I'd just venture to add a third to Harrison's first two...
1) All Systems are Open. 2) All Systems are self organizing.
And 3. All "all statements" are possibly self-limiting
Best regards
Paul Levy
On Thursday, 16 October 2014, Harrison Owen via OSList
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
John – Thank you, Thank you for all the rich stuff! Sort of
a Tidal Wave, but that’s when it gets fun, albeit a tad
difficult to keep track of the sundry bits and pieces J
Picking Just One: “But I can't get past the feeling that
/there are lots of barriers to the openness of space, and to
self organisation/.” Absolutely. And if we were to put that
into the language of the trade (Complexity Theorists and the
like) we would be talking about “system constraints.” But as
I understand it, that does not mean that Self Organization
is no longer operative. And in fact the System Constraints
are part and parcel of the process, a very important part. I
think it goes something like this –
I have found myself coming to two conclusions, or better
yet observations. 1) All Systems are Open. 2) All Systems
are self organizing.
As Open Systems, we, in all permutations of our “us-ness” –
businesses, countries, families, planets, etc) are open to,
and impacted by, all other systems. Sometimes a lot, and
sometimes a little, but in our cosmos there is no safe,
protected place. Everything is related to everything else,
and we are no exception. If true, this has a number of
implications. First of all the environment in which we exist
is so complex, fast moving and inter-connected we can’t even
think at that level. Secondly, what you can’t even think
about, you can’t control. So the notion that somebody is
actually “in charge/in control” is not just a silly idea, it
is delusional. 3) System preservation/growth depends on our
ability to navigate this environment. And it is a good
news/bad news situation. Sometimes the impacts drive us in
new and creative directions, and open up new opportunities
which are ours if we respond appropriately. At other times
the impacts drive us to the wall, and it’s Game over.
Another word is Death. If this story is in any ways valid,
it would seem like Mission Impossible. And yet this story
has seemingly been going on for 13.7 Billion years and we
are still here to complain about it. How could that be?
All Systems are Self Organizing – Self Organization is in
fact the mechanism whereby we navigate the environment, and
all systems do it, I think. And when they stop doing it,
they disappear. Self Organization is not the product of some
CEO or executive committee. After all, they really haven’t
been around for all that long. Self Organization is the
product of the total system in all of its aspects and bits
and pieces. How all that works has been a matter of stunning
discovery over the past 40 years or so. I doubt we have it
all right, but I do think we may have the major elements of
understanding in place. The outline goes something like this
– a) Steady State b) Chaos c) A bifurcation to either
dissipation (poof) or reconstitution at new and higher
levels of order. Of course you have to fill in a lot of the
blanks, and there is a massive literature attempting to do
just that. But I do believe we have enough to get started
with some basic observations. It really is a Whole System
affair, in which all elements must work together, and no
element has an /a priori/ claim to centrality. In a business
this could mean that the dumb question of an intern could
just open the doors for the future. You just don’t know. But
you do know that an organization’s future directly relates
to its capacity to bring total system assets to bear on
emergent challenges and opportunities quickly and
effectively. It is always tempting to try and “hedge the
bet” with some plan, policy or procedure, but it worthwhile
noting that the tighter (more constraining) the plan, the
greater the likelihood of failure. It’s not that the plan
was bad... but unfortunately the challenge or opportunity
came from a different direction, and all our eggs were in
one basket – the wrong one.
So we have a very existential question – How do we assure
sufficient room (dare I say Space?) so that the infinite
elements of any organization may quickly and effectively
align to meet new challenges and opportunities – recognizing
in advance that we can never know what will be required?
Open Space Technology is just a bit player in all of this,
but good old OST can be useful none the less both as a
natural laboratory to explore what is going on, and also as
an effective intervention to encourage the appearance of the
elemental power of self organization, particularly when it
seems blocked and constrained. There are no guarantees of
course, and it may well be that The Organization’s time is
now: Game Over. But the chances of renewal are pretty good,
at least that has been my experience. And no matter what,
the magic sauce is not OST – but the power of self
organization. So you could say, just as a way of speaking,
“It’s all Open Space.” But that’s just a joke, son.
Harrison
Winter Address
7808 River Falls Drive
Potomac, MD 20854
301-365-2093 <tel:301-365-2093>
Summer Address
189 Beaucaire Ave.
Camden, ME 04843
207-763-3261 <tel:207-763-3261>
Websites
www.openspaceworld.com <http://%20www.openspaceworld.com>
www.ho-image.com <http://www.ho-image.com>
OSLIST 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 *John Baxter via OSList
*Sent:* Thursday, October 16, 2014 2:57 AM
*To:* Harrison Owen
*Cc:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
*Subject:* Re: [OSList] Authority Distribution in Open Space
I have knots about empowerment, and the ubiquitous openness
of space. These knots are about to inspire a rant.
These knots, I should start with, are not entirely the
result of this present discussion thread - it is just this
discussion that prompts me to speak.
I think I understand Harrison, if you suggest that
self-organisation is more common than we realise... if not
ubiquitous, omnipresent, then at least that we can
fruitfully challenge the assumption that formal and top-down
organisation dominates how things get done.
But I can't get past the feeling that /there are lots of
barriers to the openness of space, and to self
organisation/. Everywhere and all the time. In my recent
work, mental barriers by all involved about authority and
role relationships. My personal barriers around trying too
hard to "empower". My client's patronising assumptions
about the "capacity" and "maturity" of "the sector".
Information asymmetries.
So I get really conflicted when anyone starts saying "well
space is open all the time" (implication: 'so chill out cos
there's nothing you need to do').
I am also conflicted about stepping back from the goal of
empowerment, as if everybody else needs to just step into
open space and take responsibility.
Yes - many people don't realise the power that they have.
(In my last project; nobody seemed to quite buy into the
fact that /they could directly author the document that they
were trying to influence/.)
But it is also patronising to suggest that empowerment lies
in just helping people to see how powerful they are...
because many people /don't/ have the power that we or they
might like. To suggest that people have the power and just
don't use it... that effectively blames them for their
situation, and washes our hands of responsibility.
The biggest barrier to group change I see time and time
again is authority figures who believe others need to
change, not themselves. (Most commonly, that their
employees need to "be empowered", and that they need to
manage a culture change program to get there... or better
yet, that HR needs to manage the change program, while we
are busy getting the real work done.)
I don't pretend that empowerment is something that can be
done to other people (patronising), but I do firmly believe
that we all first need to look to ourselves and what we need
to do to play our role making such a future possible. And,
in fact, that /this is all that we can ever do/.
Maybe the wisdom in what you say Harrison is that we do this
by focusing on respect first, as a productive way to enable
empowerment.
Maybe I am picking on the wrong things and have
misunderstood them, and I apologise if I have been
critical. But I also see a lot of things said that make me
uncomfortable, that knot me up. Again, most of these things
are from my memory, not the present discussion. While my
memory might not be the best, I'm sure it is based on something.
Thank you all for your patience and for being in this discussion
*/John Baxter/*
///Co////Create Adelaide Facilitator, Director of
Realise consultancy/
CoCreateADL.com
<http://cocreateadl.com/localgov%E2%80%8B> | jsbaxter.com.au
<http://www.jsbaxter.com.au/>
0405 447 829 <tel:0405%20447%20829>
|
@jsbaxter_ <http://twitter.com/jsbaxter_>
*/City Grill— An Election Forum More Magnificent Than Any
Ever Seen <http://citygrill.eventbrite.com.au>!/*/, 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 Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Harrison Owen
<[email protected]> wrote:
John -- I’m rather curious what you meant by “The overall
project was more complicated than OST?” My confusion comes
in part from my experience that complexity is actually an
essential precondition for OST, or more exactly the
effective operation of self organization. The essential
pre-conditions as I have experienced the are: A Real
business issue (something that people really care about).
High levels of complexity such that no single person or
group has a prayer of figuring it out. High levels of
diversity in terms of people and points of view. Lots of
passion and conflict. And a decision time of yesterday
(urgency). Given these 5 conditions, self organization in
the more formal setting of OST or as a natural occurrence
just seems to happen... unless...And this may be the point
of problem... It is arbitrarily constrained... which usually
means that somebody already has the plan/program/design and
they are just looking for buy-in or (worst case) they are
simply trying to sugar coat the pill, and make it seem like
the folks are creating something, when in fact the cake is
already baked.
A clue to the dilemma may be in the phrase, “I struggled to
help the client (the funding body) to really 'empower'...” I
know we talk a lot about empowerment, but I have come to the
conclusion that it is really a red herring, and most
painfully so in those situations where you actually try to
do it. Sounds odd, I guess, but think about it. If I empower
you...you are in my power. And the more I try to empower you
the worse it gets. Real empowerment, in my book, is not an
act that we (or somebody) do, but an acknowledgement of a
pre-existing condition...you are powerful. Of course I might
encourage you a bit to be as powerful as you are, but it is
not something I can give you. You must claim it for
yourself. Strange as it may seem, I find the notion of
“empowerment” to be just the opposite of that fundament of
effective working relationships (or any relationship)
RESPECT. And I suspect that it is precisely here that the
fickle finger of fate is pointing to the critical issue.
Another word that fits in here for me is “Patronizing.”
Everything may sound super nice, and all the proper and
correct words may be spoken, but if the implication is that
the folks (participants) really do not have the competence
or ability to deal with the issues, it is fairly predictable
that they will not bother to try. Or if they “try” it will
be pretty much of a pro forma situation. Sound familiar?
Harrison
Winter Address
7808 River Falls Drive
Potomac, MD 20854
301-365-2093 <tel:301-365-2093>
Summer Address
189 Beaucaire Ave.
Camden, ME 04843
207-763-3261 <tel:207-763-3261>
Websites
www.openspaceworld.com <http://%20www.openspaceworld.com>
www.ho-image.com <http://www.ho-image.com>
OSLIST 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 *John Baxter via OSList
*Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 2:41 AM
*To:* Daniel Mezick
*Cc:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
*Subject:* Re: [OSList] Authority Distribution in Open Space
Hi Daniel. Thanks for your considered response.
I will try to keep my response in line with the topic....
but expect it may meander.
The OST day I was preparing for has since come and gone.
I decided in the end to least give OST a crack and see what
happened.
It didn't go very well; but it also went well enough (vis
overall project goals, and client expectations), so I don't
feel so bad about it... even if I had personally envisaged more.
I am not one to worry about the cannon... which means
sometimes I break things, as I did this time. There was
still an (informal) sponsor, the one that sent the invites.
They just did not have a presence on the day. Thank you
Daniel as you did make me think critically about the
strength of my role as host. I think I dealt with that
through my introduction to the day; and as it turns out the
authority to host was not an issue.
But as it turns out, that was not really the biggest challenge!
The main lessons I took away about what contributed to the
average result:
*There needs to be clear, compelling shared work.*
The overall project was more complicated than OST, so it
wasn't clear what turning up actually meant, and I think
many did not turn up on the basis of wanting to resolve a
shared challenge (the work), as you might expect for OST.
In straight OST terms, you could say this was an issue of
invitation, but really it was many things.
So the group was interesting. They had the heart, but not
the will. They were committed, but without ownership of the
result. I've seen this a lot in the community engagement
field, but nowhere that I have used (or seen) OST.
I thought about this a lot, I thought it might have been
about the invitation and self-selection; but at the end of
the day I think it comes down to the sense of (and
invitation in to) shared work.
*It is super hard to dissolve ingrained power and authority
relationships in the short term. These can't be sidestepped
by an external facilitator.*
I struggled to help the client (the funding body) to really
'empower'. They talked about it and genuinely want to, but
old habits and mental models don't change overnight. They
really struggled to push beyond managing the process as
superiours (to a set of subordinate participants). This is
'empowerment' within a patriarchal system, and it doesn't
work. It felt very yucky at times.
A curious side effect of this partriarchal 'empowerment' was
an unwillingness to be clear about the work ("we want to be
open and let them lead the process" they would say... I got
the client to agree that /the/y were clearly the leaders,
but we didn't quite work out how to put that into practice).
Over the course of the engagement, we all took baby steps
together that invest in their (/our) capacity to really work
together in future. They learned a LOT in a short period of
time, and so did I, but it was too short. By the end of the
project I had the client calling me up to ask how they could
reword things so they didn't reflect a control response. : )
That was good, but obviously if they need me for this then
there is some way to go. And different client reps had
different levels of self reflection.
Hosting an isolated OST workshop against this grain was very
ambitious, it was always going to be, no matter how we
conducted ourselves.
And perhaps 20% were very proactive, and led the bulk of the
work that occurred... they saved the day!
But the length of the OST was not enough for this leadership
to really be contagious and precipitate a productive culture.
*Or in other words: we struggled to free up authorisation to
be more dynamic*
Reading your blog post Daniel, the idea of dynamic
authorisation would have been very useful earlier in the
project. Another way of looking at the project: we
struggled to free the space of ingrained authority to enable
dynamic authorisation.
There were lots of other insights into how we could have
done it differently, but to me these were the fundamental
stumbling blocks for us.
Still, they were not too big, and I'm pleased we made a good
start.
My favourite feedback was "thank you, this was the first
time I have been part of genuine engagement in more than a
decade in the sector" : )
Next time, we will do better.
*/John Baxter/*
///Co////Create Adelaide Facilitator, Director of
Realise consultancy/
CoCreateADL.com
<http://cocreateadl.com/localgov%E2%80%8B> | jsbaxter.com.au
<http://www.jsbaxter.com.au/>
0405 447 829 <tel:0405%20447%20829>
|
@jsbaxter_ <http://twitter.com/jsbaxter_>
*/City Grill— An Election Forum More Magnificent Than Any
Ever Seen <http://citygrill.eventbrite.com.au>!/*/, 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 Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Daniel Mezick
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi John,
Yours is a very interesting story.
You say:
/"...To be honest*I am not sure* how I need to deal with
this, though *my strategy is to accept the authority* for
hosting the space in the next workshop, *obsolving the
department of their responsibility* to manage the day."
"...I don't think it is feasible for the obvious authority
candidates hosting something genuinely participatory. *The
relevant director has said she doesn't want to speak
formally and become The Authority for the day*, a position I
agree with."/
In the situation as described, it sounds like the org is the
very earliest stages of moving in a direction of more
open/participatory/inviting.
Do you agree with this assessment?
If this assessment is correct, based on what you describe, I
would probably avoid attempting Open Space in the canonical
form whatsoever (as described in the OST GUIDE) because the
Sponsor role is vacant. Unoccupied. And so, by my reckoning,
if I understand you right, a true Open Space event isn't
even possible, because the essential OST-Sponsor-role is in
fact not willingly occupied by anyone with enough authority
to play that essential role well.
What's clear is that someone who could function as
OST-Sponsor is currently unwilling to do so. And so I might
try a "taster" or "demo" event instead, where the goal is to
/learn about Open Space in general/, and do a /little/ bit
of "real" work too. Especially if the allotted time a mere
1/2 day, I am even more inclined to strongly favor this
re-framing of the stated goals.
So the primary and stated goal for the "taster" is learning
about OST. Another goal for a short event might be to see
who shows up super-interested in the art of Facilitation,
and then offer to mentor those who do self-select by showing
interest. In this manner some Facilitation capacity is
developed inside the org, to help with current meetings and
processes. Introducing Facilitation into typical meetings is
a easy and effective "culture hack".
For me, the total unwillingness of an obvious candidate to
occupy the Sponsor role is a huge warning signal to slow
down, pause, or even stop.
Lots of people here have more experience than me, and might
be willing to lend you some of their expertise regarding the
authority dynamics of Facilitating an OST event with the
essential OST-Sponsor-role completely vacant
Kind Regards,
Daniel
On 9/28/14 11:30 PM, John Baxter wrote:
I am navigating some challenging authority dynamics in a
project at the moment.
I was brought in a week out from the first of three
forums, and asked to 'facilitate a codesign process'
which was at that stage a black box (with many hidden
expectations) scheduled into that event (1 hour before
lunch and 1 hour afterwards).
It's a long journey, but you can imagine how my role has
changed as I prepare for the third forum which I am
hosting in Open Space.
The overall process is an engagement between a
government department and their funded agencies. The
most obvious direct power dynamics are obvious, the
effective power and authority dynamics are much more
complex (though predictable).
Department staff have authority challenges as much as
the agencies. They are trying so hard to be 'neutral'
and 'non controlling' that they are effectively
reinforcing their own authority positions (which often
have little real correlation to the power, knowledge etc
that they imagine them to).
To be honest I am not sure how I need to deal with this,
though my strategy is to accept the authority for
hosting the space in the next workshop, obsolving the
department of their responsibility to manage the day.
It has been interesting to watch push back so far from
agency reps who are committed to participating, who are
genuinely engaged, but are playing to an us-them tension
that is getting in the way of the shared work (and
serves them no good ends except protecting them from
their own responsibility). Stand-offishness is gradually
being resolved, though some pockets are holding firm.
I am crossing my fingers for WS3 that we can traverse
these and get into Open Space without being pushed off
the bridge by the reactionary tension; and that once on
the other side, the department reps can embrace Open
Space and take responsibility for their role.
We will get across /as long as I have the authority/ to
host the space for them.
I don't think it is feasible for the obvious authority
candidates hosting something genuinely participatory.
The relevant director has said she doesn't want to speak
formally and become The Authority for the day, a
position I agree with.
But it does leave something of a shell, where I am
crossing my fingers that our time together thus far
affords me the authority to host that space.
I think we are ready. I am bringing my harness and
floaties just in case.
*/John Baxter/*
/ CoCreate Adelaide Facilitator, Director of
Realise consultancy/
CoCreateADL.com
<http://cocreateadl.com/localgov%E2%80%8B> |
jsbaxter.com.au <http://www.jsbaxter.com.au/>
0405 447 829 <tel:0405%20447%20829>
|
@jsbaxter_ <http://twitter.com/jsbaxter_>
/City Grill— An Election Forum More Magnificent Than Any
Ever Seen <http://citygrill.eventbrite.com.au>/,
Saturday 18 October 2014
Influence your city by building relationships and
joining voices with others in your community
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Daniel Mezick via
OSList <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Harrison,
So interesting how the Law of 2 Feet authorizes me, and
every other member of an OST event, to go anywhere we
may want to go.
Without asking anyone else for any kind of "permission"...
Reminds me of this past June, being in Camden with you,
and Ethelyn, and Harold, and friends... when we were
standing on the porch of that Camden restaurant...
waiting for everyone to arrive, and assemble for dinner...
And as we wait, I notice there is this
convenient-looking, alternate entry-door... into the
dining area.
And I say: "Hmm...I wonder if we are authorized to use
that door."
And you say:
"We're authorized to go Anywhere we want to go."
...and I like that.
Daniel
Picture of that place:
https://twitter.com/DanielMezick/status/483054326265692161
See also:
https://twitter.com/danielgullo/status/483434622009999360
<mime-attachment.png>
On 9/25/14 4:58 PM, Harrison Owen wrote:
Daniel... You really did it! I think. Your language
comes from a place I don’t know... which is to say
that I probably wouldn’t say what you say in the way
that you do (duh). BUT when I run my “translator” it
comes out sounding pretty good! So... I can’t help
with the questions you have raised. Actually I think
you are doing pretty well on your own, and
(hopefully) will incite others to a similarly
riotous performance. Thanks!
Harrison
Winter Address
7808 River Falls Drive
Potomac, MD 20854
301-365-2093 <tel:301-365-2093>
Summer Address
189 Beaucaire Ave.
Camden, ME 04843
207-763-3261 <tel:207-763-3261>
Websites
www.openspaceworld.com
<http://%20www.openspaceworld.com>
www.ho-image.com <http://www.ho-image.com>
OSLIST 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 *Daniel Mezick via OSList
*Sent:* Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:39 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* [OSList] Authority Distribution in Open Space
Greetings to All,
For the past several years I have attended
conferences of the Group Relations community, and
encouraged others to do the same. I've studied their
literature, and harvested some important learning as
a result. One of the things I have come to
understand a little bit better is the role of
"authority dynamics" in self-organizing social systems.
Link:
www.akriceinstitute.org <http://www.akriceinstitute.org>
Over the past several years I've been using Open
Space with intent to improve the results of my work
in helping companies implement Agile ideas in their
organizations. We do an initial Open Space, then the
folks get about 3 months to play with Agile (we
carefully use the word "experimentation" with
management,) then we do another Open Space after
that, to inspect what just happened across the
enterprise. The initial and subsequent Open Space
events form a "safe" container or field in which the
members can /learn/... as they explore how to
/improve/ together by /experimenting/ with new
practices, and see if they actually work. I call the
process Open Agile Adoption.
Link:
OpenAgileAdoption.com <http://OpenAgileAdoption.com>
This seems to work pretty good. It seems to "take
the air out of" most of the fear, most of the
anxiety and most of the worry that is created. The
key aspect is /consent/: absolutely no one is forced
to do anything they are unwilling to do. No one is
/coerced/ to /comply/. Everyone is instead
respectfully /invited/ to help /write/ the story,
and be a /character/ in the story...of the
contemplated process change. Open Agile Adoption
encourages a spirit of experimentation and play.
The spirit of Open Space is the spirit of freedom.
Isn't it? In the OST community, we discuss and talk
a lot about self-organization, self-management and
self-governance. The Agile community also talks
about these ideas a lot.
So I have some questions. What is really going on
during self-organization in a social system? What
are the steps? What information is being sent and
received? >From whom, and by whom? Is the
information about /authority/ important? How
important? Can a social system self organize without
regard to who has the right to do what work? /How do
decisions that affect others get made in a
self-organizing system?/
Who decides about /who decides/? How important is
the process of /authorization/ in a self-organizing
system? Is self-organization in large part the
process of dynamic authorization (and
/de-authorization/) in real time?
What /is /authorization? Can self-organization occur
without the sending and receiving of authorization
data by and between the members?
Is Bruce Tuckman's
forming/storming/performing/adjourning actually
decomposing the /dynamics of authorization/ inside a
social system?
The essay below attempts to answer some of these
difficult questions. I'd love your thoughts on it.
Will you give it a look?
Essay: Authority Distribution in Open Space
http://newtechusa.net/agile/authority-distribution-in-open-space/
Kind Regards,
Daniel
--
Daniel Mezick, President
New Technology Solutions Inc.
(203) 915 7248 <tel:%28203%29%20915%207248> (cell)
Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog
<http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter
<http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.
Examine my new book:The Culture Game
<http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools
for the Agile Manager.
Explore Agile Team Training
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/>
and Coaching.
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>
Explore the Agile Boston
<http://newtechusa.net/user-groups/ma/>Community.
--
Daniel Mezick, President
New Technology Solutions Inc.
(203) 915 7248 <tel:%28203%29%20915%207248> (cell)
Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog
<http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter
<http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.
Examine my new book: The Culture Game
<http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>:
Tools for the Agile Manager.
Explore Agile Team Training
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/>
and Coaching.
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>
Explore the Agile Boston
<http://newtechusa.net/user-groups/ma/>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
--
Daniel Mezick, President
New Technology Solutions Inc.
(203) 915 7248 <tel:%28203%29%20915%207248> (cell)
Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog
<http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter
<http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.
Examine my new book: The Culture Game
<http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools
for the Agile Manager.
Explore Agile Team Training
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and
Coaching. <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>
Explore the Agile Boston
<http://newtechusa.net/user-groups/ma/>Community.
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
