<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Greetings to One and All,<br>
<br>
Koos strongly implies these items are essential to OST: <br>
<br>
<ul>
<li>Law of Two Feet</li>
<li>Absence of any agenda at start</li>
</ul>
<br>
...note that I purposely do not say, I avoid saying: "..at start of
Opening Circle" or "...at start of opening circle", or ....<br>
<br>
.... well, you get the idea (I think.)<br>
<br>
I wonder who joins with Koos on these two points. I wonder if there
are other essential items. <br>
<br>
I wonder if it is heresy for Koos to speak with authority on what is
essential to OST, and what is not.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Regarding dogma, if there is a culturally enforced rule here
prohibiting dogma, this rule is "dogma about dogma,", or "dogma qua
dogma." <br>
<br>
Savez-vous pourquoi? Est-ce pas?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Daniel <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Koos says:<br>
<br>
<span lang="EN-US">And: there are gatherings I have seen and other
gatherings that people have talked to me about, that were called
Open Space but did not open the space very much. Because <big><b>there
was </b><b>no Law of Two Feet</b></big>, and/or because <big><b>there
was a preset agenda</b></big>, that kind of thing. <br>
<br>
<big><b>There are a few things that make up the essence of Open
Space</b></big> and if you take those away, you can of course
go ahead and have fun with your meeting, but don’t call it Open
Space.</span><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/31/16 2:54 PM, Koos de Heer via
OSList wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:021901d15c61$3d795540$b86bffc0$@auryn.nl"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Yes, what Michael Herman
said. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">And: there are
gatherings I have seen and other gatherings that people have
talked to me about, that were called Open Space but did not
open the space very much. Because there was no Law of Two
Feet, and/or because there was a preset agenda, that kind of
thing. There are a few things that make up the essence of
Open Space and if you take those away, you can of course go
ahead and have fun with your meeting, but don’t call it Open
Space.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">There can be a lot of
reasons to play with the format and adapt it. Nothing wrong
with that. But I know that for folks who are used to
conventional meetings and the old corporate way of managing
an organization, it can be a pretty scary thing to do an
Open Space. And more often than not, these folks try to
combat their fear by adapting Open Space into something less
scary. Usually, making it less scary takes away the essence
of Open Space. Those are, at least in my book, the wrong
reasons to play with the format. And in those cases, I
become one of the “elders” who say: don’t tamper with it,
because it is not going to work. And for good reason.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Koos</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">Van:</span></b><span
lang="EN-US"> OSList
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:oslist-bounces@lists.openspacetech.org">mailto:oslist-bounces@lists.openspacetech.org</a>] <b>N</b></span><b><span>amens
</span></b><span>Michael Herman via OSList<br>
<b>Verzonden:</b> zondag 31 januari 2016 19:12<br>
<b>Aan:</b> paul levy <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:paul@cats3000.net"><paul@cats3000.net></a>; World wide
Open Space Technology email list
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:oslist@lists.openspacetech.org"><oslist@lists.openspacetech.org></a><br>
<b>Onderwerp:</b> Re: [OSList] The Question</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This whole story about a split between
OST and opening space, this bit about unchanging dogma is a
big mystery to me. </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is what is written in the User's
Guide. And then there is what all of us do. I can
remember exactly one instance, almost twenty years ago,
when anyone said to me "that's not open space cuz it's not
what's written i the book." That was in person, but i've
never actually heard any such thing on the list. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">And I see LOTS of changes and
adaptations. What was written as 3 days has been
experimented down to 3 hours or even less. Convergence
still happens, but non-convergence happens probably more,
and other convergences, too. John Engle taught us to open
with skits instead of posters, and oral reports instead of
typed notes. We've mixed OST with appreciative inquiry.
I once sprinkled six breakout sessions into a formal,
powerpoint-heavy corporate top leadership retreat week.
Ralph Copleman came to the list once for ideas on how to
open space or do OST on a beach without walls. Anne
Stadler and friends experimented with ongoing, quarterly
open space practice. Others of us have run OST-like
tracks inside of traditional conferences, sometimes as
part of the conference plan and at least once as a totally
emergent experiment that ran on nametags that said "ask me
about open space" and a pop-up community bulletin board
wall in a hallway. Daniel Mezick has opened a new
frontier in adapting the practice of open space tech to
agile adoption. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Brian Bainbridge, who once told me that
he read a little bit of the user's guide before every time
he facilitated an open space meeting, also came to this
list with a report about how he'd just stood at a podium,
on a stage, looking out at decidedly-not-a-circle sitting
in cushy fixed seats, given a little opening invitation
briefing and had people streaming across the stage to post
their topics on some sort of temporary wall. And that was
it. No breakouts, no proceedings, no open space? Not a
chance. The group buzzed about those topics through the
rest of their conference, in lots of standard sessions and
the usual coffee breaks. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The thing that stands out for me about
these things, other than that they never got written up in
any of harrison's books, is that they happened -- they
weren't hypothetical, mental exercises we did on the list.
They were real live practice stories first. This tells
me that, true to the intro of the original user's guide,
anyone can go and experiment and bring the story back for
conversation and learning. When we talk in theories and
generalities, including about dogma, dogma arises. When
we talk about the real things we did and what seemed to
happen as a result, there is no room or need for dogma.
There is only the work of understanding what's
happening(ed). And then everyone in the conversation can
choose whether to repeat or adjust that experiment, in any
other situation that might show up. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are all these new things that
have been tried and shared, and there are also many common
threads and practices. I see no benefit in or need for
tagging the common ground as dogma OR for things
differently only for the sake of novelty. In practice,
the only thing that matters is what we actually do and how
it works. What we think is happening, what we believe
might work, and all manner of intellectualizing and
theorizing is just so much distraction, until somebody
actually puts it on the ground in the center of a circle
or flashmob or stage. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As you're describing these two apparent
sides, Paul, I really can't figure who's on what side. It
seems to have something to do with being older or newer in
the practice, but that doesn't really explain it. I know
I have been called at various times both purist and
heretic. I think that might be true for many of the folks
i've learned from, my elders, and also many of those I
call peers in the practice. I wonder if what you're
labeling dogma isn't really more about depth of experience
and rigor of reflection and analysis. When the
conversation is focused on practice, more than theory,
those with more experience have more stories to share. As
long as we keep focused on practice, there's nothing wrong
with that. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think it might be that when we wander
out into questions like "What is Open Space Technology,"
and get away from what anyone is actually doing, in
practice, experience ceases to count and those with more
experience are seen as just dominating the conversation
with their old stories. "What is Open Space Technology"
is a groundless conversation. Nothing wrong with that,
but in removing itself from the ground of practice, it
leaves us no way to evaluate anything that comes in
response. In this way, it invalidates lived experience.
If, instead, we ask "How are we explaining the practice of
open space to clients we want to hire us?" ...or
something like this, past experience is valued again, to
show us what's worked and not worked. We can see patterns
in how the things we've said and how they worked have been
able to change and evolve. We can make guesses, choose
from the options and go test each and all of them
directly, for ourselves. History and new experiments are
equally needed and valuable. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">For all the talk about dogma, I have no
idea what any actual dogmatic definition of OST might be.
The user's guide is a historical artifact, a concept
paper, and by it's own admission only a restating of a
sort of older, universal concept. It's a beginning point
for our community that needs neither abandoning or
sanctifying. We just need to keep proving it out, in
practice, in the space we open here, between experience
and experimentation -- neither one better or more
important than the other. It's the going back and forth,
in practice, that has made and can/will continue to make
us stronger. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Learning and contributing, passion and
responsibility, breathing in and breathing out, four
principles and one law, and now, if you will... experience
and experimenting. another slice of "mutuality" -- the
co-existent, inter-informing play of apparent opposites --
arising in open space. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Michael</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <br>
--<br>
<br>
Michael Herman<br>
Michael Herman Associates</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>312-280-7838
(mobile)</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://MichaelHerman.com"
target="_blank">http://MichaelHerman.com</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://OpenSpaceWorld.org"
target="_blank">http://OpenSpaceWorld.org</a></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 10:11 AM, paul
levy via OSList <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:oslist@lists.openspacetech.org"
target="_blank">oslist@lists.openspacetech.org</a>>
wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This was my attempt at this a while
back. It still feels relevant to Daniels's question...</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">best wishes</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul Levy</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Open Space Technology opens
space. That might sound a bit strange, or even a
bit obvious, but bear with me. I’ve said that for
a reason.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the Open Space Technology
community of practitioners and fans I’ve
encountered over the last twenty years, there is a
strong behavioural pattern of not changing the
first and original version of Open Space
Technology. Harrison Owen called it a technology –
it is a way of doing something that does this:
opens space. SO why change it? If it ain’t broke,
don’t fix it.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Open Space Technology, as
you’ll find it taught today, is just about exactly
the same as it was back in the ’80s.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now, back to “Open Space
Technology opens space”. What on earth does that
mean?</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">It opens space for a
conversation. It opens space for self-organised
exploration of an issue of importance to a
community. It opens space for getting things done.
And often a hell of a lot of things do get done
from an Open Space event.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">There sits a group in a circle,
and when the space opens and they self-organise,
using the minimal structure of the Open Space
Technology process (marketplace, principles, rules
etc), all kinds of stuff then bursts into the
physical space from the previously hidden world of
Spirit, (Or Potential, if you prefer), realising
all kinds of action in space and time. In other
words, practical, useful and usable action
results. Open Space Technology has achieved that
again and again and again and again and again and
… (insert tens of thousands of ‘agains’ here). No,
it really has.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, as I said, Open Space
Technology er… opens space.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Over the years, this hardly
changed technology has added a new principle, and
tinkered with the wording here or there.
Anticlockwise “walking of the circle” has crept
in, and the odd talking stick has popped up, and
an Eastern gong brings back attention to the
circle. But, at its core, Open Space Technology is
a technology that has never had (nor, according to
its fan base) needed, an upgrade.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Indeed, whenever an upgrade has
been suggested, the elders in the Open Space
movement tend to sigh knowingly and then kindly
offer “Aw, shaddup and open some space already!”.
If that sounds like a generalisation, I invite you
to read the Open Space discussion list over the
years and you’ll find plenty of evidence of “don’t
change a thing”.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Suggestions for change will
come and go with the passing of mortal
facilitators, but Open Space technology is either
as timeless as love, or will pass away, unchanged,
in its own good time. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">At recent OSONOSes (What is
THAT?, I hear you ask – it’s an Open Space meeting
ON Open Space!), I discovered that a lot of people
like the fact that Open Space Technology is
largely still below the radar of mainstream
organisational intervention and meeting theory. It
quietly piles up its tally of successfully opened
spaces without much care for detailed research
into its practice and efficacy. It lies largely
outside of journal based scrutiny, and, most of
all, it lies beyond innovation and tinkering with
its own process. Yet at two recent OSonOses I met
a significant number of people who do adapt it,
change it, innovate it, and they still find that,
not surprisingly – space still opens! They feel as
bit sad that its a golden field of practice that
doesn’t seem to want to lovingly question its
foundations. As a result, what should have been a
changing, organic building, has turned into a
temple that moves only its pot plants around.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yet space still opens. Of
course it does. You see, Open Space technology
opens space. But so do a bunch of other gorgeous
and eloquent processes. And sometimes (and I heard
more than a few stories confirming this),
dogmatically unchanged Open Space Technology
limits the opening of space. The officionados
would claim that it is never Open Space Technology
that limits the opening of space, but a bunch of
other factors. It’s the sponsor’s fault, or the
facilitator should have done X or Y differently.
They usually sigh at the facilitator and say “Get
over it, and just stick to the knitting”.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is all very (annoyingly)
general, I know. But I’ll keep to that and see if
the generality resonates with anyone reading this
for now.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’ve written in detail,
elsewhere on this site, how and why dogmatic use
of Open Space Technology can inhibit and limit the
opening of space.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I do believe there are
archetypal elements in Open Space Technology that
are pretty timeless or, at least, standing up
pretty well in terms of relevance and
applicability, to the test of Time’s passage.
Archetypes tend towards timelessness.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In Action Learning, for
example, reflection on action is a pretty timeless
archetype. As Action Learning has evolved into a
range of approaches, that core concept of the
“learning cycle” of conceptualisation,
experimentation, action and reflection, seems to
stay relevantly at the core of all the diverse
developments. Yet how we do action learning has
changed wonderfully.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In dialogue work, as another
example, the importance of active listening
remains and pervades, even as the field of
practice widens.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In Open Space technology, the
archetype of the circle remains and has a deep
living quality, wherever space is opened. Equally,
the spirit (if not the wording) of the principles
remains vibrant and relevant. The notion of
self-organisation sits at the heart of the natural
world, and is a core, timeless quality of opening
space. But “Breaking news”, and “Marketplace” and
even the role of the facilitator, are not as
fundamental as many of the elders think they are.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">At the OSonOses (including the
World one) I met people who thanked me for
challenging the status quo (which wasn’t in any
plan of mine going in). Some said they didn’t feel
they could challenge Open Space Technology at
these events, nor share alternatives or share
stories of how they has changed it in practice. I
myself got some hate mail from an Open Space elder
a few years back when we ran an OSonOs exploring
“Beyond the dogma”. I’m not sure how true it is
that there’s a norm to stick to the technology
like glue or feel like an outsider. It’s a big
shame if it is true and if it becomes true at the
WOSonOs in Florida in 2013. There’s certainly
nothing formal to stop healthy challenge and
questioning, but quite a few people pointed to a
norm that exists in the Open Space Technology
community, that critique marks you out as a kind
of “misery guts”, even as a betrayer of a lovely
elderly gentleman. Basically you are pooping on a
party that is so benevolent is lies beyond that
poop.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Open Space Technology, in its
classic form, opens space. Often, and beautifully.
But it isn’t the only “technology” that opens
space, nor is it always the best or right one.
Also it isn’t only technology that opens space.
Art also does it. Often, when a facilitator is
truly in the moment, in an ego-free state of
service to his or her community, space opens and
NEW approaches emerge, sometimes beautiful hybrids
of Open Space Technology, sometimes tiny
adaptations, sometimes entirely new fusions,
versions, forms. Sometimes something entirely
close to Open Space Technology “escapes” into our
practice entirely afresh, especially when we have
forgotten it!</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">At the heart of all these
approaches I believe is nearly always the circle,
the principle and love of self-organisation, the
creative urge towards getting things done, and
also a kind of acceptance of the rightness of who
is there, where we are, whatever happens and also,
the love of freedom to flow in and out of the open
space as needed. These are the archetypal
qualities that have led to Open Space Technology
being so powerful and enduring.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">But there is no need for
chapter and verse, no need for the technology to
be so rigid in its core design. What is important
is that potential that wants to be realised can
find its way to space that has opened for it.
Fractured communities that come together into
circles and then self-organise into smaller
circles, before reforming into bigger ones again,
always linked to the strength of that “holding
circle” can use the circle to achieve amazing
things, notably synergy, where we are more
together and where the circle gives us shared
inner and outer focus.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">“Whatever” is more important
than any Open Space Technology Dogma. But not the
whatever of laziness and indifference. This is the
whatever of emergence, of the space that reveals,
the circle that opens into possibility and then
turns possibility into free choice, and free
choice into committed action in and upon the
world.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, I’ve discovered there are
now two overlapping (uneasily) communities, There
is the Open Space Technology Community, employing
a technology that Harrison Owen could have tried
to patent or copyright but didn’t, but has instead
offered it freely to the world, trusting its
beauty and success in the world, to leave it
unchanged and used as needed in the world. Then
there is a larger community which is the Open
Space community that uses the classic version of
the technology but also adapts it, and also uses
other methods, all of which, more or less, open
space for self-organisation, for conversation and
action. I think it’s a pity, and also a bit of an
emerging tragedy that those at the core of the
Open Space Technology Community (by no means all
of them) are not more open to change and
innovation from that wider community, to be
enriched and inspired by it. Because of this, the
Open Space Technology community now has its own
underground where people ARE questioning its
fundamentals and morphing it, but aren’t sharing
that openly at its events nor on its discussion
lists. When they do, there tends to be a
benevolent and parental closing down by many of
its supporters to just leave things as they are
and put faith in the version that is never in need
of an upgrade.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sometimes space needs to open
without any stated principles, without any
structure-polemic, no matter how minimal and well
meant. Sometimes space needs to open with few if
any words. Sometimes space opens better in the
language of the community and not the language of
Open Space Technology. Sometimes space opens
better through artistry, not technology.
Sometimes space opens without the need for a
physical circle, and sometimes even without the
need for a facilitator. Sometimes space opens with
Open Space Technology in its original form.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">But sometimes that form becomes
a wall. The stories where Open Space Technology
has failed to open space tend to go unreported,
part of a collusion of niceness. Those stories are
there to be found, but they are below the radar of
the community that has confused blanket positivity
with the grittier, messier mission of Open Space
to bring beauty to the world. Avoidance of our
pain is often both fatal and ugly.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Open Space Technology, when it
becomes ossified, becomes arthritic. When a
facilitator doesn’t just DO Open Space Technology,
but becomes open space in their own inner
activity, they will sense what needs to be done,
not out of dogma, but out of the present needs of
the situation. Often this situation will call for
a traditional use of Open Space Technology. But
not always. Sometimes we need to open space. And
it is beautiful that there are so many ways to do
that.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">What am I suggesting? I’m
suggesting it might be time for Open Space
Technology to open the trap door – the trap door
to its own beautiful critique. It needs to look
more warmly and openly at what is growing
consciously below its own radar. And it isn’t
about defending the first technological model from
a position of elder wisdom. It’s about inviting in
the younger ones, the new generation. If Open
Space Technology lies beyond an upgrade, then let
that view survive a healthy Popper-esque
conversation. But in 2012 I met some truly
wonderful people who have upgraded it anyway. They
are the right people, in the right place, at the
right time, who dance with two wonderful feet into
the future. Be prepared to be surprised by them.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Something tells me it isn’t
quite over yet, Harrison Owen!</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Welcome to the open space
community. It loves Open Space Technology. But it
loves so much more too.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">(Original article appeared
here: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://rationalmadness.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/open-space-technology-and-open-space/"
target="_blank">https://rationalmadness.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/open-space-technology-and-open-space/</a>
)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 28 January 2016 at 17:55,
Daniel Mezick via OSList <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:oslist@lists.openspacetech.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:oslist@lists.openspacetech.org">oslist@lists.openspacetech.org</a></a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">What is Open Space
Technology? <span></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-- <br>
Daniel Mezick<br>
Culture Strategist. Author. Keynoter.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%28203%29%20915%207248"
target="_blank">(203) 915 7248</a>. <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.DanielMezick.com/"
target="_blank">Bio.</a> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.NewTechUSA.net/blog/"
target="_blank">Blog.</a> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://twitter.com/DanielMezick"
target="_blank">Twitter.</a> <br>
Book: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://theculturegame.com/"
target="_blank">The Culture Game.</a>
<br>
Book: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.amazon.com/OpenSpace-Agility-Handbook-Daniel-Mezick/dp/0984875336"
target="_blank">The OpenSpace Agility
Handbook.</a> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
OSList mailing list<br>
To post send emails to <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:OSList@lists.openspacetech.org"
target="_blank">OSList@lists.openspacetech.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe send an email to <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org">OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org</a></a><br>
To subscribe or manage your subscription click
below:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org"
target="_blank">http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org</a><br>
Past archives can be viewed here: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org">http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org</a></a></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OSList mailing list<br>
To post send emails to <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:OSList@lists.openspacetech.org">OSList@lists.openspacetech.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe send an email to <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org">OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org</a></a><br>
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org"
target="_blank">http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org</a><br>
Past archives can be viewed here: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org">http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org</a></a></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:OSList@lists.openspacetech.org">OSList@lists.openspacetech.org</a>
To unsubscribe send an email to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org">OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org</a>
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org">http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org</a>
Past archives can be viewed here: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org">http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Daniel Mezick<br>
Culture Strategist. Author. Keynoter.<br>
(203) 915 7248.
<a href="http://www.DanielMezick.com/"> Bio.</a>
<a href="http://www.NewTechUSA.net/blog/">Blog.</a>
<a href="https://twitter.com/DanielMezick">Twitter.</a>
<br>
Book: <a href="http://theculturegame.com/">The Culture Game.</a>
<br>
Book: <a
href="http://www.amazon.com/OpenSpace-Agility-Handbook-Daniel-Mezick/dp/0984875336">The
OpenSpace Agility Handbook.</a>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>