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

[Kivuva]

On 31 October 2013 18:44, Anja Kovacs <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).
>
>
+1
In many regions of the Global South, FoE is suppressed, and CS activists
endanger their liberty in expressing themselves openly.

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.
> 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/f9776810/attachment.htm>