Talk:Open space technology

message: I'm not sure how it's happened, but coming back to this article today with the intention of quoting from it elsewhere, the various edits which have been done since I was last here have left it a shadow of what it was - when I used to refer to it elsewhere it was a clear explanation of the history of the methodology and a clear explanation of how it works and how it's used which newcomers to an OST event could be referred to. Now it's just...
...I dunno; it's just not as useful an article as it was.Star-one (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Something has gone seriously awry with this article

message: Jazilla (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed broken and potentially commercial links from External links list

message: "The organizing theme of an Open Space meeting acts as a "strange attractor" around which people who care about the subject come together."
Strange Attractor. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. 67.180.82.130 04:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed a line. 

message: I've never heard of this before but it doesn't seem like a proper name. If so, it should be moved to Open space technology. Nurg 08:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Open Space Technology" is indeed a proper name. See, for example, the references in the Background section. I think this article's current capitalisation is correct. --Jdlh  | Talk 23:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper name 

message: I recently interviewed Harrison Owen the author of the book in the links. Before editing and being accused of improper linking as I tend to be the victim of fast deletion I'd like to discuss with you the chance to insert a link to the interview. Which can be found here http://www.eventmanagerblog.com/2007/12/open-sourcing-your-event-a-featured-interview-with-harrison-owen.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tojulius (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Suggestion 

message: This article reads like an ad.  Maybe merging this and Unconference would lead to a more rounded group of contributors and a better focus? Gronky (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge this and Unconference 

message: A number of Open Space facilitators have recently begun to work on this page and bring it up to a better standard.  The idea is to write about the process, the way it works and what generally happens.  The way the article reads now is enthusiastic, but I take issue with the fact that it is advertising.  OST is an open source meeting process.  I think the community just wants to ensure there is an accurate description of it here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salishsea (talk • contribs) 19:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please hold off on the speedy deletion 

message: Specifically, I want to see a picture of 2100 chairs arranged in a circle.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.164.176 (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been a variance on the circle for large spaces with many people. First off, the fire exit has to have priority. This will divide the big room in, at least, four sections where the fire escape channeled are marked as such. Secondly, large movement of chairs can be hazardous, its possible to have the chairs in smaller the circles of 8-12 itch can then be used as brake out spaces removing or adding few chairs as groups have different sizes. Sometimes the fire brigade demands that the chairs should be locked to one another and sometimes we have option to skip on the chairs having only chairs for the 5-25+% that are old, challenged or tiered. Teloft (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

text: I don't know of any such picture (kinda hard to capture that) but I have made crappy ones of Recent Changes Camp here: http://photos.koumbit.net/v/conferences/recentchangescamp/. This one is from rococo and could probably be uploaded: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sfllaw/509077053/ -- TheAnarcat (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please include pictures 

message: I think this should be merged with Open Space Meeting. As was said in the other discussion page.
: I believe this article is redundant and confusing and should be either deleted or merged with Open Space Technology. What would be reason to keep this one? Open Space meetings don't exist. There is Open Space Technology, and there are meetings that are done in an Open Space like style. But this is too fuzzy for a single article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnauheimer (talk • contribs) 06:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: --  TheAnarcat (talk)  18:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Open Space Meeting 

message: I think the encyclopedic content - definition, origin, statistics for example could be kept in Wikipedia and the "How To" information moved to Wikiversity.
--Ngstanton (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a good idea, how can this be done? Teloft (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Wikiversity? 

message: (This could make a nice addition to wikipedia listing !!)
DOING AN OPEN SPACE:
A TWO PAGE PRIMER
 
WHAT IS OPEN SPACE?
It is a self-organizing practice of inner discipline and collective activity which releases the inherent creativity and leadership in people. By inviting people to take responsibility for what they care about, Open Space establishes a marketplace of inquiry, reflection and learning, bringing out the best in both individuals and the whole.
WHEN TO USE IT:
*       Where conflict is holding back the ability to change
*       Where the situation is complex
*       Where there is a high degree of diversity
*       Where there is an urgent need to make speedy decisions
*       Where all stakeholders are needed for good decisions to be made
*       Where you have no preconceived notion of what the outcomes should be
PROBABLE OUTCOMES:
*       Builds energy, commitment and shared leadership
*       Participants accept responsibility for what does or doesn't happen
*       Action plans and recommendations emerge from discussions as appropriate
*       You create a record of the entire proceedings as you go along
HOW IT WORKS:
The Law of Two Feet means you take responsibility for what you care about -- standing up for that and using your own two feet to move to whatever place you can best contribute and/or learn.
 
Four principles apply to how you navigate in open space:
* Whoever comes is the right people
Whoever is attracted to the same conversation are the people who can contribute most to that conversation—because they care. So they are exactly the ones—for the whole group-- who are capable of initiating action.
* Whatever happens is the only thing that could've
We are all limited by our own pasts and expectations.  This principle acknowledges we'll all do our best to focus on NOW-- the present time and place-- and not get bogged down in what could've or should've happened.
* When it starts is the right time
The creative spirit has its own time, and our task is to make our best contribution and enter the flow of creativity when it starts.
* When it's over, it's over
Creativity has its own rhythm.  So do groups.  Just a reminder to pay attention to the flow of creativity -- not the clock.  When you think it is over, ask: Is it over?  And if it is, go on to the next thing you have passion for.  If it’s not, make plans for continuing the conversation.
* Wherever it happens is the right place
Reminds participants that space is opening everywhere all the time. Please be concious and aware. - Tahrir Square is one famous example. (Wherever is the new one, just added)
HOW OPEN SPACE WORKS WHEN THERE IS CONFLICT:
The Law of Two Feet gives participants freedom to move at any time to a discussion they care about. Caring creates common ground, and helps to remind participants of higher purpose.
GROUP SIZE:
To date, we know that Open Space accommodates groups from 5 to 1500 people.  It can be run for a couple of hours to 3 or more days; consecutively or over time; at one site or at multiple sites connected by computer and/or phone and video. The longer the space is open, the more transformative the outcomes.
 
THE STEPS IN BRIEF:
#      Select a focusing statement or question for your gathering.  It should frame the higher purpose and widest context for your discussion in a positive way.
#      Invite the circle of people: all stakeholders or all the people you'd like to have in the room.  Include the theme, date, place and time of gathering in the invitation.
#      Create the circle:  Set up chairs in a circle or in concentric circles, leaving space in the center.  Choose a blank wall for the Agenda Wall and label it AGENDA: AM, PM across the top.  Set up a table for computers near a wall you label NEWS.  Put blank sheets of news print (about quarter size of a flip chart page) and colored felt pens in the center of the circle.  Near the Agenda Wall and the News Wall put masking tape for people to post papers on the walls.
#      To begin the gathering:  Facilitator explains: the theme, the simple process the group will follow to organize and create a record, where to put things up and find out what is happening, the Law of Two Feet, and the Principles of Open Space.  Then, facilitator invites people to silently meditate on what has heart and meaning for each of them.
#      Opening the marketplace:  the Facilitator invites anyone who cares about an issue to step into the middle of the circle and write the topic, their name, a time and place for meeting, announce it and post the offering on the Agenda Wall -- one sheet per topic—as many topics as he/she wants.  They will be convenors who have responsibility for facilitating their session(s) and seeing to it that a report is made and shared on the News Wall.
#      When ALL offerings are concluded, the Facilitator invites people to sign up for what they are interested in and take responsibility for their schedules, using the Law of Two Feet.
#      People participate in discussions.  The Facilitator takes care of the space.  Reporters enter discussion reports in the computers and printouts are posted on the News Wall.
#      Closing Circle:  all reconvene an hour before closing to share highlights, "ahas" and key learnings in a Dialogue format: simply listening to whatever people have to offer without discussion, or you can pass a "talking stick" for each person to hold as he/she is talking, or to pass along if the person doesn't want to contribute anything.
#      Mail out whatever record is created and an address list to all who came.
#  If it is a several day gathering, do steps 3 through 8 daily.
From:  Anne Stadler, annestad@nwlink.com           See also www.spiritedwork.org
http://www.openspaceworld.org/tmnfiles/2pageos.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.183.208 (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doing an open space 

message: The first principle says: "Whoever comes is the right people" -- shouldn't that be "Whomever comes are the right people"?  Or something?? All the existing literature on the topic seems to put the principle in an agrammatical style.  I added a "[sic]" into the page, but I don't know if it's really appropriate to do so.  I'm not trying to defile the system, but the original version of the principle hurts my eyes. Arided (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar in principles

message: Fr Brian Bainbridge is sometimes sited as the co-discoverer of Open Space, and some even claim that he was doing it long before Harrison Owen wrote his book.  I like to place some attribution to his legacy in Open Space Technology, but I do not know what to reference, but here is something that he talked about.
here is a link:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.139.124 (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   Fr Brian S Bainbridge 

message: I had originally presented them on the page as a "what not to do/what to be aware of" list, but recently found they'd been deleted.  I have restored them in inverse form as tips for success, which is probably how I should have presented them initially.   MakeItWorkBetter (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added tips 

message: Open Space Technology is an eclectic and smart mix of traditional wisdom (circle, principles, talking stick)  with modern facilitation techniques (rule of two feet, bees and butterflies, agenda, breakout sessions) that allows self-organization emerge in human gatherings.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.17.89 (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is it 

message: Sounds like what many would-be business consultants imagine they can get paid a lot of money for by talking about at conferences (and for which a tiny handful unfortunately do -- where's the cocktail bar?).  I fail to understand why it's of any greater significance or what impact it's actually had.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.131.225.246 (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Significance?

message: So for me, if you a going to do research on Open Space Technology (OST) --
it  really needs to be done "by the book." The Book being, "Open Space
Technology: A User's Guide 3rd Edition (Berrett- Koehler, 2008)" I might
consider that the "Lab Book."
The experimental procedure is clearly laid out.
The "event" will be convened around an issue people seriously care about
(Real issue - not pretend, made up, chosen at random).
All participants will come in response to a Real Invitation. One they can
refuse. No coercion. All are present because they choose to be there.
Once present, participants will be invited to sit in a circle, create a
bulletin board of the issues they care about, and the open a market place to
make/confirm the times and places of meeting.
The Facilitator will be present only at the beginning (1st 15 min.) and
appear again only at the end (of the day or program). In other words, The
facilitator will NEVER intervene. NEVER. Picking up coffee cups is
appropriate. Otherwise, being "present and invisible" -- is the rule.
Anything else... "Variants, Twists, Tweaks -- whatever ... is not OST. Could
be great. May be fantastic. But it ain't OST.
And when it comes to "results" the "researcher" might check "Wave Rider:
Leadership for High Performance in a Self Organizing World." That would be
my best effort at a Final Report for the 30 year experiment. Which doesn't
make it perfect, right or anything special. But it might be a place to
start.
Harrison  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.22.104.168 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  HO on research on Open Space Technology 

message: Nearly all the references cited in this article come from sources that are not independent of the topic, but instead are people working with and promoting OST. Often the content too closely reflects the structure and wording of such promotional sources, for example This article needs a rewrite, based on what neutral WP:RS have said about OST. If independent RS have not written about this topic in some detail, it may not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging for promotional content and copyvio 

message: :I removed copy violations from the following sources with strikethrough:
:*http://openspaceworld.org/wp2/what-is/ Not a copyvio according to https://tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/compare.php?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FOpen_Space_Technology&url2=http%3A%2F%2Fopenspaceworld.org%2Fwp2%2Fwhat-is%2F&minwords=4&minchars=13
:*https://www.slideshare.net/DianaWilliams5/open-space-technology-wwit-2018 
:*http://www.chriscorrigan.com/openspace/whatisos.html
:*https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wCSuCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT200&lpg=PT200&dq=%22the+individual+groups+go+to+work.%22&source=bl&ots=izhnPc4t5v&sig=gHsrv_8l6bnqenmzZ2lPn2xHdbA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS94DruqPcAhUKI8AKHYWJAJIQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20individual%20groups%20go%20to%20work.%22&f=false
:*https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/curriculum_reform_final_19th_dec_1.pdf
:*https://slideplayer.com/slide/12796327/
:*https://www.clahrc-oxford.nihr.ac.uk/files/impacts-and-resources/openspace.pdf
:*http://www.michaelherman.com/cgi/wiki.cgi?TalkingAboutOpenSpace
:*http://www.architectengineer.us/e-web/42_2.htm
:I removed the  since I removed all the copyvio cited in that template that was "minwords=5" or longer that was not clearly attributed or a false positive. I am mindful that there are additional sources to go through. 
:Peaceray (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixed or not a copvio

message: This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because I will edit it throughout today to remove copvio. --Peaceray (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting that "minwords=3" in https://tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/compare.php?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fw%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DOpen_Space_Technology%26oldid%3D850584220&url2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chriscorrigan.com%2Fopenspace%2Fwhatisos.html&minwords=3&minchars=13&removequotations=&removenumbers= is ridiculously low as items like "an open space meeting", "of the process and", "of an open space", "open space meetings"(!), "the meeting with", etc. show up in the report. I am using "minwords=5" as a criteria because it is actually meaningful. Peaceray (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's more of format as previously the headings seem to mirror that article. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That article was noted by  above --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks to Peaceray and Tyw7 for the gritty hard work they are doing to rescue this article. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: Could I propose that we delete the alternatives section and move the links into the "See Also" section? In theory, the list of alternatives to Open Space Technology is endless, and this section runs the risk of becoming as big as the entry on Open Space Technology itself, not to mention that the section might run the risk of becoming self-promoting as folks start to add other methods, modifications or alternatives to the actual subject of the article.
Thoughts before I make the change?
Chris Corrigan (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Alternatives section is not a list of links. It covers related history of similar methods, some of which influenced or were influenced by OST. The section has been stable for quite a few months. I agree that if people start to fill it with spam and cruft that should be removed. This article has had much more trouble from proponents of OST adding promotional stuff than from rivals of OST trying to promote themselves in this somewhat obscure article.HouseOfChange (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good, but I will delete the design sprint section as it bears very little relation to Open Space Technology, and therefore isn't so much an alternative as it is a completely other way of doing things. Chris Corrigan (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose deleting the Alternatives section 

message: The statement that "the facilitator is in control" means the "design sprint" event type is categorically not related to Open Space Technology. This sentence or entire paragraph should be deleted.
:  Good call, that paragraph veered far off topic from OST. Tried to fix it without entirely removing material of potential interest and relevance. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! I appreciate these improvements :). I might recommend a further step. The phrase "pioneered by Google Ventures" used to close a sentence on Design Thinking and Design Sprints mis-assigns and omits quite a bit of history that belongs to the design field—that of the charrette tradition, which along with the general rise of "participation" in the 20th century, developed a parallel mode of collaboration between designers and other stakeholders, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charrette. Qbrt (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for more info. I changed "pioneered" to "promoted." I considered omitting the mention of GVentures entirely but then it becomes baffling to note that Google uses both design sprints and OST. Please make your own desired edits as much as you like! You clearly know much more than I do about this entire subject. I ended up on this page because I was somewhat interested in unconference and ended up trying to copy-edit and de-spam this as well. But I am no expert and I do not WP:OWN anything. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to remove the promotional content about Google Design Sprints 

message: I could not find any evidence that  Harrison Owen was an Episcopal priest, and the wiki page about  Harrison Owen does not mention this.
I wonder if this is a correct information. Arialdo (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:   Harrison Owen, an Episcopal priest