I think it would be easy to identify a handful of them. We could also send a query to our internal memo-list and I'm sure generate quite a lot of discussion. I also think we'd find that even within a single organization, the meaning of things like "open" varies wildly between individuals, teams, regions, etc
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Brook Manville <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/>* > > > > -- 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
