CIfutur |cifuturG2 consultation | cifuturG2 survey menu : explorations 1 2 3| overview -| Statistics 1 |Statistics 2A

• Exploration 1 on wsf and ic: received answers from: chris - judith - raphael - Jason - Ana - Nico- GusLink: #Gus -
  

• Make your exploration 1 of WSF and IC : access the questionnaire
  

• See the text of exploration 1

• Statistics explorations 1

IC rabat 2009

"Chris Williams - 8/24/2013 - organization POAD9998 G20Civil

Chris profile in openFSM

• Have you participated in IC meetings - as observer
• Q1- Is WSF process our ""common good"" ?, and should we, participants in this process, actively care about it ? - r2 - yes, it is a ""common good"", and, collectively, we care actively enough,
• Q2 - As wsf participant, do you feel motivated enough to support this WSF process by means that are within your reach? - r2 - Yes, principally, and i see how
• Q3 - As wsf participant, do you feel that WSF world events are a useful ""tool"" in current context? -
  • World Education Forum
• Q4 - Do you feel that a ""central body"" servicing/facilitating/impulsing wsf process is a necessity ? - r2 - based on experience, yes
• Q5 – if you answered rather yes in question 4, what are the relevant minimal missions of such a central body ? - r3- Take basic decisions about the identity of the process ( Charter, guiding principles for events..) r4- Take basic decisions about a biennial wsf event most visible manisfestation of this process
• Q6 - What role has played IC in the past 5 years ? - r1 - it has been a “WSF historical stakeholders club"" r3 - It has been contributive enough, on the tasks i have indicated in question 5
• Q7 - What is your perception of desire and motivation in IC members and potential members to change IC ? - r5 - They may not be ready to contribute enough to implement big changes
• Q8 - Is it possible/desirable to create a dynamics inside IC aiming at ""delivering"" more than IC has been delivering in the last 5 years? - r2 - It is desirable
• Q9 - What are current IC main assets / strengths? - r3 - Its accumulated collective culture/wisdom about wsf r6 - Its image outside wsf process as central facilitating body y
• Q10 - What are IC main problems / weaknesses? - r2 - Disparity of perception of role of IC among its members r8 - Low capacity to carry out tasks that are defined in IC discussions
• Q11 - In which directions should a change in IC be worked out, if needed? - r5 - A more POLITICAL IC giving orientations to the process and relying on active groups linked to it
• Q12 - Is there enough “political / methodological “ consensus inside IC to move somewhere, or is IC stalled ? - r1 - I have not enough information to express an opinion
• Q13 - is it possible /relevant that IC dissolves and proposes another frame of facilitation/service for wsf process, without jeopardizing wsf process - r3 - It is possible if a clear post ic frame is object of some consensus r5 - It is not relevant,(maybe because IC is legitimate and does minmual service and should continue) )
• Q14 - is it possible/useful/wise to keep a ""minimal"" IC afloat at minimal cost ? - r4 - It is meaningless to do this, unless we adapt wsf process to current contaext
• Q15 – Is it be possible/relevant/wise to develop other servicing/facilitating/ipulsing groups with different contributive capacity/profile? - r4 - Principally yes and replacing IC by a convergence of those groups
• Q16 - How can a common vision of ""what to do ?"" be build in and around IC ? - r2 - Circulating this questionnaires, and circulating analysis of responses proposed in G2 group "

"judith - 8/31/2013 19:31:21 - organization Babels, but I am filling this out in my own name

Judith profile in openFSM

• Have you participated in IC meetings - yes as member - - more than 3 times - es
• Q1- Is WSF process our ""common good"" ?, and should we, participants in this process, actively care about it ? - r3 - yes, it is a ""common good"", and, collectively, we do not do care actively enough
• Q2 - As wsf participant, do you feel motivated enough to support this WSF process by means that are within your reach? -
  • On the basis of specific projects
• Q3 - As wsf participant, do you feel that WSF world events are a useful ""tool"" in current context? - r2 - No, important changes are needed in the way to build and prepare WSF events r4 - Yes, but more effort is needed on quality of preparation final moments and documentation follow upp
• Q4 - Do you feel that a ""central body"" servicing/facilitating/impulsing wsf process is a necessity ? - r2 - based on experience, yes ,
  • experienced members need to specifically support local organising committees on the basis of acquired experience and skills
• Q5 – if you answered rather yes in question 4, what are the relevant minimal missions of such a central body ? - r2- Allow a critical mass of network express their interest and coownership about wsf process - r3- Take basic decisions about the identity of the process ( Charter, guiding principles for events..) ,
  • provide the relevant pool of experience for supporting specific events
• Q6 - What role has played IC in the past 5 years ? - r4 - it has not been contributive enough on the tasks i have indicated in question 5
• Q7 - What is your perception of desire and motivation in IC members and potential members to change IC ? - r3 - They generally realize a change is needed in IC - r6 - They are divided between several clear options about what to do
• Q8 - Is it possible/desirable to create a dynamics inside IC aiming at ""delivering"" more than IC has been delivering in the last 5 years? - r3 - It is possible.realistic to try
• Q9 - What are current IC main assets / strengths? - r3 - Its accumulated collective culture/wisdom about wsf
• Q10 - What are IC main problems / weaknesses? - r2 - Disparity of perception of role of IC among its members - r3 - Diverging views on the wsf methodology among its membersr9 - Low communication/image with wsf participants outside of IC - r11 - Statutory membership, rather than membership based on effective practical contributions - r12 - Low efficience in organizing of ic meetings with too much general discussion with wishful thinking
• Q11 - In which directions should a change in IC be worked out, if needed? - r1 - A more SERVICING & ACTIVE IC beyond general discussions through working groups in meetings and on line - r2 - A more HORIZONTALLY OPERATED IC with participation of all members to its operation r3 - A more INSPIRING IC with links to outsider working groups and promotion of wsf inspiring practices - r4 - A more INCLUSIVE IC membership for new movements and contributive individuals - r5 - A more POLITICAL IC giving orientations to the process and relying on active groups linked to it - r6 - A more DEMANDING IC with higher duties of membership focused on self sustain and practical contributions from members - r7 - A more REGULATING IC caring about stimulating and linking initiative groups ( “friends of wsf “ ( see question 15 )
  • changes needed are as much in the ""how"" as in the ""what'
• Q12 - Is there enough “political / methodological “ consensus inside IC to move somewhere, or is IC stalled ? - r5 - I am not sure
• Q13 - is it possible /relevant that IC dissolves and proposes another frame of facilitation/service for wsf process, without jeopardizing wsf process - r3 - It is possible if a clear post ic frame is object of some consensus - r4 - It is relevant (maybe because IC has not been up to necessity in the recent years) )
• Q14 - is it possible/useful/wise to keep a ""minimal"" IC afloat at minimal cost ? -
  • self sustainability is the tricky issue
• Q15 – Is it be possible/relevant/wise to develop other servicing/facilitating/ipulsing groups with different contributive capacity/profile? - r5 - This issue requires a basic discussion in next ic meeting with prefiguration of who in IC is considering developing such groups, as some have started to do
• Q16 - How can a common vision of ""what to do ?"" be build in and around IC ? - r4 - Stimulating many people to input in discussion in G3 group http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifutur-strategies - r5 - Organizing a mix of plenary and group discussion during next ic meeting ( to be prepared in G1 group http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifutur-practical-tasks "

"Raphael - 20-sept-2013 - organization Forum social québécois

• Raphaelprofile in openFSM
• Have you participated in IC meetings - - yes as observer - -
• Q1- Is WSF process our ""common good"" ?, and should we, participants in this process, actively care about it ? - - - r3 - yes, it is a ""common good"", and, collectively, we do not do care actively enough - -
• Q2 - As wsf participant, do you feel motivated enough to support this WSF process by means that are within your reach? - - r2 - Yes, principally, and i see how - - -
• Q3 - As wsf participant, do you feel that WSF world events are a useful ""tool"" in current context? - - - r3 - Yes - - -
  Q4 - Do you feel that a ""central body"" servicing/facilitating/impulsing wsf process is a necessity ? - - - r3 - yes but a ""lean"" central body, with other servicing/facilitating/impulsing groups around it ( see question 15), and somehow related with it - - - -
• Q5 – if you answered rather yes in question 4, what are the relevant minimal missions of such a central body ? - - - - - r5 -Develop other groups caring about the process and be a meeting place for them -
• Q6 - What role has played IC in the past 5 years ? - r1 - it has been a “WSF historical stakeholders club"" - - - - - - ""
  Q7 - What is your perception of desire and motivation in IC members and potential members to change IC ? - - - - r4 - They have not a clear idea what to do - - -
• Q8 - Is it possible/desirable to create a dynamics inside IC aiming at ""delivering"" more than IC has been delivering in the last 5 years? - r1 - It is not desirable - - - -
• Q9 - What are current IC main assets / strengths? - - - r3 - Its accumulated collective culture/wisdom about wsf - - - - -
• Q10 - What are IC main problems / weaknesses? - - - - - - - r7 - I have no information, or not enough information to express an opinion - - - - - -
• Q11 - In which directions should a change in IC be worked out, if needed? - - - r3 - A more INSPIRING IC with links to outsider working groups and promotion of wsf inspiring practices - - - - - -
• Q12 - Is there enough “political / methodological “ consensus inside IC to move somewhere, or is IC stalled ? - - - r3 - IC membership needs newcomers to be able to move forwards - - -
• Q13 - is it possible /relevant that IC dissolves and proposes another frame of facilitation/service for wsf process, without jeopardizing wsf process - - - r3 - It is possible if a clear post ic frame is object of some consensus - - -
• Q14 - is it possible/useful/wise to keep a ""minimal"" IC afloat at minimal cost ? - - - - - r5 - It is meaningful to do this, inasmuch wsf process is adapted to current context -
• Q15 – Is it be possible/relevant/wise to develop other servicing/facilitating/ipulsing groups with different contributive capacity/profile? - - - r3 - Principally yes, and keeping a minimal IC running to regulate between them - - - - -
• Q16 - How can a common vision of ""what to do ?"" be build in and around IC ? - - - - r4 - Stimulating many people to input in discussion in G3 group http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifutur-strategies- - "

"Jason - 9/22/2013 23:37:23 - organization Social Watch

• Have you participated in IC meetings - yes as member - - -
  Q1- Is WSF process our ""common good"" ?, and should we, participants in this process, actively care about it ? - - - - -
  • other : I think this question should be reformulated. Maybe just asking in a scale from 1 to 10 how much do you consider the wsf process relevant and worth caring for (dedicating energy and resources)
• Q2 - As wsf participant, do you feel motivated enough to support this WSF process by means that are within your reach? - - r2 - Yes, principally, and i see how - - -
• Q3 - As wsf participant, do you feel that WSF world events are a useful ""tool"" in current context? - - - - r4 - Yes, but more effort is needed on quality of preparation final moments and documentation follow up - - o
• Q4 - Do you feel that a ""central body"" servicing/facilitating/impulsing wsf process is a necessity ? - - - r3 - yes but a ""lean"" central body, with other servicing/facilitating/impulsing groups around it ( see question 15), and somehow related with it - - - -
• Q5 – if you answered rather yes in question 4, what are the relevant minimal missions of such a central body ? - - r2- Allow a critical mass of network express their interest and coownership about wsf process - r3- Take basic decisions about the identity of the process ( Charter, guiding principles for events..) - r4- Take basic decisions about a biennial wsf event most visible manisfestation of this process - r5 -Develop other groups caring about the process and be a meeting place for them -
  • other : : Involve the relevant actors today worldwide - networks, movements, campaigns, territorial active groups
• Q6 - What role has played IC in the past 5 years ? - r1 - it has been a “WSF historical stakeholders club"" - - - - - r6 - it has not been inspiring enough - h, it has been incapable of reforming itself and involving new relevant actors (see answer other 5)
• Q7 - What is your perception of desire and motivation in IC members and potential members to change IC ? - - - r3 - They generally realize a change is needed in IC - r4 - They have not a clear idea what to do - - -
• Q8 - Is it possible/desirable to create a dynamics inside IC aiming at ""delivering"" more than IC has been delivering in the last 5 years? - - r2 - It is desirable - - - , There needs to be a clear consensus on decentralising and working as a network with a lot of information sharing
• Q9 - What are current IC main assets / strengths? - - - r3 - Its accumulated collective culture/wisdom about wsf - - - - -
• Q10 - What are IC main problems / weaknesses? - - r2 - Disparity of perception of role of IC among its members - r3 - Diverging views on the wsf methodology among its members - r4 - Not representative enough membership ( age,geography, movements - r5 - Lack of hands on experience /contribution/interest of many IC members in organzing social forum - - - r8 - Low capacity to carry out tasks that are defined in IC discussions - r9 - Low communication/image with wsf participants outside of IC - r10 - Low capacity of IC members to inspire wsf participants about wsf process - r11 - Statutory membership, rather than membership based on effective practical contributions - r12 - Low efficience in organizing of ic meetings with too much general discussion with wishful thinking
• Q11 - In which directions should a change in IC be worked out, if needed? - r1 - A more SERVICING & ACTIVE IC beyond general discussions through working groups in meetings and on line - r2 - A more HORIZONTALLY OPERATED IC with built-in participation of all members to its operation - r3 - A more INSPIRING IC with links to outsider working groups and promotion of wsf inspiring practices - r4 - A more INCLUSIVE IC membership for new movements and contributive individuals - r5 - A more POLITICAL IC giving orientations to the process and relying on active groups linked to it - r6 - A more DEMANDING IC with higher duties of membership focused on self sustain and practical contributions from members - r7 - A more REGULATING IC caring about stimulating and linking initiative groups ( “friends of wsf “ ( see question 15 ) - - )
  Q12 - Is there enough “political / methodological “ consensus inside IC to move somewhere, or is IC stalled ? - - r2 - No, IC is stalled, there are divided opinions and no consensus can be reached - - - -
• Q13 - is it possible /relevant that IC dissolves and proposes another frame of facilitation/service for wsf process, without jeopardizing wsf process - - - - r4 - It is relevant (maybe because IC has not been up to necessity in the recent years) - -
• Q14 - is it possible/useful/wise to keep a ""minimal"" IC afloat at minimal cost ? - - - - - r5 - It is meaningful to do this, inasmuch wsf process is adapted to current context -
• Q15 – Is it be possible/relevant/wise to develop other servicing/facilitating/ipulsing groups with different contributive capacity/profile? - - - r3 - Principally yes, and keeping a minimal IC running to regulate between them - - - - -
• Q16 - How can a common vision of ""what to do ?"" be build in and around IC ? - - r2 - Circulating this questionnaires, and circulating analysis of responses proposed in G2 group - r3 - Developping other questionnaires after discussion on questions in G2 group http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifutur-consultations - r4 - Stimulating many people to input in discussion in G3 group http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifutur-strategies - r5 - Organizing a mix of plenary and group discussion during next ic meeting ( to be prepared in G1 group http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifutur-practical-tasks "

"Ana / - 25-oct-2013 - organization HIC

• Have you participated in IC meetings - yes as member - - more than 3 times - es
• Q1- Is WSF process our ""common good"" ?, and should we, participants in this process, actively care about it ? - - - r3 - yes, it is a ""common good"", and, collectively, we do not do care actively enough - -
• Q2 - As wsf participant, do you feel motivated enough to support this WSF process by means that are within your reach? - - r2 - Yes, principally, and i see how - - - :
• Q3 - As wsf participant, do you feel that WSF world events are a useful ""tool"" in current context? - - r2 - No, important changes are needed in the way to build and prepare WSF events - - - -
• Q4 - Do you feel that a ""central body"" servicing/facilitating/impulsing wsf process is a necessity ? - r1 - principally yes - r2 - based on experience, yes - - - - -
• Q5 – if you answered rather yes in question 4, what are the relevant minimal missions of such a central body ? - - - - - -
  • other : : working as permanent secretariat
• Q6 - What role has played IC in the past 5 years ? - - - - - - r6 - it has not been inspiring enough -
• Q7 - What is your perception of desire and motivation in IC members and potential members to change IC ? - - r2 - They generally do not desire a change in IC - r3 - They generally realize a change is needed in IC - r4 - They have not a clear idea what to do - r5 - They may not be ready to contribute enough to implement big changes - r6 - They are divided between several clear options about what to do - o do
• Q8 - Is it possible/desirable to create a dynamics inside IC aiming at ""delivering"" more than IC has been delivering in the last 5 years? - - r2 - It is desirable - r3 - It is possible/realistic to try - - y
• Q9 - What are current IC main assets / strengths? - r1 - Its representativity - r2 - Its large size - r3 - Its accumulated collective culture/wisdom about wsf - r4 - It has no significant strenghts - - -
• Q10 - What are IC main problems / weaknesses? - - - - - r5 - Lack of hands on experience /contribution/interest of many IC members in organzing social forum - - - - - - - -
• Q11 - In which directions should a change in IC be worked out, if needed? - - - r3 - A more INSPIRING IC with links to outsider working groups and promotion of wsf inspiring practices - - r5 - A more POLITICAL IC giving orientations to the process and relying on active groups linked to it - r6 - A more DEMANDING IC with higher duties of membership focused on self sustain and practical contributions from members - - - m members
• Q12 - Is there enough “political / methodological “ consensus inside IC to move somewhere, or is IC stalled ? - - r2 - No, IC is stalled, there are divided opinions and no consensus can be reached - r3 - IC membership needs newcomers to be able to move forwards - - r5 - I am not sure -
• Q13 - is it possible /relevant that IC dissolves and proposes another frame of facilitation/service for wsf process, without jeopardizing wsf process - r1 - I have not enough information to express an opinion - -
• Q14 - is it possible/useful/wise to keep a ""minimal"" IC afloat at minimal cost ? - r1 - I have not enough information to express an opinion - - - - -
• Q15 – Is it be possible/relevant/wise to develop other servicing/facilitating/ipulsing groups with different contributive capacity/profile? - - - - r4 - Principally yes and replacing IC by a convergence of those groups - - - -

Q16 - How can a common vision of ""what to do ?"" be build in and around IC ? - r1 - I have not enough information to express an opinion - - - - - "

• 
• "nicolas- 18-nov-2013 - organization
• Have you participated in IC meetings - yes as member - yes as observer - more than 3 times -
• Q1- Is WSF process our ""common good"" ?, and should we, participants in this process, actively care about it ? --- r3 - yes, it is a ""common good"", and, collectively, we do not do care actively enough --
• Q2 - As wsf participant, do you feel motivated enough to support this WSF process by means that are within your reach? -- r2 - Yes, principally, and i see how ---
• Q3 - As wsf participant, do you feel that WSF world events are a useful ""tool"" in current context? ------ other: Yes, but important changes are needed in the way to prepare and build WSF events
• Q4 - Do you feel that a ""central body"" servicing/facilitating/impulsing wsf process is a necessity ? --- r3 - yes but a ""lean"" central body, with other servicing/facilitating/impulsing groups around it ( see question 15), and somehow related with it----
• Q5 – if you answered rather yes in question 4, what are the relevant minimal missions of such a central body ? ----- r5 -Develop other groups caring about the process and be a meeting place for them
• Q6 - What role has played IC in the past 5 years ? -------
  • whereas it has managed to kept its political relevance, it has lost dynamism and attraction to many networks.
• Q7 - What is your perception of desire and motivation in IC members and potential members to change IC ? --- r3 - They generally realize a change is needed in IC----
• Q8 - Is it possible/desirable to create a dynamics inside IC aiming at ""delivering"" more than IC has been delivering in the last 5 years? --- r3 - It is possible/realistic to try--
• Q9 - What are current IC main assets / strengths? --- r3 - Its accumulated collective culture/wisdom about wsf-----
• Q10 - What are IC main problems / weaknesses? ---- r4 - Not representative enough membership ( age,geography, movements ---- r8 - Low capacity to carry out tasks that are defined in IC discussions- r9 - Low communication/image with wsf participants outside of IC- r10 - Low capacity of IC members to inspire wsf participants about wsf process -- r12 - Low efficience in organizing of ic meetings with too much general discussion with wishful thinking
• Q11 - In which directions should a change in IC be worked out, if needed? --- r3 - A more INSPIRING IC with links to outsider working groups and promotion of wsf inspiring practices- r4 - A more INCLUSIVE IC membership for new movements and contributive individuals - r5 - A more POLITICAL IC giving orientations to the process and relying on active groups linked to it--
• Q12 - Is there enough “political / methodological “ consensus inside IC to move somewhere, or is IC stalled ?--- r3 - IC membership needs newcomers to be able to move forwards---
• Q13 - is it possible /relevant that IC dissolves and proposes another frame of facilitation/service for wsf process, without jeopardizing wsf process ------
  • if this refers to chico's proposal, i don't think it is realistic, even though it is necessary to kind of rebuild the IC from the ground.
• Q14 - is it possible/useful/wise to keep a ""minimal"" IC afloat at minimal cost ? ---- r4 - It is meaningless to do this, unless we adapt wsf process to current context--,
  • it is not just about the IC but the process itself.
• Q15 – Is it be possible/relevant/wise to develop other servicing/facilitating/ipulsing groups with different contributive capacity/profile? -
  • depending on what is meant with ""servicing/facilitating/impulsing groups"". i think it makes sens that the ic is composed by organizations and networks, not individuals, for instance.
• Q16 - How can a common vision of ""what to do ?"" be build in and around IC ? ------
  • go ahead with a real debate on the IC future, based on an evaluation of what it has done so far."
    

    "Gus - organization CRID
    

    • Have you participated in IC meetings - yes as member - - more than 3 times - es
      
    • Q1- Is WSF process our ""common good"" ?, and should we, participants in this process, actively care about it ? - - r2 - yes, it is a ""common good"", and, collectively, we care actively enough -
    • ,Q2 - As wsf participant, do you feel motivated enough to support this WSF process by means that are within your reach? - - r2 - Yes, principally, and i see how -
    • Q3 - As wsf participant, do you feel that WSF world events are a useful ""tool"" in current context? - - - - r4 - Yes, but more effort is needed on quality of preparation final moments and documentation follow up - -
    • Q4 - Do you feel that a ""central body"" servicing/facilitating/impulsing wsf process is a necessity ? - r1 - principally yes - - - -
    • Q5 – if you answered rather yes in question 4, what are the relevant minimal missions of such a central body ? - - r2- Allow a critical mass of network express their interest and coownership about wsf process - r3- Take basic decisions about the identity of the process ( Charter, guiding principles for events..) - r4- Take basic decisions about a biennial wsf event most visible manisfestation of this process - r5 -Develop other groups caring about the process and be a meeting place for them
    • Q6 - What role has played IC in the past 5 years ? - r1 - it has been a “WSF historical stakeholders club"" - - - r4 - it has NOT been contributive enough on the tasks i have indicated in question 5 -
    • Q7 - What is your perception of desire and motivation in IC members and potential members to change IC ? - - - r3 - They generally realize a change is needed in IC - r4 - They have not a clear idea what to do - - r6 - They are divided between several clear options about what to do - do
    • Q8 - Is it possible/desirable to create a dynamics inside IC aiming at ""delivering"" more than IC has been delivering in the last 5 years? - - r2 - It is desirable - r3 - It is possible/realistic to try - -
    • Q9 - What are current IC main assets / strengths? - - - r3 - Its accumulated collective culture/wisdom about wsf - - - r6 - Its image outside wsf process as central facilitating body - r7 - its consensus on the necessity to go on with WSF process
    • Q10 - What are IC main problems / weaknesses? - - r2 - Disparity of perception of role of IC among its members - - r4 - Not representative enough membership ( age,geography, movements )- r5 - Lack of hands on experience /contribution/interest of many IC members in organzing social forum - - - r8 - Low capacity to carry out tasks that are defined in IC discussions - r9 - Low communication/image with wsf participants outside of IC - r10 - Low capacity of IC members to inspire wsf participants about wsf process - -
    • Q11 - In which directions should a change in IC be worked out, if needed? - r1 - A more SERVICING & ACTIVE IC beyond general discussions through working groups in meetings and on line - r2 - A more HORIZONTALLY OPERATED IC with built-in participation of all members to its operation - r3 - A more INSPIRING IC with links to outsider working groups and promotion of wsf inspiring practices - r4 - A more INCLUSIVE IC membership for new movements and contributive individuals - - r6 - A more DEMANDING IC with higher duties of membership focused on self sustain and practical contributions from members - r7 - A more REGULATING IC caring about stimulating and linking initiative groups ( “friends of wsf “ ( see question 15 ) - -
    • Q12 - Is there enough “political / methodological “ consensus inside IC to move somewhere, or is IC stalled ? - - - r3 - IC membership needs newcomers to be able to move forwards -
    • Q13 - is it possible /relevant that IC dissolves and proposes another frame of facilitation/service for wsf process, without jeopardizing wsf process - - - r3 - It is possible if a clear post ic frame is object of some consensus - - r5 - It is not relevant,(maybe because IC is legitimate and does minimal service and should continue)
    • Q14 - is it possible/useful/wise to keep a ""minimal"" IC afloat at minimal cost ? - - - r3 - IC membership is able to self sustain a minimal IC - -
    • Q15 – Is it be possible/relevant/wise to develop other servicing/facilitating/ipulsing groups with different contributive capacity/profile? - - r2 - principally yes, these initative groups are most needed to speed up the process - r3 - Principally yes, and keeping a minimal IC running to regulate between them - - r5 - This issue requires a basic discussion in next ic meeting with prefiguration of who in IC is considering developing such groups, as some have started to do -
    • Q16 - How can a common vision of ""what to do ?"" be build in and around IC ? - - r2 - Circulating this questionnaires, and circulating analysis of responses proposed in G2 group - - r4 - Stimulating many people to input in discussion in G3 group http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifutur-strategiesLink: /projects/cifutur/cifutur-strategies - r5 - Organizing a mix of plenary and group discussion during next ic meeting ( to be prepared in G1 group http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifutur-practical-tasksLink: /projects/cifutur/cifutur-practical-tasks -