[OSList] who are the right people

[paul levy via OSList]

Like many of the open space principles, they are true at an archetypal
level. The people who are in the room to get to work together on something
are the people we have. Where attendance in that room is voluntary, we have
a community formed out of freedom, and that commitment means the right
people are in the room. The rightness here is born of free commitment.
There’s also a more pragmatic perspective that says: Here we are, here and
right now, and this is who we have, so let’s get to work!

Some open space facilitators misunderstand this “rightness” and suggest to
participants that we should just accept who is here as the right people and
get on with things, stifling any conversation or regret about who isn’t in
the room. They then present this principle as a kind of dogma as follows:
 Whoever didn’t come, clearly didn’t need to be here. This is a pity as
reflection on who isn’t here and even freely chosen attempts during the
open space event itself to contact those absent and attempt to bring them
into the space, or at least involve them in some way, is then stifled.

Whoever comes are the right people, but that statement isn’t rendered any
less true if we ponder on who isn’t there and at least acknowledge absence.
This can actually be empowering and energising, as long as we don’t stay
away from what we can do together in the room by becoming blocked or
paralysed by who isn’t in the room.

Let me offer a couple of examples to prove this.

Someone doesn’t attend who is ill. They wanted to come. They couldn’t. In
the feeling of the community, this is still one of the “right” people. We
mention them. We might even read out a good will message from them, sent by
text. They might even email a few suggestions for what sessions they might
have offered at the open space, had they been able to attend. We still have
the right people in the room, but we can now imagine an empty chair, and
also fold in what the person who might have occupied that chair might have
brought. This can enhance and raise awareness in the community.

Here’s another example. A key decision maker prioritises a different
meeting from the open space they were intending to attend. A group at the
open space explore a challenge of product redesign and reach a key decision
point halfway through their session that needs the yes or no from the
absent key decision maker. The group acknowledges that absence to each
other. In one case, a member of the group contacts the decision maker and
gets their input remotely, just for five minutes, and the group can then
progress to further action around the product redesign. In another case
they agree to meet with the decision maker as soon as possible after the
open space event and, in the meantime, make a provisional decision, then
proceeding on the assumption that the decision maker will say yes, but also
creating a “plan B” in case of a no.

In both cases there are, at least in one sense, “right” people who are have
not come. Holding them in mind, involving them where possible can help the
space to further open.

So, when introducing the principle “whoever comes are the right people”, it
is important not to present this as “we are the good guys who came, and the
bad guys didn’t so they are irrelevant to our work here” or as “they ain’t
here, now shut up and get over it”. This principle is not there to stifle
either regret or reflection. It is there to affirm the value of being in
the present, and with committing to who and what we have right now. It is
no accident that the people who are here are here. They responded to the
invitation in freedom. Yet we can also “involve” those outside the circle
by filling the empty chairs with creativity and care. “What would John have
said had he been able to be here?” “Is there anyway we can get Steve in for
the afternoon session?”

Don’t fear flexibility and also the notion that presence at an open space
doesn’t only have to be physical.



On Sunday, 12 June 2016, christopher macrae via OSList <
oslist at lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:

> "the people who come are the right people" but sometimes doesnt that
> depend on how much work has been done on the invitation process to include
> all sides including those who may not know they are part of the broeken
> systems
>
> i guess when an open space is about a local community issue its relatively
> simple to see whether everyone has been included but
>
>  my main concern is on issues only global youth can mobilise if
> sustainability is to be our future - and yet while i am interested in
> movements that empower youth  (sytarting with creating jobs) i also see
> sustainability -whether we win it or lose it - as an intergenerational
> compound crisis -
>
> does the generation of trump or clinton understand how much they have
> presided over designing non-sustainable systems?  has mass tv media becomes
> such an intergenerational liar that we no longer have enough bases for
> intergenerational trust?  what 5000 people invitation to open space would
> maximise a movement of networks to combat the national rifle association at
> least on selling assault guns-
>
>  here are these systems that seem so broken - are we deceiving youth in
> implying that enough elders will ever come to celebrate youth's best
> endeavors
>
> I also have a suspicion that eg hackathons viralise their invitations  and
> get extraordinary collections of young participants in ways
> that open space invitation agents may need to get smarter at - if
> intergenerational space is to be convened as much as the coming decade of
> tipping points will require
>
> just thinking aloud- any views?
> chris macrae
> www.globalyouth50000.com
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20160613/53c4dabe/attachment.htm>