Open Space Technology

[Susan Livingston]

Little by little, I'm addressing the changes in our documents that I
am called to maintain in my role as your Clerk. Much of this is based
on my interpretation rather than your decision of what I should do and
how I should do it. I have observed in the past (for example, when we
changed our conference provider) that people want me to take such
initiative rather than go through a formal process of proposal and
consent. At the same time, if anyone objects to anything I'm posting,
I hope you will bring it to my attention so that we can resolve it or
modify it. For my part, I will endeavor to be entirely transparent
and inclusive through the medium of this google group as we go through
these changes.

One such change is the statement I made on our new Home page, prior to
any discussion or decision process, that we are organized as an Open
Space. For me, it was just a matter of naming the decision by which
we asserted our right to make at the ESAC meeting when we named
ourselves a Circle instead of a Committee to form a Circle. However,
I now realize that others might not be as familiar with the term and
its implications - in particular, how very different Open Space
Technology (OST) is from sociocracy and how very different we are from
a sociocratic Circle. So I have prepared the attached document, which
is also posted in the Files section for those who prefer reading it in
a format that meets needs for beauty, and I will ask for formal
Consent to adopt OST (rather than sociocracy or Roberts Rules) as our
organizing principle or practice or process at the July meeting.
Meanwhile, I wanted some way to describe this group on the Home page!

By request of either John Mudie or Doug Johnson (I apologize to you
both for losing track of the source of the request in the flurry of
emails leading up to our recent meeting), I have also made some
changes to the Membership Survey - nothing drastic, just the deletion
of most of the instructions and the introduction of a few extra blank
lines to fill out the page. I'll revisit the document after the July
meeting in light of whatever we decide at that time.

Peace and Love

Susan Livingston
Volunteer, BayNVC
Founder, PANinA.org

[Craig the Jumbo Giraffe]

Hi Susan and All, I appreciate the initiative to reform this group and
the underlying people and groups differently. I am excited about
trying new processes for social organization.

I have read the document you posted Susan and am not really very clear
about the doables of Open Space meetings. It seems more intentional
than practical. I am wondering if there is more easily available that
gives the gist. I don't have a lot of time and would like to be
clearer before the July meeting. So just the gist please.

Why are we not using a Sociocracy process? I am not wedded to
Sociocracy, but I don't know Open Space.

Is there a post somewhere in which people in this group have posted
what is alive for them about Vission Mission Aim? I have seen
processes for developing it used in different ways and none of them
inolved a membership group meeting for a fixed (short) time to do it
live. It has always emerged from a process of harvesting and
distilling by a small group with a writer who then makes a proposal
that is then reacted/responded to. I am wondering if you have a model
or template for how the VMA process will work in this open July
meeting.

Craig.

>  OST.doc
> 37KViewDownload

[Susan L]

What I posted about OST was my attempt at an NVC "spin" on the
Wikipedia article. I was among those who were excited about
sociocracy; however, several factors mitigated against the success of
that model for this group. Here (in no particular order) are the ones
I believe were key:
1. rejection by GCC/CNVC of the double link
2. the fact that this group is a collection of volunteers with no
presence in the marketplace
3. the longing of many of us to step out of hierarchical organization

The key point in the OST document that I posted is that there is no
attachment to outcome; in the words of the Wikipedia article, OST is
an attempt to describe what happens in any case rather than to
prescribe what "should" happen. It's really important to me that
whatever structural or procedural model we are trying to use, we hold
Needs and Values Consciousness as our organizing principle with regard
to our working relationships, not OST or sociocracy or any other -
ocracy.

Regarding the VMA process, you said:

> It has always emerged from a process of harvesting and distilling by a small group
> with a writer who then makes a proposal that is then reacted/responded to.

That's about what I had in mind! That's what we did last time. I'll
summarize briefly here; most of the details are in this thread,
although a Search of this group would likely reveal more discussion:

http://groups.google.com/group/ESAGroup/browse_thread/thread/4cd03832d9196792/796edccad1aa197b?lnk=gst&q=vision#796edccad1aa197b

A subset of this membership ("whoever shows up is the right people")
participated in picture-forming rounds using a teleconference format.
We delegated the wordsmithing to an even smaller committee (Glenda
Mattinson, Raj Gill, Jeff Brown) who deliberated further and reported
back to this google group with their proposal. Group members, some of
whom were at the meeting and some of whom were not, then reacted in
writing. As Clerk, I integrated all of that and presented the
document that lives in the Files section of this google group for
formal consent at another meeting.

I think you'll find that discussion of VMA started at the June meeting
and that many of your questions will be answered when you read the
Minutes. I ask your patience for another day or two to give those who
attended that meeting the opportunity to revise them.

[Craig the Jumbo Giraffe]

I am not sure how I am about being a part of a group where there is no
attachment to outcome. That seems like what VMA is all about,
particularly the aims part. Or is the no outcomes a description of a
meeting process? I am pretty much in a process of making decisions
from intentions about how I use my time and what purposes are served
by my group affiliations from a place of deep connection to needs and
their big brothers which some call care values (needs that have some
sort of permanence over time). I am not very attracted to being in
meetings where there is no focus about outcome or purpose. I only
really enjoy processing in situations in which the participants are
focused on either an exploration of needs and needs consciousness or
there is some clear purpose. I do not enjoy sitting around with "an
endless stream of hearing every one's exploration" (jackal mixed in).
The move to a consent round with the standard being no paramount
objection is the part of sociocracy that excites and motivates me in
all kinds of groups. Fixing the outcome so that it does not have room
for flexibilty and evolution is unatractive to me. And in that I do
not enjoy meetings with predetermined outcomes, of course. The way I
read the description of OST sounds like something that I would not
enjoy.

I am unwilling to go to the sources about what is done with the past.
I am mindful of the preciousness of time.

So, I will wait and see what others come up with as the VMA and then I
will either give my input or choose not to participate. How does that
land with you Susan or others?

On Jun 13, 8:03 am, Susan L <su...@propeace.net> wrote:
> What I posted about OST was my attempt at an NVC "spin" on the
> Wikipedia article.  I was among those who were excited about
> sociocracy; however, several factors mitigated against the success of
> that model for this group.  Here (in no particular order) are the ones
> I believe were key:
> 1. rejection by GCC/CNVC of the double link
> 2. the fact that this group is a collection of volunteers with no
> presence in the marketplace
> 3. the longing of many of us to step out of hierarchical organization
>
> The key point in the OST document that I posted is that there is no
> attachment to outcome; in the words of the Wikipedia article, OST is
> an attempt to describe what happens in any case rather than to
> prescribe what "should" happen.  It's really important to me that
> whatever structural or procedural model we are trying to use, we hold
> Needs and Values Consciousness as our organizing principle with regard
> to our working relationships, not OST or sociocracy or any other -
> ocracy.
>
> Regarding the VMA process, you said:
>
> > It has always emerged from a process of harvesting and distilling by a small group
> > with a writer who then makes a proposal that is then reacted/responded to.
>
> That's about what I had in mind!  That's what we did last time.  I'll
> summarize briefly here; most of the details are in this thread,
> although a Search of this group would likely reveal more discussion:
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/ESAGroup/browse_thread/thread/4cd03832...