This is what somebody suggested to me.

"It's just occured to me how we should protest at international summits.

We SHOULD NOT: attack the police or break things or vandalise the city.

We SHOULD: try to stop the meeting, but as non violently as possible. If the police try to force us back then we should all lie down. There's not much they can do then.
But if we get violent then that will give the police the excuse they need to get violent on us. If the police attack us while we're being peaceful then the world will witness this.

So peaceful protest is best. But we won't get very far if we just protest passively. We've got to stop the meeting by getting inside where the meeting is taking place - thousands of us - and basically just demanding that they stop. Don't go on the rampage or anything stupid like that, just remain completely peaceful. If we're violent then that'll provoke police violence which the public may think is justified. And if we're violent we will be alienating a very large part of the general public who otherwise would agree with us.
So summing up, we should stop meetings but through entirely peaceful means."

What do people think about this?

I think it's an interesting idea. Personally, I'm not sure about stopping the meeting. I won't condone it because I'm not sure if it is the way forward and if I did support it then I wouldn't condone it here because that might be regarded by the law as an incitement to break the law and I might get the police knocking on my door for that.

This sounds like a really good idea.
I can't make it myself but I think as many people as possible should make the effort and go. I'm sure it'll be really good and it would be such a disapointment if no one bothered to turn up. If thousands of people go then that'll be brilliant and it'll be a clear message to the authorities that we're serious and dedicated to our cause.

Please I know I can't tell anyone what to do but I would urge everyone to be PEACEFUL and set a good example.

Sorry, this is a terribly innocent proposition. You think you can walk through police lines and remove 'walls of shame' completely non-violently? Don't you think that the police will start to beat you as soon as you start making any progress? Don't you think that a few agent provocatuers would probably have gone on the rampage somewhere else previously? Some people might argue that stopping the meeting is a form of violence or at least intimidation. Destroying 'walls of shame' is seen by some as violence, whilst even getting in the way of cars is treated like a heinous crime by others...

The pink/silver tactics in Genoa were an attempt to put your ideas into action - minimising violence whilst acepting that some might respond if provoked. The group almost split one day because pacificsts wanted everyone to adhere to their own definition of violence and non-violence. I think the experiences of the day radicalised everyone, and showed the way forward with an acceptance of the inevitability of some violence but with an intention to minimise the chance of violence in the first place.

In the end, those who the worst treatment appeared to be the pacificsts from other nearby groups who wanted to blockade the summit (wasn't it already blockaded by massive steel walls?!) and ended up being repeatedly tear gassed. Those in the pink group probably retreated due to tear gas well before they were near a policeman.

If we can look fluffy, but respond in a spiky manner I think we have the best compromise. There can never be an answer to the question nv vs v, and we should accept that we can't tell people how to protest : people have to make a decision based upon their own beliefs and level of commitment.