-
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
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.
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
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
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