European Social Forum (ESF) 2004 that ended yesterday in London was marked this year by opaque, manipulative decisions making with deliberate limitations on participation. Or in short, it was opposite of kind of politics that open-org projects stands for.

Tina Becker from CPGB and Workers Weekly posted to esf-uk-info mail list[1] link to her article[2] where manipulation is explained, step by step:

Livingstone's adviser on transport (and a leading member of Socialist
Action) insisted right from the start of the meeting that the whole
list should "only be discussed as a whole" and argued against going
through it one by one. He also proposed (successfully) that a further
meeting should be called for September 30 to discuss the list
again. In the meantime, some more mysterious 'consultation' would be
going on.

The real reason for comrade "Neill's suggestion was quite obviously
the make-up of the meeting: for some reason, the SWP only managed to
bring a handful of their members to the 50-strong gathering. Socialist
Action and GLA-sponsored groups brought another 15 or so - and the
rest was made up of members of the "democratic opposition" (basically
anybody who is not in the orbit of either SA or the SWP). The SWP's
Chris Nineham - always far more blatant than comrade O'Neill -
suggested that "at the next meeting, we should come to decisions with
indicative voting".

Undoubtedly, he will be making sure that enough of his comrades show
up on that occasion.

Incidentally, as of the evening of September 28, the September 30
meeting has still not been advertised on the ESF website or by
mailshot: quite obviously, the "consultation" is only supposed to
involve groups and individuals who are 'on message'. No doubt, the
list of potential chairs that will be presented to this meeting will
be pretty identical to the first one.

Dissatisfaction with ESF 2004 organizing processes was widespread. Statement of Horizontals[3] ends with:

We believe strongly that the European Social Forum can and should be an
inspiring event [...] we must take responsibility for establishing it in
the way in which we organise and the ways in which we treat each other.
Only a democratic, open and transparent process will achieve that.

Some of changes has already been suggested and documented minutes[4] posted by Lara Sullivan, following were principles put forward for more democracy:

these 'principles of democracy' are:
1. affiliation of individuals (max £5)
2. working groups freely organised
3. individuals working in the process must participate in the 
decision-making process
4. meetings around the UK and around the EU the timetable has to be 
accessible to the majority
5. transparency: sending meetings to all lists and web
6. rotation of facilitators
7. uk assembly/organising committee as the place where decisions are taken 
and individuals as organisations have equal voice in the process
8. no more meeting in GLA
9. prioritizing spaces for worskhops and seminars at the heart of the esf
10. fees are too high! 

From the knowledge we built through open-org work, we can say that some of those are good, but not precise enough, and thus not measurable, which makes impossible, or very difficult, to implement. For example, number 5. should have specified exactly what email lists and what pages on which websites will meetings be announced on, and how long in advance. Same could have been added for meeting minutes, 2. could say not "freely" organized, but instead, transparently and accountably organized. As it was proposed, 2. allows for invisible working groups which goals could be manipulation of processes for unknown interests (that is 'freely' too), which sounds like what have happened, as described in many documents, including Tina Becker's article linked above.

further example of non-accoutable, non-transparent processes that took place during ESF 2004[5]:

Dave J: heard a rumour that the contract has been awarded
for commercial tender thus implying the official website will be up in
a few weeks. The main issue is that since the beginning of the process
there has been no discussion on the functionality of the website

[...]

Julie: there has been no specification discussed at either
the OC or CC, which directly concerns Babels because we have not been
asked or told what languages will be functional on the site. It is
particularly problematic that the website has been solely organised by
the GLA that has no pre-existing relationship with the social
movements of the ESF, this is not an issue for local government.  It
is particularly problematic that the website has been solely organised
by the GLA that has no pre-existing relationship with the social
movements of the ESF

[...]

Julie: we should look to the new WSF methodology that has been announced 
for WSF 2005[6], which puts an interactive website at the heart of the 
self-organised part of the programme. The website will facilitate the 
process of working with each other towards and after the WSF, which is 
what the process is about.

[...]

Anne McShane: The main problem with the website is like everything
else in this process, it's the lack of accountability and transparency
we don't know what is going on. We need a full report posted on lists
and websites to see the situation, and thus create a context in which
other suggestions can make sense.

[...]


Hannah: Agree with Hamish's proposal, but would phrase it in a more
constructive way. The key issues are transparency and accountability.

"A Process not an Event": http://www.esf-democracy.org/index.php?practical_information

pre Berlin meeting warning from Italians, with such a lovely words of incouragement for transparency and thus accountability like: "Dear comrades and friends, first of all, we would like to say that we are sorry about the fact that an internal report became public. We wrote our report exclusively for the Italian working group preparing for the European Social Forum. We apologise for the incident and for the discussion that it gave rise to." http://www.esf-democracy.org/index.php?id=10,68,0,0,1,0

report from ESF 2004 Berlin peace-making meeting
http://www.esf-democracy.org/index.php?id=10,70,0,0,1,0

"'Scapegoats and witch-hunts'": http://www.esf-democracy.org/index.php?id=10,80,0,0,1,0

"As the meeting went on, it became ever more obvious that SWP-SA comrades had come with a fixed agenda. They have used some kind of real, last-minute budgetary hiccup to attack all those calling for more openness and transparency in the ESF - including in financial matters."

"Javier Ruiz (Indymedia) called the meeting 'a farce that has obviously been pre-arranged to stop us from talking openly and properly about finances'. He urged the SWP-SA to produce a proper budget and accounts - reminding them that it was precisely this lack of financial and organisational transparency that has stopped most of the NGOs from affiliating to the process."[1]

"Whose ESF is it?" and "Rewards for Ken's cronies" are a telling read. Activist volunteers and Socialist Alliance £100 000 a year proffesionals

'An abject surrender to the right': criticism of Tina Becker and Workers weekly role, note on surrender of SWP, on Ken Livingstone and his SA power, on lack of alternative from 'democratic opposition': http://www.esf-democracy.org/index.php?id=10,98,0,0,1,0

Looking back at WSF, it seems that what happened in ESF 2004 in London is continuation of the process that WSF founders, Workers Party (PT) of Brazil, have started http://www.nycsocialforum.org/articles/critique1.html "one anarchist spokesperson remarked "with all of the rhetoric that has gone around, we thought the WSF was going to be an open event, but then when we attempted to get involved and take part it was made clear to us that we would be given no decision making power at all...we were given menial tasks and were excluded from the actual planning and execution of the event" - this sounds more/less like what is in all links here about ESF 2004 process. or "six individuals took important decisions about the ESF's structure, ultimately deciding who spoke in Florence, at what time, and on what subject" - if true, how bad is this? diaster, i would say. in that sense, ESF 2004 was an improvement, or an ilussion of it (i had the impression that decisions where not made, but purely executed, in "open", official ESF organizing commettee meetings). further in same text:

"Not surprisingly, the involvement of establishment, hierarchical, organisations and parties led to bureaucratic control over the proceedings, disliked by many participants - mirroring the experiences of some activists at the WSF. Boris Kagarlitsky claims that organisational difficulties - quite impossible to avoid considering the numbers that turned up - would have been minor annoyances if the organisational muddle had been redeemed by interesting or substantial discussion. In fact, he claims that discussion at the forum never happened and that people who gathered in Florence to talk about the prospects for the movement found that they had come to a three-day rally instead."

"The fact that 60,000 people turned up to the forum rather than join a political party or meet their parliamentary representative show that the movement has grown out of a recognition of the fallacy of parliamentary democracy and liberal reform. "

massimo de angelis, organizer of Life Despite Capitalism event at Beyonf ESF 2004, wrote what is most encouraging text of all: http://www.commoner.org.uk/tinavstama.htm "The London ESF process has been a complex and painful one. It has also, however, been a uniquely public one within the WSF process internationally. It has required the horizontals to not so much denounce the verticals as to discover themselves and develop a manner of operating that was more in accord with the principles of the WSF."

[1] http://lists.mobilise.org.uk/wws/arc/esf-uk-info/2004-10/msg00000.html

[2] http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/546/esf.htm

[3] http://esf2004.net/en/tiki-index.php?page=HorizontalsStatement

[4] http://esf2004.net/en/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=10

[5] http://esf2004.net/en/tiki-index.php?page=Minutes+of+Babels-initiated+preparatory+Meeting+for+Berlin

[6] http://www.esf-democracy.org/index.php?id=21,47,0,0,1,0