Re: 'Their desire to have it endorse declarations that were previously prepared or at least prepared independently from the dialogues engaged during the Forum itself.'

Two aspects of 'declarations' should be discussed independently. Voting and communication.
While the above comment on voting seems sceptical and fatalistic, my observance of WSF thematic events is the opposite. Plenary and convergence discussions are regularly vibrant and inclusive, and I feel there has been goodwill to bring these debates to consensus-based finality.  Some decry there has been 'no formal vote' but, to me, consensus and inclusiveness are an acceptable alternative.  I already hear shouts of horror that I take this position.

While WSF calls it a declaration, elsewhere it might be called a 'communique'. I have been involved in building and communicating communiques in Istanbul (Alternative Water Forum/People's Water Forum), Moscow (Civil-20 (C20)), and Melbourne (Civil-20 (C20)), and this is what I have learned.  Building a communique is a political process, for the first time to include inputs from some who are not in attendance (eg absent friends, host-country politicians) and, again, the gathered delegates may complain of 'foul play'.  Pragmatists say it is a necessary concession, that should not overwhelm the work/solidarity/negotiations of gathered delegates.

Sadly missed by supporters of World Social Forum is the absence of communiques that draw 'a line in the sand' from which we can all move forward.  Indeed, there is no need to look back, before the communique, because the document should 'say it all', 'say all that needs to be said'.

chris