-
cifuturG2 exploration1 statistics
last modified
November 27, 2013
by facilitfsm
.....
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% |