it bluntly, first presents a blueprint of a new >> >>> society, then forms a new organisation from within its own inner >> >>> circle, and only then seeks further participation and expansion. [2] >> >>> I think we should not adopt such a top-down approach if we aim for an >> >>> actively involved, broader and more localized base for a global >> process. >> >>> >> >> >> >>> As I understand it, one of Whitaker's most important motivations for >> >>> his proposal is to find a way to include the latest generation of >> >>> movements. I agree this is a key question in the evolution of the >> >>> WSF. But inviting others to something new, to something >> >>> pre-established that is not theirs yet, is always extremely >> >>> difficult. I wouldn't expect many new people to join such a new >> >>> movement, especially if they are not familiar with the WSF, its >> >>> history and its possible usefulness. >> >>> >> >> /Here also you have completely misunderstood me. I never spoke about >> >> "local chapters", for instance... Movements can be created from above, >> >> but this is better applied to the creation of institutions, parties, >> >> NGOs. etc. Real "movements" are created always from down, by a initial >> >> group of people that become aware of the necessity and possibility of >> >> action, facing a specific question. If this group is able to convince >> >> others to join them, the movement grows. From down to up. For many >> >> reasons it can also stop is growth. But this would be another >> >> discussion. For our discussion here, I proposed only that the group of >> >> people that had built a mutual confidence along the IC existence could >> >> act like an initial group, trying to answer to the need we have in >> >> fact of a new world movement (different and separately of the WSF, >> >> that is as process of multiplying open spaces where to meet >> >> horizontally and respecting the diversity, and build articulations, >> >> and even new movements...) . But this point we could discuss more >> >> deeply personally. Writing in English is not so easy for me. / >> >> >> >>> Having said this, I don't have any magic answers on how to overcome >> >>> these problems, but I would like to share some embryonic ideas and >> >>> suggestions that popped up while reading Whitaker's discussion texts. >> >>> But first I will try to give a brief reflection on Whitaker's views >> >>> on the role of social movements and the WSF as open space. >> >>> >> >>> *2. WSF, movement and space* >> >>> >> >>> According to Wikipedia the WSF 'tends to meet in January at the same >> >>> time as its "great capitalist rival", the World Economic Forum's >> >>> Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland. This date is consciously picked >> >>> to promote their alternative answers to world economic problems in >> >>> opposition to the World Economic Forum.' [3] >> >>> >> >> /The idea was not to be "rival" but to say the we could have a non >> >> market (Davos) approach to solve the world problems, denying the only >> >> economic growth of the capitalist system. We wanted to show that their >> >> "unic thougth" ("pensée unique") was not the answer./ >> >>> >> >>> For the 2013 edition the tradition of the overlapping date with the >> >>> WEF in Davos has been abandoned for the first time in the history of >> >>> the WSF. Although this seems a trivial point, it made me realize how >> >>> deep the similarities between the WSF and WEF are, where the WSF has >> >>> been mimicking the WEF as an event for the leaders of, in this case, >> >>> another world, while Whitaker has made opposite claims (2004b). Let >> >>> me explain. >> >>> >> >> /The idea of doing the WSF at the same days as Davos was a >> >> communication strategy: we thought we could then oblige the main media >> >> to speak about the WSF, even with only ten little lines saying that >> >> there were people thinking on alternatives to the marker economies.... >> >> The tradition was broken not now in Tunis but in Dakar, in 2011. I am >> >> not sure it was a good decision (of the IC, following the Dakar Forum >> >> "organizers"). Many say that the WSF is now invisible in the main >> >> media, and our alternative media do not arrive everywhere... We have >> >> still to find a new way to broke the barriers of the mass >> >> communication. // >> >> //But please, don't say we were "mimicking" the WEF! It seems you >> >> don't know the WSF methodology! The WSF was not and is not an event of >> >> "leaders" (in Davos, 2.000 people, in Porto Alegre and Belem even >> >> 150.000 people...). And the WSF content is decided but its >> >> participants (through the self-organized activities) and not by its >> >> "organizers". / >> >>> >> >>> In an interview addressing Occupy Wall Street, Whitaker frames the >> >>> position of social movements as follows: '[W]e are not 99% against >> >>> 1%. Those who have already the courage to speak up are many, but >> >>> perhaps more or less 1%, against the 1% who controls and exploits the >> >>> rest of the world.' (2012b) So, we have a powerful elite (symbolized >> >>> by the WEF) on the one hand, a small group who resists on the extreme >> >>> opposite site (symbolized by the WSF) and in the middle there is the >> >>> 98%. Whitaker continues: '[W]e need to change our strategy. We need >> >>> to turn ourselves to the 98%' (2012a) >> >>> >> >>> I think this vision becomes problematic exactly where it puts the >> >>> social movements outside of the 98%, as those who already see, those >> >>> who already know. It's a simplicfication of reality in which the 98% >> >>> has two options: this 1% or that 1%, us or them. I think this is an >> >>> elitist, exclusive, vanguardist, moralistic and alienating picture >> >>> and it ignores the reality that a vast majority of the world >> >>> population is engaged in a day to day struggle for a life in peace >> >>> and dignity, a struggle that takes many forms, and some of them may >> >>> be less visible than others. I just don't think we can 'network' all >> >>> these struggles by placing ourselves outside or above them. >> >>> >> >> /Again a misunderstanding. And a big misunderstanding. Please... >> >> About this point I invite you to come to an activity I am >> >> participating in Tunis ("And the 98%?"), the 28th, 3d slot (16h00 to >> >> 18h30), in the room G101. If you have time, you can visit the blog >> >> that was created to prepare this workshop (www.98percent.net). You >> >> will see that one of our discussions will be about the idea of >> >> "Volontary servitude" of the French philosopher La Boetie (text >> >> written in 1500...) re-analysed by people from today, in our present >> >> societies. It will be certainly very interesting. / >> >> >> >> /I would like to go further, because many things you say in the >> >> continuation of your text make possible other reflections. Open space, >> >> Charter of Principles, things learned in the school about geography, >> >> etc. As a good intellectual, Jasper, you entered slowly but >> >> enthusiastically in a concepts discussion that could transform our >> >> exchange in a warm polemic with one trying to smash the other... //I >> >> would still only say that in the beginning of my first paper on the >> >> IC future //I said //that we had to overcome the space >> >> //_or_//movement //logics //to go to the space //_and_//movement >> >> logics. Nothing to do with "wraping " the WSF with a new movement.../ >> >> /But I cannot continue. //I//t would be too long to explain all the >> >> differences in what you say I am saying and what I tried to say... >> >> //My last paper sent now could perhaps explain many things. //My time >> >> is over. Tomorrow I am flying to Tunis and I have still many practical >> >> things to do. >> >> //Till Tunis, Jasper. Let us continue. Chico Whitaker / >> >>> >> >>> I'm not only having trouble with this narrow definition of movements, >> >>> I also would like to discuss the meaning of open space. Much has been >> >>> written about the WSF as an open space for movements. Here I will >> >>> limit myself by just looking at some of the Whitaker's (maybe >> >>> outdated, I don't know) hypotheses on the WSF as open space: >> >>> >> >>> 'A space has /no leaders/. It is only a place, basically a horizontal >> >>> space, just like the earth's surface, even if it has some ups and >> >>> downs, It is like a /square without an owner/. If the square has an >> >>> owner other than the collectivity, it fails to be a square, and >> >>> becomes private territory. Squares are generally open spaces that can >> >>> be visited by all those who find any kind of interest in using it. >> >>> Their purpose is solely being a square, whatever service they render >> >>> to its users. The longer they last as squares the better it is for >> >>> those who use them for what they offer for the realisation of their >> >>> respective objectives.' >> >>> >> >>> (Whitaker, 2004a, p.113, /author's emphasis/) >> >>> >> >>> This vision contradicts with almost everything I was taught in human >> >>> geography courses at university. But here I won't go into the >> >>> historical and theoretical analysis of the relations between people >> >>> and space, it's enough to have a look at the recent experiences of >> >>> Tahrir, Sol, Zucotti and hundreds of other squares around the world. >> >>> Here we have learned that the creation of a safe and open space, >> >>> trying to realize a glimpse of another world, often right at a >> >>> central point in the 'normality' of the dominant logic, is not that >> >>> easy. We have learned that open spaces are always a product of a >> >>> complex interaction between many different interests, intentions and >> >>> expectations, both within the occupied squares and in relation to the >> >>> rest of the world. Therefore, we can not just simply declare a space >> >>> open and horizontal, and expect it to behave according to a certain >> >>> set of principles forever. Instead, in the struggle for open spaces >> >>> we always have to take into account questions of power, ownership and >> >>> directions. >> >>> >> >>> In the debate between those who have seen the WSF as movement, and >> >>> those who have seen it as a space, Whitaker always sided with the >> >>> latter: 'For me, there is no doubt that it is fundamental to ensure >> >>> at all costs the continuity of the Forum as a space and to not yield >> >>> to the temptation of transforming it now or even later, into a >> >>> movement.' (Whitaker 2004a) >> >>> >> >>> Now, nearly a decade later, Whitaker proposes to wrap the WSF space >> >>> up in a new movement, saying that 'we should have the WSF _as_ space >> >>> and a new movement (the APW -- Another Possible World) _as_ movement, >> >>> in parallel, without mixing both. We should nevertheless link them >> >>> [...]' (Whitaker 2013c para 1). >> >>> >> >>> If we want to come to a widely shared vision of the future of the >> >>> WSF, can we base it on abstract and theoretical interpretations of >> >>> spaces and movements? Can we draw strict lines between spaces and >> >>> movements, and at the same time try to link them? Or can we develop >> >>> new forms of global movement meetings based on practical experiences >> >>> from the social forums, the occupied squares, and elsewere? >> >>> >> >>> *3. Some suggestions* >> >>> >> >>> /On charters and principles/ >> >>> >> >>> While Whitaker repeatedly states that 'it's not a question of >> >>> modifying the WSF Charter of Principles' (2012a, 2013a para 1.1), I >> >>> think the Charter of Principles and its meaning within the WSF >> >>> process should be rediscussed at some point. Without concluding that >> >>> the text is not relevant or valuable anymore, I see many reasons to >> >>> have another look at it, not only because of its limitations (and >> >>> violations), but most importantly because I think anything should be >> >>> open to discussion, always. >> >>> >> >>> /A next WSF in cyberspace?/ >> >>> >> >>> If the location of the next WSF is such a delicate matter, why not >> >>> have an edition of the WSF in cyberspace, as an experiment? I see >> >>> many opportunities here. First, it could improve the online >> >>> infrastructure of the WSF and many participating social movements. >> >>> Second, this could trigger the organisation of interconnected local >> >>> events around the world, building a base for the future of the WSF >> >>> process. Third, it could attract new types of participants, >> >>> especially the ones that are not already engaged in any existing >> >>> organisation or movement (the 98 percenters?). Fourth, it >> >>> automatically gives new generations and new movements a position at >> >>> the forefront, since they were born in a landscape shaped by online >> >>> social networking. Fifth, it doesn't have the enormous environmental >> >>> costs and it doesn't need a concentration of financial resources. >> >>> Well, there are more arguments for (and against) a WSF in cyberspace, >> >>> but it's just another option that can be considered. >> >>> >> >>> /Opening up the spaces for debate/ >> >>> >> >>> I think, when talking about the future of the WSF and the futures of >> >>> social movements, we need to communicate and discuss our various >> >>> needs and expectations regarding meetings on the global scale. Only >> >>> then we are able to build a collective and practical framework to >> >>> organize such meetings. The WSF in Tunis offers us another moment to >> >>> do this and we have to make sure that these debates are not kept >> >>> inside the exclusive spaces of IC mailinglists and IC meetings. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> *Notes* >> >>> >> >>> [1] See: Ezequiel Adamovsky, 2003, 'The World Social Forum's New >> >>> Project: The Network of the World's Social Movements' >> >>> http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/wsf/newproject.htm >> >>> >> >>> [2] See: http://www.iopsociety.org/ >> >>> >> >>> [3] See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Social_Forum >> >>> >> >>> *References* >> >>> >> >>> Chico Whitaker, 2004a, 'The WSF as Open Space', in: Sen, J., A. >> >>> Anand, A. Escobar, P. Waterman (eds.), /World Social Forum: >> >>> Callenging Empires/, New Delhi, Viveka Foundation, p.111-121, >> >>> http://www.choike.org/documentos/wsf_s302_whitaker.pdf >> >>> >> >>> Chico Whitaker, March 2004b, 'World Social Forum -- A Process in >> >>> Construction', >> >>> http://www.pekea-fr.org/PubliSurNLetter/Whitaker-En-NL13.pdf >> >>> >> >>> Chico Whitaker, November 2011, 'Inverted tale -- from the end to the >> >>> beginning (imagine is possible)', >> http://www.e-joussour.net/en/node/12054 >> >>> >> >>> Chico Whitaker, January 2012a, 'New Perspectives in the WSF Process', >> >>> _http://www.ciranda.net/article6100.html_ >> >>> >> >>> Chico Whitaker, February 2012b, 'A View From Brazil: World Social >> >>> Forum Co-founder Chico Whitaker Offers an International Perspective >> >>> on the Occupy Wall Street Movement', >> >>> _http://www.ussocialforum.net/node/373_ >> >>> >> >>> Chico Whitaker, December 2012c, 'World Social Forum: space or >> >>> movement? Thinking about the WSF International Council future in new >> >>> perspectives', December 2012, >> >>> http://chicowhitaker.net/artigo_eng.php?artigo=44 >> >>> >> >>> Chico Whitaker, January 2013a 'Additional notes to the text proposing >> >>> the dissolution of the WSF IC', >> >>> http://chicowhitaker.net/artigo_eng.php?artigo=45 >> >>> >> >>> Chico Whitaker, January 2013b, 'More notes about my proposal on the >> >>> WSF IC ', January 2013 >> http://chicowhitaker.net/artigo_eng.php?artigo=66 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Archive: http://openfsm.net/[...]/1359837008625 >> >>> < >> http://openfsm.net/projects/2011movements-fsm-wsf/lists/2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion/archive/2013/02/1359837008625 >> > >> >>> To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to >> >>> 2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion@... >> >>> <mailto:2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion@...>. Please >> >>> contact 2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion-manager@... >> >>> <mailto:2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion-manager@...> >> >>> for questions. >> >>> >> >>> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. >> >>> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr <http://www.avg.fr> >> >>> Version: 2013.0.2897 / Base de données virale: 2639/6074 - Date: >> >>> 01/02/2013 >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Archive: http://openfsm.net/[...]/1363975816602 >> >> < >> http://openfsm.net/projects/2011movements-fsm-wsf/lists/2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion/archive/2013/03/1363975816602 >> > >> >> To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to >> >> 2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion@... >> >> <mailto:2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion@...>. Please >> >> contact 2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion-manager@... >> >> <mailto:2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion-manager@...> >> >> for questions. >> > >> > >> > >> >-- >> >Archive: >> http://openfsm.net/projects/2011movements-fsm-wsf/lists/2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion/archive/2013/03/1363989636860 >> >To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to >> 2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion@.... Please contact >> 2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion-manager@... for questions. >> >> >> -- >> Archive: >> http://openfsm.net/projects/2011movements-fsm-wsf/lists/2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion/archive/2013/03/1364057013942 >> To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to >> 2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion@.... Please contact >> 2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion-manager@... for questions. >> > > >-- >Archive: http://openfsm.net/projects/2011movements-fsm-wsf/lists/2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion/archive/2013/03/1364105130123 >To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to 2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion@.... Please contact 2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion-manager@... for questions.