Ester: I think your insights are right on. My experience is teaching me how things do work differently in a voluntary organization with separation between the events. The internal politics, that are always there, come into play when the group that gathers is not trusted by others who then want to get their say (or way).
Larry Larry Peterson Associates in Transformation 41 Appleton Ave., Toronto, ON, Canada, M6E 3A4 Tel:/Fax: 416-653-4829 lpa...@inforamp.net http://www.inforamp.net/~lpasoc -----Original Message----- From: OSLIST [mailto:osl...@listserv.idbsu.edu] On Behalf Of Esther Ewing Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 10:29 AM To: osl...@listserv.idbsu.edu Subject: Re: Day 2 Bounce and some elementary matters. My first experience (in our church) with open space as a participant was with one day (which was all it was supposed to go with) . We posted our stuff and issued reports (I was actually the partiicpant who pulled together the reports. Then the congregation decided that it wanted to go into open space again - there was more to talk about - and so another open space was convened about a month later. The problem there was that all the people who had not attended the first open space who didn't like the reports and suggestions coming from the first session, came out in droves to oppose what the first session had proposed. At that session there was hot debate about the authority of the group to make decisions for the congregation since the open space sessions had not been convened as a congregation meeting with appropriate notice being given. It was a very unfortunate process. My conclusions since: 1. there MUST be clarity about the group's authority either to make decisions or to make recommendations up front and early so that people understand the ground rules - probably as part of the invitation. 2. there should be clarity about who comes to the first session and then who comes to the second. I'm conflicted about this. In the experience above, if it was clear that the group that came would have the authority to make decisions for the whole, then if someone had not come and didn't like what happened that would be just too bad but they would understand ahead of time and make their decisions about whether to come on that basis. 3. perhaps a rule could be made that if you are going to come, you have to come to both or at least that you must be at the first in order to come to the second. I think there is less trouble if one or two people are unable to come to the second (illness, etc.) Larry, you facilitated this one. Do you have any other thoughts to add? Blessings, Esther