Michael, Yes! You captured the dynamics I've experienced with public events beautifully! The call of the invitation that doesn't seem to say anything specific but people say I know I need to be there.
And the proceedings on the side of the desk. It speaks to the way I think about the role of infrastructure for public events. To your comment: > which makes me wonder if the work in public spaces is not so much about > building infrastructure, which people can easily build for themselves and > also already exists in many ways, but rather finding ways to point out over > and over again through the event that the work of participants does not end > with the closing. I go back to my previous message on infrastructure in public settings. Infrastructure that supports connection and makes stories visible can amplify the nature energies that emerge from a public event. Peggy Sent from my iPad 425-746-6274 www.peggyholman.com > On Oct 16, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Michael Herman via OSList > <[email protected]> wrote: > > some years ago i facilitated the first illinois food security summit, a > public meeting of very diverse group of about 200, convened by a big > foundation. at the end of the event, one of the common reflections heard > throughout the space was something like, "i can't believe we didn't know each > other already (given that we're all doing such similar work/have similar > interests)." the following year, the two things i heard over and over again > were something like "i still have last year's proceedings sitting on the > corner of my desk" and "we're all still talking." i think we have to be > careful not to impose internal standards for "action" on more distributed > public meeting/working. having the proceedings (and its priorities and > plans) at their fingertips and having so many connections still active was > definite progress and was informing all kinds of activity. there just wasn't > a "center" working to score that and own it like there would be inside of an > organization. which makes me wonder if the work in public spaces is not so > much about building infrastructure, which people can easily build for > themselves and also already exists in many ways, but rather finding ways to > point out over and over again through the event that the work of participants > does not end with the closing. > > also, to the challenge of public invitations, we wrote 37 drafts of 6 > different editions of the invitation to what we called "the giving > conference." the big challenge was that there was very little language > shared among the several very different groups/communities of people we > wanted to invite. in the end, people said, "the crazy thing is that i'm > here, because the invitation really didn't say ANYTHING, but when i read it, > i knew i had to be here." > > m > > > > > -- > > Michael Herman > Michael Herman Associates > 312-280-7838 (mobile) > > http://MichaelHerman.com > http://OpenSpaceWorld.org > > >> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:07 AM, John Baxter via OSList >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> Amen to the time consuming nature of "invitations". >> >> Of course, if you don't have a discrete list with an established >> relationship to each member, the material nature of the activity isn't >> "invitation", but marketing and promotion... I haven't worked on a public >> event where the promotion was not the hardest part. >> >> Cheers >> >> >> John Baxter >> CoCreate Adelaide Facilitator, Director of Realise consultancy >> CoCreateADL.com | jsbaxter.com.au >> 0405 447 829 | @jsbaxter_ >> >> City Grill— An Election Forum More Magnificent Than Any Ever Seen!, Saturday >> 18 October 2014 >> Connect with your candidates, get your voice heard by joining with others in >> your community, and Influence the future of the city >> >> >>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Peggy Holman via OSList >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I’d echo Christine’s observations about infrastructure. So much of that is >>> something that you can take for granted in an organization and requires >>> some thought when dealing with public settings. >>> >>> A couple other distinctions I’ve noticed: >>> >>> Organizational events are high context. A calling question is asked within >>> an existing culture. That’s both a blessing and a curse. It means that >>> there’s much that doesn’t need explaining. And it means there are >>> unconscious habits of relating and behaving present. Not bad. Just the >>> territory. >>> >>> Examples: I was recently with a group that had an internal clock for half >>> an hour meetings. It was interesting watching their rhythm shift over the >>> course of the Open Space. For that same event, I spent about 10 minutes >>> with the leadership team before we started encouraging them to be >>> themselves and participate, like everyone else. They bring a unique and >>> valuable perspective, as do others. And their voices carry a weight they >>> might not appreciate because of their place in the hierarchy. So if they >>> found themselves the center of attention, I suggested that it’s a good time >>> to ask a question that gives the focus back to the group. Or use the law of >>> two feet and go elsewhere. >>> >>> Public events don’t have the context of an existing culture. So the calling >>> question may have a much wider variation in meaning to people who come. And >>> there may be fewer existing relationships and norms. Again, not bad. Just >>> different. >>> >>> Many years ago I was part of a team that did a public event with a calling >>> question so broad that people had multiple interpretations of it. The >>> question: How do we support a movement toward the conscious evolution of >>> increasingly conscious social systems? (See >>> http://www.thegreatstory.org/ev-salon2.html). A number of people on this >>> list were part of it. People showed up because they were attracted to the >>> hosts or something about the question spoke to them. It was wild, fun, and >>> creative. And there was a demand on the second day to hear from the >>> organizers what we meant by the question, just for more context. >>> >>> The other thing I’ve learned is that the process of invitation can be much >>> more intense for public events. In organizations, the bulk of participation >>> is internal. While there are certainly issues with ensuring a spirit of >>> invitation, who to invite and how to reach them is pretty straightforward. >>> >>> For public events, I find that if you want a diversity of folks, inviting >>> can be the most time consuming activity of all. I did some work with the >>> Forest Service years ago to look at the future of the forests in the San >>> Bernardino Mountains in California. They were heading into a rough fire >>> season, felt they’d done everything they could do to prepare. While they >>> had the public’s attention, they wanted to look to the future, 50 years >>> out. We worked with them to identify the range of people who cared, >>> including state, local, federal, and regional government, community >>> organizations, chamber of commerce, insurance companies (small, but >>> influential), ranchers who leased land in the national forests, >>> environmental groups, and on and on. Getting the word out to all these >>> folks took some thought. >>> >>> Peggy >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _________________________________ >>> Peggy Holman >>> Executive Director >>> Journalism that Matters >>> 15347 SE 49th Place >>> Bellevue, WA 98006 >>> 425-746-6274 >>> www.journalismthatmatters.net >>> www.peggyholman.com >>> Twitter: @peggyholman >>> JTM Twitter: @JTMStream >>> >>> Enjoy the award winning Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into >>> Opportunity >>> Check out my series on what's emerging in the news & information ecosystem >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 15, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Christine Whitney Sanchez via OSList >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Daniel and all, >>>> >>>> In my experience, public events have the same buzz and meaningful results >>>> as an in-organization OST. I’ve facilitated a number of them that were >>>> sponsored by a group of organizations in the community. For instance, >>>> Vibrant Phoenix, was a very productive economic development OST, sponsored >>>> by two mayors of large municipalities and several local businesses. One >>>> of the business sponsors agreed to be the contact for folks who wanted to >>>> take their “actionable ideas” to the next level. However, there was no >>>> budget and no infrastructure to really keep folks connected the the ideas >>>> they cared the most about. >>>> >>>> This is where the public open spaces generally fall short. Because the >>>> ongoing action is not the core mission of any of these organizations, it >>>> is hoped that the participants will self-organize going forward. With >>>> very few exceptions, this does not happen. I believe that sponsorship for >>>> the work after the OST is what is called for. >>>> >>>> The Collective Impact model speaks to this. It’s nothing new, really, but >>>> does represent a simple way to talk about the necessary conditions for >>>> sustaining collective action. I now include my version of this model when >>>> I talk with potential sponsors to shine the light beyond the meeting so >>>> that we can discuss their intentions for providing backbone support for >>>> self-organized action going forward. >>>> >>>> I especially love public Open Space events and look forward to working >>>> with sponsors who see the meeting as merely the first small step in >>>> collaborative action. There is so much potential! >>>> >>>> Warm wishes from a sunny autumn morning in the rain-greened desert, >>>> >>>> Christine >>>> <clip_image002.png> >>>> >>>> Christine Whitney Sanchez, M.C. >>>> Phoenix, AZ, USA • +1.480.759.0262 >>>> www.innovationpartners.com >>>> >>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter >>>> >>>> On Oct 15, 2014, at 6:33 AM, Daniel Mezick via OSList >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Greetings To All, >>>> >>>> I notice that there are many big differences between >>>> public-conference-type OST events, and OST events arranged for >>>> organizations. >>>> >>>> Do you also notice this? Maybe I am imagining this....just making stuff >>>> up... >>>> >>>> ...maybe not. In many key dimensions, I experience these differences as >>>> striking. Even disturbing. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And so I have been poking around inside the GUIDE (3rd edition) and I >>>> notice that, in some spots, the implication is that the discussion is >>>> about a public event. Up to page 18 for example, this implication is clear: >>>> >>>> >>>> <THE GUIDE PAGE 18> >>>> >>>> Working With The Client if you ARE NOT the Sponsor >>>> >>>> "To this point I have assumed that you (the reader) will be the sponsor >>>> and facilitator of the Open Space, and therefore it is your decision as to >>>> whether or not to proceed...(emphasis added.) >>>> >>>> </THE GUIDE PAGE 18> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My current belief is that having the same person in the Sponsor role >>>> **and** the Facilitator role is probably a very bad idea for an OST event >>>> inside an organization. For the typical public-conference event on the >>>> other hand, this seems to work just fine. Kinda like a Barcamp or >>>> Unconference.... >>>> >>>> >>>> Another current belief I hold is that OST is the essential tool for >>>> creating "Development and Transformation in Organizations". It is best >>>> suited for use in organizations. >>>> >>>> It is interesting to note how the Barcamp and/or "Unconference" formats >>>> seem to get the same or as-good results as Open Space, in the public >>>> conference setting. >>>> >>>> Not so inside organizations! In fact, as of now, I don't think Barcamp or >>>> Unconference has any chance whatsoever at being effective in bringing >>>> about Development and Transformation in Organizations the way Open Space >>>> can. Something about the Sponsor? >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Daniel Mezick, President >>>> >>>> New Technology Solutions Inc. >>>> >>>> (203) 915 7248 (cell) >>>> >>>> Bio. Blog. Twitter. >>>> >>>> Examine my new book: The Culture Game : Tools for the Agile Manager. >>>> >>>> Explore Agile Team Training and Coaching. >>>> >>>> Explore the Agile Boston Community. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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
_______________________________________________ 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
