My first impressions, when I put on my access and inclusion lens. I will not respond to all of these parts, just to two parts at the moment.
And I do not know what “global restitution” is, by the way. Perhaps you can explain. > ================== > Speed learning open space > ================== > Opener and energizer 5mn: > > ●we form a large cycle standing up (no chairs in the room) = This makes it very difficult for people who have disabilities, and most of those disabilities are hidden and do not have to be named by the individual. So it lessens their abilities to be fully included. Even if standing, it takes energy, asking to sit is something not everyone is comfortable doing if the “norm” is standing, and so on. Standing meetings - even short ones - are very hard on a number of people who will never tell you so. > ●2mn ask every people that already know open space to raise their hand. > ask people that doesn’t know openspace to pick someone with a raised hand > > ●the person who knows has 2 mn to explain open space to his partner (posters > on the walls will display the way it works as a reminder) > ●1mn : we go back to the large circle > ●2mn : another 2mn of Q&A but you need to pick someone different. I always ask why. What are the reasons for changing / shifting / inviting something new. Are we in a hurry? Are we trying to include more voices? Do we know if everyone who raises their hand will say what we think is actually Open Space? Or will some say that it is about presentations and pre-determined topics? And those other things that in your other current thread you are naming as un-OST? Are you doing it because you are worried that OST itself will not weave people together, and you have to give them an ice-breaker activity? Is a very quick everyone-talking-at-once explanation giving people breathing room and ability to absorb? If yes to everything, why not. If the answer is “just want to do it differently” I would ask why - because the other way does not work? Because you are bored? Because you do not believe people will let you take the time to explain? I am not saying anything is good or bad, I just want to know what you are thinking, and to know =that= you are thinking with human dynamics and participant experience in mind. Whenever I see something happening very quickly in dialogue work - Open Space or otherwise - I think - no, in fact, I observe: that only the quick responders “win”. Only the quick responders get to be included, whereas the reflective thinkers just don’t get their voices included. There is no time. So then we think everyone has spoken and shared. We think all the topics anyone wanted to post are up on the wall. And it turns out not to be true. To me, that lessens / erases / dis-allows true diversity. And to me, diversity reduces richness. So when I see something compressed, sped up, synthesized quickly before an experience has had time to percolate and integrate, I ask why. How is this showing us the full picture. And is this inclusive. Just asking. Again - your own experience, observations, truths and experiments, my dear colleagues - could show you very different things than I myself have experienced, felt and seen… Lisa PS … are you ready for what I will say next? Of course you are: “And perhaps you will join some of us as we explore all this in the upcoming Open Space Learning Workshops in Krakow, Poland and Oakland, California USA - and at the WOSonOS in Krakow, as well.” See you there (and here) Lisa (again) Lisa Heft Consultant, Facilitator, Educator Opening Space _______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post send emails to [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org Past archives can be viewed here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
