process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all

[Andrew Puddephatt]

+1

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Gene Kimmelman
Sent: 31 October 2013 16:01
To: Anja Kovacs
Cc: John Curran; Jeremy Malcolm; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all

+1

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in<mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>> wrote:
Dear all,
I have been in favour of keeping some discussions closed, at least in the early stages, for quite a while, and have been so for the reasons John and Kivuva point out: other stakeholder groups do so all the time, and a strategic argument to keep parts of a conversation limited to a smaller group does not mean that conversation cannot be reported back on to a larger group. As long as the latter happens, need more closed conversations really be a problem?
As again confirmed during the Best Bits meeting, two specific characteristics of Best Bits as a network are that it is action-oriented and that it seeks to bridge the differences and disagreements between the Global South and North.
To my mind, the strategy of being transparent at all times is one of the main reasons why action is often inhibited and civil society is often less effective than it could be. This is not only because we put all our cards on the table all the time - something which puts other stakeholders at an advantage. It is also because fully open lists do not encourage sharing certain kinds of information and ideas that could actually help to massively improve effectiveness of civil society action (and as is the case so often, perhaps Global South civil society is perhaps more vulnerable here than Global North civil society).

In fact, if Best Bits has been working, it is because so much is actually done by small groups of people who want to do something, trust each other, start coordinating, and then bring their ideas, once crystallised, to the main list (what are now called "fluid working groups" in BB lingo ;)

If we ignore this reality, this will only be at our own peril.

I don't see transparency as an end in itself, but is a means to an end, which is the creation of a level playing field. Because of power differentials, different stakeholder groups are differently placed in this field, and whatever strategies we decide on should keep this in mind. The redistribution of power should drive our actions, not transparency as such.
Thanks and best regards,
Anja

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131031/a05c8ad7/attachment.htm>