• qfsmet elements of dialogue about fsmet formats before fsmet19

last modified May 8 by facilitfsm

A semi real dialogue between characters from fsmet facilitating team and characters promoting fsmet kiosk as a heuristical tool for stimulating reflexion about fsmet process

Hello FSMET team

Here are the 2 diagrams ( "the disk" and "the 6 rectangles"), as inputs that will be promoted communicate on face to face  in paper format  with participants in the Barcelona meeting, and  they can be reviewed as heuristical input
they are available in english spanish french


  • disco-FS-simple-ES.png

(earlier inputs with diagrams and tables were directed to  fsmet team, and can be used for more detailed discussion as mentionned below)
Herebelow  in blue are comment to team earlier messag 

Kiosk presenting team


Fsmet Team to  fsmet demo kiosk presenting team

1/ We see what you are trying to do... it's a huge work and right now we don't have the capacity to "absorb" all the suggestions and implications.  We have gone through some of your documentation but it's... too much for us to follow right now!

We just want to be clear about one aspect: there is no "self-organised activity" proposed in this preparatory meeting, because this is not the Forum

This is quite clear to us

2/ And we will be working on the Forum 2020 after validating the methodological proposal(s) from the "Grupo impulsor" and the "equipo tecnico" - i.e. the convenors. 

The governance diagram is rather ambiguous as to whether fsmet  is a social forum about TE,  or  whether the team is considering a kind of "TEs parliament" deliberating on TEs contents  and common agenda in a “confluence assembly”.

So, it Is to be hoped the “disk and 6rectangles” diagrams can be considered useful inputs for discussion and for keeping a clear link with social forum accumulated experience

3/ Also, the whole idea is to get people to work together on common themes and "transformative actions", the structure will probably also be different from a traditional WSF, though of course preserving the quality and autonomy of participation.

That is the base discussion at stake:  what will be the formats of participation in fsmet, what is the format of envisioned fsmet process,  and how is implemented  the principle of an horizontal space where participants perform explicit voluntary autonomous acts of participation ( detailed in the rectangles diagram)  to pursue their participation goals . 

The “disk diagram” is providing clearcut basic answers to those questions, while the 6 rectangles is going in more detail about the functionalities to be covered in a process website)

The options with the “disk and rectangle diagram” promotion  is that  "intercommunication common spaces” instituted by the fsmet convenors/facilitating governance, and  which so far are the only visible methodological “horizon”  communicated ,are a useful tool, inside the generic description of social forum and they are included as element2 in the two diagrams)

However this positive assessment is holding  as long as : 

1/ They  remain “spaces” and are not presented as “assemblies” deliberating in the name of the fsmet forum.  or in the name of sub forums /confluences

2/ They are presented and facilitated as optional useful catalyzing articulation dialogue spaces that may lead to triggering among participants a diversity of articulation shown through self-organized activities and initiatives, which remain the base of the process, ( note:  the passage  of participants through those intercommunication spaces  is not  a compulsory step to be participating in the process)

Along those lines 1 and 2, there is a lot to explore about the overall monitoring and  somehow self-organized facilitation of such intercommunication spaces by participants present in them ( and not representatives of others absent), along guidelines agreed in the facilitation instance of the process


4/ In the fsmet team, we also haven't decided yet if Decidim will be the only tool to be used, but we want to keep it simple and usable, as well as coherent with the methodology of the process.  

It looks so far that the fsmet team has focused on “intercommunication spaces” included as element 2 in the disk and  6 rectangles diagrams

The team seem to has overlooked so far, or kept implicit to lay fsmet participants, the elements  of participation 1 4 5 6 of the diagrams,   and also has  kept the scope of facilitation (element 3) implicit

The issue of the formats of participation is not raised clearly in fsmet19 documentation, and the notion of “governance” is not helping to clarify facilitation /participation distinction issues,which are crucial in a social forum


5/ So... this ( formats of participation)  is something we need to discuss and keep open until we have a clearer idea of the "how we will work" during 2019, and how we will co-construct the Forum itself.

Well that is where the table and diagrams sent earlier to the team can be relevant elements in a discussion in/with the fsmet team about how the fsmet social forum process will be formalized and implemented


6/ We're working with different groups - different working "cultures" and levels of engagement - and this morning we've discussed the proposal of the facilitators.  The "chronogram" of fsmet19 encounter is pretty much fixed and made in order to allow also for informal exchanges among participants (that's totally self-organised... on the spot!)

A generic social forum understanding, put in graphic format, on the “disk and rectangles” diagram can be “presented” in face to face conversation in BCN19 encounter to participants from those different cultures, as in input for reflexion  on fsmet process , with  a concrete possibility of simulation, using the demo fsmet kiosk website.


7/ Your examples are useful to understand the proportions among different kind of interactions and some suggestions could be taken into account (eg. moving some discussion on governance / process to day 2).( see the E part of the BCNevent notes

Good  to read. The concern is that  “content discussion” in intercommunication spaces and  “fsmet facilitation discussion and decisions” get distinguished and balanced in time during this fsmet19 encounter.

Another concern  is  that there be no ambiguity about the fact that "confluence assemby" is not deliberating about contents " in the name of fsmet participants",  so that there is not a risk to have later a general “confluence assembly” later on  deliberating about contents such as a common ET agenda – and that is where the governance diagram is very ambiguous, to say the least


8/ Your Kiosk proposal could maybe be presented during the working groups sessions (also on the third day, as part of discussion about territorial convergences).  And we need to discuss how it would complement the common platform(s) we're already proposing to use online.

Kiosk presenting team is available to comment during fsmet19 event on the FSMET demo Quiosk purpose and usage,  it is our belief that this can be heuristically relevant  in a collective reflection about fsmet as social forum

The kiosk intends to implement the  “disk and rectangle” vision, so this covers the whole process and not just the territorial confluences, so some functionalities could be taken on board a central website

Activities and initiatives organized and promoted by translocal, transversal articulations are especially relevant to fuel general dynamics inside the fsmet wsfte process , and they cannot be substituted by discussions in common intercommunication  spaces.These may trigger articulation and decision to engage among some participants, but cannot provide them ownership of their decision

Anyway, thanks again for the enormous work done... !

Thanks to the fsmet team  for committing to facilitate a social process, and giving us the opportunity for mutual challenge  between  a "generic social forum process vision" and  the current fsmet19 stage documentation + decidim package