Yes, Sam--I think you added some practical nuance to just the issue I was talking about. Someday it might be interesting to draw up a map of those issues/decisions that must be "closed", those that should always be "open", and maybe a third category of "it all depends...." Kind regards
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Sam Knuth <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-organiza >> tion/#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 <(612)%20840-1785> > -- *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
