-
Sorry for the delay. We can now begin the discussion.
Attachments
-
Hi all, [I didn't introduce myself yet to this list, so let's do it: I'm Jasper Teunissen and I was involved in the Global Square initiative at WSF2013 and WSF2015, wrote my thesis about the WSF (human geography, 2006, in dutch). I'm also active in a local social forum (Nijmegen) and participate in various grassroots struggles. I'm here as an obeserver, but I guess I can take the freedom to share my observations with you?!] I find the questions quite suggestive and rethorical, reflecting a very specific desired outcome, which is in my opinion not helping an open, inclusive and fruitful debate. So here are some first short comments on the questions. I'm sorry it's in english only. greetings jasper /1. Questions to be answered:// // //- Existence of the IC: has the IC to be maintained? Can it possibly be replaced by another kind of (representative/facilitating?) body?// // /I think the main reason for the ongoing impasse of this discussion is that 99% of the participants of the WSF events do not even know about the existence of the IC, since its meetings and communications are not public and separated (in time and space) from the many other realities of the WSF. That's why the same people make the same complaints about participation, commitment and functioning forever. And thus change will never come, and even if it comes, noone will notice!/ //- Composition of the IC:// // //o In the questionnaire of last year, most members said they want the IC to expand, but how?// // //§ With the ‘new’ social movements, if they want to come?// /Let's ask: Why are 'new social movements' not willing or capable to join the current organisational structures of the WSF?/ // //§ Have members to be categorized: active/associate/observers?// // /In any longterm activist initiative I've been involved in I have seen the possibility to step up and step down according to ones capacities as an important condition for continuity, any pre-established categorisation of roles could be disencouraging to add to the dynamic./ //// // //- Functioning of the IC:// // //o Should we abandon the ‘horizontalism’ for a more structural way of decision-making?// /This formulation suggests 'horizontalism' is in opposition to a 'more structural way of decision-making'. I don't think this is a fair representation. The best method of decision-making is circumstancial and depends on the types of decisions that have to be made. If, for example, a task for the IC is to facilitate the decision-making on the date and location of the next WSF, I recommend a model that builds the widest range of support around the best option without dismissing the other options. For the record: I've observed several recent IC meetings and none of those came close to any methodology of horizontality, so calling the current practices of the IC horizontal only adds to the ridiculasation of the term/. /I'm not an ideological horizontalist, I just think that a diversity of methodologies is possible and essential for the evolution of movements.//The WSF reflects that essence and should continue to do so./ // //o Do we need a clearer structure so as to enhance transparency and accountability?// /This suggests that a "clearer structure" will automagically "enhance transparency and accountability", while I think it's the other way around: operating according to shared principles such as transparency and accountability will result in a structure that is more clear to everybody! / // //o Do we need a new version of the ‘liaison group’ for practical tasks, avoiding the shortcomings of the previous one?// // /If there is the need to form working groups, including a liaison group, they will rise. The question is who defines these needs, just the IC itself or all the organisers and participants of WSF events and processes? At the moment our group named TransitionCI WG is the only WSF working group I know about, the rest is inactive or invisible to me. / // //- Objective and strategy of the IC (and here, also of WSF):// // //o can we clearly word what our concrete objective is (beyond ‘surpassing capitalism/neoliberalism’ and, for the IC ‘facilitating’ the WSF)?// /For the WSF: replace capitalism/neoliberalism by relationships based on equal/just/fair distribution of powers, knowledges and wealth. In my view, within the WSF capitalism and neoliberalism are clearly not marginalized, but just marginally replaced by alternatives./ /For the IC: facilitating is just fine to me/. /Good facilitation of a process is an art. I have seen amazing facilitators at work in very small workshops at WSF events, they should be in the IC! Supporting and promoting the events, decide the date and location of the next WSF, evaluating the events, resolving conflicts - that is already an enormous task. / //o Can we discuss a strategy if we are not clear on our objectives? We should remember our year long discussions on space and/or movement and/or action. /Leave the decisions on the actions to those who are going to do it. The IC should just stick to its simple objectives: provide continuity and (critically) support all initiatives of WSF event organisers and participants. My strategical priorities would be very practical: 1) put time, energy and resources in the organizing process of the WSF in Montreal (and all other planned WSF events in the coming years) 2) finally create a good functioning global website for the WSF 3) already start to investigate where and when the WSF can be located after Montreal, so the fire can be handed over properly./ //// //o Can the IC be/become a kind of ‘governance’ (sorry for the word, we found no better one) body for the WSF, with clearly attributed responsibilities and accountability?// // /Oh please, I have a better one. The IC should no longer consider itself the head of the WSF. It has been long enough now that the IC functioned like the ass of the WSF, an ass stupid enough to think it was the brain of the same body. It's time for the IC to stick to its task and become the feet of the WSF. Bare feet. And just walk where the heart of the WSF wants you to bring it. / //- How to re-politicize the IC?// /I think the statement that the IC has to be 'repoliticized' is very tricky, because it really depends on what we mean by politics. As the Charter of Principles says, the WSF should "not constitute a locus of power to be disputed by the participants in its meetings" (rule nr 6), but it should be empowering struggles around the world which are of course political struggles... /o Should we abandon the non-directive characteristic of the IC?// / No/./ I mean, has the non-directive characteristic of the IC ever been embraced?/ //o Can we organize more and deeper political debates on the world situation (as demanded by majority of members in questionnaire last year)// /The so-called political analysis of the world situation and all the strategizing should be done by all the participants of the forum, and not be limited to the small and exclusive circle of the IC.//So this is clearly not a task of the IC. The IC should not speak, but listen./ // o Should the Charter of Principles be changed?// // / Yes, if there is a need to change it. I have some suggestions, but I can elaborate on that later./ // //- Should the solidarity fund be re-instated in order to guarantee the presence of movements that otherwise cannot attend?// /Yes, as long as it's transparent who gets what and who is making that decision./ // //o Should IC-members pay a fee?// // /Yes, but on a voluntary basis./ / Francine Mestrum schreef op 18-5-2015 om 21:16: > > Sorry for the delay. We can now begin the discussion. > > > > -- > Archive: http://openfsm.net/[…]/1431977760562 > <http://openfsm.net/projects/transitionci/lists/transitionci-discussion/archive/2015/05/1431977760562> > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to > transitionci-discussion@... > <mailto:transitionci-discussion@...>. Please contact > transitionci-discussion-manager@... > <mailto:transitionci-discussion-manager@...> for questions.
-
Dear IC Transition Work Group, As mentioned in my message a few moments ago, I found the questions sent by Jasper quite interesting. I apologize for my part that I have not found time to respond properly. Now a couple of quick reflections on just a couple of Jasper's comments (that were a comment on the document on the future of the IC): I believe the first of Jasper's comments is very important, also because it would not be so difficult to do something about it. As to what I have observed Pierre George and others have actually already made many improvements on our communication, but much remains to be done: > /I think the main reason for the ongoing impasse of this discussion > is that 99% of the participants of the WSF events do not even know > about the existence of the IC, since its meetings and communications > are not public and separated (in time and space) from the many other > realities of the WSF. That's why the same people make the same > complaints about participation, commitment and functioning forever. > And thus change will never come, and even if it comes, noone will > notice!/ - This question is also crucial: > /Let's ask: Why are 'new social movements' not willing or capable to > join the current organisational structures of the WSF?/ One of the reasons is also related to the first observation, the lack of transparency of how the IC functions. Obviously, there are other reasons too. - On this question: > //o Do we need a clearer structure so as to enhance transparency > and accountability?// Where Jasper answers: > /This suggests that a "clearer structure" will automagically > "enhance transparency and accountability", while I think it's the > other way around: operating according to shared principles such as > transparency and accountability will result in a structure that is > more clear to everybody! / While I agree with the spirit of Jasper's comment, I also think that operating according to shared principles already demands some kind of "structure". Increased transparency, while to a magical solution to everything, is one key thing (that is not too difficult to achieve). - I think this is a good summeray of some of the key tasks for the IC: > /For the IC: facilitating is just fine to me/. /Good facilitation of > a process is an art. I have seen amazing facilitators at work in > very small workshops at WSF events, they should be in the IC! > Supporting and promoting the events, decide the date and location of > the next WSF, evaluating the events, resolving conflicts - that is > already an enormous task. - And I think this following point made by Jasper is very important. Also, my feeling has been for a long time that in the IC meetings there is too much discussion on overall world situation (I know some think otherwise). We should really focus on getting the organizational tasks done so that important debates on the future of the world and movement strategies can take place in the WSF itself. Obviously, some conversation on the strategical questions is important, but it should be more clearly connected to our tasks as IC, rather than having long presentations on what happens in the world. Creating good website is also crucial. We could and should also find ways for the WSF process to be more effective in social media (Facebook, Twotter etc). > /Leave the decisions on the actions to those who are going to do it. > The IC should just stick to its simple objectives: provide > continuity and (critically) support all initiatives of WSF event > organisers and participants. My strategical priorities would be very > practical: 1) put time, energy and resources in the organizing > process of the WSF in Montreal (and all other planned WSF events in > the coming years) 2) finally create a good functioning global > website for the WSF 3) already start to investigate where and when > the WSF can be located after Montreal, so the fire can be handed > over properly./ - This following here is a good point. The obvious question, however, is who would be the interpreter of the "heart". If the WSF cannot really speak, has no channels of representative expression, how do we (as IC) know where it should go? It's time for the IC to stick to its > task and become the feet of the WSF. Bare feet. And just walk where > the heart of the WSF wants you to bring it. / - Ah, here comes the point I was already making above. Let me, however, quote Jasper here again: > //o Can we organize more and deeper political debates on the world > situation (as demanded by majority of members in questionnaire last > year)// > > /The so-called political analysis of the world situation and all the > strategizing should be done by all the participants of the forum, > and not be limited to the small and exclusive circle of the IC.//So > this is clearly not a task of the IC. The IC should not speak, but > listen./ - I would be curious to hear what suggestions for change of the Charter you might have: > o Should the Charter of Principles be changed?// > // > / Yes, if there is a need to change it. I have some suggestions, but > I can elaborate on that later./ - Best, Teivo (NIGD) -- Dr. Teivo Teivainen Professor of World Politics Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies Fabianinkatu 24, POB 4 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland * twitter: @TeivoTeivainen * e-mail: teivo.teivainen@... * blogs: www.teivo.net, http://blogs.helsinki.fi/teivaine/ * direct phone: +358-50-3505120
-
Dear All, For the discussions on the future of the WSF and its International Council, let me share with you PDF of an article of mine. The article, published in a Cambridge book, is already from a couple of years ago, but I made the scanned copy only now. It discusses the “leaderless” nature of the WSF, its prefigurative and strategic dimensions, the open space question, relationship with capitalism and what I call “enlightened tyranny of structurelessness” (an allusion to older feminist debates) in the WSF. All comments are of course welcome. Best, Teivo Quoting teivo.teivainen@...: > Dear IC Transition Work Group, > > As mentioned in my message a few moments ago, I found the questions > sent by Jasper quite interesting. I apologize for my part that I > have not found time to respond properly. > > Now a couple of quick reflections on just a couple of Jasper's > comments (that were a comment on the document on the future of the > IC): > > > I believe the first of Jasper's comments is very important, also > because it would not be so difficult to do something about it. As to > what I have observed Pierre George and others have actually already > made many improvements on our communication, but much remains to be > done: > >> /I think the main reason for the ongoing impasse of this discussion >> is that 99% of the participants of the WSF events do not even know >> about the existence of the IC, since its meetings and >> communications are not public and separated (in time and space) >> from the many other realities of the WSF. That's why the same >> people make the same complaints about participation, commitment and >> functioning forever. And thus change will never come, and even if >> it comes, noone will notice!/ > > - > This question is also crucial: > >> /Let's ask: Why are 'new social movements' not willing or capable >> to join the current organisational structures of the WSF?/ > > One of the reasons is also related to the first observation, the > lack of transparency of how the IC functions. Obviously, there are > other reasons too. > > - > > On this question: >> //o Do we need a clearer structure so as to enhance transparency >> and accountability?// > > Where Jasper answers: >> /This suggests that a "clearer structure" will automagically >> "enhance transparency and accountability", while I think it's the >> other way around: operating according to shared principles such as >> transparency and accountability will result in a structure that is >> more clear to everybody! / > > While I agree with the spirit of Jasper's comment, I also think that > operating according to shared principles already demands some kind > of "structure". Increased transparency, while to a magical solution > to everything, is one key thing (that is not too difficult to > achieve). > > - > > I think this is a good summeray of some of the key tasks for the IC: > >> /For the IC: facilitating is just fine to me/. /Good facilitation >> of a process is an art. I have seen amazing facilitators at work in >> very small workshops at WSF events, they should be in the IC! >> Supporting and promoting the events, decide the date and location >> of the next WSF, evaluating the events, resolving conflicts - that >> is already an enormous task. > > - > > And I think this following point made by Jasper is very important. > Also, my feeling has been for a long time that in the IC meetings > there is too much discussion on overall world situation (I know some > think otherwise). We should really focus on getting the > organizational tasks done so that important debates on the future of > the world and movement strategies can take place in the WSF itself. > > Obviously, some conversation on the strategical questions is > important, but it should be more clearly connected to our tasks as > IC, rather than having long presentations on what happens in the > world. > > Creating good website is also crucial. > > We could and should also find ways for the WSF process to be more > effective in social media (Facebook, Twotter etc). > > >> /Leave the decisions on the actions to those who are going to do >> it. The IC should just stick to its simple objectives: provide >> continuity and (critically) support all initiatives of WSF event >> organisers and participants. My strategical priorities would be >> very practical: 1) put time, energy and resources in the organizing >> process of the WSF in Montreal (and all other planned WSF events in >> the coming years) 2) finally create a good functioning global >> website for the WSF 3) already start to investigate where and when >> the WSF can be located after Montreal, so the fire can be handed >> over properly./ > > > - > > This following here is a good point. The obvious question, however, > is who would be the interpreter of the "heart". If the WSF cannot > really speak, has no channels of representative expression, how do > we (as IC) know where it should go? > > It's time for the IC to stick to its >> task and become the feet of the WSF. Bare feet. And just walk where >> the heart of the WSF wants you to bring it. / > > - > > Ah, here comes the point I was already making above. Let me, > however, quote Jasper here again: > > >> //o Can we organize more and deeper political debates on the >> world situation (as demanded by majority of members in >> questionnaire last year)// >> >> /The so-called political analysis of the world situation and all >> the strategizing should be done by all the participants of the >> forum, and not be limited to the small and exclusive circle of the >> IC.//So this is clearly not a task of the IC. The IC should not >> speak, but listen./ > > > - > > I would be curious to hear what suggestions for change of the > Charter you might have: > > >> o Should the Charter of Principles be changed?// >> // >> / Yes, if there is a need to change it. I have some suggestions, >> but I can elaborate on that later./ > > - > > > Best, > > Teivo (NIGD) > -- > Dr. Teivo Teivainen > > Professor of World Politics > Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies > Fabianinkatu 24, POB 4 > 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland > > * twitter: @TeivoTeivainen > * e-mail: teivo.teivainen@... > * blogs: www.teivo.net, http://blogs.helsinki.fi/teivaine/ > > * direct phone: +358-50-3505120 > > > > > -- > Archive: > http://openfsm.net/projects/transitionci/lists/transitionci-discussion/archive/2015/06/1433516500309 > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to > transitionci-discussion@.... Please contact > transitionci-discussion-manager@... for questions. -- Dr. Teivo Teivainen Professor of World Politics Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies Fabianinkatu 24, POB 4 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland * twitter: @TeivoTeivainen * e-mail: teivo.teivainen@... * blogs: www.teivo.net, http://blogs.helsinki.fi/teivaine/ * direct phone: +358-50-3505120
-
-