Ron, thanks for that comment. I think you've put your finger on an important issue/criterion for "open"--the interface with the "external" community. A critical question is how does an open organization be both "open" to the world (especially like-minded communities, e.g. Linux) and "closed" at the same time (i.e. preserving certain norms and protocols for its members). I tried to get at this a bit in one of my Forbes posts, "Red Hat's Open-ish" organization ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/br ookmanville/2016/01/28/red-hat-redux-the-open-ish-organization/#3f634223480e <http://goog_330869967/> ), but I think there's a lot more thinking that's needed to explore the point. Any thoughts from others?
cheers On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Ronald McFarland <[email protected]> wrote: > For me personally, an "open" organization (not to be confused with open > sourcing) has always been a management system at the front-line, > peer-to-peer level that approaches the external community as well. My > articles on trust, decision-making, collaboration have always been targeted > toward that group. My CAVE article was to help that group evaluate the > outside community as to who would be helpful in a peer-to-peer open > organization team. > > Hope this helps. > > Ron > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Brook Manville <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Yes agree-- but if at some point we see enough examples there should be >> some kind of emerging definition, no? >> >> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:13 PM Bryan Behrenshausen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> > Bryan, thanks--some thought provoking comments! Maybe it's time to >>> take another run at defining "open"--updating the concept in light of >>> some of these conversations, and your several points? Do all our >>> Ambassadors hold today to a common definition? (Could be buried in some >>> other thoughtful email string that I missed--if so, mea culpa). >>> >>> >>> Eekers. That's a tall order indeed. I'll let others weigh in to >>> decide whether that's something we wish to tackle. In the meantime, I'll >>> just say that I find "defining" open much less interesting and useful >>> than tracing/tracking how all sorts of "kinds" of openness (different >>> definitions and deployments, if you will) get put to work in everyday >>> discussions and decisions. Maybe put a bit more simply: I'm more >>> interested in how and why different groups/actors define "open" in the >>> way(s) they do, and what they hope to accomplish and/or authorize by >>> doing so. >>> >>> BB >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Openorg-list mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/openorg-list >>> >> -- >> Sent from Gmail Mobile >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openorg-list mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/openorg-list >> >> > -- *Brook Manville* *Principal, Brook Manville LLC* *http://www.brookmanville.com/ <http://www.brookmanville.com/>* *Twitter* <https://twitter.com/> *@brookmanville* *blogging at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookmanville/ <http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookmanville/>*
_______________________________________________ Openorg-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/openorg-list
