• gtiandwsf discussion

  • Input #7 on methodology (@FW9)

    from chris on Oct 16, 2019 11:26 PM
    Reflective, but I need to look elsewhere for a Methodology way forward.
    It is not quite a disconnect, but a chasm in expectations exists in the week immediately after a Forum -which had worked so hard to build a Convergence, where the outcomes might be 'as expected' but, equally, they might be from 'left field'. I understand Montreal was the latter.
    These Forums negotiated their convergences, across a labyrinth of uncertainty until the time for the non-existent communique.  In the absence of a communique, there is a follow-up process to build a way forward.  Currently, the post-Forum build process is steered from top-down whereas, in the first week, delegates have dispersed to home countries, and caught up on delayed work and families .  Do we need a select few from the Convergences to remain assembled in this first week, so the methodological followup process of building becomes 'bottom up'?  The select few could be nominated or volunteer onto a committee/working group and, for example, complete the Tasks activity in the OpenFSM.net platform.
    Despite previous IC exhortations, there was insufficient appetite/hunger for a permanently-established Secretariat at Porto Alegre that could cover the period/work immediately after dispersal from a Forum. I do not advocate revisiting this option.
    I also do not advocate communiques, either.  Communiques without spokespersons are empty, never heard, or never believed.  So Methodology must advance, hand-in-hand- with Communication, and not as two separate entities that 'pass in the night'.