<html>
At 09:30 PM 3/9/00 -0800, you wrote:<br>
>Michelle and Linda,<br>
><br>
>You raise a topic of great interest to me in your recent messages on
the<br>
>"voting process".<br>
>I had been using an approach to convergence other than by
"votint", an<br>
>approach that some of us developed at the OSonOS, 3 years ago
in<br>
>Toronto, but was not totally content with it so I tried something
else<br>
>recently that I like better.<br>
********************************<br>
Diane -- this is a real contribution and I am delighted to see how it has
grown and matured since Toronto. I hope you will keep us updated. I will
be curious to see what happens when you use it with a reasonably large
group, 500-1000 for example. I am sure that it is simpler in execution
than it looks on paper (screen), but it does seem to me that there are a
lot of steps and instructions. But carry on, it can only get
better.<br>
<br>
With reference to some of the comments you made about the process I have
described in the User's Guide -- your concerns are genuine, but my
experience says that they can all be handled, at least to the group's
satisfaction. There are, however, several critical points to keep one's
eye on. First, to emphasize that even though we will be voting, it is not
a standard (political) win/lose sort of thing. I always point
out that no matter what the outcome of the prioitization, all the issues
raised are still in the book. They were (and are) important to somebody,
and everybody is encouraged to pursue their passion with responsibility.
The only thing the prioitization does is to allow the group to surface
and see where the collective energy is as a means of focusing future
effort and work.<br>
<br>
The fact that a single issue with several names can split the vote, as it
were, can be handled by identifying one of the names, and inviting people
to vote for that "name" to indicate that issue. All this can be
dealt with the night before as soon as the book has been put together. My
practice has been to meet with the sponsors to identify such
"multi-name / single issue situations" I council a conservative
approach -- that issues only be combined under a single name if it is
flagrantly, blatantly obvious that they are the same. As a check, we
consult with the original conveners/initiators (I like
"initiators"). If they all agree, we have a combination. If not
-- Not.<br>
Conservatism is really important here, 'cause the sponsoring group may
get carried away and put a whole mess of stuff together. That happened
once, and it was very unpleasant -- never again! <br>
<br>
And then there is your point that issues change as they are discussed.
True. My approach to this has been to ask people (all participants) to
use the reported discussion (it's in the book) as the
<b>definition</b> of the issue. So no matter what the original title was,
it is what they talked about that counts. I also point out that this is
not a popularity contest. So even if a participant might totally
disagree with the tenor of the discussion and the conclusions offered --
but feel the issue is an important one -- it is important and should be
included amongst their priorities. I can understand that this may appear
pretty sloppy, and were the total process to have been conducted only on
paper or on-line, I think the concern might be a real one. But in fact
all the people involved have been deeply engaged for at least a day and
preferably two. Parenthetically, this is one major reason why I would
never do less than a day, and better two days, in Open Space --
particularly if this is a "first time" for the group. If it is
important to do -- do it well, I say. Anyhow, by the time we get to
prioitization the old "collective consciousness" (whatever that
is) has been working overtime, and a remarkable level of consensus has
generally been achieved in terms of what's important, even if there is
limited consensus as to what should be done. At some level, the
prioitization comes rather like a blinding flash of the obvious. <br>
<br>
The TASC software that I use reports the results as a bar graph. Thus a
quick eyeball will tell anyone which issues have "popped to the
top." I look (in consultation with the Sponsors) for the first
or second major breaks. Inevitably (or at least it has been the case so
far) some finite number of issues (6? 12?) just leap out at you. And then
there are the rest. The bar graph is printed up immediately after the
voting, and made available to all participants so they can see from
themselves. In a close call, I include one more issue. To date, there has
never been a question.<br>
<br>
Is it perfect? No! But this is where the large numbers come in and work
to your benefit. With a small group (25-50) the numbers are so small that
there could be difficulty -- although I must say that even when I have
used this with groups of 30-40, it seems to work very well. However, when
you have 600 voters, one vote one way or another, will just wash out --
especially when you are talking about the dominant issues. <br>
<br>
And the fact that it isn't perfect, and will doubtless change over time
gives you an opportunity to state the obvious. This Open Space is just a
start. The group may have accomplished much -- but there is much left to
be done... And so you go on, but at the very least you can now go on from
a pretty clear starting place.<br>
<br>
<br>
Harrison<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div align="center">
Harrison Owen<br>
7808 River Falls Drive<br>
Potomac, MD 20854<br>
USA<br>
phone 301-469-9269<br>
fax 301-983-9314<br>
website <br>
<a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~owenhh" eudora="autourl">www.mindspring.com/~owenhh</a><br>
Open Space Institute websites<br>
<a href="http://www.openspaceworld.org/" eudora="autourl">www.openspaceworld.org</a><br>
</html>