[OSList] is our voting software dead?
Peggy Holman
peggy at peggyholman.com
Thu Aug 28 13:48:07 PDT 2014
For the historical record….
As Michael mentioned, the original concept was mine. I convened a session at OSonOS in Toronto in 1997 called “Day 3” — as in what happens on day 3?
The phrase “opening space for action” is mentioned in the notes. I know I brought the idea to the session because I remember going into the session feeling like I might be bringing a breakthrough. I think that phrase emerged out of the session.
I’ve posted the notes from the session here:
http://peggyholman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/OSonOS-V.Toronto.1997.Day-3.pdf
(I don’t know whether to be pleased or appalled that I could find OSonOS proceedings from 17 years ago!) The notes provide a nice perspective on how thinking evolved from voting to synthesizing to opening space for action.
I seem to recall that Michael was the first to try it and tell its story on the OS list, though looking through the archives, Diane Gibeault, who was also at the session, is the first reference I located. (Was she the first?) An exchange between Diane and Michael on the OSlist is copied below.
Peggy
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Parkinson & Gibeault" <dgp at CYBERUS.CA>
> Subject: Re: Concluding Open Space
> Date: August 23, 1998 at 2:33:25 PM PDT
> To: <OSLIST at LISTSERV.IDBSU.EDU>
> Reply-To: <dgp at CYBERUS.CA>
>
> Hello Michael and everyone,
>
> In June you responded to my report on a different way of converging in OS.
> You were then "catching up with e-things after being gone". Well, I am doing
> the same thing now that the post holiday folly is winding down.
>
> First, thank you for your comments. I like your suggested question and
> intend to use it in my next OS in September. It will be the first time I use
> the tree metaphore for convergence with a large group (250 people). I will
> be co-facilitating with Jacqueline Pelletier a long time facilitator who
> also trained with Harrison Owen. We will report on how it went. If other
> people have used this approach particularly with large groups, I would
> welcome their comments and suggestions from their experience.
>
> 2.Dot vote: Because the time investment question gets dealt with in action
> plan discussion groups to which people participate, I use the dot voting to
> give the organization another piece of information: independantly of where
> people chose to invest time, what do they think the overall priorities for
> the organizations are. The reason being is that people may feel more
> comfortable and competent to contribute to an issue but may want to
> communicate what they think (priorities) about the big picture.
> Participants have in fact asked to make that distinction.
>
> Look forward to more discussion on all this,
>
> Diane Gibeault
>
> Diane Gibeault & Associé.e.s/Associates
> 191 Juliette Ave. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1K 2T5
> (613) 744-2638 Fax (613) 744- 3347
>
> Michael Herman wrote:
>
>> hello everyone,
>>
>> just catching up with e-things after being gone...
>>
>> special thanks to diane for taking action on our conversations re:
>> converging and for reporting it...i'd add a couple of little details by
>> way of question, suggestion, concern....
>>
>> 1. the notion of priority setting and the question you used to open the
>> last day seems to have the potential to allow an escape into planning
>> mode and out of passion+responsibility mode...what do think of the more
>> blunt question..."what are you going to do now?" or "what can you do
>> now?"...still intending that these individual actions would be lead to
>> the emergence of priorities?
>>
>> 2. recently was present for a dots-voting session...i questioned the
>> strength of the passion+responsibility link in this particular session i
>> was in and thought the link could be tightened by asking folks to take
>> dots in proportion to the amount of time they expected to invest in
>> doing the actions being voted on....for example, at my meeting (about 30
>> volunteer leaders at my church) i would have suggested taking one voting
>> dot for every hour per week a person expected to work on these projects
>> over the next six months.
>>
>> as you can see, my concern is to get the most honest view on day three
>> of what can really happen going forward, what people are really ready to
>> do and not just what would be nice...that said, i also really like the
>> idea of going through the opening process again, to demonstrate that the
>> opening/questioning process is an everyday working thing, not just an
>> annual planning thing.
>>
>> thanks again,
>>
>> michael herman
>
_________________________________
Peggy Holman
Executive Director
Journalism that Matters
15347 SE 49th Place
Bellevue, WA 98006
425-746-6274
www.journalismthatmatters.net
www.peggyholman.com
Twitter: @peggyholman
JTM Twitter: @JTMStream
Enjoy the award winning Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into Opportunity
Check out my series on what's emerging in the news & information ecosystem
On Aug 28, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Chris Corrigan <chris.corrigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Two points…first…yes Michael and I hammered on that opening space for action process back in 2002 or something…there are several methods and practices now published by different folks on how to move on from a day or two of open space. Let your context be your guide. I for one am glad we moved on from voting being the only way.
>
> Michael, as for the tool, basically it works like this. You project a phone number up on a screen and invite people to text things to that number (the number is acquired through a service called Twillio which can assign a number for this purpose). At the backend, the software spits out different kinds of outputs. In the past we have used word clouds and spreadsheets for tabulating data. You could have two rounds of texting…one round could be an invitation for people to text three words that sum up their experience…you can instantly generate a word cloud of that information, which gives instant feedback. You could then ask people to choose from a number of options just by texting a number representing their preferred option. The software can generate a CSV file which is then easy to put into a spread sheet and generate a graph from. The whole process can happen pretty much instantly and the real time feedback can be used to guide subsequent discussions.
>
> And I can’t emphasize enough how easy it was to work with Luke on this. If you need a tweak, give him a call. If you want to work it yourself, th ebasic code is open source.
>
> Chris
>
> On Aug 28, 2014, at 11:08 AM, Michael Herman <michael at michaelherman.com> wrote:
>
>> wow. and this might be the answer to my technical question, chris. i'll check out this new tool and include it in the site updating. specific words, specific tools. this is exactly what i was looking for.
>>
>> as i go off to try to understand the new tool. can you say more here about how it works. you've got 200 or 300 or 50 or whatever folks in the circle, day three, or two weeks after a one-day event, or sometime. you've got a set of proceedings from the first time. maybe you've re-opened the space. or are going to. there is some interest in polling the crowd. now what?
>>
>> in the old days, we numbered the issues and everyone ranked their top ten. how does this new tool make work? what do you ask them to text into the center? what do they send? how is that processed and turned back to the group? does the form of this make it necessary to ask about individual issues? what possibilities are opened by the new form? how does it not devolve into a simple yes/no polling or how does it support ongoing or in-the-moment conversation?
>>
>> i guess i'm really wondering if this is a tool for converging or diverging, or both. and how that works. can you put it in that old familiar context? or is that the wrong way to think about it?
>>
>> thanks, m
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Michael Herman
>> Michael Herman Associates
>> 312-280-7838 (mobile)
>>
>> http://MichaelHerman.com
>> http://OpenSpaceWorld.org
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Chris Corrigan <chris.corrigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yup…Opening space for action is still the best way to get things moving. It has several advantages, the best of which is that it allows people to digest themes and ideas that cross through many many sessions. Often you can have a project come out on the action day that takes care of issues raised in several different sessions.
>>
>> It allows for convergence to happen within the heart, and for those with the passion who are willing to make time to initiate something to call it in. It has always resulted in much better sustained result, in my experience.
>>
>> Sometimes though, there is a need to vote on things, and what I have done recently is to hire a developer called Luke Closs to build a little a tool called SMSHarvest and you can find that at www.smsharvest.com. Basically it allows people to use their phones to send a text to a number. That text can contain any kind of information including preferences, and text….we deliberately designed the tool to be useable without any sign up and to be totally familiar, as almost everyone knows how to text and if you don’t someone can show you or do it for you. Easy.
>>
>> You can use the tool for free, or throw some money Luke’s way as a mark of appreciation. And if you want him to build a tweak for you, he does that well, quickly and directly to what you need.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 28, 2014, at 8:40 AM, Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually I still have the old software, but I agree with Michael. There are much better ways. The problem for me with that software, as with all efforts (including Sticky-dots) to prioritize the issues that were raised on the first day or so of the OS is that it is measurement of “yesterday’s passions.” Very much like the most recent Quarterly Financial Report... all it tells you about is old news. On a standard 2 ½ day OS, when the 3rd day dawns, everybody had had a night to sleep on everything. Almost inevitably a lot will have changed. Hot issues will merge with other hot issues, hot issues will cool, new issues will have been thrown up thanks to the interaction of the preceding two days. There is also the question of Actionable Issues (which is the focal point of the 3rd day) which don’t necessarily include all the issues previously discussed. I believe Chris Corrigan started it all when he talked about “opening the space for action.” Anyhow that is what he did, and I do as well. Very simple procedure which I think I covered in the 3rd Edition of The User’s Guide. Nowhere near as elegant as Michael’s “Praxis” – but it will do in a pinch, and is not in German. J
>>>
>>> Harrison
>>>
>>> Winter Address
>>> 7808 River Falls Drive
>>> Potomac, MD 20854
>>> 301-365-2093
>>>
>>> Summer Address
>>> 189 Beaucaire Ave.
>>> Camden, ME 04843
>>> 207-763-3261
>>>
>>> Websites
>>> www.openspaceworld.com
>>> www.ho-image.com
>>> OSLIST To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST Go to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>>>
>>> From: OSList [mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of Michael Herman
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 5:41 AM
>>> To: OSLIST
>>> Subject: [OSList] is our voting software dead?
>>>
>>> hi all, especially those of you who've used the old multi-voting software.
>>>
>>> i'm wondering when was the last time you used the multi-voting software to do prioritization at the end of an OS meeting? i'm trying to figure out if it's still useful on the latest PCs. i'm a mac guy, so can't test it locally here.
>>>
>>> and if not using the old software, what are you using on day 3 of os events that are too big for dots? is there a new state-of-the-art when it comes to converging into action with larger groups?
>>>
>>> many thanks, m
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Michael Herman
>>> Michael Herman Associates
>>> 312-280-7838 (mobile)
>>>
>>> http://MichaelHerman.com
>>> http://OpenSpaceWorld.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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140828/2c75cbdb/attachment-0004.htm>
More information about the OSList
mailing list