I recently had a question come up that in traditional organizations would be made by the people who control questions of policy. It raised the question for me of who is the "right" audience for this kind of question in the Open Space Institute(s)*? So, I am going to try an experiment. I am going to put out the question with the intention of holding a discussion and "meta-discussion." The discussion is on the question (don't worry, I'll state it in a moment!) and the "meta-discussion" is on who do you think SHOULD be making this sort of decision.
Soooo... here's the story. Several situations have arisen of late where people who are making significant contribution to OS are asking, "can I trade service for membership?" One example is one of the people who sponsors OST training. Another is the person who is re-developing the web site. So what do you think? Should we trade service for membership? If so, who/how do we decide when it's enough service to merit membership? And the meta-question: is this an appropriate topic for a group like this -- interested parties, some of whom who have become members, others not. Is it a question for members only? Or is it a question for an OSI board? (A parenthetical note: as I've been mulling the role of the OSI board of late, the thing I've come to that makes most sense to me is its primary task is to hold space: to be fully present and totally invisible.) My hope is that this will be a useful discussion not only for OSI but for anyone rethinking questions of power, authority and governance. Peg Holman * I'm using a plural as a reminder that there are currently two OSI entities established with different governance structures: the OSI of Canada which I believe is guided by a steering committee and the Open Space Institute which is incorporated as a non-profit in the US. By law, that means the OSI (in the US) has a board.
