Open Space being badly defined

[Chris Corrigan]

Brilliantly said Wendy.
One of the things that has struck me over the years about OST is the way
people will often insist, in their own words, that OST is not the culture of
their organization, that for whatever reason, it will not work.  It's
largely an overreaction to plain and simple fear that we will be out of
control.

Working with skeptics and cynics results in some variation of two different
results.  People either find out that they were right or wrong.  Cynics who
experience a "bad" open space often define it as such because it didn't do
what the facilitator promised and it therefore confirmed their suspicions
that OST was not the right fit.  On the other hand sometimes cynics discover
that OST actually made its own business case and they were surprised to
learn that the process works, and is aligned with the culture of human
systems.Those end up being the "good" open space meetings.

I'm always surprised by the places in which conversation and practice of OST
s an uphill battle and where it seems surprisingly easy.  In lots of
contexts, like industrial unions, I've been surprised that folks have jumped
up to do this and meet this way.  In other places, that I thought would be a
slam dunk for OST, like the  social services world and the tech world,  (and
in particular Microsoft and a couple of other firms and communities) there
were so many fears that I frankly felt that I was being cross-examined
rather than engaged in a planning process.

I long ago learned that "selling" Open Space was a bad idea, beacuse it
ended up putting me in charge for the quality of the event.  Anytime I
detect an uphill slog in using the process, I usually get very clear with
people, asking if OST is really what they want to do.  We'll either say yes
and discover together what needs to happen to make it work or we'll say no.
 There continue to be times when it has broken my heart to see people
"pissing up the wall" when they could have otherwise been engaged in a
phenomenal meeting, but I'm getting better at letting go of what I think is
best for other people!

Cheers all,

Chris


On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Wendy Farmer-O'Neil <wendy at xe.net> wrote:

> 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




-- 
CHRIS CORRIGAN
Facilitation - Training - Process Design
Open Space Technology

Weblog: http://www.chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot
Site: http://www.chriscorrigan.com

Principal, Harvest Moon Consultants, Ltd.
http://www.harvestmoonconsultants.com

*
*
==========================================================
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/e293a2a2/attachment-0008.htm>