[OSList] Sauna Space

Tue Jul 12 07:04:02 PDT 2011

>
> ...It would be interesting to think of the analogues to “Sauna Space,” over
> time and around the world. I suspect we would quickly find that opening
> space is by no means a unique occupation confined to that esoteric group
> known as the Open Space Community. It is a natural act and been going on
> forever. As we recall with the 5th Principle, “Wherever it happens is the
> right place.”
>

"The Fifth Principle"  ...sounds like the title of a book waiting to be
written!

--

Michael Herman
Michael Herman Associates
312-280-7838 (mobile)

http://MichaelHerman.com
http://ManorNeighbors.com
http://OpenSpaceWorld.org

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net> wrote:

> Mikk --  Sauna Space…Delightful! A powerful reminder that we did not invent
> or create Open Space. It has been around ever since. Which only makes sense
> when we remember that the opening in our time/space creates the natural and
> essential opportunity for the resetting and renewal of the Complex Adaptive
> System – which is us. Self organization has been the way of nature from the
> beginning and people everywhere and  in all the times have had to deal with
> it. Consciously or unconsciously, we live our lives in a self organizing
> world and “adjustment spaces” are essential. It would be interesting to
> think of the analogues to “Sauna Space,” over time and around the world. I
> suspect we would quickly find that opening space is by no means a unique
> occupation confined to that esoteric group known as the Open Space
> Community. It is a natural act and been going on forever. As we recall with
> the 5th Principle, “Wherever it happens is the right place.”****
>
> ** **
>
> Harrison  ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Harrison Owen****
>
> 7808 River Falls Dr.****
>
> Potomac, MD 20854****
>
> USA****
>
> ** **
>
> 189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)****
>
> Camden, Maine 20854****
>
> ** **
>
> Phone 301-365-2093****
>
> (summer)  207-763-3261****
>
> ** **
>
> www.openspaceworld.com****
>
> www.ho-image.com (Personal Website)****
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST
> Go to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org [mailto:
> oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org] *On Behalf Of *Mikk Sarv
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 12, 2011 5:10 AM
> *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
> *Subject:* Re: [OSList] A tale of two companies/Dissolving Power****
>
> ** **
>
> Reading this I recalled our centuries old tradition of sauna. Every
> Saturday afternoon the time flow was disrupted. The name for Saturday in our
> language was half-day - 'puulpäiv'. All went to sauna naked - men and women,
> rich and poor, old and young, without distinction. The general rule was that
> one should never refuse to offer to whoever comes drinking water from well
> and sauna, when it was heated.****
>
> Besides cleaning in hot temperature the sauna was alos place for inside
> cleansing. Unsolved issues were addressed and discussed, perhaps like in
> swetlodge tradition among American native people. ****
>
> Now I understand, that this tradition enabled people to open space
> regularily and to solve issues, to enable and to make use of the
> self-regulation process.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for interesting thread!****
>
> ** **
>
> Mikk Sarv****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> 2011/7/10 Peggy Holman <peggy at peggyholman.com>****
>
> Harrison,****
>
> ** **
>
> To your point, at the second Biotech OS that I did, a constant theme was
> "we are facing the same issues that we have been for years with no
> resolution".  Well, beyond just declaring that they were going to do it
> differently this time, in the closing circle, one of the managers said that
> a group of them had gotten together at lunch and taken on one of those
> chronic issues.  They came to a new and easily implementable solution.  He
> declared it the most productive 10 minutes in years.  Think about it...ten
> minutes to resolve an issue that had been stuck for years!  (Of course, the
> preceding day and a half of time together in Open Space made that 10 minutes
> viable.)****
>
> ** **
>
> Harrison has already eloquently spoken to what made the difference,
> starting with this powerful observation:****
>
> In Open Space the total intelligence and experience of the assembled body,
> which was immense, was cut loose to deal with the issues, not in a linear
> sequential fashion, but in a simultaneous, multi-tasking environment which
> was simply white hot. ****
>
> ** **
>
> The Open Space disrupted business as usual, creating the space in which
> they ran into their own frustrations head on.  And they had the room to do
> something about it because of the shift in the relationships that comes from
> the "random encounters" of who gets to interact with whom.  Further, the
> space was an invitation to be pioneers, together facing their shared issues.
>  And when the habitual conflicts around stuck areas surfaced ("we know who
> owns the xyz function"), they took on the dysfunctions and came to
> agreements that none could have done on their own or in a linear fashion.*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> Peggy****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Jul 10, 2011, at 6:20 AM, Harrison Owen wrote:****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> Artur – I would never suggest that Power is somehow absent in Open Space or
> as you say, “dissolves.” In fact my experience is just the opposite. When
> space is opened and the people really get to work, the ambient power is, for
> me, truly awesome. Indeed the flow and focus of Power is vastly more
> effective, may I say “powerful,” than is ordinarily experienced in the
> “normal” organizational setting, including such places as IBM at it
> autocratic best/worst. For example, I once had a large IBM consulting group
> (250 people) in a 2 day Open Space. They were facing a complex of technical
> issues which they had been struggling with for several years to no avail.
> Their approach to that point had been standard IBM procedure. The senior
> executive and his management team planned everything with precision, they
> carefully organized the working groups and tightly controlled their process
> – in a fashion you are well familiar with.J The result had been two years
> of constant failure and near misses. All of this changed in Open Space.
> Precisely the same group of people managed to deal with the same group of
> issues in an elegant fashion, productive of workable solutions – in 2 days.
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> The difference was embarrassingly obvious, and in fact there were a few red
> faces in the management team, but one could scarcely argue with success. But
> what was the cause of the difference? It was surely not the absence of Power
> – but rather the way Power manifests and was utilized. Under the “old rules”
> Power is concentrated at the “top” and then passed on down the line in small
> dribbles and drabs. The problem was that the whole mechanism was so
> cumbersome and slow that when the external conditions changed or new
> technologies emerged, which they did constantly and quickly, the “elegant
> design and process” was left in the dust. One more failure or near miss.**
> **
>
>  ****
>
> In Open Space the total intelligence and experience of the assembled body,
> which was immense, was cut loose to deal with the issues, not in a linear
> sequential fashion, but in a simultaneous, multi-tasking environment which
> was simply white hot. And the power flow was brilliant – but the locus and
> focus of that power shifted constantly from group to group, individual to
> individual. Mapping that flow would have been an interesting study, but the
> study would always have been multiple steps behind the reality – and any
> pretence of prediction would have been doomed to failure.  Too quick, too
> complex, mind blowing. Playing by the old rules was not a possibility, and
> from the view point of those rules, what happened was simply impossible,
> which was the source of redness on the faces of the Management team.****
>
>  ****
>
> Of course, what happened is a common experience in Open Space – not because
> of the magic of Open Space but rather the power of the underlying force of
> any well functioning self organizing system which we did not design, create,
> and certainly don’t “run.” It is the “natural” way. Obviously we can choose
> to go a different way – and many do just that. And the results speak for
> themselves. Making such a choice always mystifies me, but it clear that many
> folks would rather maintain the illusion of “Being in Control” at the
> expense of effectiveness and profitability. But that is a choice.****
>
>  ****
>
> There is a place for formal structure and controls, but I think that place
> is a small one, useful for defining boundaries and identity. But it is a
> lousy way to run a business, or at least a very ineffective way. I often
> think of the Formal system as the ossified residue of the last
> self-organization. Rather like the Lobster’s shell which works quite well
> until things change – the lobster grows. I have written rather extensively
> about all this in Wave Rider, if you are interested.****
>
>  ****
>
> Harrison****
>
>  ****
>
> Harrison Owen****
>
> 7808 River Falls Dr.****
>
> Potomac, MD 20854****
>
> USA****
>
>  ****
>
> 189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)****
>
> Camden, Maine 20854****
>
>  ****
>
> Phone 301-365-2093****
>
> (summer)  207-763-3261****
>
>  ****
>
> www.openspaceworld.com****
>
> www.ho-image.com (Personal Website)****
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST
> Go to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org [mailto:
> oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org] *On Behalf Of *Artur Silva
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 09, 2011 11:51 PM
> *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
> *Subject:* Re: [OSList] A tale of two companies****
>
>  ****
>
> Peggy, Harrison, Suzanne, David, Doug and Chris:****
>
>  ****
>
> I ended last Friday a very intensive work period, to finish the first (and
> bigger) phase of my students' examinations and submitting a paper to a
> Conference. In the meanwhile, I have read the first marvelous initial post
> of this thread from Peggy, and the interesting answers that followed.****
>
>  ****
>
> After Peggy's first mail I had the intention - but not the time - to write
> some comments. This afternoon, when I had the time, I reread everything, but
> before beginning to write I have received all the careful answers that Peggy
> sent to each of the comments.****
>
>  ****
>
> Now it is almost all said, and my comment is only concerned with a small
> point where this thread relates with the paper I wrote, namely the
> importance of Power and Care (that I prefer to "Love") in the tech company's
> experience Peggy shared with us.****
>
>  ****
>
> As many of you know, I have been struggling, after some years, with two
> related questions:****
>
>  ****
>
> 1) first, how can we create the "Patterns of a Learning Architecture" for a
> company (or other organization) so that it can learn faster and more
> profoundly than other organizations, especially in what concerns questions
> of generative (double-loop) learning, and namely when "sensible questions"
> are at stake? In other words: how can we change the learning patterns of a
> company (which usually have strong learning disabilities) if and when that
> change is possible? (which btw assumes that it is not always possible...)*
> ***
>
>  ****
>
> 2) Second, what is - or can be - the role of OST in all of this?****
>
>  ****
>
> Of course, one can always say that power doesn't exist at all, or that "you
> never have to let go of it, because you never had it in the first place" (I
> am paraphrasing a recent answer from Harrison to Eleder's "Quote").  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Or, at least, we can say that, in many situations we all know of, Power can
> be kind of "dissolved" in the OST event(s) - in a way that it can't be in
> other more "directive approaches", like "team building", to give only one
> example.****
>
>  ****
>
> But what happens in those situations were power doesn't "dissolve"? (Having
> worked 20 years for IBM, I know a lot of situations where the best
> intentions of senior professionals and middle managers couldn't change what
> was decided "at the Top".)****
>
>  ****
>
> And what happens in those situations where* it is not even good for the
> future of the organization that power dissolves too quickly*, as the
> "person in charge" has a more clear and compassionate vision that the people
> that contest her/him, even if - or especially when - those ones are the
> majority?****
>
>  ****
>
> Any comments?****
>
>  ****
>
> Best regards from late night in Lisbon****
>
>  ****
>
> Artur****
>
>  ****
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Peggy Holman <peggy at peggyholman.com>
> *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list <
> oslist at lists.openspacetech.org>
> *Sent:* Sat, July 9, 2011 9:31:55 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [OSList] A tale of two companies
>
> Hi Chris,****
>
>  ****
>
> I have followed up with my client.  To paraphrase a comment from the
> client: when the community is part of creating the change and leadership is
> engaged, the invitation may seem more authentic and therefore participating
> is less of a stretch.****
>
>  ****
>
> Ironically, the group is in the midst of a re-org, with little information
> to anyone.  Based on my contact's reflections, I see no appetite to reflect
> on the experience.  And I doubt there will be much, if any, forward motion.
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> The power dynamic was certainly an important factor.  Thanks for the
> reference to Adam's work.  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Even when the agenda isn't hidden, if it is coming from the middle, as this
> event demonstrated, it may well be rejected.  The group took on some real
> business issues but steered clear of anything related to the power
> structures.  In retrospect, that makes sense.  Management didn't open the
> door to that arena.****
>
>  ****
>
> And you're so right: when that opening appears, things will shift.  Given
> the amount of denial at play, it will likely be pretty messy when it
> happens.  So Engaging Emergence may well be a help!  In fact, my contact
> just gave a copy to the group's manager.****
>
>  ****
>
> Peggy****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> On Jul 8, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Chris Corrigan wrote:****
>
> ** **
>
> Both Suzanne and Harrison have made some excellent reflections
> here...Peggy, have you had a chance to follow up with the tech company
> folks?  Seems like an important harvest from that experience is a naming of
> some of the things that are holding them back.  They may choose to use OST
> or some other process for these conversations, but it certainly seems
> apparent that without talking about this stuff, they are not going to move
> forward well.  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Your story does point to an important question that I have been in
> recently, and that is, how do we relate what we are doing to the realities
> of power in the organization?  Adam Kahane's recent work on Power and Love
> has highlighted the need to be sensitive to both the relational and the
> transactional contexts at play in an organization.  Using processes like OST
> is often a vote for the relational to be activated in the work, but if the
> transactional power dynamics are at play, people will often behave the way
> you describe.  Suzanne names it well - a well-intentioned hidden agenda -
> and the effect can be that it increases mistrust and confusion and people
> feel that the intervention has not actually dealt with the real issues.  *
> ***
>
>  ****
>
> When the opening appears for THAT conversation, things will flow.  And that
> is where YOUR book has much to offer around the skills of working with
> emergence and disruption. ****
>
>  ****
>
> C****
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:28 PM, doug <os at footprintsinthewind.com> wrote:**
> **
>
> Peggy and all friends--
>
> Question 1: It was 1975 when I last lived inside a Fortune 200
> corporation, so take this with a grain of salt. What came through my
> sixth sense on reading this was that somehow it was not a good mix to
> have both managers and field people in this particular OS. They had
> different issues to be worked by.
>
> Question 2: speaks of the same dynamic to me: a very highly controlled
> group, where the inside circle did not want interlopers, or were so
> perceived.
>
> Had one company just recently acquired another in this tech company? It
> feels we/they to me.
>
> Hopefully this gives a bit of a different echo from the hills across the
> way.
>
>                        :- Doug.****
>
>
>
> On Sat, 2011-07-02 at 16:29 -0700, Peggy Holman wrote:
> > In the last few months, I opened space at a tech company and a biotech
> > company. On one level, they looked similar: one functional area,
> > international participation, a mix of managers and individual
> > contributors.
> >
> > Yet the experiences and the outcomes couldn't have been more
> > different!  I'll describe the two events and my reflections on what
> > made the difference between them.
> >
> > Note: I wrote the story about the tech immediately following the Open
> > Space but didn't have a chance to edit and send it before the second
> > experience. You'll see a couple of questions that the experience
> > raised for me embedded in the story.  They took on a little different
> > light following the second experience.
> >
> > Corporate dynamics at play in a technology company...
> >
> > This OS was with an international sales and marketing meeting for the
> > launch of a new year. Day 1 was not in Open Space.  It was a manager’s
> > only session, using a mix of conversational forms (a huge stretch for
> > the power point, info-out culture). It went well. People appreciated
> > talking rather than just listening.  Many of the field people
> > acknowledged the quality of listening from headquarters people who
> > usually do most of the talking.
> >
> > On the first afternoon, the larger meeting – 100 people – began with a
> > conversation between execs and the people in the room. A great, candid
> > conversation.
> >
> > On day 2, we opened the space. During the Open Space, I ran into a
> > several issues that I haven't experienced before and wondered if
> > others have.
> >
> > Overall, it was a terrific day. And one of the unexpected dynamics
> > surfaced: the managers didn't feel complete with the conversations
> > that they wanted just amongst themselves. And they didn't feel they
> > had the space for their private conversation in the Open Space. My
> > client caught wind of the situation as they planned to organize a
> > session during day 3's action planning/next step breakout session
> > time. That meant the management layer wouldn't be part of action
> > planning/next step conversations.
> >
> > We negotiated having the manager session posted in the context of
> > action planning/next steps so that it would be visible even if not
> > open to everyone. In practice, it was announced but not posted.
> >
> > We added a second action oriented round of breakout sessions in the
> > afternoon following a short briefing of what came out of the morning
> > group to fit the timing of the manager’s session,  It made room for
> > managers or others to host more action/next step sessions.
> >
> > So question 1: have others run into the managers-only dynamic?  If so,
> > how have you dealt with it?  Are there questions you use in your
> > pre-work for the OS to surface the issue and deal with it in advance?
> > We thought we had handled the need with the pre-meeting among
> > managers. What signs might have tipped us off to the need for more?
> >
> > The second dynamic completely blindsided me. Normally the second
> > morning of an OS just buzzes!  Perhaps it was the party the night
> > before but the group was really subdued. When I opened the space for
> > action, no one came forward. Given the energy in the room, I had the
> > sense that an elephant was sitting there untouched. I asked if anyone
> > would speak to what was up. Someone said they didn't want to step on
> > headquarter people's toes by proposing action sessions that were
> > really HQ responsibilities. The exec in the room encouraged people to
> > do so, saying that HQ was there to serve the field's needs.
> > Ultimately, five sessions on topics of importance were posted.
> >
> > After the meeting, my client said she thought the reluctance came from
> > a pattern of headquarters taking field input and having the
> > suggestions disappear without any feedback on what happened to the
> > ideas or why. So why should field people offer anything?
> >
> > I got the impression that the field saw it as the responsibility of
> > headquarters people to take the lead. And the HQ people already felt
> > full up so they weren't stepping in. Plus, people didn't see a need
> > for action sessions since they felt they’d been identifying actions
> > throughout the Open Space.
> >
> > Question 2: Given that tension between field and headquarters is
> > common, have others run into this sort of reluctance to post action
> > sessions? Might we have anticipated this perception before it put a
> > damper on things?
> >
> > It was one of the only Open Space gatherings I've ever done in which
> > people didn't come away saying, "Wow! Best meeting I've ever
> > attended."  Instead, we heard from many that the meeting was too open
> > and confusing. People wanted to hear more from the senior managers
> > about what was on their minds.  I left the experience pondering the
> > dynamics that led to that outcome.  The contrast with this second
> > meeting helped me identify some possibilities.
> >
> >
> >
> > High times in a biotech...
> >
> > The work was part of a company-wide change initiative. The senior
> > manager was its host.  He was actively involved. For example, he
> > opened the meeting by speaking of his aspirations for the department.
> > He also said a few words at morning announcements and evening news on
> > each of the two days.
> >
> > Like the tech company, this session was basically one function --
> > human resources -- with a few others invited for spice. Also similar
> > to the tech meeting, people came from around the world.
> >
> > The meeting was a hit!  People instantly leaped out to post sessions.
> > With about 100 participants, more than 50% posted something. I don't
> > think I've ever had a group that size post in that ratio. The
> > conversations were rich and useful. Along with the variety of topics,
> > people worked through issues around organizational levels as well as
> > field/headquarters dynamics.  At least three Open Space meetings
> > resulted, to be hosted by different attendees over the coming
> > weeks. In fact, I was invited to help with one of them.
> >
> > One other aspect of this session: I ran a workshop before and after
> > the OS for about a half a dozen internal people to support them in
> > opening space in the organization. We also met to reflect on the
> > experience before morning announcements and after evening news during
> > the Open Space.  In other words, they had already adopted Open Space
> > as a key element of how they wanted to work. The organization is
> > investing in a group of people to support creating a conversational
> > culture.
> >
> > At a second OS I did with them a few weeks later, we brought most of
> > the new practitioners together to continue to learn together. It's
> > wonderful because they now have an internal community of practice to
> > support each other.
> >
> > I was grateful to have the biotech meeting on the heels of the
> > technology meeting! I went from questioning what I thought I knew to
> > having some ideas of what created the differences in the experiences.
> >
> >
> > Reflections on the differences that made a difference
> >
> > The biotech was committed to changing their culture and open to new
> > ways of working. The OS was focused on the group envisioning how it
> > can best perform its role in the company in light of those changes.
> > The tech company meeting was more of a “stealth action” by a mid-level
> > individual contributor familiar with Open Space. She was seeding the
> > idea of a conversational culture.  In other words, the biotech event
> > occurred in fertile soil, the tech company event was breaking up the
> > hardpan.
> >
> > At the biotech, the sponsor was a senior manager who was explicit
> > about using the event to spark culture change.  His whole team
> > participated throughout the event so there was no issue around hearing
> > what senior people were thinking. They were in the room. In contrast,
> > the tech company host was a mid-level individual contributor. She is
> > highly trusted and used her influence to bring Open Space in.  Her
> > goal was to take steps towards creating a more conversational
> > culture. Both intentions are valid. They just created different
> > experiences.
> >
> > At the biotech, the sponsor had used Open Space at a previous
> > organization as part of a successful culture change initiative. He
> > "got" the simplicity of Open Space, not even feeling a need for an
> > action round.  Instead, as part of session notes, we asked people to
> > include both a discussion and a "next steps/commitments" section. That
> > dealt with one of the disconnects in the tech company meeting.  They
> > were confused when I re-opened the space for action, saying they had
> > been naming actions throughout. The biotech meeting helped me see that
> > re-opening the space for action turned out to be an unnecessary thing
> > to do.
> >
> > The biotech meeting was offsite, so even those who were stretched by
> > the Open Space stuck around because it was a big effort to leave.
> > That gave them time to warm to the experience over the two days.  The
> > tech company meeting was onsite, making it easy for the senior
> > managers and others to show up briefly and leave.
> >
> > Finally, the biotech is thriving and growing while the tech company is
> > really struggling to rediscover its identity. This external factor
> > strikes me as a key difference in the environments.
> >
> > So what does it all mean?  I would still Open Space in the tech
> > company.  There were plenty of people who found the experience
> > worthwhile, even if their feedback was quieter than those who were
> > frustrated or confused. I believe we prepared the soil for a few seeds
> > to take root.
> >
> > For the tech company to take further steps, it strikes me that the
> > person who hosted the Open Space would benefit from finding informal
> > partners, other inside change agents.  I like to believe that even
> > without strong leadership support, she can make a dent.  As the
> > biotech company shows, management involvement can be an accelerator.
> >  Still, as I think about what someone sitting in the middle of an
> > organization can do, enlisting partners who share interest in creating
> > a conversational culture could be a way to continue to move forward.
> >  By forming an informal community of learners, she can create a system
> > of support.
> >
> > Could we have done better?  No doubt.  I look forward to any thoughts
> > you have.
> >
> > Appreciatively,
> >
> > Peggy
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________
> > Peggy Holman
> > peggy at peggyholman.com
> >
> >
> > 15347 SE 49th Place
> > Bellevue, WA  98006
> > 425-746-6274
> > www.peggyholman.com
> > www.journalismthatmatters.org
> >
> >
> > Enjoy the award winning Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into
> > Opportunity
> >
> > "An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire and not get
> > burnt, is to become
> > the fire".
> >   -- Drew Dellinger
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >****
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > OSList mailing list
> > To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
> > To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:****
>
> > http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org****
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSList mailing list
> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:****
>
> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org****
>
>
>
>
> --
> CHRIS CORRIGAN
> Facilitation - Training - Process Design
> Open Space Technology
>
> Weblog: http://www.chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot
> Site: http://www.chriscorrigan.com/****
>
> *upcoming Art of Hosting retreats:*****
>
> Bowen Island, BC<http://berkana.org/berkana/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=14&id=375&Itemid=525> -
> October 23 - 26th****
>
> Saskatchewan<http://berkana.org/berkana/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=14&id=370&Itemid=516> -
> September 19 - 22nd****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSList mailing list
> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org****
>
>  ****
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSList mailing list
> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org****
>
> ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSList mailing list
> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSList mailing list
> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20110712/1b4ceecb/attachment-0008.htm>