I guess RE: Open Space being badly defined

[Justin T. Sampson]

Howdy!

I've been active in the Libertarian Party, which calls itself "the
party of principle". We talk about "principles" explicitly in
distinction to "values". It goes something like this...

Values are inherently relative. We all have different values. As
humans we certainly have a lot of similarity in our basic values, but
even then they are relative: I value my health, and I value my
family's health, and I value your health too, but it's hard to say
that I truly value those all equally. I'm more affected by the illness
of a friend than the illness of a stranger, and I expect that others
have a similar experience.

Whenever someone makes an assertion about "values", a Libertarian is
sure to pipe up and ask, "*whose* values?"

So, with all these different values, what do we do? We have to live
together one way or another. So we come up with "principles" --
practical guidelines for living together in this world.

The basic Libertarian principle is, "I won't force you to do anything
against your will, except to stop you from forcing me to do something
against my will."

The result is quite interesting -- within the Libertarian Party it is
not uncommon to find a Catholic businessman sitting next to a bisexual
exotic dancer working together with great respect for each other, even
while not being shy to express their views of each others' lifestyles.
Through a fluke of history the LP tends to be associated with more
"conservative" views, but we're really very diverse.

The Green Party, in contrast, is explicitly values-based. And
interestingly, while I agree with all of their Ten Key Values, I
oppose every point of their platform. It violates the basic principles
I think are so important for people with different values to live
together.

I have no intention of starting a political debate here. :) I'm just
sharing this story about "principles" as distinct from "values". And
perhaps I'm supporting the idea that the Open Space principles can be
seen as values-agnostic, and that part of their power is the way they
support different people working together. And I'm also offering
another example where a set of principles that I wish were enjoyed
more universally are held back by popular association with a specific
set of values.

I guess,
Justin

--
Agile Focus - http://agilefocus.com/


On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 5:20 AM, Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net> wrote:

>  Erik -- Not to worry about accusation. It is doubtless deserved. But
> let's go a little bit further. On the question of values, you mention that
> OST was "rooted in a set of values." That would suggest that we started with
> a set of values and then designed OST to match -- would it not? But the
> truth of the matter is rather different. I simply had a conference to run,
> and was too lazy and lacked sufficient time to do what most people did
> (Planning groups, etc). To ease the pain and enjoy the Washington Spring I
> had two martinis on my patio in April of 1985. By the end of the second
> (martini) OST had been born -- Sit in a circle, create a bulletin board,
> open a market place, and go to work. In July we (85 folks) "did it" and it
> worked, which is to say we created a 5 day symposium with multiple sessions
> all of which took place with little to no fuss. Not a planning committee or
> management committee in sight. It wasn't that we were anti-planning or
> management; neither were needed. Of course that raises all sorts of
> questions about the utility/effectiveness of planning and management but
> none of us went there at that point. Indeed it was only 4-5 years later that
> I really took OST seriously and began to consider the questions it raised.
> Those questions were appalling, for if valid virtually everything I knew
> from theory and practice about the management of meetings, indeed management
> itself -- all went poof. Not a comfortable experience only made worse by the
> fact that I discovered that client groups were able to accomplish in 2 days
> what had been taking them ten months to two years. The effect on my billable
> hours was catastrophic. At some level I almost wish that I had never drunk
> the martinis. I could have made a lot more money and nobody would be
> thinking that what I did was weird, to say nothing of counterintuitive and
> heretical (in need of “rebranding” J).
>
>
>
> A saving grace was the fact that Open Space is fun, and that people are fun
> to be with in Open Space. That has been true for me all over the world. I
> guess there are people who don't want to have any fun and run away when
> folks get excited, innovative, creative and intense -- after all things
> could get out of control! God love them and for sure they can be as
> miserable as the want. I won't say a word. But for my self I truly enjoy a
> full, open, joyous, fun life -- and wouldn't have it any other way. Ah --
> you got me! My values are sneaking through.
>
>
>
> Harrison
>
>
>
> Harrison Owen
>
> 189 Beaucaire Ave
>
> Camden, ME 04843
>
> 207-763-3261 (Summer)
>
> 301-365-2093 (Winter)
>
> Website www.openspaceworld.com
>
> Personal Website www.ho-image.com
>
> OSLIST To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options
> http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On Behalf Of Erik
> Fabian
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:53 PM
> To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> Subject: Re: I guess RE: Open Space being badly defined
>
>
>
> Hi Harrison,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your comments. I am very impressed with OS.
>
>
>
> I am not trying to accuse you of anything, I just observe that OS is rooted
> in a set of values.
>
> Nothing wrong with that...I think they are good values, openness being the
> primary one, fun being
>
> another...but I hope you can agree with me that not everyone would agree
> with openness or fun
>
> being a positive or even preferential value in every situation and
> culture...even if OS has worked
>
> cross-culturally and we think we know better eh.
>
>
>
> I also observe OS in theory and practice as being inclusive to any value
> set (if you can accept the
>
> basic ground rules...sort of like the way religious freedom exists in
> secular America by enforcing
>
> that residents not to persecute believers of other faiths)...folks can
> create a session as they see fit
>
> and are bound to express their own values in that session...but getting
> folks to give an OS event a
>
> try in the first place is still a leap for some (well more likely many)
> folks. For instance if you value
>
> strict order and hierarchy then OS might seem like a waste of time.
>
>
>
> I am full of opinions and could go on but I hope you get my point.
>
>
>
> I heard that when Zen got started they just asked folks to sit there and do
> nothing, just
>
> observe...that wasn't working so well so they eventually realized that most
> people needed a bit
>
> more structure, so they added few more instructions. Structure seems to
> have its uses for creating
>
> digestible products. And in the end enlightenment is enlightenment is
> enlightenment is it not?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Erik
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:04:49 -0400, Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Eric -- I am really curious about the "Church of OS." I am very clear that
> I
>
> >never created such a thing, advocated its start, or propagated its future.
> I
>
> >grant you that it began with Great Spirit -- but two martinis will do that
>
> >for you. 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.
>
> >
>
> >Harrison
>
> >
>
> >Harrison Owen
>
> >189 Beaucaire Ave
>
> >Camden, ME 04843
>
> >207-763-3261 (Summer)
>
> >301-365-2093 (Winter)
>
> >Website www.openspaceworld.com
>
> >Personal Website www.ho-image.com
>
> >OSLIST To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options
>
> >http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >-----Original Message-----
>
> >From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On Behalf Of Erik
>
> >Fabian
>
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 3:15 PM
>
> >To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
>
> >Subject: Re: Open Space being badly defined
>
> >
>
> >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
>
> >
>
> >*
>
> >*
>
> >==========================================================
>
> >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

*
*
==========================================================
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/20090615/30df4883/attachment-0016.htm>