[OSList] Peggy plus OST Linkedin Comment

Tue Oct 23 07:43:04 PDT 2012

If the experience is one of desiring a simpler execution of the basic
practice, then the solution is to offer to host an wosonos for yourself.
 If, however, you're from the UK, for instance, and the UK has just hosted,
that means you don't really have a shot at it for at least a few years.
 Further, if the process of choosing a host/location looks like it's been
pre-determined (which it often does, based on past comments by various
participants), then even if somebody like Paul was willing to host and the
community was willing to stay in the UK for another year, he wouldn't feel
like he had access to the process anyway.  Finally, if the pre-determined
processing of the decision, or pre-conversations, about the next invitation
happen someplace other than in the event, newcomers like Paul are right to
say they are excluded.

With all these conditions present, it's quite possible that Thomas' three
ways of using Two Feet only make the situation worse.  When someone comes
to the conclusion that they are stuck on the outside of the group and the
best we can say is "Leave if you like," that would seem a recipe for a bad
feeling -- especially once someone has made some investment to get to this
event and might feel stuck there for the two days, trying to figure it out.

I'm not trying to put words in Paul's mouth or speak for him... I'm just
saying that it's possible that the way we invite and welcome and include
people in wosonos conversations, including the ones about where the next
event(s) might be held, might be ripe for review.  As we go along, and get
deeper in our own community practice and accumulate artifacts and habits,
we start to look a lot like a traditional organization -- in the sense that
we have an interest in stability, continuation, dependability, and such --
even as we are supposedly all about emergence and making it up as we go.

Like look at our watch midway through briefing the principle that says
"whenever it happens is the right time," the more habituated we become in
our gathering practice, the more we depend on and add to how we do wosonos
-- (even the W that got added a few years ago, for instance, creates
scarcity by giving one event some "specialness" above all others that year)
-- the more we add to our wosonos convening manual, beyond what's in the
user's guide, the more we are potentially perceived as welcomers who aren't
being very welcoming.

What if we didn't have any more Wosonos events, for instance, what if we
just counted ALL osonos events as equal.  We wouldn't necessarily celebrate
the "20th anniversary" but could celebrate the 20th osonos and the 30th and
100th... without giving the one somehow decended from Harrison's original 4
events at dulles airport any more importance than what lisa does in san
francisco, john does in haiti, or we've done here in chicago in the past?
 If all osonos events were allowed to be held as equal, then anyone could
put one on the map and the only side conversations would be among old
friends deciding where they might be able to meet up.  And note, too, that
there's nothing that says that if someone is hosting in australia, i can't
host an full and equal peer gathering at the very same time, in chicago.
 neither event needs special W-ing, and anyone can choose between either
gathering, and be surprised by who shows up, from how far or near.

These are things I've thought about for many years, and found few ripe
openings to discuss, in part cuz I've not been able to attend osonos
anywhere for some years.  So I can appreciate how somebody newer to the mix
might feel frustrated having made an investment to join and then come to
the conclusion that we're as deep in our habits and rituals as any other
exclusive organization.  More frustrating because we always seem to say
otherwise.  Having tried at times from "within" to have these
conversations, I can appreciate how hard it would feel from apparently "the
outside."

All of which makes me wonder how many "osonos" events we've really had.
 What if we did count them up and start numbering the as we go forward, as
ALL having been descended from the HHO-convened "originals."  And what if
we agreed that, in the main, the clearly visible and open heart of any
osonos was a chunk of space and time where it ran "by the book" and if you
don't see it in the user's guide, then you don't see it in the room,
either?  Wouldn't have to be the whole event, but there could be a
distinction between "this is what we do because we're excited, creative
people and this is what we do because it's the heart of open space
practice."

What if....?

Michael

--

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

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

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Thomas Herrmann <
thomas at openspaceconsulting.com> wrote:

> I think the Law is about action too. You can act in three ways****
>
> **1.       **Mental movement (try to change yourself, focus and be fully
> present, maybe you are missing something important here) – thanks Jan-Erik
> for this perspective during NOSonOS in august!****
>
> **2.       **“Intervention” into what you don’t enjoy, for example if you
> find the break out group too large – say it!****
>
> **3.       **Leave and go somewhere else.****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers****
>
> Thomas Herrmann****
>
> ** **
>
> *Från:* oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org [mailto:
> oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org] *För *Chris Corrigan
> *Skickat:* den 23 oktober 2012 07:13
> *Till:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
> *Kopia:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
> *Ämne:* Re: [OSList] Peggy plus OST Linkedin Comment****
>
> ** **
>
> Koos...for me the law of two feet is about passion and responsibility.  If
> you care about something, take care of it.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Paul may have felt that he was "taking care of it" when he produced his
> critiques of the event in London.  Possibly. But my experience is that many
> people are comfortable just being in their passion about something -
> sometimes just ranting - and fail to join in, support, improve, help out or
> otherwise make a responsibility based offering to the situation at hand.
>  While i appreciate criticism and am perfectly capable of wrestling with
> ideas - and in this case I even pointed out that there is much merit in
> Paul's observations - I nevertheless would invite consideration of the fact
> that if someone is sitting through an open space event and not offering
> responsibility, that the criticism has the feeling of being sniping from
> the sidelines while failing to take up the invitation at hand and it's hard
> to work with that.  That is all.****
>
> ** **
>
> A some level, love it or leave is also always an option, but that isn't
> what I'm talking about here.  I'm looking for a more nuanced response from
> a practitioner that is clearly very familiar with the dynamics of Open
> Space and self organization and wondering what he did at the event to use
> his own power to create the experience he was looking for.****
>
> ** **
>
> He may have done something, but as I read it, he stayed for whole thing
> and then wrote a fairly detailed critique of the whole experience.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> So.   Hmmmmm.****
>
> ** **
>
> Chris
>
> ---****
>
> CHRIS CORRIGAN****
>
> http://www.chriscorrigan.com****
>
> +1 604 947 9236****
>
>
> On 2012-10-21, at 3:22 AM, Koos de Heer <koos at auryn.nl> wrote:****
>
> 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
> -- ****
>
> CHRIS CORRIGAN****
>
> Harvest Moon Consultants****
>
> www.chriscorrigan.com****
>
>
>
> ****
>
>
> *Art of Hosting - Participatory Leadership and Social Collaboration*,
> Bowen Island, BC <http://aohrivendell.withtank.com/>****
>
> November 12-15 2012 ****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> *Art of Hosting in Faith Based Communities*, Salt Lake City, Utah<http://aoh-fbc.withtank.com/what-we-study/>
> ****
>
> November 28th - December 1, 2012****
>
>
> On 2012-10-20, at 5:09 AM, "alan at alanhalford.com.au" <
> alan at alanhalford.com.au> wrote:****
>
> Just spent a delicious  three days co-learning with Peggy Holman here in
> Perth then I read this - ****
>
> So, what's possible now?****
>
>
> http://rationalmadness.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/the-tragic-re-imprisonment-of-open-space/
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> take care out there****
>
> alan ****
>
> ** **
>
> *
> **www.alanhalford.com.au
> 0421 475 252
> skype: alanhalford*****
>
> ** **
>
> * *****
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121023/855c93df/attachment-0008.htm>