Hylo and Open Space Technology (OST)
/Tony's Prompt to ChatGPT/
Provide an analysis comparing Hylo.co and Open Space Technology.
Yes. The most useful way to compare Hylo and Open Space Technology
(OST) is not as competing alternatives, but as different layers of the
same social architecture.
Open Space Technology is primarily a method for liberating collective
intelligence in a gathering. Hylo is a digital infrastructure for
sustaining that self-organizing intelligence before, between, and after
gatherings.
That distinction is especially important for the Create Our Future /
Learning Network work you have been developing.
1. The fundamental difference
*Open Space Technology* *Hylo*
What it is A participatory meeting/convening methodology A digital
community and coordination platform
Primary question /What wants to happen when people who care are given
space to self-organize?/ /How can people and groups continuously
communicate, organize, exchange resources, learn and act together?/
Core unit The gathering / conversation The community / network
Time horizon Usually hours to several days Continuous
Organizing mechanism Participant-created agenda + self-selected
conversations Groups, posts, projects, events, requests/offers, governance
Authority Distributed among participants Distributed through community
structures and roles
Communication Primarily synchronous Synchronous + asynchronous
Documentation Proceedings / session reports Persistent digital record
Follow-through Participants identify actions during/after the event
Projects, tasks, events, proposals and ongoing discussions
Geographic dimension Physical space Digital + geographic/map-based
Network scaling Primarily through subsequent gatherings Groups can
nest, connect and cross-post
Technology requirement Minimal Platform-dependent
OST deliberately creates a temporary social container for emergence.
Hylo attempts to create a persistent social infrastructure for
emergence and coordination.
- Their deepest philosophical similarity
There is actually a remarkable philosophical alignment.
Open Space begins with an invitation around something that matters, then
trusts participants to determine what needs to be discussed. Harrison
Owen's four principles are:
Whoever comes are the right people.
Whenever it starts is the right time.
Whatever happens is the only thing that could have happened.
When it's over, it's over.
And the Law of Two Feet gives people responsibility for moving toward
places where they are learning or contributing. (Open Space World
https://openspaceworld.org/wp2/hho/papers/brief-users-guide-open-space-technology/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
Hylo's architecture embodies a surprisingly similar philosophy
digitally. People form groups around purposes and places; they create
discussions, requests, offers, projects and events; groups can connect
with other groups; and members can participate according to their
interests and capacities. (Hylo
https://www.hylo.com/features?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
So both reject the conventional assumption:
*Someone at the top must determine what everyone else should do.*
Instead, both begin with purpose + invitation + participation +
self-organization.
That is a significant point of convergence.
- But OST is much more radical about emergence
There is also an important difference.
OST intentionally removes much of the structure before the gathering.
Participants themselves create the agenda.
A facilitator establishes the theme and conditions, but does not decide
what the conversations will be. Participants propose issues they care
about, create sessions and decide where to participate. (Open Space
World https://openspaceworld.org/wp2/what-is/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
Hylo, by contrast, necessarily has an underlying architecture:
groups
roles
topics
posts
events
projects
proposals
agreements
permissions
notifications
directories
maps
Those structures make ongoing coordination possible, but they also mean
that Hylo is more structured than Open Space. (Hylo
https://www.hylo.com/features?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
This creates an important design tension:
OST says:
Don't over-design the social process.
Hylo says:
Give the social process enough infrastructure that it can continue.
The opportunity is not to choose one.
It is to use OST to generate emergence and Hylo to retain and develop it.
- The most interesting relationship: OST → Hylo
I would conceptualize the relationship this way:
Invitation → Open Space → Emergence → Hylo → Continuing action → New
Open Space
In other words:
Before an OST gathering
Hylo could provide:
the invitation
the community context
participant introductions
questions people are already exploring
requests and offers
background resources
related projects
geographic context
But importantly, you would not necessarily use Hylo to predetermine the
OST agenda.
Instead, it prepares the social field.
During Open Space
The OST process generates:
questions
conversations
relationships
unexpected connections
emerging projects
commitments
new questions
The physical gathering becomes a collective intelligence generator.
After Open Space
This is where Hylo becomes particularly valuable.
The outputs can become:
ongoing discussion threads
projects
working groups
events
requests
offers
learning tracks
proposals
documented decisions
relationships among groups
Hylo explicitly supports persistent projects, events, requests/offers,
proposals and cross-group coordination. (Hylo
https://www.hylo.com/features?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
So the platform can prevent the classic failure of participatory gatherings:
*Everyone has an extraordinary conversation—and then everyone goes
home.*
- Hylo is potentially an "Open Space between Open Spaces"
This is the concept I think is most relevant to your work.
OST creates temporary open space.
Hylo can create persistent open space.
Not literally—because Hylo still has technological and governance
structures—but socially it can function as an environment where people
continually discover:
What are people interested in?
What are people learning?
What are people offering?
What do people need?
Who else cares?
What are people working on?
What opportunities are emerging?
What could I contribute to?
Hylo's Requests & Offers are particularly significant here. They turn
community participation from conversation into reciprocal action. Hylo
describes these exchanges as an engine for building trust. (Hylo
https://www.hylo.com/features?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
That has a very strong resonance with your Learning Time Credits /
Raising the Value of Learning model.
- Where Hylo goes beyond OST
OST is extraordinarily powerful—but it deliberately doesn't attempt to
be an organizational operating system.
Hylo adds several capabilities that OST doesn't provide.
Persistent relationships
OST creates encounters.
Hylo can preserve the relationships created by those encounters.
Resource exchange
OST can surface needs and offers.
Hylo makes Requests and Offers explicit, searchable and persistent.
(Hylo https://www.hylo.com/features?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
Projects
OST can generate projects.
Hylo gives those projects a persistent home.
Governance
OST creates participatory space but doesn't prescribe a governance system.
Hylo now includes proposals, voting, quorum, agreements, roles and
participatory funding mechanisms. (Hylo
https://www.hylo.com/features?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
Networks
This may be particularly important for Create Our Future.
OST can connect people.
Hylo can connect groups to groups.
Hylo supports nested groups, peer relationships and cross-group posting.
(Hylo https://www.hylo.com/features?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
That makes it potentially useful for a network of communities, rather
than simply one community.
- Where OST is stronger than Hylo
The reverse is equally important.
Hylo cannot replace what makes a genuinely facilitated Open Space
gathering powerful.
OST creates an unusually strong social permission structure.
It says:
You don't need permission to raise an important question.
You don't need an assigned role to contribute.
You don't have to stay in a conversation that isn't useful.
You don't have to know in advance what the outcome will be.
You are responsible for your own participation.
That is much more than software functionality.
It is a social technology.
Owen explicitly describes the principles and Law of Two Feet as enabling
participants to take responsibility for their own learning and
contribution rather than depending on centralized facilitation. (Open
Space World
https://openspaceworld.org/wp2/hho/open-space-technology/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
No digital platform automatically produces that culture.
- This distinction matters enormously for Create Our Future
I would resist framing Hylo as the replacement for Open Space Technology.
For COF, a much stronger proposition would be:
*Hylo provides the persistent infrastructure; Open Space provides
the participatory methodology.*
Or even:
*Open Space helps people discover what they can create together.
Hylo helps them keep creating it together.*
That is a considerably more compelling synthesis.
- The connection to your Learning Network
Your Learning Network already has an important ingredient that many
online communities lack:
a recurring live learning environment.
You could therefore construct a cycle:
1. INVITE
A broad question or challenge is introduced.
"What matters enough to us that we are willing to learn and act together?"
↓
2. OPEN
Use Open Space to let participants generate the agenda.
↓
3. DISCOVER
People find their questions, interests, capacities and collaborators.
↓
4. CAPTURE
The important questions and insights are documented.
↓
5. CONTINUE
Move those conversations into Hylo.
↓
6. CONNECT
Match people through:
skills
interests
requests
offers
geography
projects
↓
7. ACT
Projects and working groups emerge.
↓
8. LEARN
Participants document what happened and what they learned.
↓
9. REOPEN
New questions generate another Open Space.
This creates a learning/action feedback loop, rather than a sequence
of isolated meetings.
- And this fits your "Raising the Value of Learning" concept
There is an even deeper connection.
Your Learning Network isn't simply trying to disseminate knowledge.
It is attempting to establish a different social proposition:
*Learning becomes more valuable when it becomes visible, reciprocal,
socially connected and useful to collective action.*
OST makes people's passion and knowledge visible.
Hylo can make their capacities, requests, offers, relationships and
actions visible.
Your Learning Time Credits could then provide another layer:
learning → contribution → recognition → reciprocal exchange
That potentially produces a much richer system than either OST or Hylo
alone.
- A conceptual architecture for COF
I'd visualize the stack like this:
CREATE OUR FUTURE
/Shared purpose / collective aspiration/
↓
OPEN SPACE TECHNOLOGY
/Surface passion, questions, relationships and possibilities/
↓
HYLO
/Persistent community/network infrastructure/
↓
LEARNING NETWORK
/Ongoing inquiry and reflection/
↓
PROJECTS / ACTION
/People actually doing things together/
↓
TIME / CONTRIBUTION CREDITS
/Make learning and contribution socially visible and valued/
↓
NEW LEARNING
↓
NEW QUESTIONS
↓
NEW OPEN SPACE
That begins to look less like an online community platform and more like
a social learning and collective-action ecosystem.
- One significant caution
There is a philosophical danger in putting OST into a digital platform.
Don't allow the platform to become the agenda-setter.
If Hylo becomes:
"Here are the categories, channels, committees and approved
projects. Please choose where you fit."
you have recreated the organizational hierarchy that OST was designed to
loosen.
Instead, the design principle should be:
*Structure the infrastructure; don't over-structure the emergence.*
Hylo's own architecture gives you considerable flexibility: groups can
be created around different purposes, groups can connect as peers, and
content can cross organizational boundaries. (Hylo
https://www.hylo.com/features?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
The key question for COF therefore isn't simply "How do we use Hylo?"
It is:
*"How little structure do we need to enable people to self-organize
effectively?"*
That is a very Open Space question.
- My assessment
If I were evaluating the two specifically for Create Our Future, I'd
score them this way:
Capacity OST Hylo
Generate collective intelligence ★★★★★ ★★★
Surface people's passions ★★★★★ ★★★★
Self-organization ★★★★★ ★★★★
Deep dialogue ★★★★★ ★★★
Persistent community ★★ ★★★★★
Asynchronous learning ★★ ★★★★★
Mutual aid / exchange ★★ ★★★★★
Project coordination ★★ ★★★★
Governance ★★ ★★★★
Cross-group networking ★★★ ★★★★★
Place-based organizing ★★★ ★★★★★
Transformative gathering ★★★★★ ★★–★★★
Follow-through ★★★ ★★★★★
Minimal technological dependence ★★★★★ ★★
Best combined use Emergence Continuity
Bottom line
Hylo and Open Space Technology solve different halves of the same problem.
OST answers:
*How do we create the conditions in which people can discover what
they genuinely care about and organize themselves around it?*
Hylo answers:
*How do we give those people a persistent place to maintain
relationships, exchange resources, coordinate projects, make
decisions and connect their work with other communities?*
For Create Our Future, I therefore wouldn't choose Hylo /or/ OST.
I'd seriously consider designing a "Open Space + Hylo" methodology in
which:
OST is the engine of emergence.
Hylo is the infrastructure of continuity.
The Learning Network is the space of reflection.
Learning Time Credits are the mechanism for recognizing contribution.
That combination is much closer to the architecture you've been
developing than either technology or methodology by itself.
In Solidarity for more joy, and less stuff,
Tony
Click HERE to Meet with Tony https://bit.ly/3WtAIgT
Hi Tony,
I appreciated the information you shared comparing Hylo.co and Open Space
Technology. Another dimension that is important to me in between the
emergence that arises during an OST meeting and the structure of Hylo.co or
a similar way of providing structure is strategy and its accompanying
strategic thinking.
At the simplest level of strategy, as taught in early days by Harrison, I
would categorize the results from the OST into 'do it', 'clarify it' and
'open space it'. The 'do it' fits into a structure like hylo.co more
readily. Results in the other two categories require more clarification or
more open space.
Warmly,
Birgitt
[image: Birgitt Williams]
Birgitt Williams (she/her)
Senior Consultant
Dalar International Consultancy
Life Nourishing Leadership
+1 919 522 7750 · call, text, or WhatsApp
LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/birgittwilliams/
My working hours may differ from yours – please reply when the time is
right for you.
[image: Dalar International Consultancy]
https://www.dalarinternational.com Explore upcoming workshops
https://www.dalarinternational.com/learn/ [image: Genuine Contact Steward]
On Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 3:09 AM Tony Budak via OSList everyone@oslist.org
wrote:
Tony's Prompt to ChatGPT Provide an analysis comparing Hylo.co and Open
Space Technology.
Yes. The most useful way to compare Hylo and Open Space Technology
(OST) is not as competing alternatives, but as different layers of the
same social architecture.
Open Space Technology is primarily a method for liberating collective
intelligence in a gathering. Hylo is a digital infrastructure for
sustaining that self-organizing intelligence before, between, and after
gatherings.
That distinction is especially important for the Create Our Future /
Learning Network work you have been developing.
- The fundamental difference
Open Space Technology Hylo
What it is A participatory meeting/convening methodology A digital
community and coordination platform
Primary question What wants to happen when people who care are given
space to self-organize? How can people and groups continuously
communicate, organize, exchange resources, learn and act together?
Core unit The gathering / conversation The community / network
Time horizon Usually hours to several days Continuous
Organizing mechanism Participant-created agenda + self-selected
conversations Groups, posts, projects, events, requests/offers, governance
Authority Distributed among participants Distributed through community
structures and roles
Communication Primarily synchronous Synchronous + asynchronous
Documentation Proceedings / session reports Persistent digital record
Follow-through Participants identify actions during/after the event Projects,
tasks, events, proposals and ongoing discussions
Geographic dimension Physical space Digital + geographic/map-based
Network scaling Primarily through subsequent gatherings Groups can nest,
connect and cross-post
Technology requirement Minimal Platform-dependent
OST deliberately creates a temporary social container for emergence.
Hylo attempts to create a persistent social infrastructure for emergence
and coordination.
- Their deepest philosophical similarity
There is actually a remarkable philosophical alignment.
Open Space begins with an invitation around something that matters, then
trusts participants to determine what needs to be discussed. Harrison
Owen's four principles are:
1.
Whoever comes are the right people.
2.
Whenever it starts is the right time.
3.
Whatever happens is the only thing that could have happened.
4.
When it's over, it's over.
And the Law of Two Feet gives people responsibility for moving toward
places where they are learning or contributing. (Open Space World
https://openspaceworld.org/wp2/hho/papers/brief-users-guide-open-space-technology/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
)
Hylo's architecture embodies a surprisingly similar philosophy digitally.
People form groups around purposes and places; they create discussions,
requests, offers, projects and events; groups can connect with other
groups; and members can participate according to their interests and
capacities. (Hylo https://www.hylo.com/features?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
So both reject the conventional assumption:
Someone at the top must determine what everyone else should do.
Instead, both begin with purpose + invitation + participation +
self-organization.
That is a significant point of convergence.
- But OST is much more radical about emergence
There is also an important difference.
OST intentionally removes much of the structure before the gathering.
Participants themselves create the agenda.
A facilitator establishes the theme and conditions, but does not decide
what the conversations will be. Participants propose issues they care
about, create sessions and decide where to participate. (Open Space World
https://openspaceworld.org/wp2/what-is/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
Hylo, by contrast, necessarily has an underlying architecture:
-
groups
-
roles
-
topics
-
posts
-
events
-
projects
-
proposals
-
agreements
-
permissions
-
notifications
-
directories
-
maps
Those structures make ongoing coordination possible, but they also mean
that Hylo is more structured than Open Space. (Hylo
https://www.hylo.com/features?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
This creates an important design tension:
OST says:
Don't over-design the social process.
Hylo says:
Give the social process enough infrastructure that it can continue.
The opportunity is not to choose one.
It is to use OST to generate emergence and Hylo to retain and develop
it.
- The most interesting relationship: OST → Hylo
I would conceptualize the relationship this way:
Invitation → Open Space → Emergence → Hylo → Continuing action → New Open
Space
In other words:
Before an OST gathering
Hylo could provide:
-
the invitation
-
the community context
-
participant introductions
-
questions people are already exploring
-
requests and offers
-
background resources
-
related projects
-
geographic context
But importantly, you would not necessarily use Hylo to predetermine the
OST agenda.
Instead, it prepares the social field.
During Open Space
The OST process generates:
-
questions
-
conversations
-
relationships
-
unexpected connections
-
emerging projects
-
commitments
-
new questions
The physical gathering becomes a collective intelligence generator.
After Open Space
This is where Hylo becomes particularly valuable.
The outputs can become:
-
ongoing discussion threads
-
projects
-
working groups
-
events
-
requests
-
offers
-
learning tracks
-
proposals
-
documented decisions
-
relationships among groups
Hylo explicitly supports persistent projects, events, requests/offers,
proposals and cross-group coordination. (Hylo
https://www.hylo.com/features?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
So the platform can prevent the classic failure of participatory
gatherings:
Everyone has an extraordinary conversation—and then everyone goes home.
- Hylo is potentially an "Open Space between Open Spaces"
This is the concept I think is most relevant to your work.
OST creates temporary open space.
Hylo can create persistent open space.
Not literally—because Hylo still has technological and governance
structures—but socially it can function as an environment where people
continually discover:
-
What are people interested in?
-
What are people learning?
-
What are people offering?
-
What do people need?
-
Who else cares?
-
What are people working on?
-
What opportunities are emerging?
-
What could I contribute to?
Hylo's Requests & Offers are particularly significant here. They turn
community participation from conversation into reciprocal action. Hylo
describes these exchanges as an engine for building trust. (Hylo
https://www.hylo.com/features?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
That has a very strong resonance with your Learning Time Credits /
Raising the Value of Learning model.
- Where Hylo goes beyond OST
OST is extraordinarily powerful—but it deliberately doesn't attempt to be
an organizational operating system.
Hylo adds several capabilities that OST doesn't provide.
Persistent relationships
OST creates encounters.
Hylo can preserve the relationships created by those encounters.
Resource exchange
OST can surface needs and offers.
Hylo makes Requests and Offers explicit, searchable and persistent. (
Hylo https://www.hylo.com/features?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
Projects
OST can generate projects.
Hylo gives those projects a persistent home.
Governance
OST creates participatory space but doesn't prescribe a governance system.
Hylo now includes proposals, voting, quorum, agreements, roles and
participatory funding mechanisms. (Hylo
https://www.hylo.com/features?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
Networks
This may be particularly important for Create Our Future.
OST can connect people.
Hylo can connect groups to groups.
Hylo supports nested groups, peer relationships and cross-group posting. (
Hylo https://www.hylo.com/features?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
That makes it potentially useful for a network of communities, rather
than simply one community.
- Where OST is stronger than Hylo
The reverse is equally important.
Hylo cannot replace what makes a genuinely facilitated Open Space
gathering powerful.
OST creates an unusually strong social permission structure.
It says:
You don't need permission to raise an important question.
You don't need an assigned role to contribute.
You don't have to stay in a conversation that isn't useful.
You don't have to know in advance what the outcome will be.
You are responsible for your own participation.
That is much more than software functionality.
It is a social technology.
Owen explicitly describes the principles and Law of Two Feet as enabling
participants to take responsibility for their own learning and contribution
rather than depending on centralized facilitation. (Open Space World
https://openspaceworld.org/wp2/hho/open-space-technology/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
)
No digital platform automatically produces that culture.
- This distinction matters enormously for Create Our Future
I would resist framing Hylo as the replacement for Open Space Technology
.
For COF, a much stronger proposition would be:
Hylo provides the persistent infrastructure; Open Space provides the
participatory methodology.
Or even:
Open Space helps people discover what they can create together. Hylo
helps them keep creating it together.
That is a considerably more compelling synthesis.
- The connection to your Learning Network
Your Learning Network already has an important ingredient that many online
communities lack:
a recurring live learning environment.
You could therefore construct a cycle:
- INVITE
A broad question or challenge is introduced.
"What matters enough to us that we are willing to learn and act
together?"
↓
2. OPEN
Use Open Space to let participants generate the agenda.
↓
3. DISCOVER
People find their questions, interests, capacities and collaborators.
↓
4. CAPTURE
The important questions and insights are documented.
↓
5. CONTINUE
Move those conversations into Hylo.
↓
6. CONNECT
Match people through:
-
skills
-
interests
-
requests
-
offers
-
geography
-
projects
↓
7. ACT
Projects and working groups emerge.
↓
8. LEARN
Participants document what happened and what they learned.
↓
9. REOPEN
New questions generate another Open Space.
This creates a learning/action feedback loop, rather than a sequence of
isolated meetings.
- And this fits your "Raising the Value of Learning" concept
There is an even deeper connection.
Your Learning Network isn't simply trying to disseminate knowledge.
It is attempting to establish a different social proposition:
Learning becomes more valuable when it becomes visible, reciprocal,
socially connected and useful to collective action.
OST makes people's passion and knowledge visible.
Hylo can make their capacities, requests, offers, relationships and
actions visible.
Your Learning Time Credits could then provide another layer:
learning → contribution → recognition → reciprocal exchange
That potentially produces a much richer system than either OST or Hylo
alone.
- A conceptual architecture for COF
I'd visualize the stack like this:
CREATE OUR FUTURE
Shared purpose / collective aspiration
↓
OPEN SPACE TECHNOLOGY
Surface passion, questions, relationships and possibilities
↓
HYLO
Persistent community/network infrastructure
↓
LEARNING NETWORK
Ongoing inquiry and reflection
↓
PROJECTS / ACTION
People actually doing things together
↓
TIME / CONTRIBUTION CREDITS
Make learning and contribution socially visible and valued
↓
NEW LEARNING
↓
NEW QUESTIONS
↓
NEW OPEN SPACE
That begins to look less like an online community platform and more like a social
learning and collective-action ecosystem.
- One significant caution
There is a philosophical danger in putting OST into a digital platform.
Don't allow the platform to become the agenda-setter.
If Hylo becomes:
"Here are the categories, channels, committees and approved projects.
Please choose where you fit."
you have recreated the organizational hierarchy that OST was designed to
loosen.
Instead, the design principle should be:
Structure the infrastructure; don't over-structure the emergence.
Hylo's own architecture gives you considerable flexibility: groups can be
created around different purposes, groups can connect as peers, and content
can cross organizational boundaries. (Hylo
https://www.hylo.com/features?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
The key question for COF therefore isn't simply "How do we use Hylo?"
It is:
"How little structure do we need to enable people to self-organize
effectively?"
That is a very Open Space question.
- My assessment
If I were evaluating the two specifically for Create Our Future, I'd
score them this way:
Capacity OST Hylo
Generate collective intelligence ★★★★★ ★★★
Surface people's passions ★★★★★ ★★★★
Self-organization ★★★★★ ★★★★
Deep dialogue ★★★★★ ★★★
Persistent community ★★ ★★★★★
Asynchronous learning ★★ ★★★★★
Mutual aid / exchange ★★ ★★★★★
Project coordination ★★ ★★★★
Governance ★★ ★★★★
Cross-group networking ★★★ ★★★★★
Place-based organizing ★★★ ★★★★★
Transformative gathering ★★★★★ ★★–★★★
Follow-through ★★★ ★★★★★
Minimal technological dependence ★★★★★ ★★
Best combined use Emergence Continuity Bottom line
Hylo and Open Space Technology solve different halves of the same
problem.
OST answers:
How do we create the conditions in which people can discover what they
genuinely care about and organize themselves around it?
Hylo answers:
How do we give those people a persistent place to maintain relationships,
exchange resources, coordinate projects, make decisions and connect their
work with other communities?
For Create Our Future, I therefore wouldn't choose Hylo or OST.
I'd seriously consider designing a "Open Space + Hylo" methodology in
which:
OST is the engine of emergence. Hylo is the infrastructure of continuity.
The Learning Network is the space of reflection. Learning Time Credits are
the mechanism for recognizing contribution.
That combination is much closer to the architecture you've been developing
than either technology or methodology by itself.
In Solidarity for more joy, and less stuff,
Tony
Click HERE to Meet with Tony https://bit.ly/3WtAIgT
OSList mailing list -- everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email to everyone-leave@oslist.org
See the archives here: https://oslist.org/empathy/list/everyone.oslist.org
Hi Birgitt,
Yes — I think you’ve put your finger on something important that I
hadn’t fully brought into the comparison.
I really like your simple “do it / clarify it / open space it”
distinction. It makes a lot of sense as the bridge between what emerges
in an OST gathering and the structure that something like Hylo can provide.
And I think the “clarify it” piece may be especially important. Not
everything that emerges from Open Space is ready to become a project or
action. Some ideas need more conversation, some need better definition,
and some may actually be pointing toward a deeper question that deserves
another Open Space.
That gets me thinking that the relationship isn't really OST → Hylo,
but more of a cycle:
emergence → strategic sense-making → action/structure → learning → new
emergence.
That feels very relevant to what I’m trying to work out with Create Our
Future and the Learning Network. The strategic thinking in that middle
space may be what allows us to avoid either imposing too much structure
too early or letting good ideas simply dissipate after the gathering.
Your “do it / clarify it / open space it” framework could be a really
useful starting point for thinking about that middle layer.
Thanks for adding this dimension to the conversation!
Warmly,
Tony
On 9/3/2026 3:31 PM, Birgitt Williams via OSList wrote:
Hi Tony,
I appreciated the information you shared comparing Hylo.co and Open
Space Technology. Another dimension that is important to me in between
the emergence that arises during an OST meeting and the structure of
Hylo.co or a similar way of providing structure is strategy and its
accompanying strategic thinking.
At the simplest level of strategy, as taught in early days by
Harrison, I would categorize the results from the OST into 'do it',
'clarify it' and 'open space it'. The 'do it' fits into a structure
like hylo.co http://hylo.co more readily. Results in the other two
categories require more clarification or more open space.
Warmly,
Birgitt
--
In Solidarity for more joy, and less stuff,
Tony
Click HERE to Meet with Tony https://bit.ly/3WtAIgT
Hi Tony,
for reference, those three categories came from Harrison originally. I ran
with this as my lens for OST is always how to make the best from OST in an
organization, especially one that makes use of multiple OST meetings as
foundational to its operating choices.
Birgitt
[image: Birgitt Williams]
Birgitt Williams (she/her)
Senior Consultant
Dalar International Consultancy
Life Nourishing Leadership
+1 919 522 7750 · call, text, or WhatsApp
LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/birgittwilliams/
My working hours may differ from yours – please reply when the time is
right for you.
[image: Dalar International Consultancy]
https://www.dalarinternational.com Explore upcoming workshops
https://www.dalarinternational.com/learn/ [image: Genuine Contact Steward]
On Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 3:42 PM Tony Budak tonybudak@tbmw.org wrote:
Hi Birgitt,
Yes — I think you’ve put your finger on something important that I hadn’t
fully brought into the comparison.
I really like your simple “do it / clarify it / open space it”
distinction. It makes a lot of sense as the bridge between what emerges in
an OST gathering and the structure that something like Hylo can provide.
And I think the “clarify it” piece may be especially important. Not
everything that emerges from Open Space is ready to become a project or
action. Some ideas need more conversation, some need better definition, and
some may actually be pointing toward a deeper question that deserves
another Open Space.
That gets me thinking that the relationship isn't really OST → Hylo,
but more of a cycle:
emergence → strategic sense-making → action/structure → learning → new
emergence.
That feels very relevant to what I’m trying to work out with Create Our
Future and the Learning Network. The strategic thinking in that middle
space may be what allows us to avoid either imposing too much structure too
early or letting good ideas simply dissipate after the gathering.
Your “do it / clarify it / open space it” framework could be a really
useful starting point for thinking about that middle layer.
Thanks for adding this dimension to the conversation!
Warmly,
Tony
On 9/3/2026 3:31 PM, Birgitt Williams via OSList wrote:
Hi Tony,
I appreciated the information you shared comparing Hylo.co and Open Space
Technology. Another dimension that is important to me in between the
emergence that arises during an OST meeting and the structure of Hylo.co or
a similar way of providing structure is strategy and its accompanying
strategic thinking.
At the simplest level of strategy, as taught in early days by Harrison, I
would categorize the results from the OST into 'do it', 'clarify it' and
'open space it'. The 'do it' fits into a structure like hylo.co more
readily. Results in the other two categories require more clarification or
more open space.
Warmly,
Birgitt
--
In Solidarity for more joy, and less stuff,
Tony
Click HERE to Meet with Tony https://bit.ly/3WtAIgT
Hi Birgitt,
Ah, thank you for that clarification. I appreciate knowing that the “do
it / clarify it / open space it” lens comes from Harrison. And I
especially appreciate how you’ve developed it from the perspective of
making OST useful within an organization over time, rather than treating
each OST gathering as a standalone event.
That’s actually very helpful to me. My thinking has been increasingly
focused on how to make OST part of an ongoing operating methodology for
Create Our Future and the Learning Network — not simply as a way to
generate ideas, but as a way of continually informing what we do, what
we need to clarify, and when we need to reopen the space.
Your experience with multiple OST meetings as foundational to
organizational choices gives me a much better lens for thinking about
the relationship between OST, strategy, and something like Hylo.
I think there’s something quite interesting to explore here.
Warmly,
Tony
On 9/3/2026 4:06 PM, Birgitt Williams via OSList wrote:
Hi Tony,
for reference, those three categories came from Harrison originally. I
ran with this as my lens for OST is always how to make the best from
OST in an organization, especially one that makes use of multiple OST
meetings as foundational to its operating choices.
Birgitt
--
In Solidarity for more joy, and less stuff,
Tony
Click HERE to Meet with Tony https://bit.ly/3WtAIgT
Thanks for bringing this up
I introduce the three levels as a helpful framework when doing action plans in OST meetings and often also in other meetings. It’s often appreciated to get more clear on the type of actions that are suitsble for an activity.
Wishing you a hoyful day
Thomas
Skickat från Outlook för iOShttps://aka.ms/o0ukef
Från: Birgitt Williams via OSList everyone@oslist.org
Skickat: Thursday, 03 September 2026 22:06:25
Till: everyone@oslist.org everyone@oslist.org
Ämne: [OSList] Re: Hylo and Open Space Technology (OST)
Hi Tony,
for reference, those three categories came from Harrison originally. I ran with this as my lens for OST is always how to make the best from OST in an organization, especially one that makes use of multiple OST meetings as foundational to its operating choices.
Birgitt
[Birgitt Williams]
Birgitt Williams (she/her)
Senior Consultant
Dalar International Consultancy
Life Nourishing Leadership
+1 919 522 7750 · call, text, or WhatsApp
LinkedInhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/birgittwilliams/
My working hours may differ from yours – please reply when the time is right for you.
[Dalar International Consultancy]https://www.dalarinternational.com Explore upcoming workshopshttps://www.dalarinternational.com/learn/ [Genuine Contact Steward]
On Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 3:42 PM Tony Budak <tonybudak@tbmw.orgmailto:tonybudak@tbmw.org> wrote:
Hi Birgitt,
Yes — I think you’ve put your finger on something important that I hadn’t fully brought into the comparison.
I really like your simple “do it / clarify it / open space it” distinction. It makes a lot of sense as the bridge between what emerges in an OST gathering and the structure that something like Hylo can provide.
And I think the “clarify it” piece may be especially important. Not everything that emerges from Open Space is ready to become a project or action. Some ideas need more conversation, some need better definition, and some may actually be pointing toward a deeper question that deserves another Open Space.
That gets me thinking that the relationship isn't really OST → Hylo, but more of a cycle:
emergence → strategic sense-making → action/structure → learning → new emergence.
That feels very relevant to what I’m trying to work out with Create Our Future and the Learning Network. The strategic thinking in that middle space may be what allows us to avoid either imposing too much structure too early or letting good ideas simply dissipate after the gathering.
Your “do it / clarify it / open space it” framework could be a really useful starting point for thinking about that middle layer.
Thanks for adding this dimension to the conversation!
Warmly,
Tony
On 9/3/2026 3:31 PM, Birgitt Williams via OSList wrote:
Hi Tony,
I appreciated the information you shared comparing Hylo.co and Open Space Technology. Another dimension that is important to me in between the emergence that arises during an OST meeting and the structure of Hylo.co or a similar way of providing structure is strategy and its accompanying strategic thinking.
At the simplest level of strategy, as taught in early days by Harrison, I would categorize the results from the OST into 'do it', 'clarify it' and 'open space it'. The 'do it' fits into a structure like hylo.cohttp://hylo.co more readily. Results in the other two categories require more clarification or more open space.
Warmly,
Birgitt
In Solidarity for more joy, and less stuff,
Tony
Click HERE to Meet with Tonyhttps://bit.ly/3WtAIgT
It roughly maps onto Cynefin as well:
- CLEAR - just do it...
- COMPLICATED - clarify it, possibly with expertise if needed, to see if
it can move forward and is plan-able, or... - COMPLEX - open space it, to see what emerges and whether
experimentation or further clarification will help it move forward...
On Sat, 5 Sept 2026 at 10:11, Thomas Herrmann via OSList <
everyone@oslist.org> wrote:
Thanks for bringing this up
I introduce the three levels as a helpful framework when doing action
plans in OST meetings and often also in other meetings. It’s often
appreciated to get more clear on the type of actions that are suitsble for
an activity.
Wishing you a hoyful day
Thomas
Skickat från Outlook för iOS https://aka.ms/o0ukef
Från: Birgitt Williams via OSList everyone@oslist.org
Skickat: Thursday, 03 September 2026 22:06:25
Till: everyone@oslist.org everyone@oslist.org
Ämne: [OSList] Re: Hylo and Open Space Technology (OST)
Hi Tony,
for reference, those three categories came from Harrison originally. I ran
with this as my lens for OST is always how to make the best from OST in an
organization, especially one that makes use of multiple OST meetings as
foundational to its operating choices.
Birgitt
[image: Birgitt Williams]
Birgitt Williams (she/her)
Senior Consultant
Dalar International Consultancy
Life Nourishing Leadership
+1 919 522 7750 <+1%20919-522-7750> · call, text, or WhatsApp
LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/birgittwilliams/
My working hours may differ from yours – please reply when the time is
right for you.
[image: Dalar International Consultancy]
https://www.dalarinternational.com Explore upcoming workshops
https://www.dalarinternational.com/learn/ [image: Genuine Contact
Steward]
On Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 3:42 PM Tony Budak tonybudak@tbmw.org wrote:
Hi Birgitt,
Yes — I think you’ve put your finger on something important that I hadn’t
fully brought into the comparison.
I really like your simple “do it / clarify it / open space it”
distinction. It makes a lot of sense as the bridge between what emerges in
an OST gathering and the structure that something like Hylo can provide.
And I think the “clarify it” piece may be especially important. Not
everything that emerges from Open Space is ready to become a project or
action. Some ideas need more conversation, some need better definition, and
some may actually be pointing toward a deeper question that deserves
another Open Space.
That gets me thinking that the relationship isn't really OST → Hylo,
but more of a cycle:
emergence → strategic sense-making → action/structure → learning → new
emergence.
That feels very relevant to what I’m trying to work out with Create Our
Future and the Learning Network. The strategic thinking in that middle
space may be what allows us to avoid either imposing too much structure too
early or letting good ideas simply dissipate after the gathering.
Your “do it / clarify it / open space it” framework could be a really
useful starting point for thinking about that middle layer.
Thanks for adding this dimension to the conversation!
Warmly,
Tony
On 9/3/2026 3:31 PM, Birgitt Williams via OSList wrote:
Hi Tony,
I appreciated the information you shared comparing Hylo.co and Open Space
Technology. Another dimension that is important to me in between the
emergence that arises during an OST meeting and the structure of Hylo.co or
a similar way of providing structure is strategy and its accompanying
strategic thinking.
At the simplest level of strategy, as taught in early days by Harrison, I
would categorize the results from the OST into 'do it', 'clarify it' and
'open space it'. The 'do it' fits into a structure like hylo.co more
readily. Results in the other two categories require more clarification or
more open space.
Warmly,
Birgitt
--
In Solidarity for more joy, and less stuff,
Tony
Click HERE to Meet with Tony https://bit.ly/3WtAIgT
OSList mailing list -- everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email to everyone-leave@oslist.org
See the archives here: https://oslist.org/empathy/list/everyone.oslist.org