• cifuturG2 exploration1 en

last modified October 24, 2013 by facilitfsm

  • access to the exploration form HERE  https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1jHI7hzi4veI1yjw36Sv0-WZMf6D3x-BpxaU7vmDC8Tw/viewform 
  • see explorations1 already made : cifuturG2 exploration1 responses en


    Exploration 1 of WSF and IC (text for reading)


    Your organisation(s) *

    Have you participated in IC meetings *

    o    yes as member

    o    yes as observer

    o    more than 3 times

    o    other:  

    1- Is WSF process our "common good" ?, and should we, participants in this process, actively care about it ?

    WSF process is defined as the collection of all events taking place and confirming their accordance with WSF charter http://openfsm.net/projects/ic-methodology/charter-fsm-wsf-en

    o    r1 - No

    o    r2 - yes, it is a "common good", and, collectively, we care actively enough,

    o    r3 - yes, it is a "common good", and, collectively, we do not do care actively enough

    o    r4 - Maybe

    o     other :  

    2 - As wsf participant, do you feel motivated enough to support this WSF process by means that are within your reach?

    ( part of your salaried time or part of your volunteer time in working groups or initiatives, part of budget of your organization to funds meetings and events , or part of your personal income to corwdfund initiatievs, )

    o    r1 - No, principally

    o    r2 - Yes, principally, and i see how

    o    r3 - Yes principally, but I do not see how

    o    r4 - Maybe, depending quality and consistency of WSF process as it appears to me

    o     other :  

    3 - As wsf participant, do you feel that WSF world events are a useful "tool" in current context?

    o    r1 - No

    o    r2 - No, important changes are needed in the way to build and prepare WSF events

    o    r3 - Yes

    o    r4 - Yes, but more effort is needed on quality of preparation final moments and documentation follow up

    o    r5 - the same apply for me to other SF events

    o     other :  

    4 - Do you feel that a "central body" servicing/facilitating/impulsing wsf process is a necessity ?

    International council of WSF instituted 2001 is this central body at present

    o    r1 - principally yes

    o    r2 - based on experience, yes

    o    r3 - yes but a "lean" central body, with other servicing/facilitating/impulsing groups around it ( see question 15), and somehow related with it

    o    r4 - maybe, needs more qualification and discussion

    o    r5 - principally no, servicing/faciltating/impulsing groups maybe useful, but no central body is need

    o    r6 - principally no, no central body is needed

    o     other :  

    5 – if you answered rather yes in question 4, what are the relevant minimal missions of such a central body ?

    o    r1- I said "rather no" in question 4, and threfore i skip

    o    r2- Allow a critical mass of network express their interest and coownership about wsf process

    o    r3- Take basic decisions about the identity of the process ( Charter, guiding principles for events..)

    o    r4- Take basic decisions about a biennial wsf event most visible manisfestation of this process

    o    r5 -Develop other groups caring about the process and be a meeting place for them

    o     other :  

    6 - What role has played IC in the past 5 years ?

    o    r1 - it has been a “WSF historical stakeholders club"

    o    r2 - wsf needs more central impulsion

    o    r3 - It has been contributive enough, on the tasks i have indicated in question 5

    o    r4 - it has not been contributive enough on the tasks i have indicated in question 5

    o    r5 - it has been inspiring enough

    o    r6 - it has not been inspiring enough

    o     other :  

    7 - What is your perception of desire and motivation in IC members and potential members to change IC ?

    o    r1 - I have no information, or not enough information to express an opinion

    o    r2 - They generally do not desire a change in IC

    o    r3 - They generally realize a change is needed in IC

    o    r4 - They have not a clear idea what to do

    o    r5 - They may not be ready to contribute enough to implement big changes

    o    r6 - They are divided between several clear options about what to do

    o     other :  

    8 - Is it possible/desirable to create a dynamics inside IC aiming at "delivering" more than IC has been delivering in the last 5 years?

    low methodology activity, basic decision on wsf event location and format, some working groups, low profile accompanying of next event organizing committee ....

    o    r1 - It is not desirable

    o    r2 - It is desirable

    o    r3 - It is possible.realistic to try

    o    r4 - It is not possible./realistic to try

    o     other :  

    9 - What are current IC main assets / strengths?

    o    r1 - Its representativity

    o    r2 - Its large size

    o    r3 - Its accumulated collective culture/wisdom about wsf

    o    r4 - It has no significant strenghts

    o    r5 - Its image among wsf participants

    o    r6 - Its image outside wsf process as central facilitating body

    o    r7 - its consensus on the necessity to go on with WSF process

    o     other :  

    10 - What are IC main problems / weaknesses?

    o    r1 - It has no significant weaknesses

    o    r2 - Disparity of perception of role of IC among its members

    o    r3 - Diverging views on the wsf methodology among its members

    o    r4 - Not representative enough membership ( age,geography, movements

    o    r5 - Lack of hands on experience /contribution/interest of many IC members in organzing social forum

    o    r6 - Low "output to operating cost ratio"

    o    r7 - I have no information, or not enough information to express an opinion

    o    r8 - Low capacity to carry out tasks that are defined in IC discussions

    o    r9 - Low communication/image with wsf participants outside of IC

    o    r10 - Low capacity of IC members to inspire wsf participants about wsf process

    o    r11 - Statutory membership, rather than membership based on effective practical contributions

    o    r12 - Low efficience in organizing of ic meetings with too much general discussion with wishful thinking

    o     other :  

    11 - In which directions should a change in IC be worked out, if needed?

    o    r1 - A more SERVICING & ACTIVE IC beyond general discussions through working groups in meetings and on line

    o    r2 - A more HORIZONTALLY OPERATED IC with participation of all members to its operation

    o    r3 - A more INSPIRING IC with links to outsider working groups and promotion of wsf inspiring practices

    o    r4 - A more INCLUSIVE IC membership for new movements and contributive individuals

    o    r5 - A more POLITICAL IC giving orientations to the process and relying on active groups linked to it

    o    r6 - A more DEMANDING IC with higher duties of membership focused on self sustain and practical contributions from members

    o    r7 - A more REGULATING IC caring about stimulating and linking initiative groups ( “friends of wsf “ ( see question 15 )

    o    r8 - no specific changein IC is needed

    o     other :  

    12 - Is there enough “political / methodological “ consensus inside IC to move somewhere, or is IC stalled ?

    o    r1 - I have not enough information to express an opinion

    o    r2 - No, IC is stalled, there are divided opinions and no consensus can be reached

    o    r3 - IC membership needs newcomers to be able to move forwards

    o    r4 - There is enough consensus to move somewhere

    o    r5 - I am not sure

    o     other :  

    13 - is it possible /relevant that IC dissolves and proposes another frame of facilitation/service for wsf process, without jeopardizing wsf process

    o    r1 - I have not enough information to express an opinion

    o    r2 - It is not possible, there is no consensus and wsf process will not survive

    o    r3 - It is possible if a clear post ic frame is object of some consensus

    o    r4 - It is relevant (maybe because IC has not been up to necessity in the recent years)

    o    r5 - It is not relevant,(maybe because IC is legitimate and does minmual service and should continue)

    o     other :  

    14 - is it possible/useful/wise to keep a "minimal" IC afloat at minimal cost ?

    self sustained meetings - minimal clear scope ( decisions about wsf events, identity documents, regulation between other initiative groups )

    o    r1 - I have not enough information to express an opinion

    o    r2 - IC membership may not be motivated enough to achieve this

    o    r3 - IC membership is able to self sustain a minimal IC

    o    r4 - It is meaningless to do this, unless we adapt wsf process to current contaext

    o    r5 - It is meaningful to do this, inasmuch wsf process is adapted to current context

    o     other :  

    15 – Is it be possible/relevant/wise to develop other servicing/facilitating/ipulsing groups with different contributive capacity/profile?

    o    r1 - I have not enough information to express an opinion

    o    r2 - principally yes, these initative groups are most needed to speed up the process

    o    r3 - Principally yes, and keeping a minimal IC running to regulate between them

    o    r4 - Principally yes and replacing IC by a convergence of those groups

    o    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

    o    r6 - principally no, because this would create dispersion and division

    o    r7 - principally no

    o     other :  

    16 - How can a common vision of "what to do ?" be build in and around IC ?

    o    r1 - I have not enough information to express an opinion

    o    r2 - Circulating this questionnaires, and circulating analysis of responses proposed in G2 group

    o    r3 - Developping other questionnaires after discussion on questions in G2 group http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifutur-consultations

    o    r4 - Stimulating many people to input in discussion in G3 group http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifutur-strategies

    o    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

    o     other :