SOME CONSIDERATIONS ON METHODOLOGY FSMET 

AFTER THE ENCOUNTER BcnET19 (version12Mayo)

In Barcelona there were many parallel discussions during 3 days, part of which are tentatively reflected through notes contributed on the pads and collected here. http://openfsm.net/projects/bcnet19/

The following considerations focus on what was presented as the "challenge of" forum governance "theme, now better referred to as the" forum process "challenge, on the FSMETdecidim site https://forum.transformadora.org ( https: // forum .transformadora.org / processes / FSMET2019 / f / 394 / proposals / 13320 ) and that it is easier to formulate "what methodology for the FSMET social forum process to be built"

This document is conceived as evolutive in the part C of proposals that feeds from the part A traveled in the encounter and part B

Plan

PART A SOME OCCASIONS OF METHODOLOGICAL EXCHANGES IN BCNET19

• @ 1 / PRELIMINARY DIALOGUE TO THE BCNET19 MEETING
• @ 2 / TWO DIFFERENT DIAGRAMS "vision of GOVERNANCE" OR "vision of the FORUM
• @ 3 / ABOUT THE DECIDIM WEBSITE
• @ 4 / ABOUT THE COMMON AGENDA
• @ 5 / "RECEIVING" THE ADDRESS OF THE GOVERNANCE
• @ 6 / TRYING TO GET OUT OF THE FORUM OF THE GOVERNANCE TO SPEAK OF THE FORUM

PART B INVITE US TO BCN TO PRE-FIGURE THE FORUM THAT WAS THOUGHT BY THE GI ...

• @ 1 / TIME DISTRIBUTION and SIMULATION OF CONFLUENCES
• @ 2 / INCOMMUNITIES AND GOVERNANCE NOT CONFIRMED
• @ 3 / STAYING WITH IMPRESSIONS FOR LACK OF EXPLICITS
• @ 4 / AFFIRM BASES OF SOCIAL FORUM
• @ 5 / GOVERN OR FACILITATE?
• @ 6 / THINK WHAT WE DO NOT DISCUSS IN BARCELONA
• @A forum form @B goals in forum @C notion confluence @D other forms @E part local @F start / end @G narrative @H facilitation

PART C CONCRETE PROPOSALS

• @ 0 / Institute a methodology commission to work on points 1 2 and 3
• @ 1 / Affirm for FSMET a methodological process of horizontal and diverse social forum considering the existing experience and seeking to innovate
• @ 2 / Position explicit and value as FSMET innovation in the WSF a ​​methodology of "confluence spaces" with clear principles,
• @ 3 / Affirm and contextualize the other forms of participation WSF
• @ 4 / Descentrarse de Barcelona: examine how it diffuses as one participates without coming to Barcelona
• @ 5 / Reflect the FSMET BCN methodology on websites- Decidim .. and something else
• @ 6 / Explore forms of local-centric articulation
• @ 7 / Describe and incorporate a post BCN20 event period for some months now
• @ 8 / Define a facilitation framework for the stimulation of narratives with shared tasks between participating organizations
• @ 9 / Define instances, forms and rules, practices, for "facilitation tasks"

PART A OCCASIONS OF METHODOLOGICAL EXCHANGES IN BCNET19 ( ^ )

1 / PRELIMINARY DIALOGUE TO THE BCNET19 MEETING

1 / There has been, before the BCNET19 event, a dialogue on methodology and website fsmet. Here is a finalized formulation just before the event, with 7 points: http://openfsm.net/projects/qfsmet/qfsmet-elements-of-dialogue-about-fsmet-formats-before-fsmet19-es (there are more accessible texts browsing in this openfsm space "Questions & Kiosk http://openfsm.net/projects/qfsmet ).

Point 1 / "And we will work on the 2020 Forum after validating the methodological proposal (s) of the" Driving Group "and the" technical team ", that is, the conveners".

>> This proposal is not valid @ see B2 . Now who do "the conveners" are going to include or not more experiences and views in a "commission of methodology FSMET"? Or continue to be engrossed with the prerogative of conveners @ver A6H and C1 .

Point 2 / "The general idea is to get people to work together on common themes and" transformative actions "(the 6 axes), the structure will probably also be different from a traditional WSF."

>> the first full day was dedicated for this @ B1 .

>> but where there are explanations and discussions about "the structure" (rather the macro-programming of the event, and ways of participating in the process). The only thing we have is the governance scheme @ver A2 .

Point 3 / "We have not yet decided whether Decidim will be the only tool that will be used."

>> Thinking only about an event of 10,000 people does not look good as a minimum, there would not be a tool to place activities in the BCN20 FSMET event program, or imagine that everything will be "confluence spaces" sessions?

Point 4 / "Formats of participation is something that we should discuss and keep open until we have a clearer idea of" how we will work ".

>> the communication in term of governance @ A5 , did not allow to make use fruitful of the little time granted to the reflection on the process during the meeting, where the request for methodological discussion became perceptible. One way to "keep open" would be to create an inclusive methodology commission to see @ A6H and proposals in @ part C.

Point 5 / The "chronogram" of the fsmet19 meeting is quite fixed and is made to also allow informal exchanges between the participants ".

>> The formal part of the schedule was, for 90% of the meetings of participants, without relation to a reflection on what type of forum format we want to see part B1 and B6 .

Point 6 / for example, move a bit of discussion on governance / process to day 2).

>> In this sessions discomforts were expressed with this approach from the governance and we talked about methodology and the proposal of governance was not proposed for validation on Sunday @ver B2 .

Point 7 / "Your kiosk proposal could be presented during the sessions of the working groups (also on the third day, as part of the discussion on territorial convergences).

>> An initial group was formed to propose an interactive QFSMET LAC kiosk in the Latin American and Caribbean area http://openfsm.net/projects/qfsmet-lac1 To make the FSMET process visible and accessible from now on, it proposes ways of decentralized participation and he seeks to articulate them with a central process in Barcelona see @ C5.

 2 / TWO DIFFERENT DIAGRAMS "vision of GOVERNANCE" OR "vision of the FORUM?

With these elements of the A1 dialogue, I came to Barcelona with paper diagrams, describing a "generic view of the social forum process", to show in the discussions the difference of focus with the "governance scheme" that we had received from "the conveners "

The two diagrams have a disc in the center, but that represents two very different things:

In the scheme of governance, the great central disc is of an assembly that is not well known in an event of 10,000 people and what is its function: to express oneself on behalf of whom and on what kind of things? potentially all kinds of things? .-

In the scheme of the forum, the central disc with light blue color represents the open space of the forum, which houses all the activities and goes to future futures where it is intercommunicated on the announced initiatives @ C3 .

This second scheme is intended as a basis for face-to-face discussions with participants on "how to visualize methodology and forms for the FSMET social forum process that one wants to build", http://openfsm.net/projects/qfsmet/qfsmet-insumo-reunion-fsmet19-2diagramas "

Diagram disk forum and diagram Governance

 3 / ABOUT THE DECIDIM WEBSITE

There was a session of one hour on Friday (see http://openfsm.net/projects/bcnet19/bcnet19-notasb.1/#B7 some beginnings d of discussions, very related to the methodology, and without being able to deepen due to lack of time Unfortunately, the meeting the following day was canceled, and there were 10 minutes in the final session without interactions, at the end one month after the event, 20 new people entered the site (some stimulated by the mention of the site in the kiosk FSMETlac @ see C5) .

 4 / ABOUT THE COMMON AGENDA

On Friday night I had with a member of the GI (Impulsor Group) a discussion on the notion of "common agenda" which are witnesses doodles on the restaurant fabric. http://openfsm.net/projects/bcnet19/bcnet19-notasb.1/#B10 . This topic is further developed below in part @ B3B and B6C and C3E .

 5 / "RECEIVING" THE ADDRESS OF GOVERNANCE

At the same time on Friday night, the team of facilitators identified "forum governance" as one of the 10 shared challenges. and on Saturday I participated in the group that worked on this challenge. The existing notes are here: http://openfsm.net/projects/bcnet19/bcnet19-notasd.1/#D1

Note: It was renamed "forum process" on the site Decidim https://forum.transformadora.org/processes/FSMET2019/f/394/proposals/13320 but the highlighted text continues to show only main actors (naming "movements" the spaces of confluence by actors, and not mentioning any "form of participation").

In the morning we had in this group an exchange with another member of the IG who said that the vision of the IG was not the vision that was in diagram Disco brought in Barcelona @ A2 http://openfsm.net/projects/metodologia/possible-fsm -wsf-process-event-space-diagram / # ES , but did not say how it differed.

I speak of "representatives" of, and / or of "liaison persons of," "confluences" in the assembly of confluencias.El do not rule out the option of making decisions also on "content" in this assembly.

I am not talking about the forms that participation in the process in space and time would take, or how to participate in it. "Self-managed activities", appeared alluded to in one of his comments "we do not want fairs like there are so many".

It should be noted that the fact of speaking of "confluences", without specifying "spaces of confluence" gives them an appearance of semi-entities, which can make decisions and be represented in the large assembly of confluence. @ B6C .

This assembly of enormous confluence, at the center of the governance diagram, where the notion / mention of the social forum is not visible, then seemed more like an "EETT parliament" with representatives of confluences, deliberating everything, than a focused instance in the facilitation of the FSMET as a social forum process.

Then it was relevant and necessary, for those who take seriously the always perfectible methodological accumulation of the FSM social forum, the fact of looking for a refocus on the forum process - @ver C1B .

In the afternoon, there were 3 working groups, two of which, one in English and the other in Spanish, produced notes that can be seen herehttp://openfsm.net/projects/bcnet19/bcnet19-notasd.1/#D1G

 6 / TRYING TO GET OUT OF THE GOVERNANCE SPEECH TO SPEAK OF THE FORUM

Then at the end of the afternoon we divided into 5 rooms, where a person from the GI driving group presented the inescapable "governance scheme".There are notes of "pads" on 3 of these sessions here http://openfsm.net/projects/bcnet19/bcnet19-notase.1

It should be noted that the transfer from Sunday to Saturday of this general "one-hour consultation" session on "governance" was a modification of the meeting schedule in part due to the pre-encounter dialogue (mentioned in point @ A1 / 7 .

This transfer was successful, since it allowed the IG to have the time to listen to the returns on the governance proposal, and to arrange on Sunday morning, before giving an indication that governance would later be proposed.

THEN IN THE FINAL SESSION OF THE MEETING, NOTHING WAS APPROVED.

In the presentation session of the governance in which I participated, in room 3.2, the environment was receptive to suggestions and concerns, and the observations made were noted in the position of the governance scheme. See the photo here: http://openfsm.net/projects/bcnet19/bcnet19-notase.1

READING THE NOTES WRITTEN IN THE PHOTO FROM ABOVE AND CLOCKWISE

A / The confluence "axes" are rather confluence "spaces" - Where the participants come from in these "axes", they do not represent all the realities >>> they do not validate "pseudo-entities" as entities.

B / Concrete procedures and forms of participation: how do we get to the process, what form does the process have? - Role of organizations that can participate online with the site decidim-FSMET- place self-organized activities - place announcement initiatives with public citizen actions >> Focus on which process we visualize @ see C1 C2 C3.

C / "Who - Where - Where" can participate before the meeting of BCN2020 >> in the absence of indications in these matters, the attempt in the FSMET LAC interactive kiosk proposal is to propose concrete decentralized possibilities from now on "LAC zone, waiting and contributing to clarifications in "BCN area" @ C5 ).

D / Specify clear criteria of what is and what is not EETT >> there is a page here that informally plays this role and in the inclusion form in the FSMET LAC Kiosk you are asked to give your opinion about this document https://transformadora.org/es/ transformative economies @ver B5

E / Creation of a welcome commission to those who want to participate or facilitate (fsm Montreal experience).

F / Driving group becomes a dynamic group and much more plural, also the promotion committee >>> could use the word "facilitator" in the name given to these groups.

G / Substituting in the center of the scheme the "assembly of confluence" for "entire FORUM", which is the space of the confluences, mentioning that there is no vertical system of representation between spaces "@ A2 ; This is the act of refocusing the process -space forum @ C1 .

H / Creation of a commission methodology FSMET open to participating entities >> see all part C as work area of ​​this commission @ see C1 ..

I / Most Executive Communication Commission @ B6F @ C8 .

J / Creation of a content commission about which it communicates (it seems that the idea comes from the meeting of the commission communication -http://openfsm.net/projects/bcnet19/bcnet19-notasb.1/#B8 @ver B6G and @ C8 .

K / remembering that in a social forum the decisions on actions and contents are from the participating organizations (and not from "spaces of confluence") >> avoid the tendency to "actorize" the "confluences" @ see B6C .

FINAL SESSION

@ Also see the transcript of what was said in the final session, in relation to the group "governance challenge" there the pad notes-http://openfsm.net/projects/bcnet19/bcnet19-notasg.1/#G4

PART B INVITE US TO BCN TO PRE-FIGURE THE FORUM? ( ^ )

OR ALSO FOR US TO HELP DEFINE AND FACILITATE A FORUM PROCESS THAT WE WANT?

1 / TIME DISTRIBUTION in BCNET19 and SIMULATION OF CONFLUENCES

1 / In the preliminary dialogue mentioned in point @ A1 it was suggested to give much more "formal" time (outside of meals etc), during the 3-day BCNET19 meeting schedule, - possibly almost half of the time -, to collective reflection about expected results and the forms of the forum process, to activate the intelligence and collective experience that many invited guests had of the social forum, and not to give all the time to pre-figurative interactions of what would happen in spaces of confluence. (see http://openfsm.net/projects/qfsmet/qfsmet-sobre-cronograma-fsmet19 ).

In fact only 10% of the participants, those who were motivated to come in the group "governance challenge" - among the 10 challenge groups on Saturday (they spent a remarkable time during this meeting - a full day - in concentrating on issues The discussion was blocked and worked out because it had to de-construct the discourse / approach on governance before being able to exchange about the forum process, which was not possible, it was mainly these people who could articulate criticism and suggestions in this session on Saturday.

The other 90% was then immersed in a 2-day content seminar, "prefiguring confluence activities" by identity, geography challenges, which some participating entities usually propose in social forums.

So they were not stimulated to think about the forum, and, except if they had, on the other hand, an accumulated own experience of participation or organization in social forums, they were not in condition in an hour, to reflect and concretize their vision of the FSMET process, to comment on the FSMET methodology, in addition that it was dressed and reduced in the form of "governance". Which can explain the absence of notes and passivity maybe in some of the 5 parallel sessions.

Finally, these 90% of people lived a kind of "simulation" of confluence spaces, also facilitated somewhat directly by the "team of facilitators" of meetings.

This "team of facilitators" apparently did not have knowledge of the problematic methodology of the forum, and sought to reach the formal objectives that the "technical team" had given them ("formulate 6 challenges", without including reference to the social forum. in several participants the feeling that they were treated a bit like children.

 2 / INCOMMODITIES AND GOVERNANCE NOT CONFIRMED

2 / It was felt throughout this day, in this group "governance challenge", and also from other people in the 5 sessions of presentation of the night, that this "governance scheme", which appeared to be the The only channel of representation and written synthetic communication available on behalf of the IG or even in the IG on the methodological reflection related to the social forum process FSMET -, as it muddied and blocked the discussions.

It would have been possible to clarify things a bit by talking about "governance of facilitation", but this was not done.

It was also felt, in at least 2 groups of exposition of the governance on Saturday afternoon, the discomfort of participants in having as only methodological-conceptual food in this meeting:

A / the notion of "confluence" without principles (see point @ B6C ) and

B / the notion of "governance", (see @ B3 )

The two things mixed in a single assembly, which concealed the existence of the forum's open space, was very much accompanied "by the GI the conveners and GPI the expected / co-opted, and was thought to be apt to" deliberate, to express opinions on contents ", ( maybe like the common 2020 2020 agenda see point @ B6A and C3) .

This tendency to privilege a large assembly in particular in methodology and communication can be qualified as an "assembly temptation", which exists in other forums, and which is not practicable in a large forum of 10,000 participants (@ B6C ).

One comment from another participant in the group governance forum is highlighted: "it seems that there are previous structures like this one of governance to reach something that we do not know what it is".

Probably, the IG also felt these discomforts, since the next day, at the final moment, instead of declaring the "governance" approved, as was foreseen in the initial schedule that was communicated to the "guests", it was announced that the the driving group would make other proposals later on governance see http://openfsm.net/projects/bcnet19/bcnet19-notasg.1/#G2 see the moment "and now as we continue" (there is video in the link).

 3 / STAYING WITH IMPRESSIONS FOR LACK OF EXPLICITS

I left the BCNET19 meeting with the following "impressions", for lack of collective methodological exchanges with time and clarity.

A / VERY CENTERED IN EVENT

In the perception of its promoters and of the invited guests, the FSMET process continues to be a very "central event". It relies on "geographical confluences" to take care of "the rest" without the social forum form being clarified. The question continues: "How does this include the ground reality of many EETT alternatives that are local?"

B / NOT DISCUSSED GOALS

In these half-chaotic Saturday discussions on "governance dressed methodology" where the words "forum" and "methodology" were almost absent in the mouths of the conveners, the question of the participants' goals in resorting to the social forum form was not examined Working collectively "Who wants what in this forum", It would have been clarifying.

The goal announced by the driving entities / conveners: "consensus on a common 2020-30 agenda" was not commented. And this lack of collective explicitation seems to make its determining role more important in terms of vision of the process among the conveners.

C / UN-FORUM VISION or COP?

There is no reference on other elements of methodology of the forum or they are negative ("we do not want a fair") There is a will, which is legitimate, to do something other than an "ESS fair", at the risk of moving away from fundamentals of the forum with "Self-managed activities".

In the FSM methodology since its inception, the self-managed activities are a base, and here in Barcelona it has not been mentioned, even less is the notion worked. Criteria for assemblies, and relfexion relation to transformative actions.

This may explain the option to use decidim because the main goal is to be able to comment among participants / representatives links of "spaces of confluence, half transformed into actors" on draft document of this "common agenda" that would be approved in a large meeting of confluence. How is it done at the UN?

http://transformadora.org/en/2020 

In some pages The presentation of the event 2020 is in the form of a confluence meeting and not a social forum event (@)

The FSMET goes far beyond the driving entities and wants to reach all those organizations and movements that are already working on the logic of the Transformative Economies in their territories. It is a collective process and is self-organized from the base, that is, from the axes, the local platforms and the confluence assembly .

D / RUMBO TO BLURRED DIALOGUES IN AN INDEFINITE FRAMEWORK

In this absence of clear discourse, and in spite of the reference to the letter of principles, one imagines a meeting-process online and face-to-face with blurred modalities, where "confluences" (without specifying "space of"), considered or considered as "Pseudo entities", are related and converge in turn, through "pseudo representations", in a mega "assembly of confluences" approving by partial consensus programmatic texts (common agenda) paragraph by paragraph something that looks like the UN, where the states they have much more identity than spaces of confluence.

E / SIMULATING CONFLUENCES

At the request of the facilitators for three days, with more or less conviction and effectiveness - we "converge" the first day by identity (division in 6 instituted by facilitators), the second day by challenges (based on the formulation of 10 challenges defined by facilitators) last day by continent (division into 6 geographic areas defined by facilitators).

But we did not have occasion at the moment of reflective review: what we were doing, and if part of our time together dedicated to these simulations of confluence would not be better used to discuss the methodology of the whole forum where we want to participate in several ways.

F / CASE OF NON-DISCUSSED NARRATIVE

Another announced goal of the conveners in preliminary documents was the activation formulation of a narrative dissemination, a matter that was also not commented, only perhaps in the commission of technical communication and technically @ B5J http://openfsm.net/projects/ bcnet19 / bcnet19-notesb.1 / # B8 )

 4 / AFFIRM BASES OF SOCIAL FORUM

In the context described so far, something frustrating for those who worry about "where" and "why" is coming to participate in this document is a contribution to reworking what we do not discuss in Barcelona @ part B6 and @ C.

Before it is important to refocus on some bases of the forum process.

In fact, it is not a matter now of "rethinking FSMET governance", but of "thinking FSMET in an affirmed way as a social forum process", differentiating "participation" and "facilitation", explaining:

1 / how this process is COHERENT with the fundamentals of the charter of principles , horizontality, diversity, word, own acts of participation, accessible with clear criteria and

2 / in what and how this forum process would INNOVATE in the forms remaining within the framework of the WSF charter of principles. (See B6C )

 5 / GOVERN OR FACILITATE?

ABOUT DISTINCTION FACILITATION PARTICIPATION IN A SOCIAL FORUM

The fact is that the term "governance" is used in general for companies or institutions, where both the forms of activity / work and the contents and objectives of these activities are decided by the hierarchy of the company or organization or institution.

This state of power relationship is in fundamental difference with the social forum that is not an organization / institution with a formal leadership, but a process-event-space.

That is why there is a need for a clear and clear distinction of responsibility between "facilitating the forum" and "participating in the forum"

"Facilitate the forum" if it implies in fine, after consultations with future participants / facilitators, have a power of decision and responsibility of logistic execution on "FORMS OF PARTICIPATION AND MACRO PLANNING", but this does not imply a directive influence on the contents produced in the forum space that are the responsibility of participants.

which raises the delicate delicate question for facilitators of "who and how the forum communicates" and "who and how it communicates on the forum" @ C8.

"Participate in the forum according to the defined forms" participate, and place acts of participation is a voluntary and self-organized act and on its own behalf, including or not in self-organized articulations. PARTICIPANTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENTS THAT PRODUCE RAPPORTEURS, AGREEMENTS, DECLARATIONS, etc.

There is experience that the forms of participation are not going to constrain the participation goals and the contents produced by participants and, rather, they will empower the participants to do what they want, and not what some groups "would like to do" .

It should be noted that the "IDEOLOGICAL POSITIONING" global "open space" FSMET is not a complicated issue to manage: it is given by the letter of principles FSM , and by a possible second document, something like: https://transformadora.org/ is / transformative economies to write by consensus in the facilitating instances defined on "what is meant by transforming economies".

Thus, these documents allow a participating entity to know, and allow other participating entities to comment on whether or not they are welcome in the space - @ see A6D , the responsibility to take care of the coherence of participants when they say they agree with these documents is everyone's participants.

@

 6 / CENSATING WHAT WE DO NOT DISCUSS IN BARCELONA

("AND WHAT HUBIERAMS DISCUSSED IF WE HAVE BEEN INVITED TO DO IT")

In the end we left this preparatory meeting with contacts, pre-exchange and conversations of contents according to facet identity actors, challenges, geography (which are somewhat reflected in the pads collected at http://openfsm.net/projects/bcnet19 / ,

We also left without new elements emerged from productive discussions during the meeting on the FSMET forum process that we want to build, complementing or qualifying the preliminary document sent in March by the conveners. The timeline shows that maybe we have been consulted one hour in three days, but that we were not invited to elaborate on this.

(Order of paragraphs to be revised so that the items and order B3 B4 and C are more or less comparable)

A / We have not taken the time to discuss that, in our experience, the particular social forum form can contribute to the EETT problems that we perceive

@ see B1

There are a large number of participants in BcnET19 that have concrete experiences of participation in social forums, which is that they do not want to see more for an FSMET, which is that they would like it to develop in FSMET, taking into account the realities of the EETT environment.

@ver C1

B / We have not taken time to discuss the objectives present in the process - space - event FSMET .

@ see A6 K

This would have been clarifying, about the "WHO wants to get to THAT" and the "HOW they want to achieve it in the ways of the process". This theme invited to distinguish:

A1 / objectives and modalities of the driving group or the GPI, which at the end in a forum space that is horizontal and where facilitation does not give you rights to guide the contents are participating entities, like the others ,

These objectives of participant-promoters are formulated: a common agenda and a narrative, which appear in the preliminary documenthttp://openfsm.net/projects/qfsmet/qfsmet-documentos-fsmet19-comentados/#A3

A2 / objectives, goals, intentions of participation of other entities and participants that GI GPI , which would be reflected in their more or less proactive behavior in confluence spaces, in their preparation of the event, in the type of activities and initiatives that they would prepare would promote in the process, using forms of participation defined or available.

A3 objectives and "generic" modalities of facilitators in a social forum with a central event (Barcelona May 2020).

Regarding the forms You can formulate facilitation objectives of a social forum process in generic terms - and following the forms of participation.

HERE A SERIES OF IDEAS ABOUT GENERIC OBJECTIVES RELATIVE TO FACILITATION

They are formulated through quantitative indicators that are independent of content:

1 / PARTICIPANTS

- Size of participation in the process (see @ C5 ) - by continents,

- size of participation in the event, face-to-face or online, of individuals and entities,

-satisfaction of participants in having advanced in their own participation goals,

2 / SPACES OF CONFLUENCES (@ see B6C ),

-number of spaces number of active participants in these - number of debates proposed accessions etc,

3 / MEDIA / NARRATIVE

Media impact of the process with popularity citations etc, you can differentiate maybe:

-the popularity of content that describes the event, and

- the popularity of content that contribute to the narrative EETT without a direct relationship to the event

4 / ACTIVITIES

-number of activities and assemblies of articulation / convergence and,

-co-preparation index (how many entities on average proposing an activity),

-reparative activities, local activities (@ C5 ),

-activity rate with opening to online participation,

-tata of activities mentioning discussions in space of confluence in its descriptive,

-activity documentation fee)

5 / INITIATIVES

-number of initiatives announced initiatives emerged or reinforced in the FSMET process

-by scales geographical areas,

Size, in terms of the number of "signatory / committed entities,

-number of public actions in the futures calendar fsmet, linked to -of various types http://openfsm.net/projects/qfsmet-lac1/qfsmetlac1-iniciativas-elementos-para-descripcion (",

Number of entities committing to actions.

CAN BE COMPLEMENTED BY QUALITATIVE OBJECTIVES /

can be formulated like this: Having helped "so and so" happen in the forum space, between such and such groups of actors that wanted to achieve them. It can be based on the collection of " expressions of participation goals " by the participating entities themselves

Making a list ...

@ see C1C

C We have not taken the time to discuss the notion of "confluence" and "confluence space" in the methodology of the social forum

@ see A6A

The foreseen schedule led us to "simulate" these spaces where we were "led by the hand" by a team of session facilitators, more or less directives according to the session spaces session by identity (day 5), by challenges (day 6) ), by geography (day 7).

C1 / Other categories emerged to form these spaces of confluences, the categories of "needs" in the confluence space North America (expressed in the story in final session) http://openfsm.net/projects/bcnet19/bcnet19-notasg. 1 / # G3 , and the categories of "concrete economic circuits" in the confluence space LAC http://openfsm.net/projects/bcnet19/bcnet19-notasf.1

C2 We were invited to enroll in Decidim , where we can "ask administrators" to create an "assembly" of confluence (the technical term "assembly" is ambiguous with its "representative assembly load", better would be renamed "SPACE" on the site web decidim-fsmet.

And what else? To assess this form of participation in the WSF methodology It would be good to clarify for the future some general "principles" related to these spaces of intercommunication / confluence

1 / WHAT? OPEN SPACES They are spaces, and they are not going to become "entities", there are no decision protocols representing external communication membership.

They do not represent a group of participants, since they enter and leave these spaces freely, they do not deliberate on behalf of a collective, they are not represented in other spaces.

They are simple places of discussions where there may be proposals for debates, signs of support for these, etc. (as the decidim-fsmet website allows). Coming in space is not adhering to an organization.

NOTE in consideration of this principle, You can not create a "group" in Decidim that is intended to be a confluence, as if a confluence space could have a unique voice. A group of shift facilitators with an identification of period of validity.

NOTE If cooptation is introduced in some confluence spaces, these are no longer considered spaces, by administrators decided and become "networks" or "articulations" self-organized, and with protocols of decision etc and have to make it explicit.

NOTE Perhaps it would be complicated to introduce many networks in decidim giving each one "an assembly", it is necessary to evaluate it @ C5

2 / FOR WHAT? FUNCTION These "confluent" intercommunication phases are to discuss problems identified as relevant for many participants, whatever the way to do it.

In these sessions, participants with or without the role of representative of their entity, can identify other representatives of entities, with which they think that their entity can be effectively articulated in activities and self-organized initiatives placed in the process.

In confluence spaces ideas can be matured and possible articulations with adhered proposals can be explored etc, then the space is left to "land" the intercommunication in self-managed autonomous forms, of activities and initiatives with explicit responsibilities (see part @ C3 ).

If these two principles were adopted, WHEREAS, it is easier to entrust the facilitation of discussions in these spaces to the self-organization of the participants in these spaces, which enter and leave freely:

The existence of this public referential of principles allows each participant present in the space to detect if the "facilitator team on duty" respects these principles and this stimulates the possible articulations of actors present in the space. The same way detect if the facilitators handle the intercommunication in the space as if it were an "almost entity", with a "we" representing "the space" replacing the entities present in the space

3 / RULES ON FACILITATION It would be necessary, therefore, to formulate facilitation rules, specific to this type of confluence space: for example: 1 / "how a team is formed to facilitate a discussion session in such a space, 2 / some rules to respect in acting as facilitator. a in these space, 3 / how long your paper lasts etc.

With these principles and rules, the use of these intercommunication / confluence spaces can be developed a lot, without the participation in them being mandatory to be able to later place activities, which would also be little verifiable.

Thus, participants would be present in these spaces as they see them as interesting and useful for their participation goals, and not as an obligatory exercise imposed by facilitators.

FROM "ASSEMBLY OF CONFLUENCES" TO "SPACE OF INTER CONFLUENCES"

With these principles and rules, the imaginary of a single pseudo assembly "of the forum", gathering representatives of pseudo entities "confluences".

You can have a "transverse space on or inter confluences", an intercommunication space on confluence spaces, where without representation mandate, participants from different confluence spaces will explore opportunities to identify cross-sectional problems by crossing perspectives by type of spaces.

PROPOSAL LEXICO METHODOLOGICAL WORD CONFLUENCE

The word "confluence" would then be used to describe these "intercommunication spaces" operated with these principles and rules in the context of the social forum.

This would designate something new and clear, that is something other than what they designate terms "assembly of convergence" or "assembly of articulation" which are self-organized articulations with own facilitation where it is assumed that a deliberation will arrive as reflecting the convergence or articulation of present actors and who can ratify it by signing.

HERE IS SOMETHING AN INNOVATION IN THE WSF

An innovation to explore and contribute in the accumulation of experience of social forums, which contributes to the dynamics of articulations, when historically, practically and conceptually, this type of space has not been worked much, whatever the reason.

@ see C2

D / We do not take time to discuss the other "forms of participation" in the process.

@ see A6 B

Generically They are co-prepared activities, or co-promoted initiatives, self-organized between explicit articulations of responsible entities, which can grow by cooptation. Activities are moments of intercommunication in the forum, and announcements of initiatives are a vehicle of commitment and projection to transformative actions in the near and medium term.

D1 / ACTIVITIES Implicitly it seems that there is a negative perception, among the conveners, that talking about self-organized activities from now on could mean favoring an orientation towards an "event-fair" of singularities, and without strong political dynamics reflecting broad articulations. Hence the communicational and programmatic insistence put by the GI in the "spaces of confluence" can be interpreted.

The challenge is then to stimulate the construction of these self-organized activities in many significant cases in a relevant relationship with the problems discussed in confluence spaces. For example, in the declaration form of an activity, it can be asked if it relates to discussions and / proposals / debates in one or several confluence spaces.

A forum without self-managed activities is not a social forum, it is a seminar whose programming is directed from a convening group, which was the case at the BNCET19 meeting, and with some waste of the collective intelligence present.

D2 / INITIATIVES The initiatives are struggles bells projects with one to three dates public actions in the medium term, reflecting results of their tasks in their work plan.

The stock dates feed a futures calendar shared but not agreed by the participants in the future.

It can be presented to discuss, plan, articulate initiatives within the framework of "activities", and also in "sessions of confluence spaces" (part C).

The introduction of initiatives in the social forum methodology is in the incipient phase. @ C3 . It is a significant innovation. It can be argued that it is a pragmatic and pedagogical stimulus to the participants to value what they do for "another possible world", and to land their intercommunications in the forum in sequence of public actions, showing that "the social forum is not a fair of singularities ", Or" a gallery of family photos ".

Declarations agreed upon by groups of participating entities are considered Initiatives with date of action on the day of the publication of the statement.

For example: an initiative of the common agenda of transformative economy 2020 -2030 signed by a large number of participating entities in the FSMETbcn2020 would be a significant result, and there seems to be a lot of commitment on the part of entities in the IG to promote this initiative.

Next to it there are many other results that are equally relevant for its promoters. An inclusion form in the FSMET process, which sooner or later would appear as relevant, may be an occasion to invite participants to express the "participation goals" of their entities, which can help articulate them.

Each participant can decide to participate or not, in an activity, support or not an initiative etc. This produces a clear picture, where one knows "who commits to what", "who is supporting that".

@ see C3

E / We have not taken the time to discuss the "physical area" and the "local modalities" of the FSMET process outside of Barcelona .

@ see A6 C

B1 / We met in Barcelona among people "invited" by the driving group "convener" (and therefore with a certain sense of the possible prerogatives of this group) to participate in a preparatory event and we had managed to be here, by own resources or for being funded to come.

Then it is understandable that we think that we will return for the central event in May 2020, and that we think about "what we would do" towards "the event, and how we were going to bring more people to the event.

B2 / We were not explicitly invited to think ALSO on "HOW the FSMET forum process would reach people who WOULD NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME TO BARCELONA" and how it could be inclusive, fruitful, and "empowering" for them ALSO. In other words, this forum process is not just a process of preparing an event "of who can come" This was said in the final sequence. http://openfsm.net/projects/bcnet19/bcnet19-notasg.1/#G4 -

With B1 and B2, it is not surprising that what has been spoken in the rapporteurships in the final session seems to be oriented only to "prepare what will happen in Barcelona event.

The rest of the process was not talked about, this rest "was implicitly or explicitly entrusted to" the self organization "(final intervention from the GI).http://openfsm.net/projects/bcnet19/bcnet19-notasg.1/#G2

POSSIBLE WEIGHT OF THE COMMON AGENDA VISION

It can be noted that "mentally concentrating on Barcelona" is even more spontaneous if the GI GPI organizations have as their primary political goal to reach a common 2020-30 agenda - "on behalf of the forum", which would be problematic in terms of coherence with the letter of principles.

In fact it is technically easier to reach this result in a deliberative process of relatively few representatives, ie a mixed space, face to face and online, in an "assembly" decided-FSMET, and its physical counterpart, controlled input ?, organized by "the forum" where "representatives" or "links" of confluence spaces (which are not entities or are not spaces @ B6C) intercommunicate, and land on a "consensus document" (as in united nations) .

But this feeds a distorted vision of the social forum: from 300 guests in 2019 to 10 000 participants in Barcelona in 2020 (with perhaps 2000 say from outside Barcelona), it is inevitable that the "club heads of networks" aspect will be diluted , and that you can not continue identifying it with the forum.

The charter of principles excludes instituting an "assembly of say 1000 network representatives" that is not "self-organized", and that agrees on a common agenda "on behalf of the forum".

This assembly process could very well exist in a self-organized way, in the name of a broad articulation of entities with its own internal organization.And its existence would be clearly differentiated from the forum facilitation (@ver point C5. ).

On the other hand, among the 9000 people present in Barcelona and who would not be in this assembly process, some would feel represented by their leaders, not others.

And what about the 90,000 or more people in the world who have a level of "politicization on transforming economy" such that they would be willingly included in a formal process if they would see it accessible and relevant at their local level?

In the absence of anything else, in the hypothesis of a "shrinking" process in its central event BCN20, part of these people would feel represented by the representative of their networks and organizations that made the trip, and this would be their only relationship with the forum process.

These considerations are an invitation to DESCENTRARSE DE BARCELONA while continuing to articulate with Barcelona

@see C4.

F / We do not take time to talk about the conditions of the launch and the conditions of the end of the "FSMET Barcelona 2020 temporary tranche "

@ see A6 C

This temporary tranche may start now and extend up to a few months AFTER the May 2020 event.

In BCNET19 it was emerging that "you want to start something that will follow" but there was no explicit discussion.

In other words, from the peripheral self-organization to which we were invited on the last day by FSMET-BCN promoters, we can consider that "the FSMET process has been launched" although we have not yet clarified its forms.

And peripheral concretization initiatives of the process may be able to contribute dynamically in the construction of FSMET BCN methodology that is about to be made.

@see C4.

G / We have not taken time to discuss the idea of ​​shared narrative

@ see A6I & A6J 
This is a problem that deserves methodological and political discussions from the participating entities, and not only among the entities that act as alternative media, as it seems to have been the case

@ see C8 .

H / We have not taken time to discuss the facilitation tasks, the facilitating and participating difference and how this facilitation would be organized,

@ver A6F

Note: Here we must distinguish the facilitation of the forum, the specific facilitation of sessions of self-organized activities or sessions of confluence spaces such as the one we have had for three days.

We are talking about the facilitation of the forum as a whole.

After exchanging about points A to G, within the framework of a commission methodology finally instituted (@ see C1) it is possible to better visualize which forum you want to conform and what they are and how "facilitation tasks" are distributed (definition and logistics implementation of forms-methodology and macro planning, promotion of the process).

These tasks are differentiated from the "acts of participation" (presence in confluence spaces or activities or actions of initiatives, placement and preparation promotion of these activities and initiatives,)

@ see C9

Here below are concrete proposals

PART C CONCRETE PROPOSALS ( ^ )

(order of paragraphs to be revised so that the items and order B3 B6 and C are more or less comparable)

Proposals

0 / Institute a methodology commission to work on points 1 to 9

 1 / Affirm a methodological process for a horizontal and diverse social forum for FSMET 
considering the experience that exists and looking to innovate

>>> @ See B3C & B6A

A / Discuss among members the diagram Diagram as provocateur of dialogue

B / Review among members a generic social forum lexicon, and derive one for FSMET

C / Censar expectations about what forum we want - and what we want in the forum

D / FSMET event or process?

2 / Explain and evaluate a methodology of "spaces of confluence" with clear principles such 
as FSMET innovation in the WSF,

@ See B3E & B6C )

A / discuss principles and operational rules

Propose participants to comment on the difference of initial discussions they want to have in more focused spaces and discussions that they want to have in self-organized activities for their goals.

Proposal Take concrete cases and discuss principles related to the role of these spaces and their facilitation.

B / Census of intercommunication spaces to create and who would be willing to come co-facilitate them

Consultation can be done through online forms.

Stimulate the discussion on principles for these spaces.

To propose a list of spaces to boot.

Clarify if some current spaces are of confluence or are networks.

C / Accompany remote participation in these spaces

Accompany those who launch to facilitate some of these spaces for a while. How will the participation in decidim be accepted and accompanied? It is detached from the fact of coming or not to Barcelona in 2020.

 3 / Affirm and contextualize the other forms of participation WSF

@ see B3C B3D

A / Self-organized activities including assemblies

B / Relationship to initiatives and actions of participants

C / Macro planning of the process, macro programming of the BCN 2020 event

D / Consider the formulation of a common EETT agenda as a broad self-organized initiative

 4 / Decentralize from Barcelona: examine how it diffuses how you participate without coming to Barcelona

@ver B3A & B6E

It seems that reaching larger numbers of active citizens, connected by a shared and replicable understanding of "why and how" is used.

The counter-hegemonic tool of the social forum can perhaps be concretized by "light collectives" active in diverse areas that overlap in part and are without competition among them, and that propose to active citizens ways to practice the process and make each other visible as "Participants in the process".

If ways are found to concretize and replicate "to the institutional budget close to zero" these forms, can be articulated with heavier event forms such as FSMET BCN, according to a PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARITY (do locally what is relevant and place at the level downtown what is relevant.

It can be an practicable way to disseminate the FSMET process and contribute to accelerate necessary transformations and promotion of EETT.

A / Situations of diffusion of the process

Local forum diffusion:

"What are the good questions that generate popular education to attract to the forum process?"

"In a year create common visions and action between networks in our territories would be the revolution"

 

B / generic invitation to LOCAL activities placed in FSMET and Promotion of online inter-participation in these

Principle communication on the fact that the FSMET process is "extended and decentralized": that it is invited to articulate initiatives of diffusion of the "local" process and "centric" process with relevant articulation.

Communicate examples as they appear.

C / Censar and Evaluate self-organized initiatives of dissemination FSMET "far from Barcelona"

1 / Be in communication with existing broadcasting groups

Go collecting characteristics of these groups.

In Latin America: Figure of a diffusion collective and its interactive kiosk host local participation in connection with "centric" participations.

To explore complementarity of use of the two forms of local -centric criteria- articulation of the centric and the local.

http://openfsm.net/projects/qfsmet-lac1 kiosk

http://openfsm.net/projects/cdpfsmet-lac1 collective

2 / Circulate information to geographical confluence spaces

Contextualize: Have common forms and diverse technical implementations.

D / local-global intercommunication in Decidim (see point 6)

Define a framework document of decentralization FSMET

The "global / central" and even non-deliberative geographical intercommunication spaces (@ B6C) can be hosted at the Decidim Barcelona site

Give also a space to the groups of diffusion in the site decided where they can.

They can feed the inter confluence space

 

 5 / Reflect the FSMET BCN methodology on websites- Decidim .. and something else

A / Describe central expected functionalities:

Registration, announcement of activities and initiatives, documentation, directory of participants of entities, activities of futures calendar initiatives, search -

Giving access to a good part of the generic "acts of participation"

See also the fsm kiosk proposal - implemented in the case of QUIOSCO FSMET LAC - with a basic implementation of several of these acts 

B / Evaluate if Decidim can incorporate or not these functionalities

Or evaluate an addition of participation forms - BCN activities (and certain "significant" BCN initiatives (and certain "significant" locations) to the publication site

Possible Take back and update supplies made before BCNET19 @

C / Adapt Decidim to the methodology

Vocabulary changes on confluence space, move from assemblies to spaces -

Publication of principles and rules regarding confluence space (@ B6C ).

 6 / Explore forms of local-centric articulation

see B6E

The process extends beyond the event in Barcelona and generic forms can be defined (placement of activities and initiatives), while Barcelona is more in charge of the central logistics aspect

Explore modalities of articulation with local forms -

 7 / Describe and incorporate a post BCN20 event period for some months now

@ see B6F

Process evaluation - event by participants.

Self-stimulation documentation of activities by their promoters.

Update of "futures calendar" by a "care group" in contact with the promoters of initiatives (see point 3 ).

 8 / Define a facilitation framework for the stimulation of narratives 
with shared tasks among participating organizations

@see B6G

TO / COMMUNICATE THE FORUM AND FROM THE FORUM

The risk is editorialized - that the communication commission has an "editorial line" that privileges some contents and actors, and that many participating entities do not feel involved in the task of communicating the forum.

Commission methodology and commission communication may be producing texts communicating FSMET for whoever wants to use them.

Commission methodology with commission communication may be co-defining a facilitation framework for the communication of the forum and on the forum.

B / COMMUNICATE INITIATIVES

Contents about the FSMET process is one thing.

EETT contents is different.

It can be supported in initiatives methodology (@ part 3 ) to communicate initiatives and actions - Show strength from actions that we do now - that we know we are many.

C / COMMUNICATE A SHARED NARRATIVE?

Evaluate the possibility that it is a self-organized initiative to gather communicational forces from participating entities, or not a technical matter in charge of the communication commission, which appeals to a "content commission" is defined as a content definition commission to communicate with care to avoid editorialization.

 9 / Define instances, forms, rules, practices, for "facilitation tasks"

@see B6H

WAIT

You can wait for a while working topics 1 to 8 here above in a methodological commission (@ see C0 ) including "non-conveners", with commitment to active presence, and public information about who is in the commission, and their activity in Decidim

INFORM TECHNICAL TEAM

While it is hoped it would be important to organize discussion sessions on the methotodology with the technical team

TEMPT

Then you can evaluate deciding by consent on matters of forms and macro programming, or macro planning in a "facilitating instance" - made up of a GI + GPI committee + methodology committee using the practice of online meetings.