Dear Pierre and all participants in G2 process

I have considered the list106 again, and find I am content with a further nine
aspects.  This is a different list, that augments the seven 'Aspects of
caringness' already circulated, commented and responded.
 
4   plenary session to discuss and evaluate liaison group ( mexico 2010).  
The Mexico 2010 concept of ‘liaison’ envisages an operational aspect of IC,
giving a top-down visage of ‘broadening and deepening’.  Later IC
communication and the consultation questionnaire responses seem to move away
from an operational role for IC.  For liaison to be a valid concept,
contributive groups would need to be operating at a distance from IC;
otherwise the Liaison becomes supervision, and flies in the face of effective
delegation.

32 Review group to organize review of contributions to wfs process
facilitation "inside IC/ caring body".
This introspection may be painful, but comparing Episodes 1 / 2 could be a
learning experience with member organisations.  Peer validation of the claims
by fellow IC members might even be cathartic, to better understand the
differing contexts of the two episodes.

33   set up group to prepare collectively  wsf related newsletter(s) (montreal
2009).
See comments on Aspect 9, above.  I don’t find it problematic or daunting that
a mega-task emerges around ‘websites’.  Care is needed that buy-in is
encouraged for each of the groups that have previously declared an interest. 
Some prior research might be needed to identify synergies and conflictual
viewpoints across Aspects 9, 33, 37, 65, 71, 91 and 104 (and possible others).
 I would be interested in what a balanced composition of this task-group might
look like, and how their legitimacy might be established and promoted across
the wider IC membership.

37  group to share creative  communication initiatives about wsf  (mexico
2010) - group to develop on line and  face to face  tools and contents for
communication tools around idea of wsf at large.
See comments on Aspect 9, above.

65   comcom seminar about websites paris 2010.
See comments on Aspect 9, above.

66 group to give guidelines  on theming ( paris 2011).
Timely in leadup to WSF2015 (Quebec or India?)

71  maintain open space website(s) for group workinside caring body  (eg
openfsm). 
See comments on Aspect 9, above.

91  group to elaborate practically on usage of  internet in wsf process.
See comments on Aspect 9, above.

104  define wsf portal - with a diversity of generic websites.   
See comments on Aspect 9, above.

A further aspect among the 106 does not sit comfortably with my view of a
caring body; mostly due to my ignorance that can be resolved in discussion
with likeminded others.

39  groups to promote wsf  in media, among friendly journalists.
I understand the need for professional, high-quality reporting but I sense
that journalists work in a corporatized mass-media sector.  Alternative media
alone has legitimacy and, specifically, the cooperative-style of Ciranda. 
Maybe community radio could be considered, where there are strict controls on
the volume and source of paid advertising.  

The disadvantage of ‘friendly’ journalists is they often gravitate towards
‘friendly’ media outlets that do not confront the neo-liberal model in a
meaningful way, and become typecast and/ or captive.  Mastheads such as The
Guardian and The Economist could be viewed in this vein.

The nourishment continues, even a Grand Bouffe, but I sense we need a
pastrycook, barista and wine conneisseur to round out the meal.  Any Group 2
offers?

chris
------------------------------------------------------------
On Dec 04, 2013 12:24 AM, Pierre George wrote:
> For clarification and comments
> 
> 
> Dear Chris and all participants in G2 group
> 
> 
> 
> Chris  It is heartening to see your interest for this *list of possible
> “WSF contributive group”*
> http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-possible-working-groups-to-care-about-wsf-process
> 
> *FYI That list 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 list of 106 groups  is meant as a tool for discussion on IC future ,
> *on
how ic could be "irraditiating " activity in contributive groups ,  it
> has
no official value.*nor it is in Group G2 scope to create real
> contributive
groups and start discussion on some of the topics mentionned*
> 
> The purpose of the list is to give an idea of the diversity  of the
> “facilitation tasks” which are worth being considered seen from the IC
> perspective
> 
> the list collects past and possible “ wsf contributive groups” in or around
> IC - Groups who have "1 "in the “distance” column have been considered
> contributive groups
> 
> *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
> 
> 
> *The list 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*
> 
> 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  ( see part 2  paragraph 9 ):
> http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-consultation-inputs4
> 
> it happens that IC is not focused on  facilitation tasks at the moment ,
> rather on its own future and wsf future.....
> 
> HERE ARE some  COMMENTS on the groups you pinpoint your list
> 
> *http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/list106-comment1
> <http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/list106-comment1>*
> 
> Other comments  welcome about  the  *list106
> <http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-possible-working-groups-to-care-about-wsf-process>**
> if * linking to theme of the "future of IC"
> 
> Regards
> 
> Pierre
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2013/12/2 chris williams <will0447@...>
> 
> > Dear Francine
> >
> > There's a wiki for G2 titled 'cifuturG2 possible working groups to care
> > about
> > wsf process'.  The numbers I have cited are those in column C of the table
> > at
> > the bottom of the wiki.
> >
> > I saw the table's compiler to be grappling with 'caring about wsf'; when
> > to
institutionalise a rules-basis, and when to develop/highlight the
> > intrinsic
caring nature of those I have met via OpenFSM over the years.
> >
> > If experiencing trouble locating the wiki/table, let me know.
> > Chris
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > On Dec 02, 2013 03:59 PM, Francine Mestrum wrote:
> > > Dear Chris,
> > > Wondering what you are referring to with this 'caringness'...???
> > > Francine
> > >
> > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > > Van: chris williams [mailto:will0447@...]
> > > Verzonden: 02 December 2013 01:24
> > > Aan: cifutur-consultations@...
> > > Onderwerp: [Tunis Group 2 - CI futur Consult & +] Aspects of caringness
> > >
> > > Dear friends
> > >
> > > The list 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 ...
> >
> > > 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)
> >
> > > 8 maintain a space for exchange on practices between convergence
> > assemblies
> > > organizers.  e.g. The Asian Discussion Forum addresses this need
> >
> > > 9 sustain & design websites to give views and infos such as openfsm.net(
> > > from 2008).  Facebook pages and Wordpress blogs are also being used, but
> > > pose collective memory challenges
> >
> > > 20 sustain working group for systematization  of solidarity economy
> > around
> > > an sf event.  In preparation for the era when wsf can expand beyond
> > > post-
globalisation, anti- corporate campaigns
> >
> > > 34 ad hoc groups to tackle legitimately tricky issues (presence of head
> > of
> > > state,   compatibility of some organizations ideology with wsf charter)
> >
> > > 40 group  to organize shared communication by alternative media
> > >
> > > 50 stimulate and organize debates on key contentious issues mapped  in
> > order
> > > to accelerate debate
> >
> > > 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.  No reference provided, and I don't
> > > understand Florence's significance
> >
> > > 12 develop trans-event communication  between organizers and
> > participants to
> > > stay connected.  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
> >
> > > 16 group on balancing in a wsf event; organizing  overall openspace
> > services
> > > and thematic  space initiatives. 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
> >
> > > 84 group to assess the option of collective participation  vs indiviudal
> > > participation.  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.
> >
> > I wish to convey sustenance to the G2 workgroup for your
> > > capacity to keep nourishing this project.  In solidarity
> >
> > > chris
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Archive:
> > http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/lists/cifutur-consultations/archive/2013/12/1386019919543
> > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to
> > cifutur-consultations@....  Please contact
> > cifutur-consultations-manager@... for questions.
> >
> 

Dear Pierre and all participants in G2 Group

I offer the following responses to Pierre's highlighted comments in the
list106 wiki

Item 3.
Agreed. Current CDP thinking relates to leadership and decision-making
efficiency, but I would also be interested in concepts such as followership. 
Where would ‘consensus decision perimeter’ techniques be useful?  
a/ within IC decision-making, where the consensus (being sought) applies only
to IC-made decisions and/or 
b/ across WSF, where the informed individual/s might be IC members seeking to
guide event organisers and collective groups.

Regarding followership:
•	How to prevent alienation of a group member who has wandered from the flock
and rejoins?  Much of this relates to the story-telling self, and group
behaviours can either re-enforce or downplay such stories as unworthiness,
need to make up for lost time, re-initiation to the group, etc.
•	In communicating with the group, the 'informed individual' might                
a/ discourage group participants from aspiring too high, or 
b/ seek to encourage apprentices in a learning role, based on enthusiasm,
attractive features, diversity of representation, etc.
•	From a caring perspective, how to reduce mindless chatter that can distance
a group member from close-by associates? WSF has both a history and a vision;
a naive understanding of each is useful to a follower’s early days but a
detailed and well-groomed understanding doesn’t entitle distraction of
task-focussed group members.

Item 8.
Absence of insight may have little to do with vision, and a lot to do with
perspective!  Some convergence assemblies are well established.  For example,
Migrations Assemblies’ native home is Dakar, Senegal irrespective of the WSF
event.  
I would like to think that Asians returning from convergences share their
memories, thoughts, insights on the OpenFSM Discussion Forum page.  I don’t
know the experience elsewhere but, even for convergence organisers, there must
be ‘life after convergence’. 
Maybe the ‘detailed and systematised space’ you are seeking to create is
too-rarified; passage-of-time and the organics of political and organisational
change might cause the highest value of such experience to be for memory and
history purposes.  In such case, the ‘detailed and systematised space’ would
be a publisher’s office.

Item 9. Elaboration.  
In 20013/14, I sense a subtle progression beyond the OpenFSM common portal, ie
IC WSF 2013/14-Calendar &OEAgora Group space.  I have participated in Europie,
People Social Forum (Edmonton), Agora99, G20 counter summit, Iraqi Social
Forum.  

Where you might see ‘fragmentation and competition between sites - failure to
arrange a common portal’, I see increasing skills and ownership by event
organizers. To them, the OpenFSM event is merely a point-in-time in their
continuum, as their decentralized processes weave an ongoing path.  They may/
may not return to OpenFSM for future events, depending on their experiences.

Undoubtedly, the same problems that OpenFSM experienced also arise; orphan
websites, etc.  But OpenFSM serves a complementary and attractive role; to
weave consistency with other WSF events, to offer WSF resources to event
organisers, to introduce OpenFSM first-timers to the opportunities of ongoing
wsf participation.  

Item 20.  Two sides of the same coin.

Item 34. 
There is a down-side if the ad-hoc group suffers from ‘outcome myopia’.   A
caring approach would ensure that the wsf story is well-told, and reinforced
from the event organiser throughout all corners of the IC.  I feel this is
where the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) campaign floundered in support
of the Palestinian effort.  Individual wsf participants have become isolated,
with insufficient stories to counter the strong, concerted kickback of
Zionists and their supporters.

Item 40.
I respect that Ciranda and forum of radios/tvs can be duplicated, but this
does not make these ventures less worthy.  The corollary is, in a world where
messages are regularly conflated, dumbed-down, hijacked by vested interests,
can WSF afford not to engage and invest in these undertakings?

Where technological advancement makes some of these ventures replaceable,
there should always be an option to discontinue the practice.  Sometimes the
opposite is true.  Whereas previously to operate a WSF publishing operation
might have been prohibitively resource-intensive, the advent of e-books and
downloadable applets might be timely.

Item 50.
There seems to be little appetite for such a debate in conjunction with WSF
events; only 6 supportive (2.d.) responses out of 255 overall responses in
survey exploration 2.  Notwithstanding, I will go into bat for Francine’s
proposal to accelerate IC debate.  Possibly, there should be an opening
address on the current ‘world situation’ context for all WSF activities, and
this address ought to be contentious, challenging, orthodoxy-defying, etc 

End of feedback.  If Group 2 works through Pierre's list106 wiki, there may be
more pressing matters, or strong disagreements with above responses.  Either
way, let me know.

With caring solidarity
chris
-------------------------------------------------------------
On Dec 04, 2013 12:24 AM, Pierre George wrote:
> For clarification and comments
> 
> 
> Dear Chris and all participants in G2 group
> 
> 
> 
> Chris  It is heartening to see your interest for this *list of possible
> “WSF contributive group”*
> http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-possible-working-groups-to-care-about-wsf-process
> 
> *FYI That list 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 list of 106 groups  is meant as a tool for discussion on IC future ,
> *on
how ic could be "irraditiating " activity in contributive groups ,  it
> has
no official value.*nor it is in Group G2 scope to create real
> contributive
groups and start discussion on some of the topics mentionned*
> 
> The purpose of the list is to give an idea of the diversity  of the
> “facilitation tasks” which are worth being considered seen from the IC
> perspective
> 
> the list collects past and possible “ wsf contributive groups” in or around
> IC - Groups who have "1 "in the “distance” column have been considered
> contributive groups
> 
> *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
> 
> 
> *The list 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*
> 
> 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  ( see part 2  paragraph 9 ):
> http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-consultation-inputs4
> 
> it happens that IC is not focused on  facilitation tasks at the moment ,
> rather on its own future and wsf future.....
> 
> HERE ARE some  COMMENTS on the groups you pinpoint your list
> 
> *http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/list106-comment1
> <http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/list106-comment1>*
> 
> Other comments  welcome about  the  *list106
> <http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-possible-working-groups-to-care-about-wsf-process>**
> if * linking to theme of the "future of IC"
> 
> Regards
> 
> Pierre
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2013/12/2 chris williams <will0447@...>
> 
> > Dear Francine
> >
> > There's a wiki for G2 titled 'cifuturG2 possible working groups to care
> > about
> > wsf process'.  The numbers I have cited are those in column C of the table
> > at
> > the bottom of the wiki.
> >
> > I saw the table's compiler to be grappling with 'caring about wsf'; when
> > to
institutionalise a rules-basis, and when to develop/highlight the
> > intrinsic
caring nature of those I have met via OpenFSM over the years.
> >
> > If experiencing trouble locating the wiki/table, let me know.
> > Chris
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > On Dec 02, 2013 03:59 PM, Francine Mestrum wrote:
> > > Dear Chris,
> > > Wondering what you are referring to with this 'caringness'...???
> > > Francine
> > >
> > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > > Van: chris williams [mailto:will0447@...]
> > > Verzonden: 02 December 2013 01:24
> > > Aan: cifutur-consultations@...
> > > Onderwerp: [Tunis Group 2 - CI futur Consult & +] Aspects of caringness
> > >
> > > Dear friends
> > >
> > > The list 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 ...
> >
> > > 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)
> >
> > > 8 maintain a space for exchange on practices between convergence
> > assemblies
> > > organizers.  e.g. The Asian Discussion Forum addresses this need
> >
> > > 9 sustain & design websites to give views and infos such as openfsm.net(
> > > from 2008).  Facebook pages and Wordpress blogs are also being used, but
> > > pose collective memory challenges
> >
> > > 20 sustain working group for systematization  of solidarity economy
> > around
> > > an sf event.  In preparation for the era when wsf can expand beyond
> > > post-
globalisation, anti- corporate campaigns
> >
> > > 34 ad hoc groups to tackle legitimately tricky issues (presence of head
> > of
> > > state,   compatibility of some organizations ideology with wsf charter)
> >
> > > 40 group  to organize shared communication by alternative media
> > >
> > > 50 stimulate and organize debates on key contentious issues mapped  in
> > order
> > > to accelerate debate
> >
> > > 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.  No reference provided, and I don't
> > > understand Florence's significance
> >
> > > 12 develop trans-event communication  between organizers and
> > participants to
> > > stay connected.  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
> >
> > > 16 group on balancing in a wsf event; organizing  overall openspace
> > services
> > > and thematic  space initiatives. 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
> >
> > > 84 group to assess the option of collective participation  vs indiviudal
> > > participation.  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.
> >
> > I wish to convey sustenance to the G2 workgroup for your
> > > capacity to keep nourishing this project.  In solidarity
> >
> > > chris
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Archive:
> > http://openfsm.net/projects/cifutur/lists/cifutur-consultations/archive/2013/12/1386019919543
> > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to
> > cifutur-consultations@....  Please contact
> > cifutur-consultations-manager@... for questions.
> >
>