or2 - yes, it is a "common good", and, collectively, we care actively enough,
or3 - yes, it is a "common good", and, collectively, we do not do care actively enough
or4 - Maybe
oother :
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, )
or1 - No, principally
or2 - Yes, principally, and i see how
or3 - Yes principally, but I do not see how
or4 - Maybe, depending quality and consistency of WSF process as it appears to me
oother :
3 - As wsf participant, do you feel that WSF world events are a useful "tool" in current context?
or1 - No
or2 - No, important changes are needed in the way to build and prepare WSF events
or3 - Yes
or4 - Yes, but more effort is needed on quality of preparation final moments and documentation follow up
or5 - the same apply for me to other SF events
oother :
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
or1 - principally yes
or2 - based on experience, yes
or3 - yes but a "lean" central body, with other servicing/facilitating/impulsing groups around it ( see question 15), and somehow related with it
or4 - maybe, needs more qualification and discussion
or5 - principally no, servicing/faciltating/impulsing groups maybe useful, but no central body is need
or6 - principally no, no central body is needed
oother :
5 – if you answered rather yes in question 4, what are the relevant minimal missions of such a central body ?
or1- I said "rather no" in question 4, and threfore i skip
or2- Allow a critical mass of network express their interest and coownership about wsf process
or3- Take basic decisions about the identity of the process ( Charter, guiding principles for events..)
or4- Take basic decisions about a biennial wsf event most visible manisfestation of this process
or5 -Develop other groups caring about the process and be a meeting place for them
oother :
6 - What role has played IC in the past 5 years ?
or1 - it has been a “WSF historical stakeholders club"
or2 - wsf needs more central impulsion
or3 - It has been contributive enough, on the tasks i have indicated in question 5
or4 - it has not been contributive enough on the tasks i have indicated in question 5
or5 - it has been inspiring enough
or6 - it has not been inspiring enough
oother :
7 - What is your perception of desire and motivation in IC members and potential members to change IC ?
or1 - I have no information, or not enough information to express an opinion
or2 - They generally do not desire a change in IC
or3 - They generally realize a change is needed in IC
or4 - They have not a clear idea what to do
or5 - They may not be ready to contribute enough to implement big changes
or6 - They are divided between several clear options about what to do
oother :
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 ....
or1 - It is not desirable
or2 - It is desirable
or3 - It is possible.realistic to try
or4 - It is not possible./realistic to try
oother :
9 - What are current IC main assets / strengths?
or1 - Its representativity
or2 - Its large size
or3 - Its accumulated collective culture/wisdom about wsf
or4 - It has no significant strenghts
or5 - Its image among wsf participants
or6 - Its image outside wsf process as central facilitating body
or7 - its consensus on the necessity to go on with WSF process
oother :
10 - What are IC main problems / weaknesses?
or1 - It has no significant weaknesses
or2 - Disparity of perception of role of IC among its members
or3 - Diverging views on the wsf methodology among its members
or4 - Not representative enough membership ( age,geography, movements
or5 - Lack of hands on experience /contribution/interest of many IC members in organzing social forum
or6 - Low "output to operating cost ratio"
or7 - I have no information, or not enough information to express an opinion
or8 - Low capacity to carry out tasks that are defined in IC discussions
or9 - Low communication/image with wsf participants outside of IC
or10 - Low capacity of IC members to inspire wsf participants about wsf process
or11 - Statutory membership, rather than membership based on effective practical contributions
or12 - Low efficience in organizing of ic meetings with too much general discussion with wishful thinking
oother :
11 - In which directions should a change in IC be worked out, if needed?
or1 - A more SERVICING & ACTIVE IC beyond general discussions through working groups in meetings and on line
or2 - A more HORIZONTALLY OPERATED IC with participation of all members to its operation
or3 - A more INSPIRING IC with links to outsider working groups and promotion of wsf inspiring practices
or4 - A more INCLUSIVE IC membership for new movements and contributive individuals
or5 - A more POLITICAL IC giving orientations to the process and relying on active groups linked to it
or6 - A more DEMANDING IC with higher duties of membership focused on self sustain and practical contributions from members
or7 - A more REGULATING IC caring about stimulating and linking initiative groups ( “friends of wsf “ ( see question 15 )
or8 - no specific changein IC is needed
oother :
12 - Is there enough “political / methodological “ consensus inside IC to move somewhere, or is IC stalled ?
or1 - I have not enough information to express an opinion
or2 - No, IC is stalled, there are divided opinions and no consensus can be reached
or3 - IC membership needs newcomers to be able to move forwards
or4 - There is enough consensus to move somewhere
or5 - I am not sure
oother :
13 - is it possible /relevant that IC dissolves and proposes another frame of facilitation/service for wsf process, without jeopardizing wsf process
or1 - I have not enough information to express an opinion
or2 - It is not possible, there is no consensus and wsf process will not survive
or3 - It is possible if a clear post ic frame is object of some consensus
or4 - It is relevant (maybe because IC has not been up to necessity in the recent years)
or5 - It is not relevant,(maybe because IC is legitimate and does minmual service and should continue)
oother :
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 )
or1 - I have not enough information to express an opinion
or2 - IC membership may not be motivated enough to achieve this
or3 - IC membership is able to self sustain a minimal IC
or4 - It is meaningless to do this, unless we adapt wsf process to current contaext
or5 - It is meaningful to do this, inasmuch wsf process is adapted to current context
oother :
15 – Is it be possible/relevant/wise to develop other servicing/facilitating/ipulsing groups with different contributive capacity/profile?
or1 - I have not enough information to express an opinion
or2 - principally yes, these initative groups are most needed to speed up the process
or3 - Principally yes, and keeping a minimal IC running to regulate between them
or4 - Principally yes and replacing IC by a convergence of those groups
or5 - 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
or6 - principally no, because this would create dispersion and division
or7 - principally no
oother :
16 - How can a common vision of "what to do ?" be build in and around IC ?
or1 - I have not enough information to express an opinion
or2 - Circulating this questionnaires, and circulating analysis of responses proposed in G2 group