I feel like the balance between being "open" in some ways and "closed" in others is part of the ongoing discussion and self-reflection that happens in an open organization. We're constantly coming up to the boundaries and having debates about what is the right thing to do in a given situation. The tension for us is usually around being totally open, transparent and inclusive with the community of users who are not associates of Red Hat, while also maintaining a competitive/profitable business model. The key is having people at all levels in the organization willing to openly discuss the trade offs and influence each other.
There isn't a firm rule or guideline, more of a litmus test or set of guiding principles On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Brook Manville <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ > brookmanville/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 > > -- Sam Knuth Director, Customer Content Services Red Hat, Inc Mobile: +1 612-840-1785
_______________________________________________ Openorg-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/openorg-list
