[OSList] Private vs Public OST Differences?

[John Baxter via OSList]

Hello all, especially Daniel - and if you are dropping in, also Harold &
Artur.

Having just written an email to the group on patterns for open space, I
think this is a good illustration of where/how a solid and deep pattern
language would be useful.

The things you list Daniel as 'fundamental ingredients' to me are mostly
procedural, surface-level things.  They are all there to serve particular
functions (e.g. information flow, building trust or energy), and whether
and how they are needed depends on whether these functions are needed.  The
needs can be understood in terms of underlying "patterns", which are
functional and dynamic 'design elements'.  (Patterns make much more sense
in a 'design' frame than a procedural-analytical one.)

If we were clear what the patterns of open space were, then we could say
what is 'really needed' (or, better yet, there would be patterns to
describe what we should do to create the desired result in the desired
context... in the same way that a house does not *need* 4 walls, but that
if we are in a climate where those walls are useful, it is certainly a good
idea to have them there!).

Yes we could reframe what you identify Daniel as patterns... but they are
not deep and generative patterns, but merely surface elements.

Fortunately, the discussion is automatically herding us towards uncovering
these patterns... they are what we might refine if we continue to ask "what
is essential, what is not, and why not... and what alternative might be?"


For instance I might suggest from the conversation that the differences in
public/private, sponsored/commitment are just outer manifestations of
deeper patterns like participant commitment and energy, and that any
variation that fulfills "bring together participants with commitment to
resolving a common issue" will suffice.
This is starting to sound more like a useful pattern, and explains pretty
simply to me why it might be useful to have sponsors providing commitment
to follow through, or why internal vs public events might work differently!
 (And also why in other circumstances, these things might not be necessary,
or might be the same... not at all night and day.)

Please forgive me if my parallel train of thought is too far fetched.

Cheers


*John Baxter*
*​Co​Create Adelaide Facilitator, Director of Realise consultancy*
CoCreateADL.com​ <http://cocreateadl.com/localgov%E2%80%8B> |
jsbaxter.com.au <http://www.jsbaxter.com.au/>
0405 447 829
​ | ​
@jsbaxter_ <http://twitter.com/jsbaxter_>


*City Grill— An Election Forum More Magnificent Than Any Ever Seen
<http://citygrill.eventbrite.com.au>!, Saturday 18 October 2014Connect with
your candidates, get your voice heard by joining with others in your
community, and Influence the future of the city*


On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Lisa Heft - via OSList <
oslist at lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:

> Ah - ruminate away. I am all about reflection informing oh-so-many things…
> including thinking…
> Warmly,
> Lisa
>
> On Oct 19, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Daniel Mezick <dan at newtechusa.net> wrote:
>
> Wow Lisa,
>
> I am very grateful for your detailed reply to my 4 questions, and for your
> kind invitation. Thank you!
>
> I receive and accept your kind invite. But before I act, I plan to
> ruminate on your thoughtful send.
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
>
> On 10/19/14 7:39 PM, Lisa Heft - wrote:
>
> Hi, folks - Daniel it’s hard for me to stay in these email streams for
> immediate back-and-forth because my life and client task work does not
> always allow that - but I wanted to ‘dip my toe’ in and say I echo what
> Michael H and Chris and others say about it not in my experience being
> anything about public or private, organizational or community, existing
> community or temporary one, or any of that. It’s about thoughtful pre-work,
> appropriate documentation design, selecting the right process (tool for the
> job), doing good full-form Open Space, and other things very specific to
> each client (sponsor / host / convenor / however we wish to name them) and
> each situation or need.
>
> We’ve had earlier conversations on this list about what is the minimum for
> what is Open Space, and our other conversations (though you could see it
> differently / that’s welcome) tend to find:
> - host / client / sponsor / coordinator / convenor - usually useful if it
> is not the facilitator
> - facilitator though it does not have to be one that is ‘professional’ or
> uses this way of naming themselves
> - opening circle
> - agenda co-creation (without a facilitator’s ‘helping’, merging,
> synthesizing, the group voting, etc. - all ideas welcome and on the agenda)
> - explanation of 4 principles and law (some people use the 5th principle,
> some do not, either works), butterfly, bumblebee (for some, also ‘be
> prepared to be surprised’, for some people, not)
> - these guidelines / invitations above - about how participants might
> choose to be - are usually helpful on visual / posters
> - multiple discussion areas around (ideally) a great big room, (ideally
> but different people have different opinions) over multiple session times
> - closing circle for reflection and comments
> - ideally, some form of documentation so folks can see / learn across all
> the groups, not just the ones they were able to get to
>
> Okay now here is where I would like to invite you to imagine that each
> situation is different, when it comes to documentation. I would like to
> invite you to release a measurement of what is ‘timely’ and what is ‘late’
> proceedings. Assuming thoughtful discussions have happened in the pre-work,
> appropriate documentation is designed, and this is (ideally) custom for
> each event / organization / community / situation / need / context.
> There are some conversations which inform us (facilitator and client) that
> it is absolutely appropriate to have a full book-like, full-on narrative of
> all the conversations that happened-sort-of-style-of Book of Proceedings.
> And reasons to either turn it around overnight - right there in the event -
> or reasons to on-purpose, delay dissemination to actually leverage the
> momentum of the event, include reflective thinkers taking more time for
> their notes (not just the quick-responders), help people rest and integrate
> their experience before looking back at their ‘data’ to learn about the
> knowledge shared across all the groups, and so on. Reasons to say
> ‘everything in by x:00 and we won’t be helping you remember that - whoever
> is in by then is in’ - and reasons to interact with each convenor and
> notes-taker post-event to ask if the’d like to add or refine or complete or
> add things. Each need / situation appropriate to the context, culture, use
> of information post-event, and so on. Sometimes documentation is
> appropriate as a list of who raised what topic, and that is all. Sometimes
> it’s about action and next steps. Sometimes it’s just about
> knowledge-sharing without the need for next steps. And so on. Whether
> organization or community, public or private, conference or planning
> meeting, issue or experience-sharing.
>
> Then there is the ‘sponsor commitment to follow through’ - which is nice
> (in those particular instances when that was appropriate to the situation)
> but not always necessary, in my experience. People do amazing things and
> (as someone mentioned) not always measurable to the eye, ‘by 5:00’, post
> meeting, for us to see. People do the work whether approval happens, if
> they want to. They stay with an organization or leave it to follow their
> passion, if they discovered their passion and voice in the Open Space
> event. They find ways around. They decide not to. So yes - in an
> organization, it’s always nice when the sponsor commits, when pre-work
> conversations help the sponsor think in advance, perhaps even create the
> mechanisms that support follow-up and post-event sustainability. When
> really thoughtful pre-work discussions inform whether action or next steps
> *are* needed and possible *after THIS* event - or are unrealistic /
> unsupportable, in reality. Or are better discerned and articulated after
> reflecting on the patterns and learnings of this event, even perhaps after
> more work is done identifying resources or champions or partners and such,
> and where the Open Space is part of a *chain* of meetings / actions / steps
> / reflections / and so on over time.
>
> And to me? It’s not about the process, that part. That part is universal
> to any facilitation process that engages group wisdom and diverse voices.
>
> Here I go swimming away back into my life and client work but I do like
> dipping in now and then ;o)
>
> As always, thanks for inviting the question, Dan, and I look forward to
> hearing, as always, what others think and have experienced…
>
> Lisa
>
> On Oct 17, 2014, at 11:38 AM, Daniel Mezick via OSList <
> oslist at lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> I'm confused now, and so I believe I am about to learn something new
> here... I'll know by your answers to these questions:
>
> What are the minimum essentials of Open Space structure? For example, are
> the following elements necessary at all?
>
>
>    1. Sponsor
>    2. Theme
>    3. Invitation in advance, referring to Theme
>    4. Opening Circle
>    5. Facilitator
>    6. Explanation of the 1Law/ 5Principles
>    7. Posters
>    8. Closing Circle
>    9. Timely Proceedings
>    10. Sponsor commitment to follow though on Proceedings
>
>
> If these are not essential to structure, why not? If so, why so?
>
> Thanks for your help! Very Eager to hear your (hopefully *detailed*)
> answers!
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141020/e60a091f/attachment-0004.htm>