The Disaster of Un-Facilitated Open Space (very long)
Phelim McDermott
phelim at mac.com
Wed Sep 19 16:49:46 PDT 2007
yes yes yes and yes...
tell that story! (the new one).
"Our wholeness has evocative holes."
i love it...
and he has such an important part in it.
MUCH RESPECT
Phelimx
On 19 Sep 2007, at 07:23, Peggy Holman wrote:
> Okay, the title isn't mine...it is from someone who attended the
> recent Story Field Conference (www.storyfieldconference.net). Mind
> you, it is also a very minority view. For almost all of the 83+
> people who attended, it was a mind-blowing, life-altering
> experience. It set a new bar for me of what is possible when a
> diverse group of passionate people come together for 5 days in Open
> Space.
>
> I'll say more about the whole conference soon. In the meantime,
> there was one particularly provocative post-conference reflection
> expressing a great deal of frustration about what took place. This
> person really struggled with the open nature of the process, and
> asked some great questions. (Unfortunately, his piece is in a
> secured area and I am not ready to ask his permission to share
> it.) Still, I think you'll get the gist through my response.
>
> As I said to him, there is so much to be learned about the dynamic
> tension between “structured process where everyone knows what’s
> going on, and everyone agrees to the ground rules” and a space open
> to the mystery of what is wanting to emerge in the moment....
>
>
> ABOUT MYSTERY
>
> One of the main themes I found in your message was why go through
> all the discomfort? What’s the point?
> You said: The group seems divided into two camps - those who prefer
> messy, emotional, and random processing, and those who came here
> for a specific purpose, with the hope of creating something new and
> extraordinary, and who are equally frustrated by the chaos.
>
> I’d offer that for many of us, it is going through the messy,
> emotional, seemingly random processing that we have the best chance
> of creating something new and extraordinary.
>
>
> I have a deep and abiding commitment to bringing mystery back into
> most everything we do. I believe that without the unknown, there
> is no learning, no creativity, no life. For me, if there is only
> certainty, I suffocate. I also believe that when there is no room
> for the unknown, it makes itself felt through disease, disorder,
> violence, depression and other unpleasant and unintended consequences.
>
> Culturally, we celebrate perfection – perfect athletic performance,
> musical performance, total quality in production. I’m glad we do;
> I have felt the inspiration of experiencing a virtuoso
> performance. And I sure don’t want airplanes, bridges, cars built
> any other way.
>
> Still, there is a companion to this perfection that I believe is
> equally essential that is not only not celebrated, but struggles to
> find its legitimacy -- and grows increasingly important the more
> dysfunctional and destructive the status quo becomes. It is what
> happens at the margins, where something doesn’t yet have a form or
> a name, where it is seeking to come into being. My friend, David
> Gershon, calls it the learning edge. If we aren’t playing at the
> border between the known and unknown, we are standing in the way of
> our own evolution. To be very pragmatic, there is no learning or
> transformational change without mystery; if you already know the
> outcome, then no transformation is involved!
>
> I appreciate learning from other’s knowledge, and believe that has
> its place. When exploring a topic as nascent as a “story field”, I
> would much rather be present with passionate, committed, talented
> people exploring their inquiries rather than committed to their
> certainties. I suspect this is true for many, if not most of us.
>
> Could we have made better use of those who brought knowledge about
> the new story to the gathering? Surely. SHOULD we have, in some
> particular way? I don’t know. I think this choice is a useful
> exploration and would be pleased to engage more fully in it. In
> retrospect, I suspect we both gained and lost by the choices we
> made. For example, we did not come away with anywhere near the
> shared sense of how to answer the calling questions as I would have
> liked. And yet I wonder, had we done so, would the voices that are
> often left out found their place in the story? I have no idea. I
> know that I gained a deeper understanding of how vital it is for
> those voices to be part of the story that emerges. And I do know
> that the work continues to unfold among many who were present.
>
> I have come to believe that strategic conversations, such as we had
> at the Story Field Conference, are part of a larger trend, a
> floating conversation, with different threads of a collective
> exploration slowly converging, bringing together different cohorts
> who are exploring similar questions. Through these seemingly
> unconnected iterations, we are growing a new and vital coherence
> among us. At least, that’s my story. And it begins, indirectly,
> to touch on this question of what it takes to get things done.
>
> WHAT IS THE PRICE OF A LINEAR FOCUS ON GETTING THINGS DONE?
>
> I, too, have a passion for getting things done. That's why I
> invested the unbelievable amount of time it took to put together
> this story field gathering. But for me, the important question is
> this: given an intention, what form of getting things done best
> serves that intention?
>
> For example, I co-edited a 700+ page book with over 100
> contributors. This required focused, linear skills of getting from
> A to B on a tight timeline, juggling a vast amount of details as I
> went. It was possible because there was a high degree of agreement
> about the underlying assumptions – the “story field” if you will –
> of what we were doing.
>
> However, for something like envisioning a new story, much less a
> new story field, I believe what it takes to bring about wise action
> is quite different from A to B thinking. In particular, it takes a
> special openness to engage as much diversity as possible to achieve
> as lasting an effect as possible from individuals, small groups,
> and perhaps even a major subset of the whole group. This is not a
> linear proposition. When the assumptions themselves are part of
> the territory in question, I believe that opening as much space as
> possible for being receptive to what is wanting to emerge creates
> the greatest opportunity for deep understanding and lasting results.
>
> That is part of the reason why, when I look at the how much wise
> action takes place in our larger culture and the huge amount of
> fragmentation that impedes wise action, it is clear to me that
> something different is called for. I believe wise, unimpeded action
> is an outcome that naturally flows out of strong, healthy
> relationships. By opening the space as we did, a great deal of
> relational work was done. What I saw in reading the reflections is
> a remarkable number of people who said, “I now have the courage to
> act on my convictions”; “I know that I am not alone; I have allies”.
>
> Are you aware of the remarkable number of meetings, conference
> calls, one-on-one connections that are all in process as a result
> of our conference? The action on the wiki, alone, is a testament to
> the aliveness of our work together. Remarkably, a third of the
> conference participants (27) have posted 143 edits during the
> conference and for more than 2 weeks afterwards, and counting.
>
> Those people who have the good fortune to be quite at home in the
> dominant culture -- which has an ethic of focusing on action,
> getting things done in a linear way -- may not have thought about
> what gets lost when that is always the primary focus. They may not
> have wondered what voices don’t get heard because they find no
> place in that drive for action. These are major parts of my life
> -- and the lives of millions of other people.
> I think our culture has paid a huge price by squeezing uncertainty
> and chaos out of every place we can! I believe it has created a
> wide range of unintended consequences, most of which are virtually
> invisible. For example, one such consequence is an unspoken norm
> that to be in community means conforming to the dominant story. If
> I say something different, something that is not comfortable or is
> unfamiliar, particularly if it is emotionally unpleasant, it is
> judged to be inappropriate. To speak out is to risk being
> ostracized. No wonder many women, people of color, and young
> people opt out!
>
> I think the current fragmentation of our society grew out of
> feelings that there were no avenues for voices that don’t fit
> accepted norms. How can I feel connected to a larger whole when
> there is no space for my point of view? At the extreme, violence
> is a consequence of this fragmentation; if there isn’t a space for
> voices with different stories, then it plays out in other forms.
>
> With all that is happening across our world today, I believe the
> story has become far too complex for any one culture to have all
> the answers. Because there was space for grief, anger, fear, and
> radical diversity, this gathering made creating space for the
> voices and feelings not usually expressed more visible, more
> urgent, and more poignant to me than even I have ever experienced.
> I felt my own anger as a woman when challenged by yet another
> straight, white man who saw all of the overflowing emotion as
> nonessential and nonproductive. I heard, for the first time, the
> pain of indigenous people who have always been completely invisible
> to me. I heard the anguish of people of mixed race and non-white
> races expressed as a visceral experience of being choked off from
> speaking their truth. And I heard the pain of the white man – and
> others – confused and repelled by what was happening. And the
> cacophony of those voices -- because they were heard -- welded us
> into a powerful community that was viscerally felt by the vast
> majority of participants, and out of which has come the ecosystem
> of activities that we are seeing online, in phone calls, and in
> upcoming local gatherings -- as well as stimulating conversations
> like this about what future conferences will be like…
>
> AN INTERLUDE: ABOUT WEDNESDAY MORNING
> I think part of the reason there was so much “stuff” surfacing on
> Wednesday morning is that we culturally provide so little space for
> collective meaning making of what is disturbing. I sense that we
> have 1) a great deal of unhandled angers, hurts, fears that are
> wanting to be expressed and 2) very little experience expressing
> them and dealing with them together creatively. I was talking to
> someone who said the invitation to discern whether what was
> surfacing was personal or coming from a deeper source was
> interesting but with no practice, she wasn’t sure how to know.
> And, as Van Jones spoke on the Pachamama video, we also know very
> little about how to truly and usefully hear such expressions of
> anger, fear and grief.
>
> When I look back on Wednesday morning, the range of issues
> expressed was extraordinary -- tensions between male/female,
> western culture/indigenous culture, moving to action/handling our
> emotional backlog -- and there was room for all of it. I
> personally believe that our collective capacity to stay present to
> it all was pivotal for the quality of connections, and commitments
> to actions that seems to be emerging from the gathering.
>
> As Mark Jones made us aware of, we saw, heard and loved each
> other. And it isn't about a woo-woo comfy Green meme feeling.
> There is power here, a latent power of the whole. We are only
> beginning to understand the practical power of seeing, hearing, and
> loving each other fully, together. To grow into that
> understanding, we'll need a lot more such gatherings -- including a
> lot more continuity as a community. But that's getting ahead of
> myself here….
>
>
> BACK TO GETTING THINGS DONE…
>
> Right after the conference, my brother told me that Robert Putnam
> (Bowling Alone; Better Together) has just released some new
> research that says the more diverse a neighborhood, the more
> disengaged it is from the political process. This is no surprise
> to me: as long as the pain, anger, frustration remains suppressed,
> of course we can’t connect to get something done! When Grace spoke
> her pain, she made visible something that was already present. She
> opened the way for others to express their hurt, anger, frustration
> of what usually remains invisible. While messy, we made room for
> voices that are usually silent, to be heard. It is that sort of
> healing that is vital for us to become the kinds of diverse
> communities -- diverse, loving, and effective communities -- that I
> heard so many of us long for!
>
> And it took great courage. I see this as another reason for being
> willing to open the space for what is wanting to emerge. As we
> practice being in the unknown together and learn to trust each
> other, we discover that we are not alone. In the last couple years
> of doing this work, it is one of the strongest lessons I’ve
> received: when people know they are held, they have substantially
> more courage to act.
>
> What a profound combination: connection to people who we might have
> previously seen as different from ourselves - which means we have
> much great access to each other to use our difference creatively -
> coupled with that increased courage. When we do this well, I think
> the capacity for wise action actually skyrockets! This is not to
> say that we don't have a lot more to learn about HOW to use our
> differences creatively and HOW to be more effective together. It
> is to say that our path to higher-order, more elegant handling of
> our differences and collaboration is through hearing and welcoming
> our differences – including our emotional differences - into our
> collective spaces. That that process will often be messy goes
> without saying. But it is out of that messiness that our increased
> collective capacity and communion arise.
>
> I once heard a story of week-long Native American powwows in which
> they drum and dance and worship and socialize for almost the entire
> time -- and then get all their business done in the last
> afternoon. The communion built during most of the week makes their
> work together a breeze, once they get to it. I think there's
> something like that at work in the kind of community I'd like to
> see grow around the story field project. That, combined with the
> power of emergence and the flowering of diverse passions, is my own
> take on "getting things done." That said, I'm also intrigued with
> how we can arrive at collective coherences and whole-group
> accomplishments without endangering those other powers. I leave
> that to our future work together.
> ON FACILITATION
>
> We came together in a meaningful way towards accomplishing
> something that called to each of us at the Story Field Conference
> more than any other conference I've been part of. What made this
> possible? I don’t think it was random, nor a lack of
> facilitation. I think it was shifting the locus of attention from
> what you would call facilitation to hosting what is wanting to
> emerge in a space bounded by a common intention to understand the
> role of story as a field phenomenon and to use story for profound
> social change. I believe we are still learning how to do this
> well – and that there is much to learn.
>
> I tend to think of this as a shift of what is in the foreground and
> what is in the background. Rather than a primary focus on the flow
> of a process and keeping people “on task” or at least on the
> subject, the locus of attention is on the flow of energy - in which
> there is confidence that any voice that surfaces has something to
> contribute that can be heard and integrated.
>
> I get that from your point of view there was essentially no
> facilitation. In a way, I’d agree with you as the term
> facilitation doesn’t really describe the nature of being a host to
> what is emerging. There is work involved in this role; it is just
> very different than facilitating a process. Because it is less
> familiar, it tends to be more invisible. Gabriel Shirley used a
> term a few years back that comes closest to describing it for me:
> running the energy. Much of what we are doing is paying attention
> to the energy of the group, tending to its flow – what is the
> collective mood? what can we sense happening at the edges? what
> serves the whole in reaching its potential? I don’t pretend to
> know all the answers; I think we are in the early stages of
> learning how to work with group energy. I know I am.
>
> For me, a core intention is to be sure that energy doesn’t get
> stuck, that the space stays open for what is wanting to emerge.
> While I see how you can interpret it as “egos reigning supreme” or
> that “a big no-no is making someone feel bad, controlled or cut
> off”, there are other ways to understand what is happening. During
> a reflection among the hosts, Gabriel Shirley named it this way:
> there were two primary perspectives present: 1) each person
> speaking was acting out of their own ego, doing personal work; 2)
> each voice is there on behalf of the whole and is in some way a
> gift to the whole. I’d say that this isn’t an either/or, both are
> real. These perspectives offer alternative ways of making sense of
> what is occurring.
>
> I think many of us have minimal patience with this because,
> particularly in the realm of affect, our culture has taught us very
> little about where and how to express our emotional anger, pain,
> grief. The dominant culture provides very few venues for this, so,
> of course, if a space is made safe enough, it will surface. I
> applaud the quality of witnessing we were all part of -- including
> you -- at the Story Field Conference, the discipline of being
> present to raw feelings that eighty people held this space on
> behalf of what was expressed.
>
> Paradoxically, the dominant culture sees these once-suppressed
> feelings dominating the conversation without noticing that (and
> how) it usually dominates conversations. The dominant culture is
> transparent to itself, just as our individual blind spots are
> invisible to us, just as the water is invisible to the fish. Those
> most at home in the dominant culture have much less practice at the
> discipline of witnessing because by definition, the dominant
> culture supports their way of processing. Privileged people don't
> have to listen. Less privileged people get much more practice
> sitting and listening to another’s bullshit. In fact, the dominant
> culture even institutionalizes this practice in the form of
> sanctioned talking head presentations.
>
> As Emily pointed out, in our western culture, focusing on getting
> things done is our norm -- often, I would add, to the detriment of
> expressing any other aspect of ourselves individually or
> collectively. I can imagine on Wednesday morning that those
> expecting a space for getting things done were extremely frustrated
> when the space shifted to a different purpose! But I find myself
> wondering: Is this frustration more or less legitimate than the
> frustration of those whose voices are suppressed? Perhaps we
> should focus, instead, on whether our choice of plenary activity
> served our collective intention.
>
> WHAT BEST SERVES OUR INTENTION?
>
> There are no doubt gentler pathways than to invite people to jump
> into Open Space with little context of what to expect and with no
> training wheels. Yet, I know of no other means that makes it so
> clear so quickly that the ultimate authority for one’s experience
> rests with oneself. And, I wonder, given the scale and scope of
> living a new story into being, what best serves? I don’t pretend
> to have the answer; I suspect there are many parallel paths. I do
> believe that the capacity to be present to that which makes us
> uncomfortable is a vital skill for this work. I believe that the
> space at Shambhala Mountain Center held some trigger for everyone!
> To the extent that such triggers feed our learning, growing and
> connecting, I celebrate them. To the extent they cause people to
> check out, go silent, and disappear, they cause me concern. There
> are surely things to learn about how to navigate all that more
> successfully -- but trying to keep people from frustration and
> triggers is certainly not the key.
>
> Something you expressed that I found particularly ironic: that
> there was a norm in Open Space that everyone be comfortable. In
> fact, I think we were quite willing to have people be
> uncomfortable. It was just that those who are most used to being
> comfortable were the most frustrated and uncomfortable as we made
> room for voices that are seldom seen, heard or welcomed to show up.
>
> And the gift I personally found in that was huge! I learned a
> great deal about both the new story and the nature of story telling
> from what took place during the week:
>
> · The new story is most effectively told in ways
> that are consistent with the new story
> · Blame, judgment, victimization, domination are
> all part of the old story and when they show up in telling the new
> story, it causes those who are made invisible by the old story to
> either disappear further or, where there is room for them to show
> up, to show up fiercely
> · The new story integrates the duality implicit
> in male/female, western/indigenous, white/non-white into a larger
> pattern of “differentiated wholeness”. By differentiated
> wholeness, I mean that our differences become a creative part of
> the whole – so that to belong in a community is to show up in all
> one’s unique gifts and quirks
> · Wholeness has holes in it, which has huge
> implications for how stories are told:
> o If the story teller speaks as if they have all the answers,
> it leaves no room for voices and perspectives that have something
> to add
> o Taking a stance of humility and conscious evolution,
> recognizing that the story is never complete allows space for new
> aspects to show up and be integrated
> o Being curious when missing voices show up is of service to
> the whole, inviting a more whole version of our stories to emerge
>
>
> BACK TO MYSTERY
>
> I don’t pretend to have all of the answers to how best to bring
> mystery back into its rightful place. It is clear the form we used
> is not comfortable for some. Perhaps it will never be -- and
> perhaps it is important that it never be, at least to some degree.
> I do believe that within the collective us, the capacity to be
> receptive, compassionately unattached, is essential for the new
> story to blossom.
>
> Open Space makes a huge amount of space for the receptive. It also
> makes an extraordinary amount of space for action. Where a group
> goes emerges out of its own needs. To say that again, a little
> differently: it is the energy of the group that most shapes the
> nature of the space. By not “facilitating” the group in a specific
> direction, we trust that what best serves the collective intention
> of understanding the story field and the new story is served. When
> the intention is complex, as in defining a novel idea like “story
> field”, I have a bias towards a process that boldly invites the
> emergent present, trusting the wisdom of the group to take it where
> it most needs to go. Could we have provided more context? Of
> course. Would that have been our best service? I don’t know. It
> would have created a different gathering. Would the voices and
> feelings that are normally invisible found space to show up in
> productive ways? I don’t know. Would we have had a clearer, more
> articulated sense of the story field and the new story? If we did,
> I fear it might have been more intellectual and less embodied.
> Trusting the group energy in open space, I trust that the
> conversations stimulated by your, David's and others' critiques
> will produce innovations that will allow us to explore these
> questions more deeply and consciously in practice, together as a
> community.
>
> I do understand that, in particular, the grief, anger, and fear
> expressed was way overboard for people who have little or no
> experience with it; or for those who feel that such expression
> belongs in its own special container specifically for that
> purpose. Would I and others have had the lived experience of the
> new story that we did without all that surfacing? I honestly don’t
> know. There are ways in which both answers are true, and I know
> that we'll be learning more about this.
>
> I believe that in the new story, we have a right to be whole people
> – head, heart, body, and spirit. And I believe we owe it to each
> other to learn to be present to the whole of us in collective
> settings. In fact, I think because we did that, it contributed
> immensely to why so many people said this experience was life
> changing for them.
>
> While we haven’t yet landed in the intellectual coherence of the
> new story that many of us desired (myself included), I believe we
> LIVED a nascent form of the new story. There was space for all of
> us and not in the form of “let’s make everyone comfortable” or in
> the form of “you need to behave in expected ways”. Quite the
> opposite! We made space for people to be real together, where our
> differences were welcome disturbances from which learning and
> growth could and did happen.
>
> Can we get better at creating such experiences? I sure hope so! I
> am sure there are better ways of inviting in male/female,
> indigenous/western, straight/gay, white/color than we know right
> now. We’re just getting started.
>
> I know now that if we can’t hear new voices, we stay stuck – as
> most of our current systems are. No wonder people are checking out
> of them! I got a much deeper understanding of what it is like to
> always need to keep what is most dear invisible or suffer the wrath
> of indifference, judgment, dismissal. I also felt a new compassion
> for what it is like to be seen as the oppressor, the one holding
> the current form in place, even when we see ourselves as in the
> vanguard of change.
>
> Still, you may well ask, why bring in so much mystery at once? Why
> not just small doses? It may well be that for many, that’s what
> makes the most sense. For me, I believe we’re entering into a time
> of increasing dissolution; more and more of our assumptions and our
> systems will be falling apart faster and faster. The more of us
> who become more capable of being present to the anger, grief, fear,
> and confusion that will surface, the better. What better way to
> practice than in learning more about subjects we care about with
> people we discover are kindred spirits?
>
> I am excited and fascinated at how engaged so many people who
> gathered still are! Many people made deep connections with
> others. The intellectual and practical work are underway big
> time. I wonder if it is because we didn’t fully complete our work
> together? Our wholeness has evocative holes in it! We’re still
> collectively processing the questions around which we gathered.
> Perhaps this too -- rather than being a disappointment -- is a
> lesson in keeping the mystery alive and following its enticing
> energy to wherever it leads us.
>
>
> HOW TO MAKE IT BETTER
>
> That said, as you pointed out, chaos can be quite challenging, so
> how do we welcome it in a way that is of service to a group? That
> is an art that we are still learning. It is part of the dialogue
> that your message taps for me. We do know some things about it:
>
> We know that creating a sense of sacred space can make a tremendous
> difference (our time at the Stupa that first morning in the
> presence of Spirit and our ancestors contributed to bringing to
> consciousness what would make the space fertile and productive)
> We know that expressing dreams, desires, possibilities makes a
> difference (e.g., our wishes spoken as if we are making them
> happen, and speaking to what would blow our minds)
> We know inviting adult behavior that asks us to draw from the best
> of ourselves matters (as Mark did by offering HSL – hear, see, and
> love -- and as we did in naming the Law of Two Feet – taking
> responsibility for what we each love -- and asking people to check
> within themselves for what was coming through them for guidance
> rather than looking to an outside authority)
> And we believe that working with the energy present in the moment
> matters.
>
> Beyond that, I expect this conversation and others like it to
> continue, helping us discern how best to welcome chaos, to make
> room for the emergent while tending to whatever form of getting
> things done best serves.
>
> ON RANDOMNESS AND ORDER
>
> Have you ever seen a strange attractor coming into being? (Strange
> attractors are beautiful mathematical images. (see http://
> images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/
> ~stilti/images/chaotic_attractors/chaos26.jpg&imgrefurl=http://
> ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~stilti/images/chaotic_attractors/
> poly.html&h=640&w=640&sz=45&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=ieBIZJB9pAv28M:&t
> bnh=137&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dstrange%2Battractors%26svnum%
> 3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DGGGL,GGGL:2006-42,GGGL:en%26sa%
> 3DN). They take a mathematical formula, push some numbers through,
> plot the output on a map, feed the output back through the formula,
> and plot again. In other words, they iterate through the same
> formula over and over. Initially the dots seem completely random.
> Over time, a pattern becomes visible.
>
> I see conversations in a similar light. I find most of us live,
> either consciously or unconsciously, in a complex question or two.
> For example: What is the nature of story? What is the new story
> that wants to be born? How do we bring this story more fully to
> life? As we answer these questions, we feed the responses back
> through and new answers emerge. They begin to paint a picture.
> When we join with others in a shared inquiry, the picture takes on
> more shape. What starts as seemingly random, begins to come into
> coherent form. It begins to entice us in, as we collectively call
> it into being and witness its new resonance surfacing. This isn’t
> a simple story that one person can create alone. And its shaping
> demands more than just our intellects. It draws from the whole of
> us, head, heart, body, spirit. It is a complex response, made of
> music, art, dance, idea. It is a coherent, many-storied response
> to questions that we all hold dear. And it is still unfolding.
>
> So I end with an idea that surfaced through Tom Atlee and me:
>
> We are calling into being our collective soul so that our many-
> storied world can find its way…and each and everyone one of us has
> our roles to play in it.
>
>
> Love,
> Peggy
>
>
> ________________________________
> Peggy Holman
> The Open Circle Company
> 15347 SE 49th Place
> Bellevue, WA 98006
> (425) 746-6274
>
> www.opencirclecompany.com
>
>
> For the new edition of The Change Handbook, go to:
> www.bkconnection.com/ChangeHandbook
>
> "An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire and not
> get burnt, is to become
> the fire".
> -- Drew Dellinger
> * * ==========================================================
> OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU ------------------------------ To
> subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of
> oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/
> archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST
> FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20070920/2c5d3d8e/attachment-0016.htm>
More information about the OSList
mailing list