is it still open?

[kerry napuk]

Larry

As always, you raise very good points.

We see the theme as critical in attracting the participants and
giving them a framework to raise their burning issues.  The
invitation, hopefully on one page, might also list up to six
supplementary questions raised by the planning team as examples of
some burning issues.   Of course, the theme itself is a given of
sorts, because it defines the overall focus of the event.

We see the event as a process to deal with existing issues and
propose future actions.  Because flipchart sheets are always blank
until someone writes the issue at the top and the dialogue begins,
the process deals with actions for the future.  Sometimes the future
gets diverted by baggage from the past, but this rarely happens.

Our reluctance to discuss what happens before it happens avoids
sponsors feeling they can manage the event.  It also avoids limits on
what participants might discuss and propose.  As said previously to
Chris Weaver, we find participants are very responsible people, not
likely to abuse an opportunity to contribute to their future.  As a
result, our events tend to be self governing, because people
recognise and accept there are limits.

Accordingly, resources are not always an issue.  When the public is
involved, it often is about the sponsor doing something different
without extra costs - marketing, access, information, transport, etc.
When it involves resources, the action team has an opportunity to
make a case for the allocation, something perhaps difficult under
other circumstances, particulary when no comparative sense of
priorities exists.

I would rather take Harrison's approach and let the outputs flow and
sponsors respond accordingly.  In this way, everyone can be
surprised.  As almost all our events are 1 to 1.5 days and involve
public or quasi public and voluntary organisations, the drive to
micromanage resources is less than I would imagine it would be in the
corporate sector.

Still a sponsor has to ask the question: what am I going to do with a
team of people (possibly inside and oustide the organisation) who
want to do something that might generate trangible benefits?  How do
we get to this stage, deal with prerogatives, minimise limits and
maximise trust?   How do we keep the post space open for
possibilities?

I also like Joelle's statement: I don't talk a lot about "givens,"
though I do ask some questions about what will happen, post OS, to
ideas and recommendations.  Thanks for that good bit of advice.

Cheers

Kerry

Kerry Napuk
Open Futures Ltd
Edinburgh
www.openfutures.com

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
Visit:

http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20040407/f2bf37e9/attachment-0016.htm>