<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
One is always going to close the space somwhat, whether by givens or by
other means. The question, and the art it seems to me, is knowing
just how much to close it. And sometimes - often, even - the right
givens may seem to bound the space quite a bit but actually create the
conditions for the group to fully fill what they have. I might almost prefer
to see a group "fully fill" a smaller space than see one leave a whole
bunch of potential untapped. You can always open a bigger space later,
as you say in your notes Chris.
<p>On the other hand, a bunch of untapped potential isn't such a bad idea,
if it can be later drawn upon by using OST within the organization.
What is always a problem is when one opens big space for the first meeting,
and then a more bounded space the next time round. Once people get
a taste of it, they rarely want less.
<p>The tragedy to me is seeing a space opened that is too small for the
group. That's fundamentally not fair to the group, or the process
really, and is the major reason why I absolutely refuse to "moderate" public
meetings, where there is a head table and microphones in the audience.
"The public" whoever they are (and often they are citizens in my practice
with governments) needs a <font size=+3>REALLY BIG SPACE</font> to fully
emerge and be great. And of course, most governments would prefer
to open <font size=-2>really tiny spaces </font>which makes the whole exercise
feel like shoehorning an elephant into a matchbox. Something's going
to give, and it's usually the moderator!
<p>At any rate, I think what you did Chris was more in line with your most
recent reflections. It seems like givens are the way to go in this
respect. And of course whatever happens...
<p>I once saw a disasterous OST event (I shudder to even call it that,
although that is how it was billed) with about 100 citizens gathered to
talk about treaty negotiations. They were misled about why they were
there, and after getting really angry, 75 of them left. The 25 that
stayed met in two groups and did wonderful things Did the process
work? Yes. But not without some trauma and consternation.
And what did folks in the community think? They appreciated that
the government tried to do something different. And what of those
that "got it?" They got it. And it was great for them.
For years I have been refelcting on this example and what it means.
<p>Chris
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>--
<br>CHRIS CORRIGAN
<br>Consultation - Facilitation
<br>Open Space Technology
<p><A HREF="http://www.chriscorrigan.com">http://www.chriscorrigan.com</A>
<p>108-1035 Pacific Street
<br>Vancouver BC
<br>V6E 4G7
<p>Phone: 604.683.3080
<br>Fax: 604.683.3036
<br>corcom@interchange.ubc.ca
<br> </html>