OpenOrg Practices in the European Social Forum 2002

In 2002, ToniPrug and BenjaminGeer set up mailing lists and a Wiki for the English Mobilisation for the European Social Forum (MESF), a project involving a variety of organizations and individuals, many of them working together for the first time. We didn't explain anything to them about processes for using these tools, but they used them heavily, in a way that's roughly in the spirit of OpenOrg.

• History of the project

A participant's view (related by BenjaminGeer):

Naima Bouteldja, who did a lot of work in the English Mobilisation for the European Social Forum (MESF) in the past year, called me today to say that she thought the Wiki that Toni and I had set up for the MESF had been a great tool for building transparency, but that they could have done a lot more with it. She feels that OpenOrg processes should be used in the ESF overall, and that every participating country should have a similar Wiki, and wondered if we could help with the IT infrastructure and coordination. (archive link)

BenjaminGeer's analysis:

In the MESF, there was a rough balance of power at the outset. There were essentially three categories of participants, all of whom distrusted one another:

1. The heavyweights (SWP and GR), who had the strength of numbers and resources. They were desperate to build a broad coalition that would attract the general public. They therefore had the most to gain from a successful cooperation, and the most to lose if it fell apart.
2. The key minority players (the NGOs and trade union representatives), whose contribution was smaller, but whose participation was seen as essential by all, because they could help attract that broader public. Crucially, they were less committed to the ESF than the others, and were prepared to walk out if their needs were not met.
3. The less powerful minority participants (the smaller activist groups). They lacked power because they could contribute neither resources, nor the hope of getting different sorts of people involved (since they were too little-known, and most of them were too ideologically close to their heavyweight rivals).

Because of these power relations, it was vital for the heavyweights to maintain their credibility, by showing that they were willing to compromise, and that they weren't trying to dominate the proceedings. The less powerful minority saw that they could play a more important role by insisting on open debate, and by complaining loudly if something seemed to be handled improperly. In that context, the transparency provided by the Wiki and the mailing lists was seen by all as highly desirable. It reduced the chance of misunderstandings, and helped everyone to demonstrate that they were participating responsibly. (archive link)