• list106 comment1

last modified December 3, 2013 by facilitfsm


Dear Chris

 

It is heartening to see your interest for the list of possible “WSF contributive group” http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-possible-working-groups-to-care-about-wsf-process

That list106  is published as part of “input 1  to the group discussion”  which I made last june in  Group2  about evolution of IC 

One way to make visible the change of perspective was naming IC evolution  a “WSF Caring initiative” –hence the use of the word “care

http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-consultation-inputs1

This list106  is only a tool for discussion and has no official value.

The purpose is to give an idea of the diversity  of the “facilitation tasks” which are worth being considered seen from the IC perspective

It collect past and possible “ wsf contributive groups” in or around IC

The list contains groups with various level of reality : some have been existing groups some have been merely started , some have been merely mentioned  by IC participants in meetings, and  many have been merely …..imagined by me  based on contact and experience of IC viewpoint and problems which have surfaced

Groups who have 1 in the “distance” column were considered contributive groups

Thelist106  is sorted around four main facilitation goals : 

1 / sustain communication between event and initiatives organizers  (groups 1 to 35)-  

2/ communicate wsf to non participants ( groups 36 to 43)

3/ help participants in improving quality of dialogue and output ( groups 44 to 66) 

4/ expand a sustainable and united process( groups 67 to 106)

When browsing the list, it is advised to read the whole information contained in the various columns of the  line of the group

Here are my COMMENTS ( Pierre) on CHRIS selected list

GENERAL COMMENT the idea is that those  contributive groups, having minimum 2 or 3 ic members in them and open to collectives and organization interested in facilitation of wsf process,  would be launched  or receiving recommendations  by IC  plenary  decision after reviews made by IC Functional groups ( ex commissions) as explained in the inputs4 document here : http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-consultation-inputs4 (which will be circulated soon)

Unfortunately IC is not focused on  facilitation tasks at the moment , rather on its own future and wsf future, and “working a bit” would certainly be good for IC health

 

Other ideas and comments are most welcome

 

Pierre

 __________________________________________________________________________________________

CHRIS  Dear friends  The list106 of 106 possible 'aspects of IC caringness' appears daunting,

 but I am familiar with iterative techniques that reduce the complexity, and highlight priorities within such a list.  No doubt others have similar experience ...

 

CHRIS :To commence a process, I am content with the following seven aspects.

 

·         3  Group to discuss criteria for getting in a "consensus decision perimeter "  eg IC  ( 2004)

COMMENT This possible group is in  Link with Amit message before tunis http://openfsm.net/projects/wsfic_fsmci/wsfic-icfuturecontribution-16   – pointing to question of inclusiveness and expansion of who is part of IC process

this has been highlighted again in Amit exploration of survey 2 - http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-exploration2a-responses-en/#Amit  see point 5

 

  • ·         8 maintain a space for exchange on practices between convergence assemblies organizers.

COMMENT Convergence assemblies are a format resulting from a methodological negotiation in copenhaguen 2008 – this format has been implemented in wsf since then, as a manner to give visibility to agglutinations dynamics present in the forum.

However it not been detailed and systematized and the concrete practice of organizers of such assemblies are varied, as can be seen in the case of tunis,

there is quasi complete absence of continuity of those assemblies on line  http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/resultats-fsm2013-assembstatus 

the profile of the group is limited to exchange of experience

CHRIS : e.g. The Asian Discussion Forum addresses this need

COMMENT I do not see the link with the asian discussion forum which is an online space for basic exchange of info between wsf participants located in asia

 

 

  • ·         9 sustain & design websites to give views and infos such as openfsm.net ( from 2008). 

COMMENTSThe questions around  WSFwide website are deep and delicate and there has been so far no joint path in IC to design and sustain them

The comment column indicates : fragmentation and competition between sites - failure to arrange a common portal

CHRIS : Facebook pages and Wordpress blogs are also being used, but pose collective memory challenges

COMMENT please elaborate

 

  • ·         20 sustain working group for systematization  of solidarity economy around an sf event.

CHRIS :  In preparation for the era when wsf can expand beyond post- globalisation, anti- corporate campaigns

COMMENT as a way to spread good practices when organizing sf events

 

  • ·         34 ad hoc groups to tackle legitimately tricky issues (presence of head of state,   compatibility of some organizations ideology with wsf charter)

COMMENT this is ad hoc according to the “hot methodology issues” linked to objective 4: “expand a sustainable and united process”

 

  • ·         40 group  to organize shared communication by alternative media  - issue of genericity and institutionalisation - diversity in comcom

COMMENT  there is two dimensions  one during WSF events, and one as a permanent  way to circulate information about activities in the process , without giving preeminence of one collective  of alternative media on others – one attempt was http://worldsocialforum.info/

 

  • ·         50 stimulate and organize debates on key contentious issues mapped  in order to accelerate debate - proposed by francine - corresponding to desire to have discusion about world situation in IC and export that as activities in events

COMMENT  this idea has been expressed in the “d answer option”  to question 2 in the survey exploration 2 : d. (Co-)organizing activities on occasion of WSF events (next to self-organized activities)  http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-exploration2a-statistics 

 

 

 

There are four aspects among the 106 that do not sit comfortably with my view of a caring body; mostly due to my ignorance that can be resolved in discussion with likeminded others.

 

  • ·         6 comcom seminar in florence 2007. 

CHRIS :  No reference provided, and I don't understand Florence's significance

COMMENT  Florence is a city in Italy.... – the communication commission organized a seminar there with a handful of people- it allowed to align better vision and created a working party active from 2007 to 2011 approx  - no reference is provided because this was before we had www.openfsm.net as  a possible repository of info http://openfsm.net/projects/communication-commission/contents

 

  • 12 develop trans-event communication  between organizers and participants to stay connected. 

CHRIS :  I feel this is an Event Organiser task; if necessary, a responsibility can be placed on event organisers to follow-up with IC, say 3 months after collating final report

 

COMMENT  the link indicated is here http://openfsm.net/projects/ic-methodology/metcom-intercomentreeventos   also this comment : when there is enough shared desire among partiicpants and orgnizers  to connect events inside wsf process . during 2010 there were many events but not yet shared desires to connect them through teleconference activities
the stimulation of inter-event , as suggested in the link through a mesh of  cross- tele encounter activities requires sharing a common view on the importance of such links for the dynamics and internationalism of the process and this can only be done at global scale not at single event scale

 

 

·         16 group on balancing in a wsf event; organizing  overall openspace services and thematic  space initiatives.

CHRIS :  I feel this is an Event Organiser task; if necessary, a responsibility can be placed on event organisers to liaise with IC at key preparation milestones

COMMENT  1/ Inasmuch this is WSF event, IC is methodologically relevant and this has a lot to do with overall methodology of wsf : is there one openspace process, and one program proces  or is it relevant to have  several ? - some may advocate creation of  thematic subforums in an event, each  taking care of their methodology and logistics this is a way to alleviate the burden of the organizing committee, but can also allow emergence of methodological distorsion -you can also see recent considerations by Xavier  http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/tunisg3-contribution3-en

 

  • ·         84 group to assess the option of collective participation  vs indiviudal participation.   

CHRIS :  This discussion is occuring elsewhere within civil society too, and may arrive at similar/different assessments.  I support collective participation, but would like to hear the individual participation argument.

COMMENT  those in the line are : charter of principles is focused on organizations  - individual may be active - organisations may be lasting and may have constituencies and resources - network of individual based activism comparing to network of collective based activism -culture of IC is mainly representativity based- the idea is to have a general reflection on this issue and make some practical recommendations suggestion of how occupiers and indignant may  use WSF process space , creating ad hoc groups to make themselves visible and dialogue with “organizations”

 

CHRIS I wish to convey sustenance to the G2 workgroup for your capacity to keep nourishing this project.  In solidarity

Well thanks to chris for nourishing  discussion in G2 group