[OSList] Peggy plus OST Linkedin Comment

[Koos de Heer]

Dear Pernilla,

Thank  you for sharing your observations.

I agree with what you write about the Law of Two Feet and I have experimented with the way I explain it in my introductions.

After explaining what the Law of two Feet is, I usually say that folks of course have the opportunity to just get up and leave quietly, no need for apologies or explanations. And there is also the option to give a voice to the fact that you are not tuned in to the conversation. It might be that the train your thoughts are taking (or the very fact that you are distracted) is a very valuable contribution to the conversation. If that is not the case, you still have the option of leaving quietly.

I say this as a way to invite a voice that might otherwise go unspoken. 

Warm greetings from a drizzling London Sunday afternoon (on my way home)

Koos de Heer

Pernilla Luttropp <pluttropp at swipnet.se>schreef:

>I have a tendency to get stuck in polarisations, and it is seldom a
>productive way forward - if that¹s the way I want to go.
>I enjoy reading your reflections on if Open Space Technology is imprisoned
>or not and I¹ll try to keep my awareness on not ending up in good/bad,
>prison/freedom, structure/chaos, right/wrong etc.
>
>But I do think that OST rises a fundamental and existential question of
>wanting to take part in a community, and contribute in any way possible, or
>to walk away to another community or to solitude. It is for sure one of the
>most fundamental questions in my life and it has sometimes left me in a
>shaky/vague/uncertain position. Who can I turn to if I¹m in doubt of if this
>community will provide the safety I need in order to explore this
>existential matter? At WOSonOS I got the opportunity to try to put these
>thoughts into words together with other people who shared their
>vulnerability, fears and emotions with me. I¹m very grateful to those of you
>who shared this with me. At some other sessions I didn¹t feel that safety or
>openness of exploring the questions I raised at that very moment, so I used
>my two feet. I later found out that  someone else (thank you Tova) took my
>chair and the conversation went on - whenever it starts is the right time.
>To me that is the strength of a working community, it¹s not about me and my
>needs (it¹s a starting point but not the goal). It¹s about what I bring and
>how it is received. To me it¹s about the latin word communicare, to share
>and make common. It takes a lot of courage to take a step in to the circle,
>at least for me. And it takes a lot of awareness from the community  in
>order to stay open to change and soft voices.
>
>Since I left London I¹ve facilitated two Open Spaces, both came out of
>politicians need to talk about democracy. They were very different but they
>made me notice how hard it can be for some people to leave a circle (or the
>event), how hard it can be to be left by others and the courage to stay and
>stick to your needs, even if you are only half aware of what they are. It
>makes me humble and a bit scared of what I put people through. And being the
>person I am, I¹m interested in what makes people stay and leave in order to
>talk about the community. Not just to say that it¹s the law.
>
>To create a community were we try to invite these feelings, thoughts and
>actions (and everything in between) and at the same time try to put it in to
>some kind of organized form, is not an easy task. I don¹t have the answer on
>how to do that, and I think there are many answers, but as long as I can
>raise questions and someone answers, I¹m happy to be part of this circle and
>community.
>
>From a rainy Stockholm in Sweden
>Pernilla Luttropp
>
>
>
>Den 2012-10-21 12.22, skrev "Koos de Heer" <koos at auryn.nl>:
>
>> Hi Chris, 
>> 
>> I am not sure I understand what you mean when you say that the law of two feet
>> applies. If it means as much as "This is Open Space, love it or leave it," I
>> feel compelled to say that I don't support that.
>> 
>> Of course I can walk out of a session if I am feeling that I am neither
>> learning nor contributing. But if I have the idea that the Open Space
>> gathering as a whole could use improvements in the way it is run, referring to
>> the law of two feet can become a way to evade a discussion that needs to take
>> place. It can take place at a later date, which is what is happening now and
>> that is fine. 
>> 
>> Koos
>> 
>> 
>> Op 20 okt. 2012 om 21:23 heeft Chris Corrigan <chris.corrigan at gmail.com> het
>> volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> The critique in the article is fine. And the subsequent link Phelim sent
>>> along is fine too. Paul's tone is a bit jarring and his argument isn't helped
>>> by making a lot of generalized statements. Also he critiques WOSonOS in a way
>>> that makes it hard to separate his critique if the event from a critique of
>>> the team, even though he later clarifies that he wasn't critiquing the
>>> facilitator. It's tricky to make a forceful and powerful critique without it
>>> seeming personal.
>>> 
>>> My response to these posts is that Paul is right in substance. In general my
>>> take in things is that the Law of Two Feet applies. If you are not learning
>>> or contributing find some way or some where that you can. That's what makes
>>> things better. Obviously expecting others to change the way the way a process
>>> seems too dependant on them is rational madness.
>>> 
>>> Chris
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20121021/1e06101d/attachment-0008.htm>