Open Space being badly defined

[Erik Fabian]

Hi Kaliya,

I have visited your sites in the past and appreciate all the information you share. I also appreciate 
you advocacy for getting this community more engaged with the unconference zeitgeist.

Leaving the wiki articles aside for a moment, I hear you saying a few things:

1) OS needs to update its marketing and repostion its brand if it is not to be confused with things 
like barcamps.

2) There is confusion among the folks who create "participatory" events about the tools OS offers 
and the values behind those tools. (The problem of definition)

3) People who care about OS, such as the people on this list, should be taking care to steward the 
OS information that is in the public like on the wiki's. They should act.

Here is my two-cents:

I think OS is a beautiful form but is one of many approaches to structuring participation. The 
problem I see is that OS is presented as a set of values more so than a tool. A minority shares the 
values that are expressed by OS and not everyone is in the position to take the risk necessary to 
participate in OS if they don't believe that the outcomes are superior to a traditional event. Only a 
minority of folks are ever going to want to join the church of OS.

I like that OS is a "technology", and like "open source", it is a technology that can be used to build 
various applications. In that sense the openness is important and it also affirms that OS is an 
insight into something fundamental about getting together in a participatory way. I think this is 
the best move they could have made.

I am not too worried about definition. There isn't a ton of info on OS available but there is plenty. 
It is in both book form and online. I would note however that the language and marketing of OS 
could use some updating for younger generations.

Perhaps Barcamps fail as an app, but they are winning as a marketing campaign. Like any event, I 
find that many folks are not going to Barcamps because they are participatory but because they 
are trendy and hosting by folks who are cool. Same thing is happening with Pecha Kuchas. 

I support you in pointing out that the Wiki is an important front for controlling perception of OS, 
especially in the minds of the IT community. If there are folks on this board who are invested in 
this fight, I second Kaliya advocacy to start editing the entry.

But in the end I would rather just see more hip OS events, with updated language, more marketing 
savvy, and that reach into more industry sectors.  If Barcamps fail as an app, then I say so be it...it 
is creating an opportunity for other events. At least that is were I am focusing my efforts.

Thanks for the ideas. I hope we will have the chance to chat further sometime.

Cheers,
Erik




On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:29:31 -0700, Kaliya * <identitywoman at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Holger Nauheimer (Change Facilitation) <
>holger at change-facilitation.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Kaliya,
>>
>> although I don't want to interfere with this particular Wikipedia article,
>
>
>Why not?
>
>
>> Iam not very happy with your edition. Let me explain, and let us try to
>> find
>> some common ground:
>>
>> 1. Bar Camps are derived from Open Space Technology. They are a crude
>> adaptation of the principles and leave out a couple of essential elements
>> of
>> OST. But they are still self-organized meetings (with less of magic, I
>> agree)
>>
>> 2. I have never attended a Bar Camp where somebody claimed that this was ON
>> OST. People say, "this is a Bar Camp."
>
>
>I agree AND BarCamp's are lame...most people have negative experiences and
>it gives the whole field of participant driven events a bad name.
>
>
>>
>>
>> 3. I believe that it is good that principles of self-organization
>> ("un-conference") have entered into other areas of life and society,
>> whether
>> one calls it OST, Bar Camp, World Caf� etc. I don't care much for the
>> names,
>> as long a meeting is about passion and responsibility. In this sense,
>> Harrison, and all we followers have contributed to a better world, or at
>> least, to better meetings.
>>
>> 4. The way you phrased it in your revision ("FooCamp derived some of its
>> process from Open Space Technology but left out key elements like having
>> the
>> agenda making process facilitated and leaving out sharing the 4 principles
>> of Open Space and Law of Two feet that help frame how people act throughout
>> the day. Closing wrap-up the "evening news" of how the day went was also
>> left out. Since BarCamp is a "replication" of FooCamp it also changed -
>> making yet farther removed from the original method.") focuses on the
>> differences and leaves a kind of negative imprint.
>
>
>YES! THAT WAS THE POINT.
>I have been to both (FooCamp - twice [in my other life in the technical
>world focused on online digital identity I "rate" high enough to be invited
>to them] - the original BarCamp and several camps since organized by techie
>geeks who wave their arms and sort of hope for it to happen).  I have had
>and watch others have negative experiences (and less then fully realized
>potential of these gatherings) cause they left out key important parts and
>"think" they are doing it well and as if those key elements don't matter.
>
>
>> But it is great that
>> people do Bar Camps, isn't it? We, as an OST movement shouldn't try to
>> distinguish us from the Bar Camp movement but rather looking more at the
>> common ground.
>
>
>I completely disagree.
> I think we need to be clear our method has key things that are good,
>essential and not to be forgotten and encourage ADOPTION OF THESE things.
>
>
>> That will give OST also a greater exposure. Many young people
>> know Bar Camps but they don't know OST. So here is a chance to be a
>> "missionary" and tell them - you can do even more with some simple
>> procedures.
>>
>> 5. I propose (but leave it up to you) to rephrase this particular article
>> in
>> the following way: "FooCamps and BarCamps are based on a simplified
>> variation of Open Space Technology (OST), leaving out some key elements
>> like
>> the 4 principles and the Law of the Two Feet but maintaining the
>> self-organizing character of OST. Other than in classical conference
>> formats, BarCamps and OST rely on the passion and the responsibility of the
>> participants, putting them into the driver's seat."
>
>
>Sure - make the edit then.
>
>
>>
>>
>> 6. I agree with your remarks on the article on Open-space meetings and have
>> just entered the following comment into the discussion:
>> "I believe this article is redundant and confusing and should be either
>> deleted or merged with [[Open Space Technology]]. What would be reason to
>> keep this one? Open Space meetings don't exist. There is Open Space
>> Technology, and there are meetings that are done in an Open Space like
>> style. But this is too fuzzy for a single article."
>>
>
>Great.
>
>*
>*
>==========================================================
>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