<html><div>At 03:20 AM 5/12/00 -0700, you wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>>Reading your story reminded me of an upcoming event that I am
aware</div>
<div>>of. I was sent information about it second hand by someone
who knows</div>
<div>>that I am interested in open space. I do not have direct
contact with</div>
<div>>the people running the event. The event invitation states
that the</div>
<div>>event will be run "in open space" and goes on to quote
the law and the</div>
<div>>principles but.... it then describes the concurrent sessions
that will</div>
<div>>be run and the people who are running them. There is no
market place,</div>
<div>>there is no opening or closing circle. As far as I
can tell the only</div>
<div>>part of "OS" that exists in this session is the law of
two feet.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>This is my puzzle - what do I do about this? </div>
<div>****************************************</div>
<div>That indeed is a puzzle. Historically, it seems that people are
brighter than we sometimes give them credit for. They figure out that
what they have been sold, and what they take home are two different
things. The possible results are three. The participants disregard the
planners' scheme, and in spite of best efforts to control, the folks open
the space. Second possible result is that they don't and therefore feel
frustrated and angry -- which does not bode well for a successful
conference. Thirdly, they can blame the whole thing on Open Space instead
of recognizing the true identity of their discomfort. The control needs
of the organizers. </div>
<br>
<div>It would be nice if we could "fix" things so that Open
Space is appreciated for what it truly is. And some times such a fix is
possible, particularly if we have direct involvement. But that does not
seem to be the case in this situation. So what to do? </div>
<br>
<div>As painful as it maybe -- the answer is often "Nothing."
People just have to make their choices and live with the consequences.
Perhaps it is just rationalization, but I believe that Open Space
(not Open Space Technology) is the birthright of every person on the
planet. It is a gift they (we) have already received. But to be useful,
that gift must be accepted. And that is the choice, one way or another.
Doors can be opened for us, but walking through is something that each of
us must do for our selves. </div>
<br>
<div>So Sharon, maybe there is nothing to do in this situation. But there
is an opportunity to learn, and thereby better our own practice.
Personally, when I am invited to work with a group of people, I do my
best to insure that the space is open, but when it starts to shut down, I
simply pack my bags and move on. I get real suspicious when I hear people
talking about a "little bit of Open Space" or "modified
Open Space." I recognize that there are differences of opinion here,
and different levels of tolerance for restriction. But a little bit of
Open Space always sounds to me like being a little bit pregnant. And
modified Open Space is about as useful as modified oxygen -- it might
look great in a scientific paper, but not conducive to respiration.
</div>
<br>
<div>Fortunately all of us are different. And what seems very restrictive
to me may seem as open as all outdoors to somebody else. But I can only
be true to myself. Doing anything else makes me very miserable and
cantankerous -- and not useful for much.</div>
<br>
<div>Harrison</div>
<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>