My Comments on exploration 1, draft survey

Q13 - Is it possible /relevant that IC dissolves and proposes another frame of
facilitation/service for wsf process, without jeopardizing wsf process

I answered r3 - It is possible if a clear post ic frame is object of some
consensus, and r5 - It is not relevant,(maybe because IC is legitimate and
does minmual service and should continue)

My Comment: By the stage of Q13, I felt the questionnaire was becoming too ‘IC
precious’.  I understand the questionnaire needs to be IC-centric – that is
the questionnaire’s purpose.  From my viewpoint, it is possible to dissolve
IC, and the ‘wheels won’t fall off’ the World Social Forum.  We have absorbed
the message that Another World is Possible; now it’s about implementing this
other world. 

>From the decentralised WSF perspective, it is not relevant whether the IC
remains or is dissolved.  I say this with only a slight ‘tongue-in-cheek’
because I have appreciated the work done by IC, and am particularly mindful of
supporting Jillian with the Babel translators, and the history project.

I would not want a future IC to provide services beyond those currently
provided.  I see this as the only way a decentralised WSF can work – by
learning self-sufficiency and reciprocity.  Of course, the IC can intervene in
strategically-important events, always mindful of the precedent such
intervention would set.
---------------------------------------------------
Q15 – Is it be possible/relevant/wise to develop other
servicing/facilitating/impulsing groups with different contributive
capacity/profile?

I answered r4 - Principally yes and replacing IC by a convergence of those
groups

My Comment: I am intrigued about the form that impulsing groups should take. 
I would like to see a Belem-based impulsing group, being respectful of WSF
origins and our shared ‘ideology’.  [Am I permitted to use ‘ideology’ in this
context??]  I think it would be wrong to have geographic-specific impulsing
groups, as this moves us away from ‘world’ in WSF.  Could a thematic-specific
impulsing concept survive/ prevail?  Again, I would be sceptical of impulsers
who became specialists, because that could be divisive within a
decentralised-forum concept.  Still, I think we ought consider a
thematic-focused impulsing concept.

clarification intended, further confusion unintended
chris
------------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug 29, 2013 11:47 PM, cifutur consultation wrote:
> DRAFT SURVEYS ABOUT WSF AND IC
> http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-survey-menu
> 
> Hello Chris
> 1/ Thank you for your filling up  of exploration 1   draft Survey   ( and
> also of exploration 2bis, which will be on line sometime soon)
> 
> Your exploration 1 is publicly visible here
> http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-exploration1-responses
> 
> Regarding  questions 13 14 15
> You say it is not relevant to dissolve IC (13-r5) and then that  it is
> meaningless to keep a minimal IC ( 14-r4) and IC could be replaced by
> convergence of " friends of wsf" groups ( 15-r4)
> 
> You are welcome  to  comment
> 
> 
> 2/ Thank you  for your comments received on G2 group list
> http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/lists/cifutur-consultations/archive/2013/06/1372432540233/forum_view#1377694701400
> 
> 
> Warm regards from CI futur  consultation working group G2
>