Open Space being badly defined

[Wendy Farmer-O'Neil]

Hi Kaliya and all,
I had the opportunity to participate in one of John Pinkus' Mashup's  
at Microsoft.  It was a very frustrating experience for an OS  
facilitator.  The energetics were all sideways.  And it was extremely  
hard to watch that much talent and money get, to be crude, pissed up a  
wall.  As you say Kaliya, like a bunch of Alpha males, or in this  
case, Alpha geeks, in a leaping contest to see who could get the most  
sponsorship for their idea, whoring away at influence and power ego  
BS.  Eck.  To be more specific, instead of the liberating structure of  
OS and other sister methodologies, there was a total absence of  
container.  All the energy and intelligence and creativity was just  
bouncing around the space.  It was like they thought they could take,  
as you say, all the cool stuff they can 'see' (lets remember we're  
dealing with a variety of engineer here) and hash it all up together  
to get something just so hip--but with no soul.

Pinkus has confused technology with strategy before and since.  And i  
think he's simply characteristic of IT leadership in general.  The  
problem with confusing one's tools with one's strategy is that it's  
all about what you can see on the surface and not at all addressing  
the essence, the invitation or the soul of the work.  That's an  
ongoing challenge with an IT audience. They think in algorithm.  The  
MS campaign "People ready" is a great example.  As if you could just  
pop people into the equation and have it all work.  Says it all  
really.  ( The washrooms are labelled with plug diagrams...sockets for  
the girls and plugs for the boys...really, i'm not making this  
up...they think of us as sockets and pins.)  As i said in an earlier  
post, we have managed to engineer for ourselves a largely inhuman  
context.  And the sweet, brilliant folks who work in IT endure one of  
the most driven, inhuman contexts in the developed world. (And there  
are good people trying, largely unsuccessfully, to change that.)

The IT crowd loves and thrives in OST when they get the chance to get  
into it, just like everybody else.  And it's a damn hard sell--because  
explaining the difference between what they are doing and what we are  
proposing largely lands in territory they don't include in their  
consciousness.  You've got to make the business case.  Bottom line.   
And to be honest, most of us process folks just aren't that good at  
doing that.  So, we keep offering and keep demo-ing, and start  
competing events that are successful and people love, and in the long  
run, well ;) those who are better at self-organization will eventually  
out-evolve the rest of the pack.  Frustrating in the short term, but  
no other outcome possible really....

And there is a lot of good info about OST and a lot of bad info  
circulating too.  And it would be good if more of us who care took  
more active responsibility in making sure good information is  
available in the most visible and accessed repositories (perhaps the  
Institutes could take this on?).  And we will still hit the wall of  
understanding and interpretation.  Some things you can only learn by  
experience.

Feeling feisty and tricksterish,
hugs to y'all
Wendy

On 14-Jun-09, at 11:24 PM, Kaliya * wrote:

> 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

Wendy Farmer-O'Neil
CEO Prospera Consulting
wendy at xe.net
1-800-713-2351

The moment of change is the only poem. -- Adrienne Rich





*
*
==========================================================
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/20090615/855547e5/attachment-0016.htm>