Brook, Yes, the evaluation process of who to include and who to exclude is important. Although it is very crude, all social media websites (Facebook, LInkedIn, Twitter) address this issue with their "request to connect" systems, but they can't evaluate what a person can contribute to a specific project.
Some kind of more refined evaluation process is needed. That is what we need to explore. Thanks, Ron On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:09 PM, 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
