[OSList] Private vs Public OST Differences?

Daniel Mezick via OSList oslist at lists.openspacetech.org
Mon Oct 20 06:11:19 PDT 2014 

Hi John,

So interesting to ask...

"...what is essential, what is not...."

Some essentials are tangible and measurable: # of invitees. # of 
participants. time. space. etc

Some essentials are intangible and measureable: willingness. beliefs. 
attitudes. levels of authorization (formal & informal.) experience.



I see the word 'pattern'. Pattern languages convert (at least /some/) 
tacit know-how to (at least /some/) explicit know-how, do they not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge
" Tacit knowledge is the kind of knowledge that is difficult to transfer 
to another person by means of writing it down or verbalizing it.



So interesting how you write:

"...If we were clear what the patterns of open space were, then we could 
say what is 'really needed'..."

"...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."

Yes, and the one thing I add is, (as Lisa and others have strongly 
implied,) it's the composition of patterns rather than simply "this one" 
or "that one". This is the entire thinking behind Open Agile Adoption. 
It is a merely a composition of patterns in service to an aim. Key to 
this is that the patterns (the elements) are well-documented elsewhere, 
as explicit knowledge.

On 10/20/14 1:26 AM, John Baxter wrote:
> 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 2014
> Connect 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 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>>>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto:OSList at lists.openspacetech.org>
>     To unsubscribe send an email to
>     OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
>     <mailto:OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org>
>     To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>     http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>
>

-- 

Daniel Mezick, President

New Technology Solutions Inc.

(203) 915 7248 (cell)

Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog 
<http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter <http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.

Examine my new book:The Culture Game 
<http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools for the 
Agile Manager.

Explore Agile Team Training 
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and Coaching. 
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>

Explore the Agile Boston <http://newtechusa.net//user-groups/ma/>Community.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20141020/5d1ef788/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the OSList mailing list