Fwd: [OSLIST] A disability question

Corbaz Catherine c.corbaz at hispeed.ch
Sun Apr 19 01:59:12 PDT 2009


>
> Dear Melissa,
> I've never done a World café with disabled people. However i've  
> done an OST with 30 peoples, among them 1 blind, 1 deaf, many  
> peoples where either not seeing well or not hearing well. Some of  
> them had concentration problems and some where in wheel chairs. It  
> was quiet a challenge, but with patients and assistance it worked !
>
> I talked with some about doing world café in similar conditions. I  
> wont say it's not possible. If there is respect among the people  
> and patience, that will help. the main the difficulties I had in  
> the above mentioned OST, was the noise, which might be even more a  
> problem with World cafe. It was a problem because some people had  
> concentration  difficulties. some others needed explanations and we  
> had to whisper in their ears. So they where really tired at the end  
> of the day.
>
> You have also to thought of describing the space to blind people.  
> For them a Wc is better, because they like having a table in front  
> of them. For deaf people, they cannot look at the signers and read  
> at the same time... So. Besides you have to thing that reading  
> competencies might not be very good, if they are born deaf. For  
> people with learning disabilities, one word patience and respect of  
> the others. Last, every human being is different, the same for  
> handicapped people, to blind will not necessarily have the same  
> needs for assistance and so on.
>
> So, I'm ready to give your further advice if you like, on or  
> outside the list. Anyway, I'm looking forward to know how it works,  
> because i think facilitating groups with different types of  
> handicapped is one on the most challenging thing I ever had to do.
>
> Regards form Switzerland,
>
>
>
> Catherine Corbaz
> Facilitation & Forum ouvert
> Roseaux 20
> CH-2503 Bienne
> +41 32 323 38 43
> +41 79 794 38 55
> c.corbaz at hispeed.ch
> http://www.c2f2.net
>
>
>
>
> Le 17 avr. 09 à 11:18, Melllissa Norman a écrit :
>
>> Hi everyone
>>
>> I hope you all are well. I have a question, it is related to World  
>> Cafe but I know many of you do both OS and World Cafe. In a few  
>> weeks I am running a world cafe event with quite a few  
>> disabilities deaf, blind, physical and learning disabilities as  
>> well as non disabled people, in one room for a day debating their  
>> needs for a website project.
>>
>> Am feeling that this could be a little bit of a challenge and  
>> wondered if anyone has done anything similar? We will have signers  
>> and am hoping that by talking through ideas, at the table, writing  
>> them down and viewing them at the end on the wall we are already  
>> covering different ways of taking in information but would love to  
>> hear of any tips and ideas that can help make this event successful.
>>
>>   1. Thank you all for reading :-)
>>
>>
>> take care
>>
>> Mel
>> Mellissa Norman
>> www.media-sauce.org
>> www.one-media.org
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>> *
>>> ==========================================================
>>> 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
>

*
*
==========================================================
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

>From  Sun Apr 19 15:22:36 2009
Message-Id: <SUN.19.APR.2009.152236.0400.>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:22:36 -0400
Reply-To: 76066.515 at compuserve.com
To: OSLIST <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
From: douglas germann <76066.515 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: NCDD Public Engagement Process
In-Reply-To: <C9FD4ED9-D59E-4187-91E1-3F18B9ACA52B at opencirclecompany.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi--

1. I would like to see more said about emergence. These seem to put a
lot of emphasis on what facilitators and organizers do, but too little
is said about what arises from the people, from the collective. I do not
feel I have a good vocabulary for this. Can someone else say this
better? What other language can we use to say this?

2. # 4 speaks to listening. But listening is only halfway up the
mountain. We need to address hearing and being heard. Listening is
something we do *to* another, hearing is something done *with* and it
happens in *us*.

			:- Doug.



On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 13:33 -0700, Peggy Holman wrote:
> Friends,
> 
> 
> Below is a request from the National Coalition for Dialogue and
> Deliberation to review "a set of core principles for public engagement
> that most people and organizations in this field can get behind."
>  Sandy Heierbacher, Executive Director of NCDD, was inspired to begin
> this project from a desire "to influence Obama's Open Governance
> Directive, which will instruct executive departments and agencies to
> take specific actions to implement the principles of transparency,
> participation, and collaboration set forth in one of three memoranda
> President Obama signed on his first day on the job."
> 
> 
> Sandy was invited to participate in a meeting at the White House
> by Beth Noveck, the woman in charge of crafting the directive, who
> "acknowledged and commended the effort in a nationally broadcast
> webinar."  In other words, the core principles developed by NCDD may
> well influence how government in the US interacts with its citizens.
>  As such, I think it bears attention from this, and other
> conversationally oriented communities of practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OS list has over the years demonstrated a lot of wisdom about
> bringing people together for effective dialogue and collaboration.  I
> want to encourage us to reflect on these principles and offer some of
> that wisdom to NCDD.  The effort has been underway for a couple
> months, so we are coming late to the process.  The principles plus
> endorsements are to be sent to the White House on May 1.  This means
> that anything we say will likely not be incorporated into the
> document.  That said, I think it is important to consider what is
> being shared and use the inquiry that the creation of this document
> has begun to consider what, if any, influence we want to have on where
> this work goes from here.
> 
> 
> Below are:
> 
> 
> 1.  The "short form" of the principles
> - www.quicktopic.com/43/D/igJmYvyvLxQi.html 
> 2.  The "long form" of the principles
> - www.quicktopic.com/43/D/yP8nKZtRurb.html
> 3.  Sandy's message putting the principles and the request for comment
> in context
> 4.  The original message from Sandy that launched the project
> 
> 
> By all means, post your comments at Quick Topic.  In addition, I
> encourage us to reflect on these principles on this list for two
> purposes:
> 
> 
> *  To surface what we might contribute to the larger effort
> *  To see what it surfaces about our own thinking as a community of
> practice.
> 
> 
> appreciatively,
> Peggy
> 
> 
> P.S.  The Open Space Institute-US discussed this effort on our monthly
> board call today (April 17).  Before we took any action, we wanted to
> know your thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ******************************************************************************
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  The "short form" of the principles
> - www.quicktopic.com/43/D/igJmYvyvLxQi.html 
> 
> 
> CORE PRINCIPLES FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT (draft version 3.0, 4/1/09)
> 
> Developed collaboratively by members of leading public engagement
> organizations
> 
> There are many ways that people can come together to deal with issues
> that affect their lives. We believe that public engagement involves
> convening diverse yet representative groups of people to wrestle with
> information from a variety of viewpoints, in conversations that are
> well-facilitated, providing direction for their own community
> activities or public judgments that will be seriously considered by
> policy-makers and/or their fellow citizens.
> 
> It is our stance that quality public engagement must take into
> consideration seven core principles if it is to effectively build
> mutual understanding, meaningfully affect policy development, and/or
> inspire collaborative action among citizens and institutions.
> 
> The following seven principles overlap and reinforce each other in
> practice. They serve as ideals to pursue and as criteria for judging
> quality. Rather than promoting partisan agendas, the implementation of
> these principles generates authentic stakeholder engagement around
> public issues.
> 
> 1. Planning and Preparation 
> 
> Plan, design, and convene the engagement specifically to serve both
> the purpose of the effort and the needs of participants. 
> 
> 2. Inclusion and Diversity
> 
> Incorporate diverse voices, ideas, and information to lay the
> groundwork for quality outcomes and democratic legitimacy.
> 
> 3. Collaboration and Shared Purpose 
> 
> Support organizers, participants, and those engaged in follow-up to
> work well together for the common good. 
> 
> 4. Listening and Learning
> 
> Help participants listen, explore and learn without predetermined
> outcomes -- and evaluate public engagement efforts for lessons. 
> 
> 5. Transparency and Trust
> 
> Promote openness and provide a public record of the people, resources,
> forums, and outcomes involved. 
> 
> 6. Impact and Action
> 
> Ensure each participatory effort has real potential to make a
> difference. 
> 
> 7. Sustained Participation and Democratic Culture
> 
> Promote a culture of participation with programs and institutions that
> support ongoing quality public engagement.
> 
>   
> 
> This list represents a consensus in the field of dialogue and
> deliberation, but most practices tend to emphasize or apply these
> principles differently or to reach beyond this basic consensus in one
> way or another. To learn more about such diverse understandings and
> applications, consult the online version of these guidelines.*
> 
> Finally, we believe the use of technology should be generally
> encouraged whenever appropriate to enhance and not impede these seven
> values -- and also that these seven principles apply to both online
> and offline efforts. However, there is not yet consensus in our field
> on standards for the use of technology that would warrant the
> inclusion of specific online or electronic guidelines in this
> document.
> 
> --
> 
> *An elaboration of these basic principles can be found at
> www.quicktopic.com/43/D/yP8nKZtRurb.html. You are welcome to add
> comments to that document as well, although this simpler list of
> principles is what we are seeking endorsements for.
> 
> The dialogue that generated this document can be found at
> www.thataway.org/2009/pep_project/(in addition to more details about
> this project).  In the future, NCDD will provide more organized online
> details regarding variants of this document and statements of values,
> guidelines, and principles from other organizations and practitioner
> groups.
> 
>  *************************************************************
> 
> 2.  The "long form" of the principles
> - www.quicktopic.com/43/D/yP8nKZtRurb.html
> 
>  Core Public Engagement Principles -- Explanatory Text for Version
> 3.0 
> 
> Note: Although we are NOT seeking endorsements for the expanded text
> under the titles and one-line descriptions, we DO still want your
> feedback and ideas on that text. Feel free to comment more generally
> on this text on the Public Engagement Principles Project forum at
> www.thataway.org/2009/pep_project/-- or comment on specific sections
> (and others' comments on specific sections) here.
> 
> 1. PLANNING AND PREPARATION
> 
>  Plan, design, and convene the engagement to serve the purpose of the
> effort and the people who will participate.
> 
> In high quality engagement: Participation begins when stakeholders,
> convenors, and process experts engage together in the planning and
> organizing process, with adequate support. Together they get clear on
> their unique context, purpose, and task, which then inform their
> process design as well as their venue selection, set-up, and choice of
> participants. They create hospitable, accessible, functional
> environments and schedules that serve the participants' logistical,
> intellectual, biological, aesthetic, identity, and cultural needs. In
> general, they promote conditions that support all the qualities on
> this list.
> 
> What to avoid: Untrained, inexperienced, or ideologically biased
> organizers design programs that do not fit the purpose of the effort
> or the community involved, or that do not respect and engage the
> relevant stakeholders. The venue is inaccessible, ugly, and confusing,
> and the poorly constructed schedule is inflexible or rushed, with
> inadequate time for doing what needs to be done. Logistical, class,
> racial, and cultural barriers to participation are left unaddressed,
> effectively sidelining marginalized people and further privileging
> elites, majorities, "experts," and partisan advocates.
> 
> 2. INCLUSION AND DIVERSITY
> 
> Incorporate diverse voices, ideas, and information to lay the
> groundwork for quality outcomes and democratic legitimacy.
> 
> In high quality engagement: Convenors and participants reflect the
> range of functional stakeholder or demographic diversity within the
> community or on the issue at hand. Alternatively, participants are
> randomly selected to represent a microcosm of the public. Participants
> have the opportunity to grapple with data and perspectives that fairly
> represent different "sides" of the issue. Participants feel they are
> respected and their views are welcomed, heard, and responded to.
> Special effort is made to enable normally marginalized, silent, or
> dissenting voices to meaningfully engage -- and fundamental
> differences are clarified and honored. Where necessary, anonymity is
> provided to enable important contributions.
> 
> What to avoid: Participants are mostly "the usual suspects" -- perhaps
> with merely token diversity added. Biased information is presented,
> and expert testimony seems designed to move people in a specific
> direction. People have little chance to speak out and, when they do,
> there is little sign they are actually heard or safe. Participants,
> stakeholders, or segments of the public feel their interests,
> concerns, and ideas -- and they, themselves, as people -- are
> suppressed, ignored, or marginalized. Anonymity is used to protect
> abuses of power, not vulnerable critics.
> 
> 
> 3. COLLABORATION AND SHARED PURPOSE
> 
> Support organizers, participants, and those engaged in follow-up to
> work well together for the common good.
> 
> In high quality engagement: Organizers involve public officials,
> "ordinary people," community leaders, and other interested parties as
> equal participants in conversations where differences are explored
> rather than ignored, and a shared sense of a desired future can
> emerge. People with different backgrounds and ideologies work together
> on every aspect of the engagement -- from planning and recruiting, to
> gathering and presenting information, all the way through to sharing
> outcomes and implementing agreed-upon action steps. In official
> deliberations, there is good coordination among relevant agencies
> dealing with the issue being deliberated.
> 
> What to avoid: Unresponsive power-holders deliver one-way
> pronouncements or preside over adversarial, disrespectful, or stilted
> conversations. Patronizing experts and authorities feel they already
> have "all the answers" and "listen" only to appease. Engagement has no
> chance of impacting policy because relevant decisions have already
> been made or are already in the pipeline, or because those in power
> are not involved or committed. Loud voices, mainstream views, or
> suppressive "rationality" dominate, and other voices and modes of
> expression are silenced or tolerated. Engagement feels pointless,
> lacking shared purpose and a link to action.
> 
> 4. LISTENING AND LEARNING
> 
> Help participants listen, explore, and learn without predetermined
> outcomes -- and evaluate public engagement activities for lessons.
> 
> In high quality engagement: Skilled neutral facilitators and simple
> guidelines encourage everyone involved to share their views, listen,
> and be curious in order to learn things about themselves, each other,
> and the issues before them. Shared intention and powerful questions
> guide participants' exploration of adequate, fair, and useful
> information -- and of their own disagreements -- in an open and
> respectful atmosphere. This exploratory atmosphere enables them to
> delve more deeply into complexities and nuances and thereby generate
> new understandings, possibilities, and/or decisions that were not
> clear when their conversation began. There is an appropriate balance
> between consulting (a) facts and expertise and (b) participants'
> experience, values, inner wisdom, vision, intuition, and concerns.
> Participants and leaders take away new skills and approaches to
> resolving conflicts, solving problems and making decisions. Careful
> review, evaluation, and a spirit of exploration and innovation improve
> subsequent engagement work and develop institutional and community
> capacity.
> 
> What to avoid: "Public participation" exercises go through the motions
> required by law or the dictates of PR before announcing a
> pre-determined outcome. Participants get on soapboxes or are
> repressed; fight or conform; get overridden or overwhelmed; and are
> definitely not listening to each other. Facilitation is weak or too
> directive, interfering with people's ability to communicate with each
> other openly, adjust their stances, and make progress. Assertive,
> mainstream, and official voices dominate. Available information is
> biased, scanty, overwhelming, or inaccessible -- and experts lecture
> rather than discuss and clarify. Lack of time or inflexible process
> make it impossible to deal with the true complexity of the issue. And
> organizers and facilitators are too busy, ideological, or insecure to
> properly review and evaluate what they've done. 
> 
> 5. TRANSPARENCY AND TRUST
> 
> Promote openness and provide a public record of the people, resources,
> forums, and outcomes involved.
> 
> In high quality engagement: People's attitudes and actions engender
> trust. Relevant information, activities, decisions, and issues that
> arise are shared in a timely way, respecting privacy where necessary.
> Process consultants and facilitators are helpful and realistic in
> describing their place in the field of public engagement and what to
> expect from their work. People experience planners, facilitators, and
> participants with official roles as straightforward, concerned, and
> answerable. Members of the public can easily access information, get
> involved, stay engaged, and contribute to the ongoing evolution of
> outcomes or actions the process generates. Video proceedings of
> government-sponsored deliberations are available online, both in real
> time and archives.
> 
> What to avoid: It is hard, if not impossible, to find out who is
> involved, what happened, and why. Research, advocacy, and
> answerability efforts are stymied. Participants, the public, and
> various stakeholders suspect hidden agendas and dubious ethics.
> Participants not only don't trust the facilitators but are not open
> about their own thoughts and feelings. 
> 
> 6. IMPACT AND ACTION 
> 
> Ensure each participatory effort has the potential to make a
> difference.
> 
> In high quality engagement: People sense -- and can see evidence --
> that their engagement was meaningful, influencing government
> decisions, empowering them to act effectively individually and/or
> together, or otherwise impacting the world around them. Communications
> -- media, government, business, and/or nonprofit -- ensure the
> appropriate publics know the engagement is happening and talk about it
> with each other. The effort is productively linked to other efforts on
> the issue(s) addressed. Because diverse stakeholders understand, are
> moved by, and act on the findings and recommendations of the program,
> problems get solved, visions are pursued, and communities become more
> vibrant, healthy, and successful -- despite ongoing differences.
> 
> What to avoid: Participants have no sense of having any effect --
> before, during, or after the public engagement process. There is no
> follow-through from anyone, and hardly anyone even knows it happened,
> including other people and groups working on the issue. Participants'
> findings and recommendations are inarticulate, ill-timed, or useless
> to policy-makers -- or seem to represent the views of only a small
> unqualified group -- and are largely ignored or, when used, are used
> to suppress dissent. Any energy or activity catalyzed by the event
> quickly dies out. 
> 
> 7. SUSTAINED ENGAGEMENT AND DEMOCRATIC CULTURE
> 
> Promote a culture of participation with programs and institutions that
> support ongoing quality public engagement.
> 
> In high quality engagement: Each new engagement effort is linked
> intentionally to existing efforts and institutions -- government,
> schools, civic and social organizations, etc. -- so quality engagement
> and democratic participation increasingly become standard practice.
> Participants and others involved in the process not only develop a
> sense of ownership and buy-in, but gain knowledge and skills in
> democratic methods of involving people, making decisions, and solving
> problems. Relationships are built over time and ongoing spaces are
> built in communities and online, where people from all backgrounds can
> bring their ideas and concerns about public affairs to the table and
> engage in lively conversation that has the potential to impact their
> shared world.
> 
> What to avoid: Public engagements, when they occur, are one-off events
> isolated from the ongoing political life of society. For most people,
> democracy means only freedoms and voting and perhaps writing a letter
> to their newspaper or representative. For activists and public
> officials, democracy is the business-as-usual battle and
> behind-the-scenes maneuvering. Few people -- including public
> officials -- have any expectation that authentic, empowered public
> participation is possible, necessary, forthcoming, or even desirable.
> Privileged people dominate, intentionally or unintentionally
> undermining the ability of marginalized populations to meaningfully
> participate.
> 
>   *************************************************************
> 
>  3.  Sandy's message putting the principles and the request for
> comment in context
> 
> 
> > 
> > Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Sandy Heierbacher <sandy at thataway.org>
> Date: April 6, 2009 12:59:44 PM EDT
> To: NCDD Discussion <NCDD-Discussion at lists.thataway.org>, Member List
> <NCDD-MemberList at lists.thataway.org>
> Subject: update on PEP project - and what you can do now
> 
> 
> Hi, NCDDers!  As you know, NCDD has been hosting a collaborative
> online conversation aimed at developing a set of Core Principles for
> Public Engagement that most people and organizations in this field can
> get behind.  We've been working on this as transparently as possible
> at www.thataway.org/2009/pep_project/ and many of you have
> participated.  I've found it to be a fascinating, fun, and challenging
> process -- but it's not over yet.
> 
> 
> We are doing this, in part, to influence Obama's Open Governance
> Directive, which will instruct executive departments and agencies to
> take specific actions to implement the principles of transparency,
> participation, and collaboration set forth in one of three memoranda
> President Obama signed on his first day on the job
> ( www.thataway.org/?p=1404 ).  We feel that presenting a united front
> to the administration on basic principles for quality public
> engagement will increase our chances of being heard in the crafting of
> this directive.  Beth Noveck, the woman in charge of crafting the
> directive, recently acknowledged and commended our collective effort
> in a nationally broadcast webinar.
> 
> 
> At this point, we invite and encourage all of you to do several
> things...
> 
> 
> 1. Determine whether your organization would be interested in
> endorsing the latest version ("version 3.0") of the basic principles
> and their one-sentence descriptions, as attached.  Let Sandy
> Heierbacher (sandy at thataway.org) know if your organization is likely
> to endorse the principles (we'll send you the final version on April
> 27th to make sure your endorsement is official). OR, let us know (by
> emailing Sandy or adding comments to the QuickTopic doc posted
> at www.quicktopic.com/43/D/igJmYvyvLxQi.html ), what would need to be
> changed in order for your organization to endorse the principles.
> 
> 
> 2. Provide feedback on the longer document posted at
> www.quicktopic.com/43/D/yP8nKZtRurb.html (the basic principles plus
> explanatory text about what to strive for and what to avoid).  You can
> also post your feedback on version 3.0 on the PEP forum as you have in
> the past, but QuickTopic allows people to comment on specific text,
> and to comment on each other's comments more clearly, so we'd prefer
> you use QuickTopic if you're willing (it's super-easy; just click on
> the little "c" to the left of what you want to comment on (you don't
> even need to log in or register!).
> 
> 
> 3. Forward this message to colleagues, networks, organization leaders,
> etc. who you think should get involved in endorsing - or further
> honing - the principles!
> 
> 
> For more info about the project, our timeline, and next steps, see the
> detailed post titled "4-1-09 PEP Project Update and Timeline" up on
> the PEP forum at www.thataway.org/2009/pep_project/
> 
> 
> Hope to see most of you involved in this project, in one way or
> another!
> 
> Best,
> Sandy
> 
> 
> Sandy Heierbacher
> Director, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD)
> 
> 
> e: sandy at thataway.org
> p: 717-243-5144
> w: www.thataway.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- 
> 
> NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously provided by
> L-Soft ( www.lsoft.com ) and are powered by L-Soft's LISTSERV mailing
> list management software ( www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html ).
> Learn more about NCDD's email lists in the community section of the
> NCDD website ( www.thataway.org/community/lists/ ). Please read this
> mailing list's rules ( www.thataway.org/community/listrules ) before
> you post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  *************************************************************
> 4.  The original message from Sandy that launched the project
> 
> 
> From Sandy Heierbacher on Feb. 25:
> 
> 
> We are facing an unprecedented opportunity in the fields of public
> engagement, conflict resolution and collaboration. President Obama has
> demonstrated his commitment to participation, transparency and
> openness in his administration in numerous ways we've all taken note
> of.
> 
> There are a number of established associations and organizations in
> the U.S. that unite professionals and promote the practice and
> principles of consensus, dialogue, participation, collaboration,
> conflict resolution and other means of achieving largely the same end.
> 
> We suspect that many of these groups will try to communicate with the
> administration about how to best move forward, but we are concerned
> about the fact that although most of us speak the same basic language
> to describe this work, we tend to use many different dialects. This
> could weaken each of our cases, and overwhelm members of the
> administration rather than support them.
> 
> Rather than each of us contacting the administration separately with
> mixed messages and various levels of success, we believe we could make
> a greater impact working together. Can we collaborate or unify to
> present a collective source of principles, practices, talent and
> resources that this administration and nation will need in the next
> four years?
> 
> As a first step, a few of us have decided to lead a transparent effort
> to encourage people in our field to collectively agree (as much as
> possible) on principles or standards for public engagement. We've
> begun by posting a bunch of existing sets of principles on the NCDD
> site in forum software that anyone can contribute and respond to.
> 
> Please join us today at http://thataway.org/2009/pep_project/ - click
> on the right tab to sign up, then click on "discussions" to get back
> to the main page. We ask that you:
> 
> 1. Respond to the principles, articles, etc. that are posted.  What do
> you like about them?  What do you disagree with?  What would you
> change?
> 2. Add any sets of principles or criteria for public engagement you're
> aware of that aren't yet posted.
> 3. Check back later after our smaller group has created a draft set of
> principles based on your feedback and ideas. (I'll email these lists
> again when it's time.)
> 
> We hope to end up with a set of principles most of you will feel
> comfortable endorsing. Please help us get there!
> 
>    * Tom Atlee, President of the Co-Intelligence Institute
>    * Stephen Buckley, CEO of U.S. Transparency
>    * John Godec, Board member of the International Association of
> Public Participation (IAP2)
>    * Reynolds-Anthony Harris, Managing Director of Lyceum Patners &
> Co.
>    * Sandy Heierbacher, Director of the National Coalition for
> Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD)
>    * Steve Pyser, Editor of the International Journal of Public
> Participation
>    * Stephanie Roy McCallum, Immediate Past President of the
> International Association of Public Participation (IAP2)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________
> 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



More information about the OSList mailing list