provisional RECORD 

Forum for the Cross-evaluation of 
Proposals for a Responsible, United and 
Plural World

provisional RECOrD 
Forum for the Cross-evaluation of Proposals for a Responsible, United and Plural World

 INDEX  
 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................	03	
1. participants		
	1.1 PROFILE OF THE participants...........................................………….....	06	
	1.2 countries of origin of the people registered............……….........	11	
	1.3 contributions....................................................………………………......	11	
		1.3.1 Table of Contributions to each Text  .......................................	12	
	1.4 e-mails received...........................………………………………………………….....	13	
2. texts.........................................................................…............................		
	2.1 PUBLICATION of the texts.............................................................	14	
	2.2 texts which have awoken greatest interest……….......................	15	
		2.2.1 Evaluation of Expectation.…........................…….......................	15	
		2.2.2 Most Favourably Evaluated Texts According to the Expectation of 		Evaluation....................................................…..........................….	
17	
		2.2.3 Most Favourably Evaluated Texts According to the Evaluations 		Received....................................................…..........................…….	
18	
		2.2.4 Comparative Graphic..................…………………….........................	19	
	2.3 CriTERIA FOR THE SYNTHESIS................…………………..........................	19	
3. cOSTS OF THE FORUM  ....................................…………………….........................	23	
4. WORK INVOLVED IN CREATING THE FORUM  ......……………................................	23	

INTRODUctioN

Before summer 2002, the team of Nova, Barcelona Centre for Social Innovation, presented the Call for FPH Initiatives with the proposal to undertake a collective process of reading and cross-evaluation of the “Proposal Papers” and the “Breakthroughs” published in 2001 in order to consensually produce a synthesis. The knowledge and evaluation of the proposals undertaken to date by the Allies would be fundamental for the new stage and for introducing it to other alliances and forums such as the Social Forums –World and European– or that of Barcelona 2004.

To provide around 3,000 Allies with the reading and evaluation of some 60 texts, with more than 1,000 proposals on the most varied issues, in 5 languages and at a low cost, a fairly unusual system of forums via Internet was necessary. We suggested testing the “Delibera®” system so that the Allies could participate in this process through their evaluations, comments and contributions.

In October 2002, we started the weekly publication of a Proposal Text, presented in the format of a “Delibera Questionnaire” available on the website or by e-mail and in 5 languages.

The project sought to evaluate the proposals of almost 60 texts published on the website of the Alliance (“Papers” and “Breakthroughs”) in order to move towards a synthesis based on these evaluations. After 9 months and 35 texts submitted for evaluation, the FPH asked us to stop in order to undertake an evaluation of the forum and a provisional synthesis with the evaluations of the texts published between October 2002 and July 2003.

The 22 texts that remain to be evaluated, and which we hope we can process in the near future, are the following:

4 Papers of the Humanity and Biosphere Pole 
Energy – Time and Sustainable Development – Soil Reform – Forests.

9 Papers of the Governance and Citizenship Pole 
Social Leaders in the 21st Century: Challenges and Proposals – The Military – Arms Industry Conversion – Local Authorities – Fisherfolk – Farmers – Governance: Common Principles – Rights and Governance – Urban Violence.

4 Papers of the Socio-Economy of Solidarity Pole
International Trade – Trade Union Movement – Health – Tourism.

5 Papers of the Values, Culture, Art, Education and Society Pole  
New Information and Communication Technologies – Humanity – Women – Inter-religious – Media/Journalists.

There also remained 2 “Breakthroughs” without Paper:
On Business Leaders and Executives about the Practice of Company Responsibilities – On Responsible Shareholders 

Next we present the provisional record with the data on participation and the publication of texts.

It has been a pleasure to participate in this methodological adventure to promote and facilitate the evaluation of the Alliance proposals and especially if the results enable its members in this new stage and enrich other fields such as the Social Forums.  

We are convinced that one of the factors for the non participation of many of the “historical” Allies, heads of workshops, writers of “Papers” and members of the FPH, among others, has been the lack of motivation due both to the sabbatical year of the FPH and the lack of perspectives of the Alliance. A participatory process of these characteristics, with such complexity, richness and innovation –both in contents and in methodology– needs important incentives for it to be appropriate to those potentially interested. An incentive could have been for the results to have been presented in a determined area (e.g., the World Social Forum) and for those who had the greatest and best participation to have had the opportunity to meet in order to perfect and present a final synthesis.

Another challenge arising from this forum –and which could be another incentive for participation– is that of the collective production of alternative world models to globalisation. For the first time, a reflection process has been introduced into the Alliance on the possible and necessary articulation of proposals which until now were only thematic or sectorial.

As we have announced, before continuing with the process of evaluation and synthesis, the FPH considers it necessary to evaluate the process undertaken until now. We need to know your opinion about the evaluation and synthesis process of the proposals through the “Delibera” system. To this end, we have created a new multilingual forum http://evalua.delibera.info/gb/ with 3 questionnaires in which you can state your view on this first evaluation stage. Please express your opinion before 20th October 2003.

Thank you for your participation.

Team for the promotion of the Forum: 
Nova, Centre for Social Innovation 
http://www.novacis.org   http://www.delibera.info 

Barcelona, October 2003

provisional record
forum of cross-evaluation of proposals for a responsible, united and plural world

1. Participants

From the end of October 2002 to 22nd July 2003, 239 people from 40 countries all over the world registered in the Forum and 158 evaluated a text.

1.1 Profile of the participants 

Many of the people who have registered in the Forum have provided a brief personal presentation and have told the remaining participants about their field of work and shared their personal motivation. We would like to thank all those who have made it possible because this gives us a better knowledge of the profile of the participants.

As we can see in the list of thematic areas that we reproduce next, the sectors of origin and motivation of those who have participated in the Forum are many and varied, although of special note is the participation of people from associations and universities.

This diversity of participation endows the evaluation of the proposals with an intersectorial character; in their turn, the statistics show a certain relation between the evaluated texts and the area of interest of the people registered. Thus, we can affirm that we had an evaluation of thematic and sectorial dimensions. 

These are the sectors of interest and the professions of those registered that appear on the registration data:  

Agriculture.- Cultivator of medicinal plants; Sustainable agriculture; Agriculture and democracy; Head of national research laboratory on vegetal productions.

Art.- Applied arts artist; Visual artist and university art lecturer; Storyteller, Buddhist, yoga and art teacher interested in culture and therapy; Visual arts school education; Writer, composer and teacher.

FAIR TRADE.- Fair trade, head of communication of an association; Fair trade, sociologist interested in the organisation of social movements, international relations and social innovation; Fair trade shop.

CulturE.- Culture, programme co-ordinator; Culture based on humanism and solidarity; Cultureworks.

Human rights.- Defence of human rights; Human rights, jurist and advisor; Human rights; Indigenous rights; League for Rights and Liberties.

DisarmAment and peace.- Youths for a society of peace; Peace and Christianity; Peace and peaceful resolution of conflicts; Sociologist and co-ordinator of an NGO for the development of rural communities, working for disarmament, human security, salvation of lives and culture of peace.  

Development.- Human development; Work development, economist; Local development; Regional development; Development based on solidarity; Sustainable development; French Ministry of Sustainable Development; Specialist on planning of urban and regional development.

Economy.- Alternative finance; Responsible consumption; Social economy and optometrist; Economy of solidarity; Sustainable economy; Elimination of poverty; Development of small and medium sized companies; Microfinance; Inexigís credit; Microfinance, credits; Socio-economic model; Social responsibility of the economic agents; Exchange.

EducatiOn.- Advice to students, president of association; Doctor in pedagogy and animator of Time Banks; Student of international relations; Head of educational project; Poet and educator: schooling of adults; Lecturer in ecology; French teacher in the Congo; Lecturer in international organisations; Post-graduate lecturer; Lecturer in citizen education; Lecturer in chemistry and pollution issues; Sociology of education.

management.- Management advisor, nature lover; Advisor in an association; Director of an NGO; Director of a foundation; Management of projects and management of NGOs related to childhood, youth, environment and citizen participation, articulating initiatives between civil society, companies and national sector; President of NGO; President of association.

InformatiOn.- World summit on Information Society; Citizen education for the management of information; Information advisor. 

Interculturality.- Understanding and intercultural co-operation; Intercultural mediators; Sociologist interested in the organisation of social movements, intercultural relations and social innovation.

research and innovation.- Centre of initiatives and research; Social innovation, director and working team of the association; Progress and humanity.

youth and childhood.- Child support; Childhood, life and education; Poverty, youth support; Promotion, social and labour inclusion of youths; Workshops of reflection for youths.

polItical militancy.- Native Argentinean militant; Ecologist political party militant; Political party militant and economist; M.N. Peronista militant; Municipal president of the Workers’ Party.

Alternative money.- Author of the book El Futuro de la Moneda (The Future of Money); Social, economic and environmental model – parlour game; Social money and exchange; Exchange. 

PolItics.- Centre for Political Studies; Researcher on political philosophy and society issues on which he has articles published in specialist journals; Alternative policies; Social-training policies; Person responsible for programmes on social policies and environment.

health.- WHO adviser, Cairo; Public health doctor, masters in public health, co-ordinator of health area, Benin; Ministry for Health, Chile.

Civil Society and social groups.- Alliance of computer experts on the impact of computer science in society; International alliance for the strengthening of citizen action and civil society in the world; Co-ordinator of the area of “Rights and Citizenship”; Co-ordinator of the programme “Globalisation, Development and Civil Society”; Co-ordinator of united NGOs; Space for dialogue and work; Civic Citizenship Forum; Associate researcher of the Latin American Centre of Social Ecology; Member of the Blumenau Forum of Social Movements; Promotion of rural women; Relations with indigenous people; Volunteering in general; Volunteering, translation team; Latin American Confederation of Co-operatives.

SustainAbility.- Architecture and sustainability; Sustainable development, director of a centre; International sustainable future; Environmental projects: education, forests, mountains and their dwellers; Lands, agronomy engineer; Lands and societies.  

University.- Economics and Humanism Chair, head of the chair; Professor of a higher technical school of agricultural engineering; Director of biotechnology studies; Lecturer in philosophical anthropology in Uruguay; Doctor in economic science; Industrial ecology, Australian university; University specialists in studies on women, vice-president, sociologist; Student interested in sociology and economic policies; Student of economics; Research in economics and prospective; University reforms monitoring centre; Associate lecturer in research; Lecturer at the Regional University of Blumenau/SC; Lecturer in anthropological philosophy; Retired lecturer, specialist in issues of co-operation-competition, conflicts and social justice; University lecturer in rural education; Lecturer of the Graduation Programme on Social Services; Lecturer, Department of Environmental Studies; University of Macedonia; Polytechnic University of Catalonia.
 
Other fields.- World citizen; Town development adviser; Director of public institution, multiservices and lawyer; Robotic engineer, computer expert who does not forget ethics; Retired person concerned about issues such as poverty, injustice, violence, dignity; Senior citizen, Goethe Institute; Catholic missionary, economist and student of education science; Photojournalist expert in methodologies for international lectures and forums; Social worker.

1.2 countries of origin of the people registered 

Out of the 239 people registered in the Forum, 32 have not specified the country of origin. The remaining persons come from the following countries: 

France, 43; Catalonia, 21; Brazil and Spain, 20 each; Argentina, 13; Belgium, 11; Colombia, 7; Peru, 5; Benin, Cameroon, Portugal, Togo and Venezuela, 4 each; Canada, Switzerland, Uruguay and USA, 3 each; Chile, Greece, India, Italy, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico and Senegal, 2 each; and one person from each of the following countries: Germany, Australia, Bolivia, Ivory Coast, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Japan, PDR Laos, Macedonia, Morocco, Martinique, Mauritania, Moldova, New Zealand, Occitany, DR Congo, Serbia and Tanzania.

1.3 CONTRIBUTIONS 

The 158 participants have evaluated 912 texts between them, have written 1,145 comments and 83 new articles-proposals. In total, they represent 14,893 contributions to the Forum. 

Out of these 912 text evaluations, 685 have been made through the website and 227 re-sent by e-mail to the administrative team of the Forum, which has included them in the website.

Only 6 persons have evaluated the 35 texts; one person, 34; and the remaining, between 1 and 28 texts.

1.3.1 Table of Contributions to each Text:
Publication
Date 	
Text
	Evaluations
	Articles	Comments	Contributions	
25/10/2002	01 Scientists	49	4	56	795	
31/10/2002	02 Women and Economy 	53	6	48	955	
08/11/2002	03 Interculturality	39	4	63	769	
14/11/2002	04 Governance	46	5	61	986	
21/11/2002	05 Inhabitants	36	3	50	737	
28/11/2002	06 Social Money	34	1	25	536	
05/12/2002	07 Life Privatisation 	31	0	35	407	
12/12/2002	08 Sustainable Development	41	3	49	708	
19/12/2002	09 Fair Trade 	39	6	37	550	
09/01/2003	10 Ethical Consumption	33	2	50	448	
16/01/2003	11 Production, Technology	26	1	31	266	
23/01/2003	12 Economy of Solidarity	31	2	34	563	
30/01/2003	13 Debt and Adjustment 	23	3	31	425	
06/02/2003	14 Companies and Solidarity 	20	1	34	375	
12/02/2003	15 Water	25	5	26	231	
20/02/2003	16 Art	27	1	48	508	
28/02/2003	17 Soils	23	0	18	409	
06/03/2003	18 Nutrition 	20	3	33	456	
14/03/2003	19 Labour and Economic Activity 	22	2	25	269	
20/03/2003	20 Food Safety and Sovereignty and…	16	0	29	429	
27/03/2003	21 Economic Policies, Ideologies and...	21	3	22	193	
04/04/2003	22 Civil Society and GMOs	23	3	13	200	
11/04/2003	23 Proposals on Industrial Ecology 	15	1	32	348	
24/04/2003	24 Fiscal Policy and Social Welfare	17	3	20	244	
02/05/2003	25 Education	21	3	32	371	
09/05/2003	26 Citizen Education 	19	2	35	341	
16/05/2003	27 Environmental Education and Sustainability	21	2	22	213	
23/05/2003	28 Finance of Solidarity 	13	1	13	274	
30/05/2003	29 Sustainable Finance 	14	2	16	158	
05/06/2003	30 Territories	21	1	36	520	
12/06/2003	31 State and Development 	21	2	28	240	
19/06/2003	32 European Continent 	16	1	21	230	
27/06/2003	33 Precarious Situations and Social Exclu…  	14	2	24	180	
03/07/2003	34 University	20	1	27	248	
10/07/2003	35 Youths	22	4	21	311	
1.4 e-mails received

During these 9 months we have received 279 e-mails, of which we have answered 205. 

Some messages dealt with consultations on the evaluation system; others of congratulation for the idea of evaluating the Alliance’s proposals, such as “Amigos e amigas da Aliança: Muito obrigado pelas preciosas informações que nos têm enviado. Grande abraço”; or “Estimados colegas de Alliance: Agradezco sigan enviándome estos materiales del Foro, a pesar de que no he aportado mucho al mismo, les doy utilidad para mis reflexiones laborales y personales.” There were some comments on the issue of the week such as education: “De toute évidence, l'éducation est le fondement même d'une vie sociale. Les êtres humains sont, dès leur naissance, guidés par des instincts - qui sont des instincts de survivance...”; water: “Dear colleagues, Without water there is no life. Today with water address not correctly, that can result in various sorts to diseases. The illnesses can be distributed both among the people, and among an animal and flora. It means accident. It will do to humanity very dearly…”; and also on art, food security, world governance, life privatisation and territory. Some critics on the text contents: “(SUR L’ÉDUCATION) Ce texte me semble présenter un problème dans son équilibre d'ensemble, ce qui en réduit la valeur et la portée comme base d'un dialogue constructif entre les divers partenaires intéressés par ces enjeux.” There were also comments on the lack of time to evaluate the proposals despite the interest that they awaken, e-mails announcing that the addressee is temporarily absent, etc. 

2. Texts

During 9 months we have published the 35 texts in 5 languages -Spanish, Catalan, French, English and Portuguese- and at a rate of around one per week in “Delibera Questionnaires” of the corresponding “Proposal Papers” and “Breakthroughs” of the Alliance. Each week we have sent an e-mail to the 5 lists, according to language, announcing the release of a new text and enclosing the corresponding evaluation questionnaire and the “Desirable News” with those proposals that had their “News” published. 

2.1 PUBLICATION of the texts 

Some texts have been released based on the “Breakthroughs” and some others on the summaries of the “Proposal Papers” that appear on the Alliance’s website: http://www.alliance21.org/en/proposals/ We have processed a total of 521 pages of original texts, collected into 517 articles. The publication work has consisted of the reading of the texts, selection of the “Breakthroughs” or the “Papers” for the writing of the questionnaires, writing of the introductions and translations of all the texts into Catalan and the other languages in which they had not been translated in order to put the content of the original in a format suitable to be evaluated with the “Delibera” icon system:  

I agree	I half agree	I don't agree	I don't know/understand

In all cases we have respected the text written by the author (although sometimes the translation was not very intelligible), almost without modifying the original writing. Only in the cases when the summary was too long have we abridged it, trying to summarise the most significant ideas. In two cases, we have united more than one proposal in a single questionnaire, given that their contents complemented each other and allowed a joint evaluation; these are text 01, which brings together the “Breakthroughs” of the Scientists Network and the Workshop on Scientific Production, and number 20, which brings together three “Papers”: Food Security and Sovereignty, Sustainable Agriculture and WTO and Agriculture. 

In each questionnaire we have provided information on the origin of the text and the original languages in which it was written and we have included the link to the original text of the Alliance’s website in order to facilitate access to the complete proposal and the “Desirable News” if this exists. 

2.2 texts which haVE AWOKEN GREATEST INTEREST 

Given that this is a periodical publication, from the release of the first text to that of the latter 39 weeks have passed. Thus, the first text has had an evaluation period of 38.8 weeks and the latter of 1.7. We have born in mind this variable when estimating which texts have been most evaluated, together with another factor: the curve of participation increases during the first 4 weeks of the release of a text, it ascends slightly until week 20, then becomes more or less stable and grows during the ninth months coinciding with the announcement of the closing of evaluations for the first synthesis and its possible presentation to the next Social Forums.

2.2.1 Expectation of Evaluation 

Bearing in mind the evaluation behaviour of the first texts released, one obtains a curve of “expectation of percentage evaluation”. This curve has helped to undertake an approximate calculation of evaluations of each text if this had the same publication period as the first. The resulting number is called “expectation of evaluation” and we consider that those texts which have achieved the highest evaluation of this number are the most valued. 

Curve of the Expectation of Evaluation  

Values 1, 3 and 4 are the evaluation behaviour in the publication time of three texts chosen as a sample for the curve calculation.

2.2.2 Most Favourably Evaluated Texts, according to Expectation of Evaluation:
 Name of the Text 	Expectation  
of Evaluation 	
02 Women and Economy	55.14	
01 Scientists	50.84	
04 Governance	48.12	
08 Sustainable Development 	43.53	
09 Fair Trade 	41.59	
35 Youths	41.59	
03 Interculturality	40.69	
05 Inhabitants	37.78	
06 Social Money	35.82	
10 Ethical Consumption	35.58	
34 University	34.24	
12 Economy of Solidarity	33.81	
07 Privatisation of Life  	32.78	
31 State and Development 	31.21	
16 Art	30.30	
30 Territories	30.12	
11 Production, Technology	28.19	
27 Environmental Education and Sustainability 	27.90	
15 Water	27.80	
22 Civil Society and GMOs	27.59	
25 Education	26.79	
17 Soils	26.07	
19 Work and Economic Activity 	25.50	
13 Debt and Adjustment 	25.25	
21 Economic Policies, Ideologies and Geo-Cultural Dimension 	24.87	
26 Citizen Education 	24.71	
32 European Continent 	24.61	
18 Nutrition 	22.91	
33 Precarious Situations and Social Exclusion 	22.66	
14 Business and Solidarity 	22.10	
24 Fiscal Policy and Social Welfare 	21.30	
29 Sustainable Finance 	19.53	
20 Food Safety and Sovereignty and Agriculture...	18.72	
23 Proposals on Industrial Ecology 	18.25	
28 Finance of Solidarity	17.68	
2.2.3 Most Favourably Evaluated Texts, according to Evaluations Received 
 Name of Text	No. Evaluations	
02 Women and Economy	53	
01 Scientists	49	
04 Governance	46	
08 Sustainable Development 	41	
09 Fair Trade 	39	
35 Youths	39	
03 Interculturality	36	
05 Inhabitants	34	
06 Social Money	33	
10 Ethical Consumption	31	
34 University	31	
12 Economy of Solidarity	27	
07 Privatisation of Life  	26	
31 State and Development 	25	
16 Art	23	
30 Territories	23	
11 Production, Technology	23	
27 Environmental Education and Sustainability 	22	
15 Water	22	
22 Civil Society and GMOs	21	
25 Education	21	
17 Soils	21	
19 Work and Economic Activity 	21	
13 Debt and Adjustment 	21	
21 Economic Policies, Ideologies and Geo-Cultural Dimension 	20	
26 Citizen Education 	20	
32 European Continent 	20	
18 Nutrition 	19	
33 Precarious Situations and Social Exclusion 	17	
14 Business and Solidarity 	16	
24 Fiscal Policy and Social Welfare 	16	
29 Sustainable Finance 	15	
20 Food Safety and Sovereignty and Agriculture...	14	
23 Proposals on Industrial Ecology 	14	
28 Finance of Solidarity	13	
 
2.2.4 Comparative Graphic 

2.2 criteria for the synthesis 

The proposals were written in articles to facilitate a simple evaluation similar to how legislative texts are evaluated. Since the articles are conceived and written as self-sufficient elementary propositions, in terms of their content, it allows a very wide range of combinations between the articles, it being possible to obtain in each combination a new text. In this way, through the isolated evaluation of each article, we will be able, in the end, to obtain a conceptually coherent synthesis that groups the most favourably evaluated elementary proposals.

A first synthesis criterion with respect to the most favourably evaluated proposals has been the thematic grouping. In this sense, we have made 4 large thematic groups which are the Alliance’s Poles for a Plural, Responsible and United World: Humanity and Biosphere; Socio-Economy of Solidarity; Governance and Citizenship; and Values, Culture, Art, Education and Society. The synthesis allows us to obtain 4 new texts of proposals on the general problematic of each pole with a large degree of consensus on the contents. 

A second synthesis criterion has been the construction of a cross-proposal for an alternative model to neo-liberal globalisation. This has been possible based on the latter article aggregated to all the texts referring to global evaluation. Following these lists of proposals made in the comments on the latter, we have managed to extract the most favourably evaluated elementary proposals for an alternative global proposal.

On the Number of Proposals of each Synthesis 
From the point of view of the syntheses presentation, we have considered it appropriate to make texts of around 30 articles. 

Given that, for the time being, we have not managed to submit for evaluation the 57 planned texts but only 35, we are facing the problem that there is a highly unequal number of evaluated proposals belonging to each Pole. Consequently, the number of articles to be selected in each text has varied according to the number of texts submitted for evaluation in the corresponding Pole. Thus, we have 8 texts from the “Values, Culture, Art, Education and Society Pole”; 15 texts from the “Socio-Economy of Solidarity Pole”; 5 texts from the “Governance and Citizenship Pole”; and 7 from the “Humanity and Biosphere Pole”.

On the Synthesis of each Pole 

A first criterion for the selection of articles has been to guarantee the greatest thematic scope of the synthesis of each pole establishing that, in all cases, the most favourably evaluated article of each text was included in the synthesis. 
A second criterion for the selection of articles was to take all those most favourably evaluated texts which did not contain any red evaluation in order to select articles on which there was no disagreement. In the case of the most favourably evaluated article having a red evaluation, the previous criterion has been modified and the second article of this text has been selected in order to guarantee the thematic scope of the synthesis. This criterion has involved making an exception with proposal “12. Economy of Solidarity”, which has been evaluated in red in the totality of its articles. However, none of these red evaluations has a clarifying comment and even the red evaluation for the last article of the world evaluation is accompanied by a approving comment for several articles as valid for an alternative global proposal. Moreover, the most favourably evaluated article of this proposal has 30 green evaluations, none yellow, none black and one red without explanation. We have no record of disagreement, either partial or total. It seems as if a participant has made a mistake when using the telematic tool and has placed a red evaluation in all the articles but this does not mean that she/he was against.

A third criterion for the selection of articles has been to consider as most favourably evaluated those which, with an equal number of green evaluations, had been more evaluated. This also means that a proposal which has yellow and black evaluations may be more favourably evaluated than another which has all the evaluations green given that the first has more evaluations and may even have more green evaluations than the second. In this sense, it was necessary to solve the fact that there is a great imbalance in the number of evaluations between the different texts, which must be interpreted as a more favourable evaluation of the proposal that prompted greater participation. Thus, an article with all the evaluations in green but which amount to a total of 14 must be less favourably evaluated than another article with 5 yellow and 4 black but which has 44 green. The idea is that if the quantity of evaluations was homogenised for all the texts from the same pole, taking into consideration the text with the greatest number of evaluations, then to the articles of the texts which have less favourable evaluations should be added black evaluations (default vote in the “Delibera” system).

A fourth criterion for the selection of articles, applicable in the cases of an absolute tie in the evaluations, has consisted of selecting according to the content, in function of the contents of the general synthesis, remembering to avoid reiteration of contents with other selected proposals. 

A fifth criterion for the selection of articles is related to the selected articles according to the former criteria that have a similar content. In this case, the most favourably evaluated article of the two of equal content is selected and the other is suppressed and substituted with any other article which meets the preceding criteria.

A criterion for the selection of new suggested articles has consisted of selecting those which widen the thematic content of the text with a concrete proposal which is not opposed to the articles selected as most favourably evaluated. This is due to the fact that there was no evaluation by the participants of these articles and, therefore, it would have no meaning to include in the synthesis proposals that in themselves involve disagreement. In some cases, the selection of a new article has been made by rewriting or selecting a part of a comment by a participant.

Once the 30 most favourably evaluated articles for each Pole and the new suggested articles that widen the proposal have been selected, the sequence of presentation in the Cross-Synthesis of the Pole does not follow an order of evaluations of the articles or the numeric sequence in which the proposals to be evaluated were presented but rather an expositive order according to the content so that the cross-synthesis is coherent. At the end of each article, on a brief numeric table is the number of opinions collected in the evaluation when starting the synthesis in July 2003.

On the global cross-synthesis 

30 articles from the 35 texts that participants considered in each text “key proposals for the preparation of alternatives to the current globalisation model” have been selected.

3. Costs of the Forum 

The design and co-ordination of the Forum team during a year; the setting in motion of the methodology for the production of texts with articles based on not very homogenous “Proposal Papers” and “Breakthroughs”; the translation and publication in 5 languages of 35 texts; the revision and creation of a mailing of the questionnaires in 5 languages with 158 participants and more than 14,000 contributions (evaluation of articles, comments, new proposals, etc.); plus the preparation of this record and the provisional syntheses has amounted to 57,230 €, a little less than the cost of two conventional electronic forums on an issue, with moderator and revised automatic translation. The cost of the “Delibera” system (35 texts x 5 languages: 175 forums) including the hosting has been, to date, a contribution of the company Serveis de Participació Interactiva SL, which has developed the system and has registered the trademark “Delibera”. 

4. WORK INVOLVED IN CREATING THE FORUM: 

The team for the promotion of the Forum, formed by a director, advisor, writer, translator and administrator, have devoted to this part of the Forum a total of 2,294 hours divided into the following tasks:

PREPARATION OF THE FORUM –453 hours

Design and planning of the project; study on “Breakthroughs” and “Papers”; team meetings; preparation of work documents; design of questionnaires and links; adjustment of the “Delibera” website to Propalliance.

PUBLICATION OF TEXTS –1,551 hours

Publication based on the “Breakthroughs”: reading and revision of the “Breakthroughs”; writing for the “Delibera” system; translation of the introductions into 5 languages; translation of the questionnaire into Catalan. 

Publication based on the “Proposal Papers”: reading and revision of the apertures; writing for the “Delibera” system; translation of the introductions into 5 languages; translation into Catalan of all the texts; translation of the texts which do not have a Paper translated. 

Management and layout: Layout of Word to enter the text in the questionnaire (in 5 languages); layout of Word to enter the text in “Delibera” (in 5 languages); entry of the texts to the Forum (in 5 languages); preparation of PDF for the news.

Mailing and moderation of lists: design of the weekly text and translation into 5 languages; preparation of e-mail with the linked archives and mailing to the 5 lists; moderation of the Forum via Internet and management of e-mails and mailing lists; entry of the evaluations of the questionnaires received; periodical preparation of statistics of participation.  

FINAL SYNTHESIS –290 hours

Collection of data of the evaluations, comments and new articles; writing and translation of the contributions of the participants for their incorporation into the texts; establishment of criteria for the election of the most favourably evaluated articles; writing of the 4 cross-syntheses of the poles and the global cross-synthesis; collection of data and calculation of the statistics of participation; writing of the record; translation into French and English of the synthesis and the record.