• cifuturG2 exploration1 statistics

last modified November 27, 2013 by facilitfsm

CIfutur |cifuturG2 consultation  |   |  overview - vista de conjunto -  vue generale  | Statistics exploration 2A 

 @EN - These statistics are automatically given on line -answers received by email can also be introduced in the online survey  ( Exploration 1 accessible here )         see responses in text format  exploration1_4_responses 

@ES - Estas estadisticas  estan automaticamente acesible en linea - respuestas recibidas por email pueden tambien ser  introducidas en el formulario en linea exploracion 1 ( accesible aqui)         ver las respuestas en formato de texto exploration1 espanol

@FR - es statistiques sont automatiquement disponibles en ligne -  les réponses reçues par email peuvent etre introduites dans le formulaire en ligne  exploration 1 (accesible ici)          voir les réponses  sous forme de texte exploration1 français

P1200310.JPG.P1200309.JPG.P1200308.JPG.P1200307.JPG.P1200312.JPG.P1200313.JPG

Statistics responses to CI/FSM Exploration 1 / 7 answers + 1 test  - November 25

Your name and email

judith Chris Raphael  Jason  Ana Nico  Gus

Your organisation(s)

Forum social québécois Social Watch Habitat International Coalition CRID Babels, but I am filling this out in my own name RC POAD9998 test organisation

Have you participated in IC meetings

yes as member 6 43%
yes as observer 3 21%
more than 3 times 5 36%
Other 0 0%

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

r1 - No 0 0%
r2 - yes, it is a "common good", and, collectively, we care actively enough, 2 29%
r3 - yes, it is a "common good", and, collectively, we do not do care actively enough 4 57%
r4 - Maybe 0 0%
Other 1 14%

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

r1 - No, principally 0 0%
r2 - Yes, principally, and i see how 7 88%
r3 - Yes principally, but I do not see how 0 0%
r4 - Maybe, depending quality and consistency of WSF process as it appears to me 0 0%
Other 1 13%

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

r1 - No 0 0%
r2 - No, important changes are needed in the way to build and prepare WSF events 2 18%
r3 - Yes 1 9%
r4 - Yes, but more effort is needed on quality of preparation final moments and documentation follow up 4 36%
r5 - the same apply for me to other SF events 1 9%
Other 3 27%

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

r1 - principally yes 2 20%
r2 - based on experience, yes 4 40%
r3 - yes but a "lean" central body, with other servicing/facilitating/impulsing groups around it ( see question 15), and somehow related with it 3 30%
r4 - maybe, needs more qualification and discussion 0 0%
r5 - principally no, servicing/faciltating/impulsing groups maybe useful, but no central body is need 0 0%
r6 - principally no, no central body is needed 0 0%
Other 1 10%

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

r1- I said "rather no" in question 4, and threfore i skip 0 0%
r2- Allow a critical mass of network express their interest and coownership about wsf process 4 19%
r3- Take basic decisions about the identity of the process ( Charter, guiding principles for events..) 5 24%
r4- Take basic decisions about a biennial wsf event most visible manisfestation of this process 4 19%
r5 -Develop other groups caring about the process and be a meeting place for them 5 24%
Other 3 14%

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

r1 - it has been a “WSF historical stakeholders club" 5 36%
r2 - wsf needs more central impulsion 0 0%
r3 - It has been contributive enough, on the tasks i have indicated in question 5 1 7%
r4 - it has not been contributive enough on the tasks i have indicated in question 5 3 21%
r5 - it has been inspiring enough 0 0%
r6 - it has not been inspiring enough 3 21%
r7 - i have not enough information 0 0%
Other 2 14%

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

r1 - I have no information, or not enough information to express an opinion 0 0%
r2 - They generally do not desire a change in IC 1 6%
r3 - They generally realize a change is needed in IC 5 29%
r4 - They have not a clear idea what to do 5 29%
r5 - They may not be ready to contribute enough to implement big changes 3 18%
r6 - They are divided between several clear options about what to do 3 18%
Other 0 0%

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?

r1 - It is not desirable 1 8%
r2 - It is desirable 5 42%
r3 - It is possible.realistic to try 5 42%
r4 - It is not possible./realistic to try 0 0%
Other 1 8%

9 - What are current IC main assets / strengths?

r1 - Its representativity 2 13%
r2 - Its large size 1 7%
r3 - Its accumulated collective culture/wisdom about wsf 8 53%
r4 - It has no significant strenghts 1 7%
r5 - Its image among wsf participants 0 0%
r6 - Its image outside wsf process as central facilitating body 2 13%
r7 - its consensus on the necessity to go on with WSF process 1 7%
Other 0 0%

10 - What are IC main problems / weaknesses?

r1 - It has no significant weaknesses 0 0%
r2 - Disparity of perception of role of IC among its members 5 15%
r3 - Diverging views on the wsf methodology among its members 2 6%
r4 - Not representative enough membership ( age,geography, movements 3 9%
r5 - Lack of hands on experience /contribution/interest of many IC members in organzing social forum 4 12%
r6 - Low "output to operating cost ratio" 1 3%
r7 - I have no information, or not enough information to express an opinion 1 3%
r8 - Low capacity to carry out tasks that are defined in IC discussions 5 15%
r9 - Low communication/image with wsf participants outside of IC 4 12%
r10 - Low capacity of IC members to inspire wsf participants about wsf process 3 9%
r11 - Statutory membership, rather than membership based on effective practical contributions 2 6%
r12 - Low efficience in organizing of ic meetings with too much general discussion with wishful thinking 4 12%
Other 0 0%

11 - 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 4 12%
r2 - A more HORIZONTALLY OPERATED IC with participation of all members to its operation 4 12%
r3 - A more INSPIRING IC with links to outsider working groups and promotion of wsf inspiring practices 6 18%
r4 - A more INCLUSIVE IC membership for new movements and contributive individuals 5 15%
r5 - A more POLITICAL IC giving orientations to the process and relying on active groups linked to it 5 15%
r6 - A more DEMANDING IC with higher duties of membership focused on self sustain and practical contributions from members 5 15%
r7 - A more REGULATING IC caring about stimulating and linking initiative groups ( “friends of wsf “ ( see question 15 ) 4 12%
r8 - no specific changein IC is needed 0 0%
Other 1 3%

12 - 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 1 9%
r2 - No, IC is stalled, there are divided opinions and no consensus can be reached 2 18%
r3 - IC membership needs newcomers to be able to move forwards 5 45%
r4 - There is enough consensus to move somewhere 0 0%
r5 - I am not sure 3 27%
Other 0 0%

13 - is it possible /relevant that IC in its current format 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 1 8%
r2 - It is not possible, there is no consensus and wsf process will not survive 1 8%
r3 - It is possible if a clear post IC /refound IC frame is object of some consensus 1 8%
r4 - It is relevant (maybe because IC has not been up to necessity in the recent years) 2 17%
r5 - It is not relevant,(maybe because IC is legitimate and does minimual service and should continue) 1 8%
Other 6 50%

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

r1 - I have not enough information to express an opinion 1 10%
r2 - IC membership may not be motivated enough to achieve this 1 10%
r3 - IC membership is able to self sustain a minimal IC 1 10%
r4 - It is meaningless to do this, unless we adapt wsf process to current contaext 2 20%
r5 - It is meaningful to do this, 0 0%
Other 5 50%

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

r1 - I have not enough information to express an opinion 0 0%
r2 - principally yes, these initative groups are most needed to speed up the process 1 8%
r3 - Principally yes, and keeping a minimal IC running to regulate between them 4 33%
r4 - Principally yes and replacing IC by a convergence of those groups 2 17%
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 3 25%
r6 - principally no, because this would create dispersion and division 1 8%
r7 - principally no 0 0%
Other 1 8%

16 - 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 1 6%
r2 - Circulating this questionnaires, and circulating analysis of responses proposed in G2 group 4 24%
r3 - Developping other questionnaires after discussion on questions in G2 group http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifutur-consultations 2 12%
r4 - Stimulating many people to input in discussion in G3 group http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifutur-strategies 5 29%
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 4 24%
Other 1 6%