• cifuturG2 exploration1 responses

last modified September 16, 2013 by facilitfsm

grp2 CIfutur |

This is the exploration 1 survey  ( also  exploration 2A, 2B, 2combined, and 3 are available)

 

Chris - 8/24/2013 POAD9998 G20Civil ( text presentation)   -  (see exploration2b   & exploration3 by chris )

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? - r5 - 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

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 grp2

 

chris exploration 1 : table presentation

Timestamp Your name and email Your organisation(s) Have you participated in IC meetings 1- Is WSF process our "common good" ?, and should we, participants in this process, actively care about it ? 2 - As wsf participant, do you feel motivated enough to support this WSF process by means that are within your reach? 3 - As wsf participant, do you feel that WSF world events are a useful "tool" in current context? 4 - Do you feel that a "central body" servicing/facilitating/impulsing wsf process is a necessity ? 5 – if you answered rather yes in question 4, what are the relevant minimal missions of such a central body ? 6 - What role has played IC in the past 5 years ? 7 - What is your perception of desire and motivation in IC members and potential members to change IC ? 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? 9 - What are current IC main assets / strengths? 10 - What are IC main problems / weaknesses? 11 - In which directions should a change in IC be worked out, if needed? 12 - Is there enough “political / methodological “ consensus inside IC to move somewhere, or is IC stalled ? 13 - is it possible /relevant that IC dissolves and proposes another frame of facilitation/service for wsf process, without jeopardizing wsf process 14 - is it possible/useful/wise to keep a "minimal" IC afloat at minimal cost ? 15 – Is it be possible/relevant/wise to develop other servicing/facilitating/ipulsing groups with different contributive capacity/profile? 16 - How can a common vision of "what to do ?" be build in and around IC ?
8/24/2013 0:55:21 Chris Williams
POAD9998 yes as observer r2 - yes, it is a "common good", and, collectively, we care actively enough, r2 - Yes, principally, and i see how r5 - World Education Forum r2 - based on experience, yes 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 r1 - it has been a “WSF historical stakeholders club", r3 - It has been contributive enough, on the tasks i have indicated in question 5 r5 - They may not be ready to contribute enough to implement big changes r2 - It is desirable r3 - Its accumulated collective culture/wisdom about wsf , r6 - Its image outside wsf process as central facilitating body r2 - Disparity of perception of role of IC among its members, r8 - Low capacity to carry out tasks that are defined in IC discussions r5 - A more POLITICAL IC giving orientations to the process and relying on active groups linked to it r1 - I have not enough information to express an opinion 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) r4 - It is meaningless to do this, unless we adapt wsf process to current contaext r4 - Principally yes and replacing IC by a convergence of those groups r2 - Circulating this questionnaires, and circulating analysis of responses proposed in G2 group

 

 

x