• inputs2ᅡᅠcomment onᅡᅠ2A2 survey

last modified October 8, 2013 by facilitfsm


Tracking  &  commenting  Evolution of survey 2A  

 The current survey  2A  sent to the group and to IC lists  as an initiative in group2 taken by Francine Gina and Giuseppe is a light evolution of an earlier version  ( first part of 2C) , which was accessible on line in the survey menu since early august. 

This text is tracking the changes  between the two successive verions  ( named 2A1 and 2A2  for clarity , commenting them  and argumenting some modifications /clarifications for the online version of updated  exploration 2A)

Pierre 

color code used below

  • no highlight color = identical in 2A1 (blue police)  and 2A2
  • present in 2A1 and disappearing in 2A2
  • reformulated slightly between 2A1 and 2A2
  • new elements in 2A2
  • IC elements maintained or added  from 2A2 in online udpdated version of 2A  fo sake of clarity ( argument are given in the comments for each green input)

 

Sommaire

Question 1  about participation In IC – change of focus in 2A2. 2

Question 2  about mandates of IC – nearly identical 2

Question 3  about mandates of members :  split in questions 3 and 4  in 2A2 with same items. 4

Question 4  about size of IC  –question 5  with new focus in 2A2. 5

Question 6 about membership  -nearly identical to 6  in 2A2. 6

Question 5  about decision – same items in question  7 in 2A2. 6

Question 7  about commitment  of members –  same items in question 8 of 2A2. 7

 

 

Question 1  about participation In IC – change of focus in 2A2

 

Have you participated in IC meetings in the past? *

a. Yes,As a member

b. Yes As an observer

c. No

Other:

1. How many IC meetings have you personally attended?

 

1b. How many IC meetings has your organisation attended?

 

1c. When was the first meeting attended by your organisation?

 

1d. When was the last meeting attended by your organisation?

 

Comment : survey 2A2 is  explicitly directed only  to IC members. This consolidate the need for more than one survey,  to better explore the Tunis discussion

Given the weakness of on line activity  in group 2 and IC list  since tunis,  and an upcoming meeting maybe in December, there is a need to at least involve IC members in the survey  and the initiative taken  by Francine Gina and Giuseppe is part of the scope of group 2

Also  in tunis we had said that the survey should be directed also to other active  WSF participants such as event organisers convergence assembly organisers and interested new movements participants

Survey 2A2 is fairly good,  and is the result of review by cross-breeding several  personal visions,  but it is “self centered” on IC  , and - there is "also" the need for  surveys placing “scenarios about IC”  in a broader context of WSF , directed to active WSF participants  who are without elaborate practice of IC , in other words  are de centered from IC ,  although being  quite "experienced" in organzing social forum events, or other WSF contributive intiatives, and may feel more attracted by “other WSF facilitating groups”  than IC, and without willing necessarily to "end with IC".

This calls for  “other  simple surveys”,  to cover better the broad field of tunis discussion

This is the reason for proposing also in Group G2 the  “exploration 1” survey, with questions that are fairly complementary to survey 2A / 2A2 , focusing on external evaluations and scenarios for IC  as is shown in the profile table here : http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-consultation-inputs2  

 

Question 2  about mandates of IC – nearly identical

2. What should the mandate/tasks of an ideal IC be? *

Choose the various options relevant for you. This is according your vision of what is "ideal" IC

a. Decide on place and date of WSF events

b. Practical preparation of WSF event (together with local organizing committee)

c. Political preparation of WSF event (together with local organizing committee)

d. (Co-)organizing activities on occasion of WSF events (next to self-organized activities)

e. Discussion of global political situation in order to improve the political relevance of WSF events (

f. Stimulating connection between activities in various successive SF events

g. Stimulating relationships between activities in WSF event and those in SF events at national level or with thematic SF events

h. Facilitating the agglutination/convergence processes in (W)SF events -

i. (**) Discussing strategy of IC for WSF process maintained in on line version

j. Developing communication strategy in and around the group of IC members

k. Discussion methodology of WSF process and event(s)

l. Providing resources for WSF event and process

m. Monitoring financial resources for WSF process and event

n. Promoting the geographical expansion of WSF process and events

Other:

Comment :  the only drop is the item “Discussing strategy of IC for WSF process”  

it is true that the relation between IC and the word “strategy” has not been clear and easy ,

However, if IC is a “facilitating body” for WSF , then its members may be able to comment on whether there is a collective facilitation/expansion strategy  agreed inside IC  for WSF process , or several one coexisting  among its members , or theorizing absence of strategy etc..

 

 

2. What best would represent according to you the mandate/tasks of the IC? (choose as many as you prefer)

o        a. (*)Decide place, format , and date of WSF events

o        b. Practical preparation of WSF events (together with local organizing committee)

o        c. Political preparation of WSF event (together with local organizing committee)

o        d. (Co-)organizing activities on occasion of WSF events (next to self-organized activities)

o        e. Discussion of global political situation in order to improve the political relevance of WSF events

o        f. Facilitating connections between activities in social forum events

o        g. Facilitating relationships between activities in WSF events and those in national or thematic social forum events

o        h. Facilitating the agglutination/convergence processes in social forum events

i. (**) Discussing strategy of IC for WSF process  ( deleted in the email version)

Discussing  strategies of IC or IC members about facilitaiton of WSF process  ( maintained in on line version)

o        j. Developing communication strategies in and about the IC

o        k. Discussion methodology of WSF process and event(s)

o        l. Providing resources for WSF events and process

o        m. Monitoring financial resources for WSF events and process

o        n. Promoting the geographical expansion of WSF process and events

o        Other: Please specify:

Question 3  about mandates of members :  split in questions 3 and 4  in 2A2 with same items

 

§  3. What should be the tasks/mandate of ideal IC members? *

a. Political commitment to WSF Charter

b. Practical and political commitment to WSF process

c. Financial contribution as member of IC

d. Financial contribution for attending meeting

e. Facilitating solidarity fund

f. Nominate a smaller group for the daily practical work linked to WSF and IC process (former ‘liaison’ group, organizing meetings, making agenda, etc.)

h. Participate in at least one among a series of basic IC operation groups (to be defined) that allow IC to operate without resorting to a smaller central group

i. Participate in at least one functional review group that review situation of WSF process along one particular aspect/functions and make recommendation of contributive groups

j. Participate in at least one contributive groups with clearcut tasks involving non IC members and aiming at supporting /developing WSF process

Other:

3. What would you consider to best represent the values, attitudes and behaviours of the IC members? (choose as many as you prefer)

o        a. Commitment to the WSF Charter

o        b. Commitment to the WSF process

o        c. Financial contribution to the IC process

o        d. Financial contribution to IC meetings

o        Other. Please specify:

 

4. How could the IC tasks be fulfilled? (choose as many as you prefer)

o        a. (*) with resorting to a central coordinating group    :By nominating members to smaller working groups   (s)  for work linked to the IC process (former liaison group, organizing meetings, making agenda, etc.)

o        b.   (*)  without resorting to a central coordinating group :By full member participation in IC operation (without resorting to a central coordinating group    through a series of  basic IC operation working groups  

o        c.(*) By setting up at least one working group that reviews the WS process  ( setting up several "review groups" reviewing each a specific aspect of WSF,) and makes recommendations to the IC

o        d.(*) By setting up working groups  engaging non IC members and aiming at supporting /developing the WSF process     and by each member participating in at least one  of them   

o        Other: Please specify  

Comment :  same items except drop of  item about solidarity fund ,  and simplification  changes in 4a 4b 4c 4d , dropping some significant words about “organization of IC” 

 

These items  correspond in  the former version of survey 2A  to  3f 3h 3i 3j  and  specific words were introduced to reflect possibility to have different type  of  "basic IC operation working groups"  for ic members – describing "horizontal organizational option for IC" after the  negative "liaison group" experience . This experience gave "centrality" to some not enough contributive ic members, while hindering contributions of others , which were not in the liaison group .

The idea is that spreading most active IC members in those various ic operation groups can guarantee that they will work minimally and sustain ic operation while involving all members , whether very lightly or intensively contributive - so it is not wishful thinking but a definite political option on IC organizing to try to be both realistic and consistent with WSF values 

that is why some words have been maintained in the online version of the survey

Several  “ basic IC operation groups”( replacing “liaison group”) exclusively focused on membership  self financiing of ic process,  reveiw of contributions of ic members,  -  

several “  functional review group” ( with the idea of replacing/renewing ” commissions” - methodology commmunication expansion etc...) 

and  many “contributive groups”( genetically including non ic members)  defined  recommended reviewed by the IC review groups  just mentionned , with the idea that IC needs to have many active WSF participants in contact with it  in order to remain  "wsf process centered", and effective/stimulating ,  thus legitimate and not self centered / neffective  as has been too often the case in the recent years 

of course these are background comments and inputs for discussion

The formulations have been polished  to reflect this frame more clearly in the online version

-

Question 4  about size of IC  –question 5  with new focus in 2A2

4. What could the ideal size of an IC meeting be? *

Assuming there is formal membership in IC and the floor is given (by default) only to IC members

a. 50 members

b. 100 members

c. 150 members

d. 200 members

e. Illimited members

other

 

5. What are your thoughts about the IC membership?

o        It should remain as it is

o        It should be expanded further

o        it should be limited to active members

o        It should include mechanisms of rotation of its members

o        Other, Please specify

Comment :  This reformulation of  earlier question 4 is for the better ,  

There is indeed more added value in the new question,  than just  abstractly sizing the IC  as was done in  survey 2A

Question 6 about membership  -nearly identical to 6  in 2A2

6. Who can be members of an ideal IC? *

a. Representatives of organizations

b. Individuals presented by at least 3 organizations, but not affiliated to those

c. Individuals complying with certain criteria

d. Core organizers of previous WSF events in personal capacity

e. A mix of the above

Other:

 

6. How could the IC memberships be expanded?

a.   keep including only organisations     According to the current guidelines  : representatives of organizations 

b.       Include individuals in their personal capacity  complying with certain criteria 

c.        Include organizers of previous WSF events in personal capacity

d.         A mix of the above

e  (**)  institute a new possibility  :  individuals can be included as  temporary members if they are  sponsored by a certain number of   ic member organizations         

   Other. Please specify

Comment on reformulations from earlier version  :  dropping of word “representative”  and the drop of item : “Individuals presented by at least 3 organizations, but not affiliated to those,”    does it add to clarity ?

 

There exists an  IC internal  litterature  around "expansion commission" ( which may have  spent more time talking about expansion of IC, than about expansion of wsf process ) about "inclusion  of new organizations in IC" , which is formally consistent with the word "representative", even if practice and reality  for "historical members" is fuzzier  ( personal capacity is there in some cases)

This item e; which indicates “supporting from 3 organisations”  was proposed in 2A version, as a  possible concrete and reasonable protocol to include persons from new movements , and former organizing wsf committees

 

Having this item included in the survey ,  is a way to show  that it is possible "formally" to institute  "dual membership"   mixing " representatives",  and "recognized proven on field  facilitators " ,which may bring in IC wsf contributive historical organizers and new movements personalities, and still give “weight” to organizations wiht large "constituencies" ,  in the evolution of council membership

 

Question 5  about decision – same items in question  7 in 2A2

5. How should the IC take its decisions *

Decisions about things that are within the scope outlined by you in question 2

·         a. Consensus in all cases

·         b. Consensus inasmuch possible and voting “one member one vote, only in case of deadlock situation and if there is consensus to vote

·         Other:

 

7.  How should the IC take its decisions?

o        Consensus in all cases

o        Majority votes in cases of deadlocks    ,( and if there is consensus to vote,? ) 

o        Other. Please specify:

Comment on  reformulations from earlier version

the condition “if there is a consensus to vote” has been dropped , which is  making the survey 2A2 depart further away from “new political culture “ than version 2A - that is why the mention of the "consensus to vote" is kept in the online version

 

Question 7  about commitment  of members –  same items in question 8 of 2A2

 

7. Assuming your are ic member, Would you be personally willing to commit yourself to the tasks of an ideal IC members: *

·         a. Work in IC working groups during IC meetings (drafting documents , manipulating data. , extending the meeting, .)

·         b. Work in IC working groups on line between meetings ( all range of tasks that can be done on line)

·         c. Work in IC defined group with other WSF participants on line between meetings

·         d. Verbal Contribution to general Reflection during IC plenay discussions

·         e. Written Contribution on IC mailing list to general reflection between meetings

·         Other:

8. As IC member,which tasks would you preferably commit yourself to?

o        a. Work in IC working groups during IC meetings

o        b. Work in IC working groups online between meetings

c. (**)   ,( Work in IC defined group with other WSF participants on line between meetings 

o        d. Contribute to general discussions during IC plenary discussions

e.  (**)  ,Written Contribution on IC mailing list between meetings

o        Other. Please specify.

Comment on  reformulations 

The d” inputs by written on line discussion” have been dropped and this is echoing the low activities in IC list between meeting  - written contributioons  implies more reflexiivity than instant verbal contribution in long plenary meetings and gives food for thought to many people before costly face to face meetings so it is a valuable way of communication

Also items b and c  were introducing a difference between" IC working groups", and "IC defined  ( contributive) groups".,  and this  precisely is echoing the  idea of contributive groups who would be generically mixing ic members and other wsf active participants and  taking assignment to work on issues identified by IC reveiw groups ( see question 4 above) and maybe attract more "WSF faciltating energy" around IC 

So it is significant to keep this distinction visible in the survey, and not keep implicit identitfaction of workng groups with the  "familiar" small size IC member working groups which is described in b