Open Space being badly defined

[Kaliya *]

Sticking to the Original THREAD.....


On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Erik Fabian
<erik at doublehappinessnyc.com>wrote:

> 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.


thanks.


> 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.


yes.  I think it is interesting to see Harrison simply describe open space
....

Quoting from Harrison the thread that is ""off" this thread but should be
part of this thread"


Probably the largest issue is that OS is just too simple. If we
> could just make it more complicated, we might get more respect. But at the
> end of the day, and on everyday for the past 25 years OST requires only
> that
> you sit in a circle, create a bulletin board, open a market place, and go
> to
> work. I guess there must be values in there somewhere, probably having
> something to do with going to work. But even that one doesn't work too
> well,
> because OS usually turns out to be fun. And everybody knows that work is
> not
> fun, and if you are having fun, clearly you are not working. So I am not
> too
> sure about this rebranding stuff. Actually, I think we might want to keep
> it
> all secret. After all if you can do serious work and have fun doing it --
> that is obviously illegal, immoral and fattening. You wouldn't want it to
> get around.
>

SO, just to be clear what is happening. The Tech GUYS. are taking the one
thing they can SEE. .... the "agenda wall" (which when I do open space is
often a grid with times and spaces not just a wall with postits and  THAT IS
ALL....and then saying it is derrived and very close 'just like" open space
technology when it is quiet far from it...

They are not simply "rebranding" they are doing something qualitatively
different that is quite a bit less inclusive and less powerful...

they are pointing people at THE RULES OF BAR CAMP....
http://www.barcamp.org/TheRulesOfBarCamp

Basically insisting in loud letters on the wiki THAT EVERYONE WHO ATTEND
PRESENT (if not in actuality) - completely missing the role of invitation,
inquiry, exploration in getting people there.  It makes people afraid to
come.

They make no mention of the principles or the law.... They quite frequently
have opening circle where the agenda is made together (writing one's session
on a paper, announcing it and posting it) there is often NO (even minimal)
facilitation of agenda making. At its worse it is LITERALLY 300 alpah males
running at an 'agenda wall' with shapries to create an agenda.  At best it
is sort of "there" when people walk in and they can if they feel like post
somethign... Another bad version is the "pre made agenda" which is like an
unjuried conference - so whoever gets to teh wiki ahead of time can "sign
up" to do a session......


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 buildvarious 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.


Yep.


> 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.


Y. I am hoping I can get some of the cool folks to get the role of minimal
yet good space creation and facilitation.


> 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.


Yes - I tried to do my best with the brand 'unconference' and get good
information out there re: open space.


>  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.


Yes.

I think it would be interesting for Heidi to chime in about her experience
of the subtle difference between just "open space" as applied in a more
"closed" or "cohearent" communtiy event and an "unconfernece" that is a bit
more open and slightly less cohernet.  While both use OST there are subtle
differences in the energy and also the ability to gather notes for the
conference.



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


me too.


>
>
> 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
>

*
*
==========================================================
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/20090614/4ecb82eb/attachment-0016.htm>