i remember you telling this story when we had lunch a few years ago, larry. this seems more like what we have in our situation in chicago. we have many people and many projects/purposes/networknames, but not really many groups. a bunch of us are in a core circle and we each know some other networks. we're looking around the circle thinking that if we find this core circle helpful and intersting, then might not more in each of these networks find each other interesting and helpful.
there might be some essential churning going on in the process of deciding what is more important, the names of the groups or the actual purpose and connections. this is one of those situations where event he suggestion that we might make an invitation is already opening more space, raising conversation. challenging, and productive, i think, even if the main event never happens. that's why i think it's important not to have many forms of invitation, but to have one invitation that speaks to everyone. that invite is the first model of how these various purposes are same. i'm all for that part of the real work of invitation, the work of finding the one main purpose that all those who are needed can hear. the work i'm talking about not wanting to do, lisa, is the coordination of various forms of invitation, who got which one, different versions for different lists, which one to post here vs. which one there. this is different than saying not to have fun with a letter, a poster, a whatever other fun expression of same purpose. the danger i see is "purpose creep" where in translating the invitation, the purpose morphs too, so different groups show up for different purposes. then we've got two events stuck in one circle. might work fine, but i'd rather not test it. this is why i say i think we need one invite. list all the purposes of different groups/names, and then ask how do we grow each of these and also connect them to the others. if that larger purpose of connecting networks isn't of interest, then nobody will show, which would be fine. then we'd know. and whoever does come would do as much connecting as is right and possible now. all good, i think. interesting scene, for sure. the questioning at least as important as any answers we come up with. thanks to everybody who's tossing in here. m On 3/10/06, Larry Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > Two years ago a group of us facilitated 5 co-located (and simultaneous) > OS events, each with a different but related theme. The total > participation was about 400 and participants sighed up for the OS they > wanted to attend but their was also movement. Each issues had emerged > at a previous, larger OST event. > > It worked very well. > > I coached a person recently to led an OS stream as part of a larger > event. The OS stream was focused on one topic and there was some > interplay. By all accounts, given how it was organized. > > It worked well. > > Larry > > Larry Peterson > Associates in Transformation > Toronto, ON, Canada > 416.653.4829 > > [email protected] > www.spiritedorg.com > > > * > * > ========================================================== > [email protected] > ------------------------------ > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, > view the archives of [email protected]: > http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html > > To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: > http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist > -- Michael Herman Michael Herman Associates 300 West North Ave #1105 Chicago IL 60610 USA Phone: 312-280-7838 [email protected] skype: globalchicago http://www.michaelherman.com http://www.openspaceworld.org Executive Facilitation ...getting the most important things done in the easiest possible ways. * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected]: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
