Mmmm. This is offered with the greatest of respect for previous speakers. I am not on board with any assertion that an implementation plan for complicated - and complex - issues is not hugely valuable. I am not sure if that is what is being said here... It may be semantics. I would see many activities - building a bridge is the current example - where a robust concept, design and implementation plan is crucial to enabling an outcome that meets requirements: Safety. Performance. Longevity. Good plans are always the outcome of an extensive process of collaboration between diverse groups and individuals. They don't always get along. There is frequently disagreement and much iteration to work out the optimal way forward. This process continues every day right through the project to when you cut the red ribbon declaring it open. Is this process of collaboration what you are thinking of here when you talk about 'open space all the way'? I would just see that as part of good project management. ???? I think my question/issue here is that my concept of 'self-organising' is somewhat separate from project management which I see as a process that, if well designed and executed, ensures that all the key voices are heard and taken account of, and then takes a disciplined approach to making sure all the myriad of required actions actually takes place. Bronwyn
: [email protected]: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:47:20 -0400 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OSList] Management and Organization Nothing ever happens according to the plan. And OS helps with those elements that take us by surprise. -- CHRIS CORRIGANHarvest Moon ConsultantsFacilitation, Open Space Technology and process design Check www.chriscorrigan.com for upcoming workshops, blog posts and free resources. On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:06 PM, "Harrison Owen" <[email protected]> wrote: Chris – I love your story, but I guess you have never built a bridge. Neither have I. But I have been involved in a whole mess of large construction projects (The CIA, Dulles International, etc) and I can tell you NOTHING ever happened according to The Plan. Open Space the whole way! Harrison Winter Address7808 River Falls DrivePotomac, MD 20854301-365-2093 Summer Address189 Beaucaire Ave.Camden, ME 04843207-763-3261 Websites www.openspaceworld.comwww.ho-image.comOSLIST To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST Go to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org From: OSList [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 2:58 PM To: World wide Open Space Technology email list Subject: Re: [OSList] Management and Organization I seek simplicity in trying to describe where and how Open Space does it’s magic. One of the ways I have had excellent success over the years in describing this work is derived from David Snowden’s work on the Cynefin framework. The short story is this: We are faced all the time with problems that are basically knowable, and problems that aren’t. Knowable problems mean that with the right knowledge and expertise, they can be fixed. A technical team can come together and analyse the causes, work with what’s available and craft a solution. Then they can get an implementation plan in place and go ahead and do it. These kinds of problems have a start line and a finish line. When you are done, you are done. Building a bridge is one of those kinds of problems. You build it and there is no tolerance for failure. It needs to be failsafe. Open Space doesn’t work well for those kinds of problems because the solution is basically already known, or at least knowable. Then there are problems for which no know solution exists, and even if you did get a solution, you can’t really “solve” the problem because the problem is due to a myriad of causes and is itself emergent. For example, racism. Look around and you will find very few people that identify themselves as racists, but look at the stats for Canadian society for example and you see that non-white people are trailing in every indicator of societal success. Essentially you are seeing the results of a racist society but no racists anywhere. This is an emergent problem. Racism itself is a self-organizing phenomenon, notwithstanding the few people that actively engineer racist environments. Such a problem didn’t really start anywhere and it can’t really end either. What is needed is a way of addressing it, moving the system away from the negative indicators and towards something else. In other words, this is a complex problem. The way to solve complex problems is to create many “strange attractors” around which the system can organize itself differently. Open Space nis the best method I know of for creating such strange attractors, as they are born from the passion and responsibility of those that want to create change, and they are amplified by people coming together to work on these things. It’s “post and host” rather than “command and control.” And because you can’t be sure if things are going to work out, you have to adopt a particular mindset to your initiative: one that is “safe to fail.” In other words, if it doesn’t work, you stop doing it. If it does work, you do more of it. And all the way along you build in learning, so that the system can see how change is made and be drawn towards those initiatives that are currently making a difference. Certainly this kind of problem solving is not useful for building a bridge, as you cannot afford a failure there. But for problems with no known solutions, it is brilliant. Harrison has spent decades outlining this simplicity in even less words than I have now and his writing and thinking is, and continues to be far ahead of it’s time and maybe a little under appreciated because it is delivered in simple terms like “don’t work so hard.” But ultimately this is the best and most important advice for working in complex systems. Open Space. Do it. Learn. Do it again. Don’t work so hard. More than that really starts to build in the delusion that people can possibly know what to do. From that place solutions will be deluded. That they may work is pure luck. Open Space offers us a disciplined approach to addressing complexity in an ongoing way. Don’t be fooled by its simplicity. Chris On Jul 21, 2014, at 6:52 PM, Harrison Owen <[email protected]> wrote: Love what you are saying... and I think you may be working much too hard. From where I sit, the basic reality is that all the World is self-organizing. That includes all the stuff we think we “organized.” So the bottom line is – we are all self organizing, and some of us are doing it better. Which is to say that some folks are struggling to invent what is already happening “all by itself,” and others are allowing (appreciating) what is happening all by itself. For me, Open Space is simply a great way of “practicing” what is already happening. Even if we think it isn’t. Or something. Harrison Winter Address7808 River Falls DrivePotomac, MD 20854301-365-2093 Summer Address189 Beaucaire Ave.Camden, ME 04843207-763-3261 Websiteswww.openspaceworld.comwww.ho-image.comOSLIST To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST Go to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org From: OSList [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of agusj Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:25 PM To: World wide Open Space Technology email list Subject: Re: [OSList] Management and Organization Hello Harrison, David S and David O, I find the thread of this conversation very interesting and inspiring. In my opinion, the success of using OS to transform businesses in self-organizing organizations depends of the way you do it. It is very different to use OS as a means to experience a different way of organization than using OS as a means to allow organizations to have an experience of themselves from a context of self-organization. An option of the first approach is to use OS as an isolated practice in the "old system". This way maybe it can help to fix something, but it is very possible that it is not going to make a real difference, if the organization does not transfer in any way the underlying conditions of OS to its everyday environment. An example of the second approach is to use OS as a Trojan horse, acting like a hacker. Under this scenario, the organization adopt OS as a common practice because its effectiveness to solve problems or to foster innovation, or whatever. This way, its continued use over time probably generates a new cultural context that facilitates the emergence of self-organization. It could take time, but the chance that self-organization put down roots is higher than with the first approach. AgustinPS - Recently I read a book that shows the cases of some organizations that are defying the "old system" very succesfully. The name of the book is Reinventing Organizations written by Frederic Laloux.From: Harrison Owen <[email protected]> To: 'World wide Open Space Technology email list' <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [OSList] Management and Organization David, Listen to your words... “we're exploring the question of how can we have some structure and boundaries and yet provide space for self-organization. It's hard to find models that enable both.” I hate to say it, and you won’t be surprised, but I think you are working much too hard. Sounds to me suspiciously like a variant of “organizing a self organizing system.” Especially that part about “find(ing) models.” The systems you are contemplating (your business and the Association) are their own best models. Nothing else will even come close because they are unique. And if self organization is anything like I think it is, one of its major activities is the creation of “structures and boundaries.” That, by definition, is what self organizing systems do, along with a few other things. So the key activity for me would be to stop looking for models, and start paying careful attention to how your two self organizing systems naturally express themselves in structure and form. Initially your task will be complicated by all those “other” structures and forms that have been laid on, arbitrarily I would say, just because it seemed like a good idea at the time – in accord with the latest “models,” or “accepted practice.” After all, we think we all know what an organization SHOULD look like.J But there is a way through the forest, I think, which is actually the “design principle” I employed in the development of Open Space Technology. You’ve heard it before. Think of one more thing NOT to do. Just keep striping away those forms and procedures that you thought to be essential for your organizations’ function. Don’t try to do it all at once, and start with what I might call the low hanging fruit. Those things that just get done, even though nobody can remember why. Then notice what happens. If something comes back, that is pretty good evidence that it was a natural form or structure, and your systems, in their own wisdom, felt the need. On the other hand, if it stays gone, just say bye, bye, enjoy the new space, and get on with your business. It is true, of course that some structures and forms are required by external authorities: Taxes, annual reports, and the like. In those situations, I have found it helpful to ask, “What is the minimal level of form and structure required to get the job done?” For some reason, people seem to make the simplest things unendingly complicated. In extremis there is a presumption that if it is simple, it can’t be any good. I’ve noticed this on more than one occasion with the public perception of OST, especially among those who have never been involved. I suppose this has something to do with the Expert Syndrome – if you make it complicated enough you will surely require the services of an Expert to help you through. For a fee of course. And to be honest, we in the OS community sometimes seem to be guilty of the same thing. So there are some suggestions to get started. If you want more, and probably more than you want – you might take a look at Part II of Wave Rider, “A Wave Rider’s Guide to the Future.” And for a slightly different slant see Part IV of the Power of Spirit, “The Care and Feeding of the Interactive Organization.” And just to be clear, an Interactive Organization is my term for a conscious, self organizing system. HarrisonPS – And for the record, all of the above are by yours truly and available from Amazon.com and the publisher, Berrett-Koehler. Harrison Owen7808 River Falls Dr.Potomac, MD 20854USA 189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)Camden, Maine 04843 Phone 301-365-2093(summer) 207-763-3261 www.openspaceworld.comwww.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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Osborne Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 6:57 PM To: World wide Open Space Technology email list Subject: Re: [OSList] Management and Organization Harrison, I had to laugh at my own words as I re-read them.. ."support leaders in adopting approaches that move toward greater and greater levels of self-organization." The system of course is self-organizing all the time !!! Opening space enables the system it to move closer and closer to high performance versus stuckness, stagnation, decline and death. If I restate what I was trying to express, I think we can Open Space in big ways as an OS does and/or in small ways through the openness in leadership approaches that provide more space for passion, creativity, personal responsibility etc. This is working at the micro-level though versus the full paradigm shift you describe. I agree with your description whole-heartedly. You raise for me very pragmatic questions. Both in our small company, ChangeFusion, and in a global membership organization I'm involved in we're exploring the question of how can we have some structure and boundaries and yet provide space for self-organization. it's hard to find models that enable both. I'd love to hear if others have suggestions of examples. David On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Harrison Owen <[email protected]> wrote:Hello David O. and David S. I’ve re-titled to give the thread a new name if only because I think it is headed in some new directions with hopefully a long and useful discussion in prospect. This discussion may get a little difficult as we attempt to define and understand the words we are using, “Management,” for example. I had in mind the more common garden variety of Management’s role in organizations. As Wikipedia (that source of all useful information) notes, “Despite the move toward workplace democracy, command-and-control organization structures remain commonplace as de facto organization structure.” (Wikipedia). Back in the old days a common definition of a good manager was one who, “Makes the plan, manages to the plan, and meets the plan.” And we all know how that was supposed to be done. Single word: Control. Lots of Command and Control. David has moved in new, interesting and effective directions saying, “What I have found is that as I'm able to share the conditions that support self-organization and how they can be integrated into individuals leadership approach that the leaders move toward approaches that support greater and greater self-organization.” I applaud the effort, but it seems to me it may be rather a half step. If I hear David’s words correctly, the fundamental understanding of “organization” remains unchanged (predesigned structure and controls with Leaders/Managers in charge) and the new effort is to enable “leaders (to) move toward approaches that support greater and greater self-organization.” Tactically I can certainly understand the approach, but what if organization is fundamentally, essentially, in totality – Self Organizing? If that is the situation, “greater and greater self organization” makes little sense for a very simple reason. It is all self organizing to begin with! But I guess that is just splitting hairs, and for sure the heart is moving in the right direction. The revolutionary in me (and yes there is some of that J) would dearly love to shake the organizational world by the scruff of the neck saying something like, Move on, Wake up! You just can’t get there from here. And for a certainty, such an approach would have no chance of success. There needs to be a change in view, I am sure -- but forced change, were it even possible, falls back on the old way which wasn’t effective then and won’t work now. And there is another way which unfortunately requires some patient waiting. But we may not have to wait that long. It is a very common lament -- that, “things just aren’t working.” What “things” and the nature of their dysfunction are often left unsaid, but the universal uneasiness is pretty clear. To date, the usual response has been to do more and more of what we’ve always done, but maybe with a different name (Quality Circles, Process Re-Engineering, Dialogue, maybe even AGILE when mandated etc.). The results have not been inspiring. Some would even include Open Space Technology as a new tool. But I don’t think that works either if the intent is to fix the old system. As the lament continues, some strange things are happening. Every now and again something actually WORKS! And it works even when the plans are busted, the leadership is incompetent, the environment sour and threatening. Who knows how or why – but it worked. The Brits usually call this Muddling Through, which is what happens when everything goes a different way than it was supposed to – but it all turns out fine. Phew! There is another name for this strange phenomenon. Anomaly. Anomaly literally means being outside the law (lawless) from the Greek a (without) nomos (law). Anomalies cause one to scratch the head in wonder...How on earth could THAT happen? Most often, we just pass them by with a dismissive, “weird!” I think that is a mistake. Peter Vaill, an old friend and colleague, had a knack for seriously noticing anomalies. He observed that some organizations performed at levels of excellence that definitely blew away the competition. He called them High Performing Systems. The problem was, these systems broke all the rules of how organizations were supposed to work. As a Professor of Management, Peter could be accused of a flawed effort because instead of attempting to analyze how they worked, Peter contented himself with a delightful description of what they did, which he captured in a short paper (1977), The Behavioral Characteristics of High Performing Systems. I say delightful because he wrote in a totally colloquial fashion, and definitely not in the style of Academe, even though he was the (then) Dean of the Business School at George Washington University. Writing almost 10 years before Open Space Technology, Peter seems prescient, for his “Behavioral Characteristics” are a perfect description of the common behavior at every Open Space I have ever seen. Taking a tall leap in logic, I have argued (Wave Rider) that the link between Peter’s High Performing Systems, and what we have experienced in Open Space is the phenomenon of self organization. Or put somewhat differently, High Performing Systems are well functioning self organizing systems. And in function and effect they are definitely anomalous for according to the accepted wisdom, they simply could not happen or do what they do! On the subject of Anomaly and the importance of same, the work of Thomas Kuhn comes to mind. Author of, “The Structures of Scientific Revolutions,” Kuhn gave us that wonderful concept, “paradigm,” as in Paradigm Shift. As an historian of Science, Kuhn describes how the scientific world grew in wisdom and stature, passing through several understandings of the nature of things, on the way to new (and presumably better) ones. That passage he called, Paradigm Shifts. According to his story, the scientific or learned community held a certain view of reality for a period of time, which worked very well, and seemed to explain most, if not all, of the phenomenon of their experience. This view (paradigm) was taken as The Truth, and defended with ferocity. For example, everybody “knew” at one time that the Earth was the center of everything and those who disagreed were considered heretics, and often dispatched. Galileo, for instance. Then funny little anomalies began to show up as people observed the heavens. If the anomalies were not an illusion then Earth centeredness was false – which everybody knew must be wrong, insanity, or worse. But the anomalies refused to go away, which made people more and more uncomfortable, to say nothing of angry. Then one shinning day the view shifted. Same old heavens as before but seen with totally new eyes. Paradigm shift. Very powerful and never comfortable. This brief sojourn into the History of Science can be helpful to our present concerns, I think, for we are facing a very similar situation in our understanding of organizations, as well as management. The traditional understanding of organization, and therefore management, has been around for a long time. As with all paradigms, it is taken to be The Truth, and those who challenge will inevitably be subject to dismissal at the beginning, changing to discomfort, and perhaps ending with anger. The reason is very simple. The investments in this particular paradigm are enormous, and include ways of life, ways of making a living, and for some, life itself. Messing with all of that cannot be done lightly. And yet the anomalies persist. Some are quite subtle and are perceived only as a growing sense that “things are not working as we expected.” However, when the system/organization seems broken, it is clear that we must fix it and we think we know how. If the organizational process is screwy, then obviously we need Process Re-Engineering. But it didn’t work. We try harder and harder, doing variants of what we’ve always done, and (surprisingly) we get what we’ve always got. But hope springs eternal, and someday we will find The Fix. Or so it says in all the books. Maybe. Other anomalies are not so subtle. Open Space Technology is such an anomaly. I believe it to be true that Open Space violates virtually all principles and practices of traditional organizational theory and management practice. To the extent that it (OS) works as we have experienced it working – much if not all of current practice is called into question. My view is doubtless biased, but some 20 years ago, a senior official from the American Society for Training and Development (pardon the repeat) seemingly had the same impression when he told me, after hearing what happened in Open Space, “Harrison, if what you say is true, then 99% of what we are currently do does not need to be done.” I would have been greatly relieved had I been able to argue with him. But I couldn’t. I can’t. So David(s) – where does that leave us? Discretion might dictate picking up our toys and going home. Others might suggest heading for the barricades. Personally I don’t think either possibility is very useful. I simply cannot deny what I have experienced in Open Space, nor can I resist the compulsion to share the experience in whatever way with whomsoever might show up. I think the bottom line may come down to: Move slowly with empathy, and be prepared to wait. And what would that mean for us and what we do...? At a practical level, it could mean something like this. Let’s suppose that the Management of a very traditional Organization shows up on our doorstep. They are concerned that organizational function is dismal, the people seem to dislike each other and what they are doing, and profits have disappeared. The request is simple: Help! Somewhere they heard about Open Space and believe (hope) it could fix their system, or at least make a start. It sounds like a marvelous opportunity, and a natural response would be, YES! At least that would be my response. All the essential preconditions for OS seem to be in place (real issue, complexity, etc) – BUT ... There are some issues to consider. First, if by “fixing their system” the client means that the “traditional Organization” is going to be put back together as it once was, that is a real problem, I think. The reason is simple – the root of their problems is precisely the system (understanding of organization) they were working under. Make it even stronger. Were I to design a system that would maximize separation and alienation, minimize creativity and collaboration – I don’t think I could do any better than the system they were operating under. Fixing, or restoring that system would only compound their misery. Secondly, Doing an Open Space in that organization is quite likely to increase the general dissatisfaction with how things are done. As one senior executive from a very traditional organization said to me following an Open Space we did, “You have ruined me for work in this place. I am not sure whether to thank you or hate you.” Talk about being caught on the horns of a dilemma! If fully successful with my task (opening space), I will have failed the clients’ primary expectations (fixing the system) and simultaneously raised the level employee dissatisfaction. All true, I think. And I would still do the Open Space, but my reasons could cause some problems unless very carefully explained, and that explanation itself is problematical. At one level I will do the Open Space because I know that it will enable people to be more comfortable, powerful, sure of themselves. That’s the easy part. But at another level I will do the Open Space in order to introduce anomaly... one more nudge towards Paradigm Shift. I know full well that I can’t shift paradigms for people. The same is true of Transformation, which has a lot to do with paradigm shift. Both will happen all by themselves...or not. But I can and will nudge when given the opportunity. After that it is all about waiting... So what do you think about all that? Harrison Harrison Owen7808 River Falls Dr.Potomac, MD 20854USA 189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)Camden, Maine 04843 Phone 301-365-2093(summer) 207-763-3261 www.openspaceworld.comwww.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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Osborne Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 9:47 AM To: World wide Open Space Technology email list Subject: Re: [OSList] Trust I'm not sure I agree OS fails as a management tool.....Self-Organization has become the lens I look at all my work as an individual who supports groups and organizations in change and in my leadership and management development work. It's not an either / or for me os works or doesn't work as a management tool. Leadership is simply supporting an organization in moving toward its goals. The invitation in OS is the goal or issue that people care about. What I have found is that as I'm able to share the conditions that support self-organization and how they can be integrated into individuals leadership approach that the leaders move toward approaches that support greater and greater self-organization. This is not top-down, traditional leadership or management. As you propose in Wave-Rider Harrison, I believe the principles of OS / self-organization can be integrated as a leadership approach with great results. David On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Harrison Owen <[email protected]> wrote:David – I would totally agree that OS “utterly fails as a management tool.” Then again I think that OS shares this fate/condition with all other “management tools,” at least as I understand “management” and “tool” in the context of enabling effective human performance. And thereby hang the beginning of a long and useful discussion, I think. ho Harrison Owen7808 River Falls Dr.Potomac, MD 20854USA 189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)Camden, Maine 04843 Phone 301-365-2093(summer) 207-763-3261 www.openspaceworld.comwww.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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David stevenson Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 1:51 AM To: World wide Open Space Technology email list Subject: Re: [OSList] Trust Ho indeed Harrison! OpenSpace opens space for freedom of spirit and heart, choice and the weaving of our fates and destinies with that of our world, it does not achieve complience and so, at least to the extent that people are to be managed...On Saturday, February 1, 2014, Harrison Owen <[email protected]> wrote:Brendan said: “And in my view , all germinating from that initial transfer of trust between mentor and sponsor” Right on! I don’t think it makes a bit of difference how elegantly one “does” the Open Space. It is really all about TRUST. When I said that anybody with a good heart and good mind can “do it,” that is just a long winded way of saying what I’ve always found to be true. Expertise is interesting. Integrity and Trust are essential. A new comer to the OS world, opening space for the very first time, muffing some lines, and forgetting others – can do every bit as well as a 20 year veteran. The coin of the realm is Integrity, authenticity, trust. But none of that should be news, for that trio is the bedrock of all positive human encounter, I think. Which may just be another way of pointing out that OS is not some special process we do, it is just life lived well. Or something. ho Harrison Owen7808 River Falls Dr.Potomac, MD 20854USA 189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)Camden, Maine 04843 Phone 301-365-2093(summer) 207-763-3261 www.openspaceworld.comwww.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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brendan McKeague Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2014 12:57 AM To: World wide Open Space Technology email list Subject: Re: [OSList] Sponsor PreWork Conversation (long) A very interesting question Chuni Li... The sponsor was being mentored by one of my colleagues in our local Open Space community of practice (Wave Riders) who suggested to him that OS was the right method/model for the task at hand. As his coach (the formal role as perceived by the organisation), my colleague encouraged the sponsor to get in touch with me to avoid any perceived conflict of interest. The sponsor researched OS for himself first and then engaged me to provide the specialist knowledge....Harrison often says that anyone with a good heart and head can open space - and I agree - while at the same time, I acknowledge that 'Open Space wisdom' is often helpful, if not necessary, in situations of increased complexity and potential conflict. After his initial attraction to OS in theory, and as part of his research, the sponsor then ran a mini Open Space within his own jurisdiction to see how it worked in reality - he wished to speak from his lived experience when engaging with his higher-uppers. He also watched a few of the growing library of YouTube clips that are so wonderful for educating potential sponsors. Now totally convinced, the transfer of trust was complete at various levels....trusting the process (OST works) AND trusting the facilitator (who was aligned with the essence of OST - i.e living in it) AND trusting that both facilitator and process were 'fit-for-purpose' in this context. And in my view , all germinating from that initial transfer of trust between mentor and sponsor Hope this story helps Cheers Brendan On 31/01/2014, at 1:10 PM, [email protected] wrote: Thank you Brendan for taking the time to organize and share this information - so precious and such a generous gift! I am curious about the sponsor who "put his neck out" to make the event happen.Had he experienced OST before? Did you have to "convince" him? What made him willing to "jump through the hoops?" Was it the OST process or was it you that he trusted? Chuni LiNew Jersey From: Brendan Mc -- David Stevenson Sent from Gmail Mobile _______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post send emails to [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org --David Osborne<image001.jpg>www.change-fusion.com | [email protected] | 703.939.1777 _______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post send emails to [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org --David Osbornewww.change-fusion.com | [email protected] | 703.939.1777 _______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post send emails to [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
