[OSList] A tale of two companies

Artur Silva arturfsilva at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 18 23:50:05 PDT 2011


Doug:
 
Some short comments before leaving for a much needed 15-day vacation, in the 
mountains, without Internet ;-) 
 
I think your first question is tautological. You ask:"do we suppose it is a good 
thing to promote competition?". With this formulation one must answer "No".
 
But the point is that this is not, IMHO, the right question. Indeed the question 
should be "Does competition exists? And what to do with it?". 
 
Because, of course, competition exists. It comes with the territory. And for 
that question, I understand the principle "Whatever happens...".
 
First: competition for resources and food exists in nature. Without death, 
without competition and without the scarcity of natural resources, there would 
have been no species evolution at all.
 
Second: Competition also exists between companies or other organizations that 
may be our clients.
 
Third: competition also exists between consultants, only in a disguised form, 
and always treated as if it was not there... I will "secure this territory" or 
this "variant of OST", but I will never admit I am doing that - to give only two 
examples.
 
And to the question "What to do?" I would answer: first, understand clearly that 
competition exists and talk about that openly!!!
 
IMHO, your second question is also formulated in the wrong way. Asking " does 
competition for learning align with what *we* (as in the open space community) 
know of reality?" is also a tautology. But that is not the point. The point is 
about "how can we improve individual and collective learning?". You are talking 
about "competition for learning", I am talking about learning (or not) in a 
world where many things exist, including competition...
 
Best regards
 
Artur



________________________________
From: douglas germann <76066.515 at compuserve.com>
To: Artur Silva <arturfsilva at yahoo.com>
Cc: World wide Open Space Technology email list <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org>
Sent: Mon, July 18, 2011 12:46:32 AM
Subject: Re: [OSList] A tale of two companies

Artur--

The issues I raise are the larger societal ones: do we suppose it is a
good thing to promote competition? Especially when it comes to learning?

And my second question is like the first: does competition for learning
align with what *we* (as in the open space community) know of reality?

            :- Doug.






On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 14:51 -0700, Artur Silva wrote:
> Doug:
> 
>  
> 
> In what concerns your first question, and to understand what are my
> assumptions (indeed, the assumptions of the Shell study Arie de Geus
> reported) you may read a post I sent in 2001 to a different list, that
> is still online here: http://www.learning-org.com/01.07/0155.html.
> 
>  
> 
> In what concerns your second question, the study is based in "real
> companies", so it is at least  aligned with what they thought to be the
> "reality"...
> 
>  
> 
> Regards
> 
>  
> 
> Artur
> 
>  
> 
> PS: I like very much the other post of yours, where you said: "The
> Open Space disrupted business as usual" which is why I call
> us "community disorganizers!". Maybe we can try to convince Harrison
> to include that in the 4th edition of the User's Guide ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> From: doug <os at footprintsinthewind.com>
> To: World wide Open Space Technology email list
> <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org>
>  Sent: Tue, July 12, 2011 2:38:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [OSList] A tale of two companies
> 
> Artur and all--
> 
> Just what are the assumptions inherent in a phrase like "learn faster
> and more profoundly than other organizations?" Do they align with what
> we know of reality?
> 
>         :- Doug.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 20:50 -0700, Artur Silva wrote:
> > 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 - October 23 - 26th
> > > Saskatchewan - 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
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20110718/2ffa7a49/attachment-0008.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list