[OSList] What is the sweet spot for Online OS using video chat?

Tue Aug 30 08:33:00 PDT 2016

As someone who’s been part of the community exploring virtual OS going back to 2012, I resonate with Birgitt’s rhetorical question: “might not the most useful offering to provide to be something that takes time, that is not quick, that provides space for people who are reflective, thoughtful to be in genuine conversations?” I believe we’ve had the tools for creating  “minimalist” OS experiences since Maestro was developed in 2009. If we don’t see virtual OS taking place extensively, perhaps that’s because we haven’t figured out what the uniquely enlivening essence of that virtual experience might be. So devotees of the in-person process find virtual engagements to be intriguing, but lacking some vital juiciness that would cause them to want to convene such engagements regularly. 

Maybe we’re still just in an early learning phase, not only in terms of the technical tools, but also (more importantly) the approaches to hosting that can really create hospitable virtual space. In person, I think “the OST experiment” has shown that we can trust a whole set of instincts that come naturally to us as social beings to do much of that space-holding work for us. But our virtual norms of behavior are still evolving, and the tools are evolving even faster. And so we don’t fully trust them, and we also focus more on the tech/tools and less on the processes and social agreements we might bring to bear. Indeed, we often expect the tools/platforms to do everything for us (or at least to make things really easy and simple), and if that isn’t the case, we decide the tool is the problem, rather than our lack of process innovation.

Here’s an example of a key challenge: the magic of in-person OST takes time to unfold. As anyone who’s tried to do a one or two round version has learned, such mini-OS engagements rarely provide anything like the depth of insight and sense of a collective journey that a full day can offer, never mind a traditional two-and-a-half day schedule. But we are, it seems to me, afraid to ask people to show up virtually for that long and intensive a process. Indeed, I find that proposing even a two-hour engagement often generates resistance with potential sponsors. That’s partly because, for many of us (even those who do so regularly!), it is legitimately unappealing to spend all day in front of a screen or on the phone. But it’s also due to a set of assumptions we make about participants’ attention spans and availability. How accurate are those assumptions?

Going back to Birgitt’s question, what inspires me these days is a vision of hybrid in-person/virtual engagements lasting anywhere from one week to three months, that include collective inquiry, community building, and crowd-resourcing. It’s anything but minimalist. OST-like processes are a core tool, but more important are the OST principles that embody personal freedom and personal responsibility. What excites me about this concept is the expansion of time, the appeal to our collective hunger for participation in “communities of purpose,” and the possibility of glocal (global + local) impact. These are all things that can play to the strengths of our new virtual tools and spaces.

When I first read Margaret Mead’s statement that small groups of thoughtful, committed citizens are the only thing that has ever changed the world, I assumed that such groups were rare, very hard to form, and required huge commitments from their members. Thus the concept, while intuitively appealing and no doubt meant to inspire citizen activism, also seemed to imply significant barriers to entry. What if, thanks to our new virtual capacities, it is now easy to bring together not just small, but medium and large-sized groups of such citizens to generate collective impact? What if we could even participate effectively in our spare time, say by watching a bit less TV for a month?! 

What if the main thing holding us back from exercising this new power is the lack of a new story of collective possibility that truly inspires us? Part of that story needs to be about the tools, but it’s much more about what we might do with them that could make a difference. With the constant drumbeat of data about systemic breakdowns, it is all too easy to succumb to cynicism and despair. Yet we also are aware of pieces of the new story that have been emerging for decades—OST itself is certainly a part of that emergence. It’s time to put the pieces together!

Peace,

Ben

From: OSList [mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of Lucas Cioffi via OSList
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 10:58 PM
To: World wide Open Space Technology email list
Subject: Re: [OSList] What is the sweet spot for Online OS using video chat?

Hello Birgitt,

I appreciate your thoughtful questions.  I want to do more listening than talking in this conversation, because I'm hoping to learn what minimalist tool people on this list would like to use.  The 2012 discussion/brainstorm about online OS (mentioned yesterday) described a complex and powerful vision for an online OS tool.  

There's definitely a time and place for a complex/powerful tool like that, but I'd like to discover what minimalist approach could actually work well and still be called OS.  A minimalist version of online OS could do some good in the world.

Here are my replies to your questions:

1. "What is your definition of useful and to whom? I appreciate that this is at the root of your creative surge."

I'd like to build something that people wake up in the morning and are excited to use.  I see a hint of that with QiqoChat as it reaches 2000 users, but I think much more is possible, so that's why I'm going back to the expertise on OSList to hear what itches aren't scratched yet :)

2. "In a world in which artificial intelligence and its use of big data is already mastering predictability, and since it is possible for artificial intelligence to predict what you might answer and how you might answer, where is the space for human exchange that you want to touch and bring usefulness to?"

I'm looking to build tools that people want to use.  For me, it comes down to listening to what people (like the folks on this list) want.

3. "Albeit a current trend (and apparent addiction) is for something that is quick and will capture attention or stands the risk of losing attention, might not the most useful offering to provide to be something that takes time, that is not quick, that provides space for people who are reflective, thoughtful to be in genuine conversations?"

I've learned from the Tuesday OS Hotline that video chat makes genuine conversations and relationships possible.

4. "And a question we ask in our Working With OST learning modules: after examining all of the elements of an OST meeting, what, if stripped away from the list of elements, for you, would no longer qualify as an OST meeting?"

It's a great question for someone else with a deeper perspective on OS.  I'm not the keeper of the flame; I just build a match or two :)

Lucas Cioffi

Founder, QiqoChat

Charlottesville, VA

Mobile: 917-528-1831

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20160830/c2e59ef2/attachment.htm>