<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Artur,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>with all respect, you are a amazing guy. I can
hardly read what you are writing all day, where the hell do you take the time
and the energy from to write this all?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Only some small comments:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>1. I don't think it needs a lot agreements about OS
at all. You live Open Space or you leave it, it works and you have fun or
you don't. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2. "Whatever happens is the only thing we could
have" works unter all conditions. Your responsibility as a professional
facilitator is to care for good ones. (Bye the way, that is a point where you
need good agreements). This principle helps you to understand not to
complain about others, the circumstances, the chances you misses in your life
etc. If Open Space would work "like it should" - it would not be OS
anymore.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>3. "Whenever it starts is the right time". I share
your impression that in congresses the schedules are often not respected very
well, and at OS-meetings they often are. In my opinion this only shows us the
perfect use of the "law of two feet" - if the people know it or not. Sometimes
the people are there "in time" bodily, but this does not tell us a
lot about the "right time".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>4. Some weeks ago I watched a facilitator
introducing "rules"! And I agree with you, if somebody lives the
principles as a couple of rules, he is far off from OS. In my opinion they are
observations of healthy life and working together and sometimes it helps to be
aware of them.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Have a nice weekend Artur, and I am curious of
what comes up next.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>All the best from lovely Vienna</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Erich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=artsilva@mail.eunet.pt href="mailto:artsilva@mail.eunet.pt">Artur F.
Silva</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
href="mailto:OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU">OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, October 05, 2001 3:34
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Moving Open Space without
closing it . . .</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>At 23:18 04-10-2001, Harrison Owen wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite type="cite">It is certainly quite possible to Open Space
and never mention either the 4 Principles or The Two Footed Law -- and it
will work quite well. The reason, I think, is that both are simply an
acknowledgment of what was going to happen anyhow. Thus, the Principles
emerged NOT as prescriptions of expected behavior, but rather as simple
observations of what seemed to be going on. The Right people showed up, work
was focused in the Now with little regard for what might have been or should
have been -- It always started when it was the right time -- and of course,
it was definitely over when it was over. The only value in announcing the
principles (or perhaps a value) is that doing so takes all the guilt out.
And misplaced guilt is a waste of time and energy. As for The Law of Two
Feet, I think this is really critical to effectively operating in Open Space
(any self-organizing system) --- but again, folks will do it anyhow.
Unfortunately they don't use their two feet -- they just let their minds and
hearts wander when they are no longer interested. All the Law says if follow
your passion (interest) but responsibly.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I understand your
point, Harrison, but I don't agree with you completely. <BR>And for me, in
this moment, it is important to try to understand the role <BR>of the
"principles" - if any.<BR><BR>Please note I don't want to discuss with you - I
will have to explain my <BR>position, so that you can understand it and
comment on it. And with <BR>time maybe we can try to reach some sort of
agreement.<BR><BR>So first let me state where we are - as far as I understand
- in <BR>agreement. And that is in the role of the circle, board, market,
<BR>theme and law. But also other preconditions that at clearly stated <BR>in
the "Guide" -- namely, the theme is correctly formulated, and is of <BR>real
concern; the CORRECT people are invited (but not obliged to <BR>came) by the
Sponsor WITH THE HELP from the Facilitator,<BR>etc.<BR><BR>IN THOSE
CONDITIONS, "what happens is what should" . But if the <BR>bad theme was
selected, or if an incorrect group was invited, than what <BR>happens is NOT
what should, but what the sponsor managed some <BR>people to believe that
"should". He or She is manipulating the group <BR>so that it seems that the
Space is Open - but it was "initially <BR>constrained". That can be
particularly bad when the sponsor <BR>is also the main facilitator, as he or
she can honestly believe that <BR>the constraints he or she is "opening the
space", but be wrong and <BR>being closing it.<BR><BR>So when you
write:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite type="cite">It is certainly quite possible to Open Space
and never mention either the 4 Principles or The Two Footed Law -- and it
will work quite well. The reason, I think, is that both are simply an
acknowledgment of what was going to happen anyhow. Thus, the Principles
emerged NOT as prescriptions of expected behavior, but rather as simple
observations of what seemed to be going on. The Right people showed up, work
was focused (...)</BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>"What was going to happen anyhow" means
“what”? What was going <BR>to happen anyhow, within an OST event? Or within
ANY type of meeting? <BR>Or even within any type of event - and then, and only
then, would the <BR>principles qualify as "Laws of Spirit" (or Nature,
or...).<BR><BR>I think that in "normal meetings" and "regular organizations"
and <BR>"normal social-economical-political situations" NO ONE IS IN CHARGE
but <BR>there are relations and conditions of power, influence, etc that make
that <BR>those systems ARE NOT self-organizing systems. They have constraints
<BR>(power constraints, ideological constraints, economical interests, etc)
that <BR>make them "constrained systems".<BR><BR>(and some people call those
"constraints" the "givens" and include the word as<BR>part of OST terminology
even if don't remember to see the word in any of your <BR>books, and I think
it is in contradiction with OST).<BR><BR>Indeed the way I see OST is that, for
the duration of the meeting, we try to <BR>stop those constraints, OPENING THE
SPACE for self-organization. And <BR>then, and only then, will happen what
"should" happen, according with the <BR>self-organization of open complex
systems. (Complex means also that the <BR>required complexity and diversity
was invited to the meeting, in conditions <BR>(including economical ones) that
make possible to ALL of them to appear <BR>if they wanted to).<BR><BR>Now in
what concerns other principles like "when it starts is the right time".<BR>I
think that you honestly think that this is what happens all the time. But
you<BR>and I both have been in many Congresses and know what that mean. And
<BR>what is astonishing in open space meetings is that (except for butterflies
<BR>and bumblebees) the scheduled time is quite precisely respected (and
much<BR>more that in any other meetings). So maybe the real consequence of
stating <BR>that principle (added with the other preconditions) is to obtain
an effective<BR>respect of the schedule ;-)<BR><BR>That relates with your
other point: <BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite type="cite">The only value in announcing the principles (or
perhaps a value) is that doing so takes all the guilt out. And misplaced
guilt is a waste of time and energy.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It is not only a waste;
guilt inhibits learning and creativity. So the "only <BR>value" is probably a
very important feature of OST. But he rules on time <BR>are, IMHO, sugestions,
not principles, much less "immutable principles".<BR><BR>I will be back Sunday
evening. You will have time to think about this ;-)<BR><BR>Warm regards and a
nice week end to all.
<BR><BR>Artur<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>