[OSList] More Online OST in written form - is it possible?

[Kári Gunnarsson]

Hey all

I reformatted the google - document as of to day (22 may) to submit to the
os-list for proper os-list documentation.

the current version can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yCpzaJkw3cw-4VYEaDfwmfUhFfievWw_MwKk_VNpoY4/edit?usp=sharing

---

> Open Space Technology (OST) in Written Form:
> Can it be done?!
> May 14-TBD, 2013
> (apparently this is still an active contversation as of May 22, 2013)
> (part of the virtual conversations for WOSonOS 2013)
>
>> <frame>
>> Instructions: This document is the summary of key insights from a
conversation on the Open Space Technology list about “Online OST in Written
Form”.
>>
>> Anyone can edit this document.  Please feel free to add your thoughts at
any time, including insights that were not mentioned in the discussion
list.  Write your name near your comments so we can attribute those
thoughts to you.
>>
>> This document will continue to evolve as, and once the conversation
slows down (whenever that will be), Lucas Cioffi or Ben Roberts will adjust
the settings so that commenting will still be enabled but no direct
editing.  To add a comment, select the text you want to comment on, then
click on “Insert” in the menu at the top and then select “Comment”.
>> </frame>
>
> What elements of OST could potentially be replicated in an online,
written environment?
>>     Introductions (added by Lucas Cioffi)
>>     Setting the agenda (added by Lucas Cioffi)
>>     Discussion during breakout groups (added by Lucas Cioffi)
>>     Summarization of discussion, including reflections (added by Lucas
Cioffi)
>>     Graphic recording (added by Lucas Cioffi)
>>     (Slow) conversation
>>>         I've seen some pretty fast exchanges happen as well.  Indeed,
unlike when we're in person, it's possible online for many people to "talk"
at once, so in some cases, information and ideas can be exchanged more
rapidly this way.  It's also faster to read someone's words than to listen
to them saying them.
>>>         <red>But those fast exchanges may upset many people, making
that unable to follow the discussions, especially it they are not natives
of the language used for the meeting</red>
>
> What aspects of in-person communication are more difficult to replicate
online?
>>     Communicating emotion accurately (added by Lucas Cioffi)
>>     Developing personal connections and trust (added by Lucas Cioffi)
>>     <blue> I’d reframe “difficult to replicate” to “requires a different
way of being with each other in order to have warm, trusting communication
with a group of people.” And slower... but I think we cut off possibility
when we focus on the negatives. </blue>
>>>          I agree! I have made some profound connections with people
through written exchanges.  With more care and intention, trust and
emotional connections are indeed possible.  Think about epistolary
relationships. (Ben).
>>     <red> All the non verbal communication (that often is very important
for the communication) is lost </red>
>>>         <red> Well, what if we learn to put that stuff into words
more?  Say how we’re feeling, rather than assuming it’s not important, or
that someone can read between the lines and pick that up?  And what if we
developed tools that encouraged us to do that.  The “like” button is a
primitive version of what I imagine is possible.  I’ve been imagining
something along these lines: A Macroscope for Online Dialogue [
https://hackpad.com/Project-Summary-pmgS9nJrNNF] [Ben Roberts] </red>
>
> What can online collaboration do better than in-person communication?
>>     Allow people to participate from any place (added by Lucas Cioffi)
>>     Allow people to participate at times that are convenient for them
(added by Lucas Cioffi)
>>     Save on travel costs (added by Lucas Cioffi)
>>     allow us to follow personal timing
>>     Create a written record of all communication (added by Lucas Cioffi)
>>     Allow people to provide much greater depth of information than is
possible synchronously (e.g. share an article or an entire book)
>>     Give participants much more time to reflect on and consider their
contributions.
>>     Allow for large numbers of people to provide input simultaneously.
>>     <blue>Why are we focusing on “better?” The complementarities and
uniqueness of any environment can be seen as a whole.</blue>
>>>        Point taken.  Online is not a substitute for in person, but a
complement, whether it happens in parallel as we are doing here, or on its
own.  And... I think its still a worthwhile inquiry to consider what online
excels at.  That helps us to reimagine processes like OST in forms that
take advantage of those unique opportunities, rather than simply trying to
copy the in-person approach in a literal fashion--something that often
leaves us feeling like we have experienced a weaker version of the original
process we know and love.  (Ben)
>>     <red> Some of those advantages assume an asynchronous communication
and do not apply necessarily for a synchronous one with limited time
available </red>
>>>        <red> I find that we often forget about virtual synch as an
option when we talk about “online” or virtual.  And we especially tend to
not consider the blending of synch and asynch together.  The topic Lucas
has invited us to discuss here, as i understand it, is  what is possible
with asynch only. </red>
> What are the online tools that can be used for OST in written form?
>>     Open Space-online [http://www.openspace-online.com/] created by Gaby
Ender: [description needed [
http://www.openspace-online.com/e/oso/openspace-online.php]] (added by
Lucas Cioffi)
>>     Collaborative Ways [http://www.collaborativeways.com/]: [description
needed] (added by Lucas Cioffi)
>>     www.Hackpad.com [https://hackpad.com/] is a synchronous platform
similar to Google docs that allows participants to easily create a series
of inteconnected documents, similar to a wiki.
>>>         For example if a set of comments starts to become too big for
the page it’s on, you can simply select it all, enter the name of the new
pad where it will be copied to and then replace the text in the initial
document with a link to that new location. This whole process takes about 5
seconds.
>>>         Another big plus is that authorship of text is visible in the
main document view, and even travels with text when you cut an paste,
making it easier to have a conversation where you can tell who said what.
>>>         For OST purposes, this platform makes it very easy to create a
large number of “rooms” where individual topics can be discussed, all
linked to a main marketplace pad.  See this discussion from December 2012 [
https://hackpad.com/Welcome-to-Online-DD-Dec-19-2012-S7GohT68dmG] for an
example (although in this case the notes are from groups talking on
MaestroConference, not purely text-based conversations)
>>     Twitter or any chat tool, if you bring three more T's into the space:
>>>         + 1. Topics of interest - we are here because.
>>>         + 2. Takers - who step in the circle, promote their concern and
take a discussion along to a result.
>>>         + 3. Timebox  - boundaries in the 3D Open Space. Here we open
virtual space and need to define date and time as explicitly, and across
planetary time zones, if we keep the chat format. A variant could be a
whole weekday (48 planetary hours) which reduces intensity (the firehose
effect of twitterchats) and may allow for more research to enter the
responses. [more:
http://cocreatr.typepad.com/everyone_is_a_beginner_or/2012/05/the-4-t-to-take-open-space-technology-virtual-.html]
>
>Other Questions?  Add your question here!  This page is open to be shaped
by anyone on the OST Discussion List.
>
> Kári:
> For my purpose, I propose a marketplace of initiatives, news and
discussions. To open the market I need a real and recurrent invitation to
the members to take part in the marketplace. For the invitation I use the
guidelines of the five pre-conditions of real business issue; complexity;
diversity; passion; and a real sense of urgency. In effect, the offerings
in the marketplace should be in line with the corresponding invitation. A
good invitation has character, sponsor or owner that does the inviting
along with co-invitatories representing the whole system concerning the
invitation.
> Now we have a real invitation and an online marketplace forum. The
organisation also has a lot of resources (time, money, other) at their
disposal that are to be used on actions and projects that benefit the
organisation. We have a group of managers that are responsible for these
resources, one at each location. When a discussion has been fruitful and a
possible action is proposed, then a new issue can be posted in the
marketplace with a call for resources.
>> Ben asks: is this something you have done successfully, Kari? If so, can
you share some examples?
>>> Kári: This is something that I am trying to design right now for a
client that has staff in 20 locations and budget to do a lot of things.
There is need for cooperation, knowledge sharing and other project to be
initiated from the passion of the folks at the locations. I see the key
activity as the active invitation of all the key-holders and gatekeepers of
these locations/communities.  I held Space Open for the leaders of the
locations one month ago and this will be a follow up where the people of
the location can not meet all at once. But the collaboration in their
market will not exclude the in-person meeting for discussion groups.
>>> I'm now playing with the discussion as a three stage entity, where the
first stage is the initial fact finding and problem probing with
considerations, meditations and novel ideas. The first stage ends with a
decision facet where we make a stage one discussion report including a
stock of conversations (with meeting notes in person and online with text,
pictures, voice and/or video)
>>> The second stage is the facet of probing deeper into the surface of the
topics, crystallizing and reforming, like in Harrison's description of the
Open Space part of the grief process, where we let go of our old hopes,
ideas and paradigms and are open to new ventures. The ending facet of the
second stage is also a stocktaking activity with reporting on new realities
and options.
>>> The third stage is the action stage where the new visions are explored
and actions broken down, resources gathered and implementations find there
way. with the closing facet as the new realities manifest and vision of the
ending, to see the things through.
>>> I am currently looking at forum/collaborative solutions that can be
actively linked into facebook, for it is the current dominant platform for
interaction at my client locations.
> Q: When does the conversation start and stop?
>> This document (and all the other Google docs in the WOSonOS virtual
newsroom [
https://drive.google.com/?tab=mo&authuser=0#folders/0B5lyOyWiJ5ZLd2ljcThXbWxkazQ])
can theoretically continue to be a place where discussion occurs even after
the in-person event ends on May 19th.
>> We will switch the sharing status of this doc to only allow comments
(rather than direct editing) after May 19th.  We might also create a
summary/synthesis of the conversation that happens during the period when
it is “officially” open.
>> Observation: I noticed when I participated in an OS online via Gabriela
Ender’s tool I felt very forced into the time limits and shifting. Without
a sense of “yes, this session is over” based on how we gave verbal and non
verbal signals, somehow things felt prematurely closed, even if they were
done. This suggested to me that we needed some practice or ritual to check
emergent senses of closure  or not. I have not thought about it since then.
NW.  Yes! And not only a practice, but also some deep thought into what
time frames work well in what situations. Seems like we're balancing the
value of focus that shorter frames provide with the value of
depth/reflection that more time allows. I think more extended formats are
especially worth exploring. Look at how long a thread will go on via a list
serve, for a sense of what might be a natural flow.
>>>    I agree with the limitations of OS-online. I have tried once and
decided to never use it again.
>>>>        Really? Seems a shame to me to let one “bad” experience close
off an entire realm of possibility. Was there anything positive that
emerged from the conversation you had? Is there a conversation you wish you
could convene virtually, if you had a tool that might work better than that
one?  Is there a way that tool might be used differently to address some of
the things you didn’t like? [Ben]
>>>    Kári: Closure is a key-word in my current thinking.  When is his
discussion done. When would any addition be a part of a new discussion.
When is the group present and when is it dissolved. I have felt in the past
that the a formal discussion minutes could facilitate the closure both
online and offline, including a few closing circle words for the
discussion. I wonder how this could be facilitated in the online-realm.
> Noticing that we could benefit from some conventions for doing this via
Google docs.  This is a wonderfully flexible, Open Space-like platform.  A
true blank slate. So unlike a forum, for example, it isn’t automatically
doing some things that we might like and it is up to us to take
responsibility for whatever structure emerges. What practices/protocols
might we develop?
>>    A common way of showing who is writing (e.g. each choosing a color
and indicating that at the top of the doc)
>>    A common way of indicating a main post and a series of replies.
>>    some way to know when and where the newest additions to the document
are
>>    color coding via highlighting to indicate various kinds of energy,
e.g. inspiration, concerns, offerings, requests
>>    what else?
>
>Francois (virtual UK):  OST in written form, can it be done?  Technically
yes, but is it then still Open Space? After all the internet is one massive
Open Space.  Technically you can also have people contributing to a OS
conversation / session.  Technically yes it can be done.  But is it the
same thing?  No I don’t think so.  What is missing is the magic of the here
and now, the here and now of the people in a conversation.  For people who
have already been in an open space event or who have already conversed
together you may be able to (re-)create something close to the magic of
open space, a certain feeling, a deja vu perhaps, but it’s unlikely you can
really get the magic.  Because it’s not just about the conversations, the
sessions and the marketplace, it’s also about the buzz from the
bumblebeeing and the butterflying, here and now, in a given framework, it’s
about the here and now of people gathered together.  The magic!  >> Ben:
Yes, Francois, AND... I believe that a different kind of magic might be
possible here, one that we have yet to fully explore in part because of the
assumption that this must always be a pale imitation of in-person, rather
than something different.
>>  Ben: For example, we can all watch a "magical" video, and then reflect
for a while going into a deeper personal space, then share comments
together about it. In an in person event, the pressure to engage often
makes it harder to create space for reflection, as I know will miss
something else that is happening if I take time to do that. Not so in the
asynch realm--that lets me relax and be more present for something that
might take a bit of time and require quiet space. Here's a magical video
that comes to mind:
http://www.flixxy.com/the-incredible-power-of-concentration-miyoko-shida-f.htm?utm_expid=1298512-19#.UZotrbV9CXu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20130522/b6119b20/attachment-0008.htm>