About the game metaphor and OST,
The question was raised: would the game metaphor better invite people to let
more life in organizations?
I believe not. There is quite a difference between OST and the concept of
‘game’. With OST, people are invited and trusted to work seriously in a spirit
of high play and high learning. While doing something of high value related to
a collective issue, they build confidence in the self (the individual and the
organization) and experience a more open and respectful way of being and
working with others that can be carried on after the meeting by whoever cares
to.
The game methods or metaphor is perceived more like a make-believe activity
which ends when the ‘’event / game’’ does and has less relation to real life -
especially when they go back to the office.
People in organizations I worked with, for several years have been dismissing
“game methods’’ as the flavour of the month, destined to quickly be passé and
forgotten.
I do hear a lot that they go along with games in the same way they suffer
icebreakers: to please organizers and/or consultants who don’t trust their
capacity as adults, students or whoever, to talk in a productive way about
things that really matter to them.
There are dialogue methods such as storytelling and the interview part of AI
that I have found useful before some OS events but it was in very exceptional
situations, for example doing deep grief work and honouring a division that was
winding down or reconnecting members of a group that had been apart for a long
time. These approaches were not perceived as games in that context and they are
based on principles also found in OS.
I have to say that I rarely need to add such dialogue methods or even the
Circle method because OS creates naturally the space for those things to happen
by themselves - people always do what they need to do before moving on to the
future. Other theories like the grieving cycle also known as the change cycle
confirm the same.
All in all, people seem to show greater trust in Open Space when they find out
it is not a game.
Diane
>________________________________
> From: Harrison Owen <hho...@verizon.net>
>To: 'World wide Open Space Technology email list'
><oslist@lists.openspacetech.org>
>Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 3:54:34 PM
>Subject: Re: [OSList] The OST Game
>
>
>
>A marvelous conversation... and I have been absent a bit for a good cause, I
>hope. I have been doing my homework, reading all the assigned material about
>broken reality and culture hacking. Interesting journey! And along the way I
>came upon an odd realization – I really just don’t like games! Seems it had
>something to do with early childhood trauma... my mother just loved games, and
>she would beat me unmercifully. Oh well. Unfortunately that aversion carried
>on into my adult life, particularly as it related to the so called Group
>Dynamics games that we were all supposed to play prior to serious discussion.
>Seems like you just couldn’t have an adult interchange without some “warm-up”
>to break the ice. Or so they said. Really bugged me. I just couldn’t believe
>that consenting adults could not communicate without some elaborate foreplay –
>funny tools drawn from the omnipresent Facilitator’s Tool Box.
>
>So much for my inherent pathology and prejudices, but there may be something
>of a positive outcome. I simply had to believe that given reasonable
>conditions, human beings could sit down and talk productively with each other
>– all by themselves. As adults. It did take two martinis to get me there...
>but “there” was (guess what) Open Space. We have been doing that ever since,
>and it turns out that children do just as well.
>
>What may have started as childish rebellion (against Mother, Facilitators,
>etc) has only gotten worse. With increasing age and experience it has become
>clearer and clearer that the less I do the better things work. It is not that
>I have no agency or contribution, but it does turn out that the ambient wisdom
>and capacity of the individuals and groups that I am privileged to interact
>with so vastly exceeds my own that I would do very well to fold my hands and
>shut my mouth. Anything else has me working much too hard, and generally
>messing things up... Such are the eye glasses through which I view my world.
>Distorted perhaps, and different for sure, but I’m stuck with it. And it is
>through those glasses that I read my assignments, beginning with “Reality is
>Broken.”
>
>Jane McGonigal weaves a fascinating tale of the strange (to me) world of Game
>Makers, Gaming, and Gamers. I can certainly understand why she has created a
>stir, and I applaud her massive research and clear prose. That said, my
>reaction was close to horror, and the thought that the world and techniques
>she describes should become a model and a means to fix our world was pretty
>close to terror. Doubtless much of this can be ascribed to my aforementioned
>phobia – but I suspect that others might share such feelings. Two points stand
>out in my mind—Gaming is addictive, a point she develops in infinite detail,
>and secondly that good Game Makers actually capitalize on this phenomenon and
>make every effort to enhance the addictive power. Their success is obvious
>and awesome. It seems that one massive, online game attracted 5,000,000
>man/years of attention. George Orwell, where are you now that we need you?
>
>I joke a bit – and my concerns run deeper. When Jane says, “Reality is
>Broken,” I feel constrained to ask, Who’s reality? Not mine, for sure. It is
>not that I experience every day as a walk in the park, but there have been
>precious few moments when I have felt bored, without challenge, non-productive
>and unappreciated/respected. And I have many friends and colleagues around the
>world who seemingly have a similar experience. Doubtless that makes us odd,
>perhaps aberrant, but there is a certain consolation in numbers. We are not
>alone.
>
>When I think about the factors that positively contribute to my reality they
>include such things as the indeterminacy of my surroundings. The moment I
>think I know where it is all headed, I am confounded by the twists of
>happenstance. Then there is the total lack of clarity when it comes to goals
>and objectives. Certainly I have hopes and desires, but just about every time
>I have locked on some particular outcome, it doesn’t turn out that way –
>usually better. And lastly, if there are clear cut rules, I certainly have
>never found them. Of course there are moments when I think it is all a
>dreadful mistake and I am scared to death. But even that has its positive: I
>know I am alive. So for me, my reality is doing just fine. Exciting,
>challenging, growthful, rewarding -- In fact it seems to be working perfectly.
>
>I am truly sorry for those who have a different experience, but if reality for
>them is broken, it is reasonable to ask, Who broke it? Or could it be that it
>isn’t really broken, they just think it is, if only because it doesn’t measure
>up to their expectations. That would certainly be the case if reality was
>supposed to work by clear cut rules, heading in a pre-determined direction,
>always under somebody’s control. That understanding of reality is certainly
>alternate to anything I know anything about. It just never happened, and if it
>did I believe it would be unendingly boring. But that might account for the
>Game Maker’s success – for if I read Jane correctly, that is pretty much the
>reality they create. And if that is the reality you want, no wonder people
>spend 5 million man/years immersed in it!
>
>And on to a related question: Is OST a game? Possibly, but not according to
>Jane’s rules/criteria. To be sure, there is a correlation with Jane’s first
>criteria: Opt in = Voluntary Self Selection, and a second one relating to
>Good Feedback (we might say documentation). But it seems to me it all goes
>downhill from there. If there are any rules in Open Space, I have yet to
>encounter them. To be sure there are 5 principles and a law, but none of them
>are things you have to do. In fact they all seem to emerge no matter what you
>do – all by themselves. As for a clear goal, I think you have precisely the
>opposite. Everything begins with a question, and under the best of
>circumstances there is no attachment to outcomes. As we say, Whatever happens
>is the only thing that could have.
>
>Just to drive a little deeper. If OST is not a game – what is it?
>
>Drum roll... Cutting edge revelation...
>
>OST... is ... Life.
>
>It does not bring anything new. Represents no mind bending revelation. In fact
>it doesn’t DO a thing. Nothing. OST simply and quietly invites us to be,
>fully, what we already are – ourselves. It really is shocking. Just be
>yourself as you really are. Drawn by a question (Quest) – you are invited to
>explore what you really care about. No foregone conclusions. No prior
>exclusions (givens). No rules prescribed (by somebody else). Just be yourself
>and take it from there. Of course it helps to be honest. What do you really
>care about? And if you care, take responsibility for what you care about.
>Nobody else will. And you don’t need an act of Congress, Parliament, the
>Legislature, or the writings of the latest Guru. It’s just you.
>
>But not just you. Who shares your passion? Who will join you in the assumed
>responsibility? In advance you simply don’t know, nor can you predict. But
>when it happens, you know it happens. Life not only goes on – it gets deeper
>and richer with the shared passions and responsibilities that weave the rich
>tapestry of the human odyssey.
>
>I know you have heard this song before, but I think it bears re-singing. The
>temptation to change this simple invitation into some complex process,
>procedure, structure is almost overwhelming, driven I am sure by our hope to
>improve and also perhaps to make it something we own or do. Something that
>requires the professional touch, as it were. But the truth of the matter, I
>believe, is that there really isn’t anything to improve and still less to do.
>Above all, Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke, and always think of one less thing
>to do.
>
>So where does all this discussion leave Agile and OST, or more exactly the
>relationship between the two? Closely united, I believe – but perhaps not in
>the way that Dan and others seem to be suggesting, even though that way
>appears to be eminently rational and definitely a good plan.
>
>I understand that Agile (as described in the Agile Manifesto) is an elegant
>set of principles which await implementation (adoption) through some method or
>process, SCRUM for example. The principles are magnificent and represent the
>latest iteration of a longish tradition beginning perhaps with Quality
>Circles, and passing through Excellent Organizations (Tom Peters et al),
>Learning Organizations, with possibly a side trip through Process
>Re-Engineering. In every case, elaborate processes, procedures, and protocols
>were designed in order to bring the noble ideas into everyday practice. In
>every case the energy and enthusiasm surrounding the several efforts was
>considerable (aided I suspect by the fat consulting fees that could be
>generated). And in every case I believe we learned many useful lessons.
>However, in terms of the desired outcome, which might be described as
>“enhanced organizational function,” I think the record is less than positive.
>Only
people of a certain age will even remember Quality Circles, Excellent
Organizations seem evident mostly by their absence, The Society of
Organizational Learning disbanded last year, and Process Engineering has been
retired by general consensus as an embarrassing failure. Jane McGonigal may
just have written the epitaph, “Reality is Broken.” Whether Agile and its
several implementation procedures (SCRUM, etc) will meet a similar fate remains
to be seen.
>
>Reasonable people might well ask, how could we invest so much and accomplish
>so little? Doubtless there are multiple answers, but one stands out for me.
>We’ve been trying to organize self organizing systems. This is a thankless
>task if only because we will never get it right; the systems involved (our
>businesses, countries, organizations) are so complex, inter-related, and fast
>moving that we can’t even think at that level – let alone effectively
>structure and control them. Even worse it seems all too often that our best
>efforts and intentions make the situation worse – our fixes end up with
>painful unintended consequences. But worst of all our efforts are not needed
>because the system itself, all by itself, can do a better job. Frankly our
>efforts are just plain clunky.
>
>It is precisely at the point where I think other efforts have been less than
>successful that OST may enable Agile to succeed -- but not by facilitating the
>adoption Agile as a set of principles, but in a much more immediate and direct
>fashion: by enabling Agility. The principles are definitely nice, but what we
>truly care about is real, meaningful, organizational agility, which others
>might call High Performance, and Open Space demonstrably delivers on that
>score. My favorite story, of course is the AT&T design team for the ’96
>Olympic Pavilion. In 2 days they designed a $200,000,000 structure which had
>taken them 10 months on a previous effort. That is a 15,000% increase in
>productivity. Not bad.
>
>If that were the only instance of such a phenomenon it would be interesting
>but not helpful, but there are others, a lot. And how does all that work? It
>is just a well functioning self organizing system. And if you ask whether it
>is all scalable – the answer is it is already scaled to the highest levels.
>Been around for 13.7 billion years, and the Cosmos (along with everything
>else) is the product. Don’t adopt Agile, BE agile. Honestly, it is a natural
>condition if we stop trying to fix it.
>
>So I think we have some very good news here. Reality ain’t broke and serious
>Agility is available any time we want to open the space to let it happen. And
>if you were wondering who all those friends and colleagues around the world
>who know that their reality is unbroken (albeit painful sometimes) you can
>start by looking in a mirror. Yes, I am talking about all those folks who have
>wandered into Open Space to discover, many times in spite of themselves – that
>deep, meaningful, productive, playful, respectful encounters with their
>fellows can and do happen. That is just a taste, of course – but it can happen
>all the time -- 24X7. I know.
>
>Harrison
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Harrison Owen
>7808 River Falls Dr.
>Potomac, MD 20854
>USA
>
>189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)
>Camden, Maine 04843
>
>Phone 301-365-2093
>(summer) 207-763-3261
>
>www.openspaceworld.com
>www.ho-image.com(Personal Website)
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST Go
>to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>
>From:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org
>[mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of Harold Shinsato
>Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 6:46 PM
>To: World wide Open Space Technology email list
>Subject: Re: [OSList] The OST Game
>
>Oh Diane - thank you! I had been hoping you would write something. I'm also
>very grateful for your comprehensive history here only some of which I was
>aware of.
>
>A deep bow of appreciation for the Agile Open series. I'd love to go to every
>one of those because of the fun, engagement, high level of learning - but
>mostly from the awesome people I've met and how it has enriched my lives.
>You've been one of the greatest enrichers of my professional life, Diane! I'm
>quite excited to be going to Agile Open in Berkeley next week! And the
>Portland/Seattle Agile Open Northwest is one of the high points of my year.
>
>As Harrison said - please ramble more. I've been intrigued and intimidated by
>the depth I've seen in the Human System Dynamics work and would love
>especially to hear you speak more about the intersection of OST and HSD - or
>maybe more appropos to this thread how Finite and Infinite Games is a formal
>basis for HSD - and that might benefit OST facilitation.
>
> Thanks!
> Harold
>
>On 10/9/13 3:21 PM, Diana Larsen wrote:
>Harold, Michael, Harrison, and all,
>>
>>I've been lurking on the sidelines of this conversation. Honestly, hoping a
>>bit that it would go away. (Not sure about my motivations there.) However,
>>the turn the thread has taken recently prompts me to speak up again.
>>
>>I'd like to remind you about the Agile Open series of conferences (goes back
>>to Europe in 2004 and still continuing) and the Agile Open Program supported
>>by the Agile Alliance (since 2010) and before those the open space formats of
>>Consultants' Camp (started by Jerry Weinberg decades ago), the Consultants'
>>Retreats (Norm Kerth begun in 1997), and Retrospective Faciltators'
>>Gatherings (Norm, Esther Derby, Linda Rising, and me, 2002), all still
>>continuing and having touched many people in the Agile community over the
>>years. What is now the Agile 20xx conferences have had an open space/open jam
>>component since the beginning. As well as John Engle's, Harrison's, &
>>Suzanne's involvement with a variety of Agile conferences. Coming to a Scrum
>>Gathering in Boulder straight from having attended the US-OS on OS in San
>>Antonio TX in 2005(?), I opened the first open space for Scrum (that I know
>>of). Michael opened space at the XP/Agile Universe conference ten
years ago and showed everyone there what self-organizing could look like in
the moment. (I was there, thank you Michael.)
>>
>>All of which has made fertile ground for Dan's advocacy to take hold in the
>>Agile community. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. Dan may be the most
>>vocal advocate at the moment (and I applaud his visibility), but I wouldn't
>>say he's the most potent advocate. Agile and Open Space have a long, rich and
>>entwined history together.
>>
>>Some of us have been quietly applying Open Space principles in our Agile
>>adoption work for many years. We haven't codified it or named it, but it's
>>been a central part of what we do. Charlie Poole and others have opened space
>>in organizations as a way of introducing, modeling, and applying Agile and
>>self-organization.
>>
>>The theoretical basis of Carse's _Finite and Infinite Games_ underlies much
>>of the thinking in Human Systems Dynamics as well. The idea that the degree
>>to which a system is open or closed, multi-dimensional or single dimensional,
>>non-linear or linear gives us clues about the patterns that may fit the
>>purpose or not, and whether we'd like to shift those patterns or not.
>>Alistair Cockburn used Carse's model to think about competitive and
>>cooperative games, and proposed the idea that software development would do
>>well to think more in terms of cooperation among stakeholders. It's one of
>>the reasons I was drawn into the Agile space.
>>
>>Some in the Agile community have embraced this idea of games as metaphor,
>>games/play as learning tool, but they often do not incorporate (are not aware
>>of?) the deeper meanings from Carse and Cockburn and the complexity sciences.
>>They do it because it's more fun. And that's okay too.
>>
>>It may or may not be a metaphor, explanation or tool that works for the Open
>>Space community.
>>
>>Gratitude for your patience with my rambling,
>>Diana
>>
>>
>>**************
>>Diana Larsen
>>http://futureworksconsulting.com
>>
>>Envisioning a world where everyone at every level of the organization can
>>say, "I love my work; this is the best job EVER!"
>>
>>Read the books:
>>Agile Retrospectives: Making Good Teams Great
>>Liftoff: Launching Agile Teams and Projects
>>QuickStart Guide to Five Rules of Accelerated Learning
>>https://leanpub.com/fiverules
>>********************
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Oct 9, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Harold Shinsato wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi Michael,
>>
>>No fun to hear I'm failing - but it hasn't stopped me before. Try and try
>>again (even if it takes years).
>>
>>I'm not saying OST *is* a game. I'm not saying OST is anything.
>>
>>What I see is that there is value in the metaphor of OST as a game.
>>
>>So Dan is already speaking about OST as a game to Agile circles and making
>>some good cheese with it. And maybe the Agile community has a bit of a leg up
>>on us here because Alistair Cockburn used the game metaphor in his first book
>>in the 1990's about this. And Alistair is one of the signatories of the Agile
>>Manifesto that started the whole "Agile" (with capital letter) conversation.
>>But Alistair wasn't talking specifically about software as in an obscure
>>coding thing thing that will make everyone's eyes glaze over. He was speaking
>>about a different way to look at work and at teams.
>>
>>So I've been in the Agile conversation for over a decade. And it's not always
>>been fun. Much of it has been butting up against minds that were very shut,
>>and it's still not an uncommon experience for advocates to run into a wall.
>>And maybe this might not seem relevant here, but much of that "Agile"
>>conversation has been about people. People people people. It's even a
>>frequent complaint I hear for the techies, because a minority who show up at
>>conferences are only interested in the coding aspect. But they're the
>>minority. The first line of the Agile Manifesto - "Individuals and
>>interactions over processes and tools."
>>
>>Yes - I do live in that world of code. But I also live in this world of Open
>>Space, improving human dynamics in teams, OD type stuff etc. And often times
>>having a foot in both worlds causes cognitive dissonance because not too many
>>are comfortable in this lonely between space. Finding language to bring
>>together the contasting perspectives can be difficult.
>>
>>But living in both worlds - I see so much in common. I see so much common
>>ground. I see so many ways that the Agile crowd can help the OST/OD crowd,
>>and most certainly visa versa.
>>
>>The thing is - the Agile universe is already embracing Open Space in a huge
>>way. And not always with the direct help and support and understanding of the
>>folks here. Which is not always a good thing.
>>
>>One last thing - the Agile community is not homogeneous. There are many
>>innovations that cause controversy and big huge disruptions. I'm seeing some
>>of Dan's work in this community as being potentially hugely powerful and
>>disrupting - and in a large way due to his being the most potent advocate of
>>Open Space in Agile today. And this game perspective is part of how he got
>>there.
>>
>>I'm not fully there and understanding his metaphor of OST as a game - and it
>>looks like I'll need to converse with him outside this forum to fully get it.
>>I guess I was hoping for a warmer reception from the voices of authority and
>>seniority on this list. But at least, having attended WOSonOS in Florida and
>>knowing some of what is happening in the Open Space world because of being
>>part of the Open Space Institute/U.S. - I do know that many of us are
>>catching more of the agile mojo and that it will continue to mature.
>>
>>Well, anyway - not sure I just helped you Michael but thanks for giving me an
>>excuse to rant. :-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Harold
>>
>>
>>
>>On 10/9/13 11:58 AM, Michael Herman wrote:
>>Not sure you actually accomlished "Against," Harold. I think I just read OST
>>is life, a finite slice of Life.
>>>
>>>And if the conversation happens in a room full of people who think and talk
>>>about games, that's great to say OST is a game cuz everyone in that room or
>>>community knows what that means. Probably doesn't work as well on CNN or at
>>>an ODN mtg.
>>>
>>>I guess it still a bit confusing to me if this conversation is about how to
>>>talk OST in agile community or how to talk OST in other/larger communities.
>>>Translation is always possible, but the game lingo doesn't seem native to
>>>the folks I'm usually talking with. Actually, finding some native
>>>understanding of (and native language for) OS seems like half the game in
>>>many instances.
>>>
>>>m
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Wednesday, October 9, 2013, Harold Shinsato wrote:
>>>Harrison,
>>>
>>>Ok, I'll take your word from previous posts that I won't be in trouble if I
>>>risk going up against you again - or maybe it's just a hope that this thread
>>>won't be shut down due to misunderstandings.
>>>
>>>The statement "OST is a game" actually doesn't work for me so much because
>>>it uncomfortably reduces all the ideas and philosophy (and practice) of OST
>>>into a word that unfortunately has for many negative connotations. But
>>>perhaps I'll invite thinking about OST *as* a game instead. Perhaps that can
>>>help prevent cognitive dissonance and allow for this conversation to
>>>continue.
>>>
>>>My understanding of the word game as used by Daniel Mezick and others comes
>>>from game theory - and could open up many benefits.
>>>
>>>The briefest way I think to hope to keep this particular door open for those
>>>in this community who might find the word game unpleasant would be to
>>>suggest the book "Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and
>>>Possibility" by James P. Carse. Mr. Carse actually is a professor of history
>>>and literature of religion - and his thinking in that book is very poetic
>>>and beautiful. And it reminds me much of Open Space thinking - and I won't
>>>even attempt to dive into his thesis any more than to look at what I think
>>>sums up the thinking being the final sentence in the book. "There is only
>>>one infinite game."
>>>
>>>The bigger game of Open Space is the game of life - the unending story - the
>>>"one infinite game". And an OST meeting or conference is a finite game which
>>>seems to open up an experience of the infinite game in a beautiful way. And
>>>yet, there's still value in seeing the finite game aspects of OST in that
>>>context.
>>>
>>>Alas, perhaps this attempt will be futile. But I hold out hope that others
>>>won't be discouraged from this perspective on OST as a game and it's
>>>benefits.
>>>
>>> Harold
>>>
>>>On 10/7/13 1:25 PM, Harrison Owen wrote:
>>>Dan – Using the word, “game” as you do, I guess it sort of works with OS,
>>>but I do confess a certain feeling of cognitive dissonance, which I suspect
>>>may be shared by some of my colleagues. In any event, it certainly would not
>>>be a word I would use. But that doesn’t mean a great deal. However, when you
>>>say, “Leaders choose to play OST. Or not,” I do feel called upon to say
>>>something like... Oh Yes?
>>>>
>>>>Some people refer to the “Game of Life,” but it is scarcely a game you
>>>>choose to play (or not). Not playing is called suicide, I think, and while
>>>>some people do make that choice it is not a choice that most folks would
>>>>considered good, useful, or positive. It is more like canceling all
>>>>choices. Out of the Game, so to speak.
>>>>
>>>>I feel rather the same way about OS, and for all the same reasons. OS for
>>>>me is not a process we choose to do or not do – quite simply it is what we
>>>>are -- Self organizing, and OS is only an invitation to be ourselves fully
>>>>and purposefully. We can chose to be ourselves with distinction, despair,
>>>>or something in between -- but so long as we remain on the planet in some
>>>>viable form, we got no choice. We are what we are, what we are. Put a
>>>>little differently, OS is not something new and different, it is just a
>>>>small name change for what has been around for quite a while: life. I
>>>>guess you can call it a game, but somehow that seems to miss some of the
>>>>nuances.
>>>>
>>>>Harrison
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Harold Shinsato
>>>har...@shinsato.com
>>>http://shinsato.com
>>>twitter: @hajush
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Michael Herman
>>>MichaelHerman.com
>>>(312) 280-7838
>>>Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>OSList mailing list
>>>To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org
>>>To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org
>>>To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>>>http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>>
>>--
>>Harold Shinsato
>>har...@shinsato.com
>>http://shinsato.com
>>twitter: @hajush
>>_______________________________________________
>>OSList mailing list
>>To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org
>>To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org
>>To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>>http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>OSList mailing list
>>To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org
>>To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org
>>To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>>http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>
>--
>Harold Shinsato
>har...@shinsato.com
>http://shinsato.com
>twitter: @hajush
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSList mailing list
>To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org
>To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org
>To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org
To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
