---------- > From: Jan Gray <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: An OSI Policy Question > Date: Thursday, March 27, 1997 11:12 AM > > Hi Peg, > I'll take a whack. > > First, I think the job of the board, as you mentioned, is a key determinant to > this question. What do they want to be responsible for? They have no choice > on the fiduciary stuff. Is this that? If so, what's the value and what's the > exchange worth? > > If we are a membership organization and we want the whole membership to vote, > we've probably got to do that in OS. Thems as willing to take responsibility > can say...eh? > > I do think it's a responsibility that's not just for "interested parties." > Membership is (to me) taking responsibility for the organization (not just > "interest"). > > So, as a non-board member, I think we should look at what we need (services? > cash?) and what they offer and get the best value. > > Thanks for doing this! > Jan > > ---------- > From: Open Space Institute > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 1997 7:45 PM > To: Open Space Listserv; Anne Stadler; Harrison Owen (E-mail); Barry Owen > (E-mail); Fidelma McGinn (E-mail); Scott Larson (E-mail); William Koenig > (E-mail); Prasad Kaipa (E-mail); Mark Jones (E-mail); Mark Hower (E-mail); > Peggy Holman (E-mail); Neil Holman (E-mail); Rich Henry (E-mail); Doug Hawley > (E-mail); Lee Hartwell (E-mail); Sara Halprin (E-mail); Jan Gray; Paul > Gleiberman (E-mail); Dick Gilkeson (E-mail); Karen Furia (E-mail); Jerry Blank > (E-mail); Dell Drake (E-mail); Dick Baumbusch; Chuck Parsons; Allan Paulson; > Diane Robbins; Jeff Aitken (E-mail); Abby Baker; Marlene Blum (E-mail); > Birgitt Bolton (E-mail); Ed Brewster (E-mail); Elizabeth Bryson (E-mail); Lynn > Bursten (E-mail); Connie Chapman (E-mail); Jane Crowley (E-mail); Marlene
> Daniel (E-mail); Karen Davis (E-mail); Joan DeNew (E-mail); Betsey > Devlin-Foltz (E-mail); Jocelyn Eastland (E-mail); Judy Gast (E-mail); Tony > Granillo (E-mail); Bert Hopkins (E-mail); Sue Inches (E-mail); Tamzan Johnson > (E-mail); Lisa Kimball (E-mail); Chris Kloth (E-mail); Michael Lindfield > (E-mail); Juan Lopez (E-mail); Sam Magill (E-mail); Bill Mahoney (E-mail); > Margana Margaine (E-mail); Freeman Marvin (E-mail); Tom Moench (E-mail); Murli > Nagasundaram (E-mail); Linda Olson (E-mail); Michael Panwitz (E-mail); Ernie > Parker (E-mail); David Peters (E-mail); Larry Peterson (E-mail); David Pines > (E-mail); Palle Pratt (E-mail); Jon Ramer (E-mail); Romy Shovelton (E-mail); > Linda Stevenson (E-mail); Brent Stuart (E-mail); David Sugarman (E-mail); > Taruna Thareja (E-mail); Ann Thomas (E-mail); Lynn Thomas (E-mail); Kay Vogt > (E-mail); Bob Wiebe (E-mail); Metta Zetty (E-mail); Alan Kline (E-mail) > Subject: An OSI Policy Question > > 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. > >
