Well: I have to jump in and land (with my two feet) on the side of the discussion that Birgitt offered. I firmly believe that having a choice means that I've truly had a chance to say no which means (if you're still with me) that I've actually said a meaningful yes.
So mandatory attendance could erode the opportunity that Open Space offers. There are lots of factors which erode the opportunity: 1. mandatory attendance 2. not enough physical room 3. a too small wall for postings 4. too little time set aside for the event 5. a leader who only gives lip service to real choice and sharing power I could go on. No one of these by itself (with the possible exception of #5) is enough to sink the ship but could easily be the last straw in an accumulative effect in combination. What is needed is judgment. However, if you run an open space that doesn't work in some critical ways you have done MORE HARM than good because you have invited people to participate by making some promises about what power they will have to make change happen and if you allow erosion to the extent that it then doesn't happen that way, they will become disillusioned and blame open space and perhaps the facilitator. I believe as a consultant that I have a responsibility to DO NO HARM. Anything else, to me, is unethical and unfair. Esther
