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

Thu Oct 31 13:30:44 EDT 2013

+1 on Andrew regarding my understanding of Best Bits

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Puddephatt
<Andrew at gp-digital.org>wrote:

> I think the precise position is that Best Bits is a platform that enables
> action/collaboration.  As a platform it therefore does not sign letters  in
> its own right – a letter goes from the organisations willing to sign it
> directly not BB itself.  It’s an important distinction and one we need to
> be careful about. ****
>
> ** **
>
> *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:* ebertoni65 at gmail.com [mailto:ebertoni65 at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Eduardo
> Bertoni
> *Sent:* 31 October 2013 16:32
>
> *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****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear all,****
>
> ** **
>
> I jump (late) to this debate. My reaction is, perhaps, more related to the
> core of BestBits. Something that I asked in Bali, and frankly, I didn´t get
> any answer. For me the core question is about what BestBits is. Is it a
> platform, that NGOs and other could use for debate and at some point use
> the technological platform to work on letters or statements? Is it a
> network, from where ALL the participants have a voice, have the chance to
> open deliberations, and at the end, reach to decisions to execute some
> concrete actions ON BEHALF of the network, meaning ALL the organizations?
> Is it a network where decisions are delegated to some groups? ****
>
> ** **
>
> I was very concern with the language used in the past to present, for
> example, the last letters or statements. Concrete example: I heard that the
> letter to the President of Brazil was a letter coming from BestBits. Well,
> I didn´t signed the letter and I think that I participate in Best Bits. In
> fact was a letter signed by a group of people or organizations, not BY Best
> Bits. Am I wrong?****
>
> ** **
>
> Maybe I am introducing a philosophical discussion, maybe is something
> already discussed that I don´t know, maybe some people use the word
> platform and network as synonymous. What I strongly believe is this: if it
> is not clear what BestBits is and how takes decisions, we will have a never
> end discussion.****
>
> ** **
>
> Best****
>
> ** **
>
> Eduardo****
>
>
> ****
>
> Eduardo****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:44 PM, 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).
>
> 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****
>
> ** **
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131031/3fd459ff/attachment.htm>