Hi Criss, I did try the address you mentioned, as the idea is looking interesting for me, but it did not loaded and asked my password. Do I need any authorithation there? How can I reach the material about 4N, if possible, please?
Best wishes Elena ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Corrigan" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 7:04 AM Subject: Re: Democracy and Open Space > We had a conversation earlier in the year about forms of convergence and > action planning that did not require voting. In February I tried out > the 4N method that Michael Herman and I hammered out (Michael named > it...he gets the credit for News Now Next Nuts - and he can have it!). > It worked really well. The record of the conversation and the story are > on The Meta Network at > http://community.tmn.com/tmn/swebsock/0007715/0679001/CS41/viewitem.cml? > 22+6+54+23+0+0+1+x#here > > Not voting is empowering. People see what work needs to be done and > pick up the tasks. People move by choice to the work that holds the > most meaning for them, and new structures emerge. I think voting places > predetermined boundaries about what needs to happen. As much as we can > say that "every issues is still important" voting implies that some > issues are more important than others, even if things are ranked > strictly according to where people's energies are at. The only time I > have found voting appropriate was at the end of a one day meeting, when > my sponsor wanted things prioritized. At that time, we gave each person > five dots and asked them to rank the most important issues for the > group. That was all. There was no follow up within the OST meeting on > these issues, they simply ranked them and left them at that. With a > clear understanding of what we were doing, no one felt slighted. But in > contexts where the voting then leads to groups to work out those issues, > I have found people generally miffed at the way that whole thing goes. > > Maybe it's me (Harrison might think so...he once described the aversion > to voting as "Canadian.") > > Another thing that bugs me about voting is that it says "wasn't that > Open Space thing interesting? Okay, let's get back to reality..." In > other words, it doesn't model the new reality, but reinforces the old > one. I have had people express exactly this disappointment to me. They > have said "Oh rats...we were really starting to get somewhere..." > > And this "getting somewhere..." Doesn't that echo John's notion of > democracy as a journey? I don't think that democracy IS voting, nor do > I think that voting in and of itself is democracy. To reduce one to the > other removes the role and responsibilities of the citizen to act and > improve the system. Perhaps real democracy invites this action. Voting > is just a way to see what's popular. > > So OST is "democratic" if it invites folks to be citizens, encourages > them to use their feet, and provides a way for outcomes to unfold > without domination from powerful interests. > > Enough musing for now. > > Chris > > > --- > CHRIS CORRIGAN > Consultation - Facilitation > Open Space Technology > > Bowen Island, BC, Canada > http://www.chriscorrigan.com > [email protected] > > * > * > ========================================================== > [email protected] > ------------------------------ > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, > view the archives of [email protected], > Visit: > > http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html > * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected], Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
