• cifuturG2 exploration1ᅡᅠresponses en

last modified November 25, 2013 by facilitfsm


"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

  •  Raphael  profile 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
jason  profile in openFSM

  • 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-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  -