Question about slightly hybrid Open Spaces
Dear Peggy,Many thanks for your reflections and summary. I want to add that my hybrids were large with something like 60/40 splits between online and in-person. As in your example - with just three remote - I agree that a buddy system plus good tech is a better solution. My meetings were with people where only a random few already knew each other.Warm regards,
Ian
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Jan 2026, at 22:19, Peggy Holman via OSList <everyone@oslist.org> wrote:
Wow! Many thanks for all the responses. It has taken me a few days of sitting with them to respond. I’ll be sharing my thoughts with the option to see your comments with the team in the organization that hosted the meeting.
The range of responses excites me because it means we are still new enough in this realm to be experimenting and learning from each other about if, when, and how we work with hybrid gatherings. Below are my thoughts based on what I took from your responses. Below my signature is my summary of what I heard.
My thoughts:
I was surprised by how many of you said don’t do it. I appreciated Michael Wood’s acknowledgement that perhaps I had a good reason for choosing to do so. I did. Michael Herman spoke to an aspect of why the team and I chose to do a limited hybrid event: “it doesn't make sense to take away all the chatting and connecting of in-person because three can't join. why limit all those who can?”
The organization’s staff meetings are normally online. They had a strong desire to be together in person. As an intact team, they are already committed to working well with each other. It was a serious commitment to rearrange schedules so it could happen. Still, the logistics were time and cost prohibitive for the 3 remote staff members to come. Without being online, they would simply have been absent. Something no one wanted.
What has come clearer to me from your comments is that because the whole focus of the gathering was to help grow a more engaged workplace, having three remote members might have actually been a positive. This is a group already committed to each other. While the online three each had a buddy, they were also left with others if the buddies wanted to go to different breakout sessions. So everyone in the room was involved in making it work for the remote people. Birgitt’s disability metaphor strikes me as apt. I have read stories of how having a disabled student in a context where the class is invited into supporting that person in belonging is uplifting for everyone, with lifelong benefits for everyone involved. That seemed to be the case at the gathering. People were there for each other.
As Paul suggested, we framed it as an experiment that would be messy. Everyone engaged with that, even when frustrating. My question to the list was prompted by wanting to do it better in future meetings.
I was surprised everyone saw Zoom as the technology to use. My hunch was having people on different FaceTime connections might be more flexible. Perhaps Zoom is a good way to go with someone dedicated to managing the tech. I hadn’t thought about having a Zoom room in each breakout space rather than people each in their own Zoom breakout space. My hunch is sticking with the people being in their own space with a buddy in the room ultimately keeps everyone engaged and the experience more relational. Still, separate Zoom connections for each room is an option to consider.
A number of you spoke to having good tech and dedicated tech support. That sounds like the area were we have lots of room for improving the experience.
Kathy - thanks for the offer for your tech person to talk with the team. I’ll follow up if they wish to do so.
Tom - I appreciate the suggestions for specific mikes and cameras. Super helpful!
We were fortunate to have a decent physical space for the breakout rooms, where people, including remote people, could hear each other. Some of the tech suggestions can hopefully improve the main circle experience.
I would also stick with using a buddy system. My sense is that it helped with minimizing the feeling of being left out by online participants. I would also approach it as we did - in a messy-ish way where in person buddies could pass their online person to someone else if they were going to another breakout space. I think it keeps everyone aware of and committed to a good experience for all.
The team, which usually all meets online, does plan to meet again in person, probably in 3 or 6 months. My hope is they run it themselves, with some coaching from me if they wish. If I’m involved, I will let you know how it goes.
In summary…
What I’d do again: buddies, a good physical space, enlisting everyone in being there for each other.
What could improve things: a dedicated tech person, good mics and cameras, and big screen in the main space.
An open question: Continue with Zoom? Organizing online by rooms or by people?
Thanks again for your thoughts. My summary of what people wrote is below.
Appreciatively,
Peggy
What I heard:
- Birgitt, Michael Wood, Ian, and Patrice spoke of being on-line or in-person being only. Don’t do hybrid. Michael acknowledged there may be circumstances where there’s a good reason to do so.
Birgitt extended this hybrid question to being aware of disabilities and preparing conditions for inclusion and belonging.
While no one had a “perfect solution,” many had suggestions of things they’ve tried or could imagine helping:
From Kathy’s experience:
A dedicated tech person
A large screen so Zoom people and in-person people can see and hear each other.
A group microphone passed around the circle
Separate screens and zoom links tied to breakout rooms.
Paul said embrace the messiness. Set an expectation that it won’t be perfect and invite people to adapt and experiment.
Michael W added some ideas he would try:
He seconded using a microphone passed around the circle and good sound from online participants.
A traveling laptop and Zoom buddy (as we did).
Good acoustics in the space
Using a “talking piece in the breakouts"
Ian, who has done multiple hybrid experiments reinforces solutions are heavy on tech, with an online and in-person host, though concluded having everyone online rather than hybrid to prevent an inevitable feeling for some of being left out.
Michael H imagined an approach where everyone used tech even though they were in person to keep the benefits of face to face while everyone can be together online.
Tom acknowledged the challenges from personal experiences.
Affirmed the buddy system and equated it to having caregivers.
Liked the idea of thinking about it as a disability accommodations.
Seconded a big screen for the main circle
Setting up different Zoom locations for each breakout space so online people can move themselves
He suggested some specific technologies:
Throwable mics: https://catchbox.com/.
Meeting owl - a stand in the middle of a circle to better see and hear: https://owllabs.com. And they can be rented: https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/owl-labs-meeting-owl-pro-360-1080p-conference-camera
Lisa affirmed having someone dedicated to supporting those in the online space.
Patrice proposed trying Open Space in the Metaverse.
Tom spoke of trying it a couple times with a tech savvy group on a platform called https://spatial.io/. While it worked, the headsets have a 2-hour constraint. And they are expensive. He shared a link to his art gallery with links for creating breakout spaces: https://www.41xrt.com/art
On Jan 19, 2026, at 8:21 AM, Lisa Fain <lfain@centerformentoring.com> wrote:
Hi Peggy,
Ive not done hybrid participation in the context of open space but I have done so in other contexts. We usually designate someone from the facilitation team to be on the zoom in the room so they can flag comments for the main facilitator and help amplify the voices of those online as needed. Hope this helps!
Lisa
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Peggy Holman via OSList <everyone@oslist.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2026 10:39:11 AM
To: Open Space Listserv <everyone@oslist.org>
Subject: [OSList] Question about slightly hybrid Open SpacesHi my friends,
I’m looking for guidance on a wrinkle in a mostly in-person Open Space that will happen again. I am working with a small business and opened the space for their 23 member organization last week. While most of the staff lives locally, we had three people who lived too far away to come in person. So they joined via Zoom. Three laptops were present on site with each of the three remote participants spotlighted and occupying a chair in the opening and closing circles. They each entered a different Zoom breakout room when we dispersed to different sessions and they were moved to the breakout spaces by their in-the-room “buddies.” The breakout sessions worked reasonably well. But they had trouble hearing, even using a microphone, in the big circle. Plus, it was pretty unwieldy for the people who were handling the tech in the room.
While it worked well enough that everyone stayed, we all have a hunch it could be a much better experience!
Has anyone done something like this? What have you learned? What suggestions do you have for their next gathering?
Thanks for any counsel.
Appreciatively,
Peggy
P.S. They will run the next Open Space themselves with me available for coaching before or after.
Peggy Holman
Bellevue, WA 98006
206-948-0432
www.peggyholman.comEnjoy the award winning Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into Opportunity
"An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire and not get burnt, is to become
the fire".
-- Drew DellingerOSList 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
Thank you Peggy and all ….
Figuring out best and most flexible ways to meet and engage is critical, will be critical as we fire up Democracy 2.0 after this fascist onslaught….
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 24, 2026, at 2:49 AM, Ian Andersen via OSList everyone@oslist.org wrote:
Dear Peggy,
Many thanks for your reflections and summary. I want to add that my hybrids were large with something like 60/40 splits between online and in-person. As in your example - with just three remote - I agree that a buddy system plus good tech is a better solution. My meetings were with people where only a random few already knew each other.
Warm regards,
Ian
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Jan 2026, at 22:19, Peggy Holman via OSList everyone@oslist.org wrote:
Wow! Many thanks for all the responses. It has taken me a few days of sitting with them to respond. I’ll be sharing my thoughts with the option to see your comments with the team in the organization that hosted the meeting.
The range of responses excites me because it means we are still new enough in this realm to be experimenting and learning from each other about if, when, and how we work with hybrid gatherings. Below are my thoughts based on what I took from your responses. Below my signature is my summary of what I heard.
My thoughts:
I was surprised by how many of you said don’t do it. I appreciated Michael Wood’s acknowledgement that perhaps I had a good reason for choosing to do so. I did. Michael Herman spoke to an aspect of why the team and I chose to do a limited hybrid event: “it doesn't make sense to take away all the chatting and connecting of in-person because three can't join. why limit all those who can?”
The organization’s staff meetings are normally online. They had a strong desire to be together in person. As an intact team, they are already committed to working well with each other. It was a serious commitment to rearrange schedules so it could happen. Still, the logistics were time and cost prohibitive for the 3 remote staff members to come. Without being online, they would simply have been absent. Something no one wanted.
What has come clearer to me from your comments is that because the whole focus of the gathering was to help grow a more engaged workplace, having three remote members might have actually been a positive. This is a group already committed to each other. While the online three each had a buddy, they were also left with others if the buddies wanted to go to different breakout sessions. So everyone in the room was involved in making it work for the remote people. Birgitt’s disability metaphor strikes me as apt. I have read stories of how having a disabled student in a context where the class is invited into supporting that person in belonging is uplifting for everyone, with lifelong benefits for everyone involved. That seemed to be the case at the gathering. People were there for each other.
As Paul suggested, we framed it as an experiment that would be messy. Everyone engaged with that, even when frustrating. My question to the list was prompted by wanting to do it better in future meetings.
I was surprised everyone saw Zoom as the technology to use. My hunch was having people on different FaceTime connections might be more flexible. Perhaps Zoom is a good way to go with someone dedicated to managing the tech. I hadn’t thought about having a Zoom room in each breakout space rather than people each in their own Zoom breakout space. My hunch is sticking with the people being in their own space with a buddy in the room ultimately keeps everyone engaged and the experience more relational. Still, separate Zoom connections for each room is an option to consider.
A number of you spoke to having good tech and dedicated tech support. That sounds like the area were we have lots of room for improving the experience.
Kathy - thanks for the offer for your tech person to talk with the team. I’ll follow up if they wish to do so.
Tom - I appreciate the suggestions for specific mikes and cameras. Super helpful!
We were fortunate to have a decent physical space for the breakout rooms, where people, including remote people, could hear each other. Some of the tech suggestions can hopefully improve the main circle experience.
I would also stick with using a buddy system. My sense is that it helped with minimizing the feeling of being left out by online participants. I would also approach it as we did - in a messy-ish way where in person buddies could pass their online person to someone else if they were going to another breakout space. I think it keeps everyone aware of and committed to a good experience for all.
The team, which usually all meets online, does plan to meet again in person, probably in 3 or 6 months. My hope is they run it themselves, with some coaching from me if they wish. If I’m involved, I will let you know how it goes.
In summary…
What I’d do again: buddies, a good physical space, enlisting everyone in being there for each other.
What could improve things: a dedicated tech person, good mics and cameras, and big screen in the main space.
An open question: Continue with Zoom? Organizing online by rooms or by people?
Thanks again for your thoughts. My summary of what people wrote is below.
Appreciatively,
Peggy
What I heard:
- Birgitt, Michael Wood, Ian, and Patrice spoke of being on-line or in-person being only. Don’t do hybrid. Michael acknowledged there may be circumstances where there’s a good reason to do so.
Birgitt extended this hybrid question to being aware of disabilities and preparing conditions for inclusion and belonging.
While no one had a “perfect solution,” many had suggestions of things they’ve tried or could imagine helping:
From Kathy’s experience:
- A dedicated tech person
- A large screen so Zoom people and in-person people can see and hear each other.
- A group microphone passed around the circle
- Separate screens and zoom links tied to breakout rooms.
Paul said embrace the messiness. Set an expectation that it won’t be perfect and invite people to adapt and experiment.
Michael W added some ideas he would try:
- He seconded using a microphone passed around the circle and good sound from online participants.
- A traveling laptop and Zoom buddy (as we did).
- Good acoustics in the space
- Using a “talking piece in the breakouts"
Ian, who has done multiple hybrid experiments reinforces solutions are heavy on tech, with an online and in-person host, though concluded having everyone online rather than hybrid to prevent an inevitable feeling for some of being left out.
Michael H imagined an approach where everyone used tech even though they were in person to keep the benefits of face to face while everyone can be together online.
Tom acknowledged the challenges from personal experiences.
- Affirmed the buddy system and equated it to having caregivers.
- Liked the idea of thinking about it as a disability accommodations.
- Seconded a big screen for the main circle
- Setting up different Zoom locations for each breakout space so online people can move themselves
- He suggested some specific technologies:
- Throwable mics: https://catchbox.com/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__catchbox.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=FrpQDFzkMjSSAsooLpFtkBWTxlkuL8v8FxQMTa6gL2Q&m=dPk6iKF9F9J4pPzDD9SOccvqIThNQ71RnLT1nZTlZmHT-cKozqSDMexnG6bsNYlt&s=HCA3u_RahLFSK_hWnf0gqpXA4L5w9hO1jffnhhKtBQ4&e=.
- Meeting owl - a stand in the middle of a circle to better see and hear: https://owllabs.comhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__owllabs.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=FrpQDFzkMjSSAsooLpFtkBWTxlkuL8v8FxQMTa6gL2Q&m=dPk6iKF9F9J4pPzDD9SOccvqIThNQ71RnLT1nZTlZmHT-cKozqSDMexnG6bsNYlt&s=b4dYUN6mpEpBlmlfqXPYJS5OAERxozTU0mNRUaBP6Ao&e=. And they can be rented: https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/owl-labs-meeting-owl-pro-360-1080p-conference-camerahttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.lensrentals.com_rent_owl-2Dlabs-2Dmeeting-2Dowl-2Dpro-2D360-2D1080p-2Dconference-2Dcamera&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=FrpQDFzkMjSSAsooLpFtkBWTxlkuL8v8FxQMTa6gL2Q&m=dPk6iKF9F9J4pPzDD9SOccvqIThNQ71RnLT1nZTlZmHT-cKozqSDMexnG6bsNYlt&s=M9yzmE1fxefTcwM9TIe-XlRUzfyGL1qXFniE2HRaaiw&e=
Lisa affirmed having someone dedicated to supporting those in the online space.
Patrice proposed trying Open Space in the Metaverse.
Tom spoke of trying it a couple times with a tech savvy group on a platform called https://spatial.io/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__spatial.io_&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=FrpQDFzkMjSSAsooLpFtkBWTxlkuL8v8FxQMTa6gL2Q&m=dPk6iKF9F9J4pPzDD9SOccvqIThNQ71RnLT1nZTlZmHT-cKozqSDMexnG6bsNYlt&s=H27Dwdgzk2jPwIVZGUHkFwscHruVP8c3sFowGskuyrw&e=. While it worked, the headsets have a 2-hour constraint. And they are expensive. He shared a link to his art gallery with links for creating breakout spaces: https://www.41xrt.com/arthttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.41xrt.com_art&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=FrpQDFzkMjSSAsooLpFtkBWTxlkuL8v8FxQMTa6gL2Q&m=dPk6iKF9F9J4pPzDD9SOccvqIThNQ71RnLT1nZTlZmHT-cKozqSDMexnG6bsNYlt&s=lrwNSMABt7b5-96kd0ZBufEJpz8HUqP8QS54l2TiTyg&e=
On Jan 19, 2026, at 8:21 AM, Lisa Fain lfain@centerformentoring.com wrote:
Hi Peggy,
Ive not done hybrid participation in the context of open space but I have done so in other contexts. We usually designate someone from the facilitation team to be on the zoom in the room so they can flag comments for the main facilitator and help amplify the voices of those online as needed. Hope this helps!
From: Peggy Holman via OSList everyone@oslist.org
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2026 10:39:11 AM
To: Open Space Listserv everyone@oslist.org
Subject: [OSList] Question about slightly hybrid Open Spaces
Hi my friends,
I’m looking for guidance on a wrinkle in a mostly in-person Open Space that will happen again. I am working with a small business and opened the space for their 23 member organization last week. While most of the staff lives locally, we had three people who lived too far away to come in person. So they joined via Zoom. Three laptops were present on site with each of the three remote participants spotlighted and occupying a chair in the opening and closing circles. They each entered a different Zoom breakout room when we dispersed to different sessions and they were moved to the breakout spaces by their in-the-room “buddies.” The breakout sessions worked reasonably well. But they had trouble hearing, even using a microphone, in the big circle. Plus, it was pretty unwieldy for the people who were handling the tech in the room.
While it worked well enough that everyone stayed, we all have a hunch it could be a much better experience!
Has anyone done something like this? What have you learned? What suggestions do you have for their next gathering?
Thanks for any counsel.
Appreciatively,
Peggy
P.S. They will run the next Open Space themselves with me available for coaching before or after.
Peggy Holman
peggy@peggyholman.com
Bellevue, WA 98006
206-948-0432
www.peggyholman.com
Enjoy the award winning Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into Opportunityhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__peggyholman.com_papers_engaging-2Demergence_&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=FrpQDFzkMjSSAsooLpFtkBWTxlkuL8v8FxQMTa6gL2Q&m=dPk6iKF9F9J4pPzDD9SOccvqIThNQ71RnLT1nZTlZmHT-cKozqSDMexnG6bsNYlt&s=eugxk5WMruX2Q4Pnlu2XySzDf-7ooyOzevvvHiBwM1Q&e=
"An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire and not get burnt, is to become
the fire".
-- Drew Dellinger
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
OSList mailing list -- everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email to everyone-leave@oslist.org
See the archives here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__oslist.org_empathy_list_everyone.oslist.org&d=DwICAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=FrpQDFzkMjSSAsooLpFtkBWTxlkuL8v8FxQMTa6gL2Q&m=dPk6iKF9F9J4pPzDD9SOccvqIThNQ71RnLT1nZTlZmHT-cKozqSDMexnG6bsNYlt&s=gjce0_wIDuVy0IccUl9NcCwMT6zDJ6ZGGwSPxNFGkZw&e=
Hi Ian,
I appreciate the clarifications that differentiate a large group of mostly strangers almost evenly split between in-person and online and an organization working together with just a few online. It helps to understand some of the characteristics when discerning what is best for the group.
Things like:
Purpose of the convening
Relationships among participants
Size of the group
Mix of in-person/online
Anything else anyone notices?
Peggy
On Jan 23, 2026, at 11:47 PM, Ian Andersen sailorandersen@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Peggy,
Many thanks for your reflections and summary. I want to add that my hybrids were large with something like 60/40 splits between online and in-person. As in your example - with just three remote - I agree that a buddy system plus good tech is a better solution. My meetings were with people where only a random few already knew each other.
Warm regards,
Ian
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Jan 2026, at 22:19, Peggy Holman via OSList everyone@oslist.org wrote:
Wow! Many thanks for all the responses. It has taken me a few days of sitting with them to respond. I’ll be sharing my thoughts with the option to see your comments with the team in the organization that hosted the meeting.
The range of responses excites me because it means we are still new enough in this realm to be experimenting and learning from each other about if, when, and how we work with hybrid gatherings. Below are my thoughts based on what I took from your responses. Below my signature is my summary of what I heard.
My thoughts:
I was surprised by how many of you said don’t do it. I appreciated Michael Wood’s acknowledgement that perhaps I had a good reason for choosing to do so. I did. Michael Herman spoke to an aspect of why the team and I chose to do a limited hybrid event: “it doesn't make sense to take away all the chatting and connecting of in-person because three can't join. why limit all those who can?”
The organization’s staff meetings are normally online. They had a strong desire to be together in person. As an intact team, they are already committed to working well with each other. It was a serious commitment to rearrange schedules so it could happen. Still, the logistics were time and cost prohibitive for the 3 remote staff members to come. Without being online, they would simply have been absent. Something no one wanted.
What has come clearer to me from your comments is that because the whole focus of the gathering was to help grow a more engaged workplace, having three remote members might have actually been a positive. This is a group already committed to each other. While the online three each had a buddy, they were also left with others if the buddies wanted to go to different breakout sessions. So everyone in the room was involved in making it work for the remote people. Birgitt’s disability metaphor strikes me as apt. I have read stories of how having a disabled student in a context where the class is invited into supporting that person in belonging is uplifting for everyone, with lifelong benefits for everyone involved. That seemed to be the case at the gathering. People were there for each other.
As Paul suggested, we framed it as an experiment that would be messy. Everyone engaged with that, even when frustrating. My question to the list was prompted by wanting to do it better in future meetings.
I was surprised everyone saw Zoom as the technology to use. My hunch was having people on different FaceTime connections might be more flexible. Perhaps Zoom is a good way to go with someone dedicated to managing the tech. I hadn’t thought about having a Zoom room in each breakout space rather than people each in their own Zoom breakout space. My hunch is sticking with the people being in their own space with a buddy in the room ultimately keeps everyone engaged and the experience more relational. Still, separate Zoom connections for each room is an option to consider.
A number of you spoke to having good tech and dedicated tech support. That sounds like the area were we have lots of room for improving the experience.
Kathy - thanks for the offer for your tech person to talk with the team. I’ll follow up if they wish to do so.
Tom - I appreciate the suggestions for specific mikes and cameras. Super helpful!
We were fortunate to have a decent physical space for the breakout rooms, where people, including remote people, could hear each other. Some of the tech suggestions can hopefully improve the main circle experience.
I would also stick with using a buddy system. My sense is that it helped with minimizing the feeling of being left out by online participants. I would also approach it as we did - in a messy-ish way where in person buddies could pass their online person to someone else if they were going to another breakout space. I think it keeps everyone aware of and committed to a good experience for all.
The team, which usually all meets online, does plan to meet again in person, probably in 3 or 6 months. My hope is they run it themselves, with some coaching from me if they wish. If I’m involved, I will let you know how it goes.
In summary…
What I’d do again: buddies, a good physical space, enlisting everyone in being there for each other.
What could improve things: a dedicated tech person, good mics and cameras, and big screen in the main space.
An open question: Continue with Zoom? Organizing online by rooms or by people?
Thanks again for your thoughts. My summary of what people wrote is below.
Appreciatively,
Peggy
What I heard:
- Birgitt, Michael Wood, Ian, and Patrice spoke of being on-line or in-person being only. Don’t do hybrid. Michael acknowledged there may be circumstances where there’s a good reason to do so.
Birgitt extended this hybrid question to being aware of disabilities and preparing conditions for inclusion and belonging.
While no one had a “perfect solution,” many had suggestions of things they’ve tried or could imagine helping:
From Kathy’s experience:
* A dedicated tech person
* A large screen so Zoom people and in-person people can see and hear each other.
* A group microphone passed around the circle
* Separate screens and zoom links tied to breakout rooms.
Paul said embrace the messiness. Set an expectation that it won’t be perfect and invite people to adapt and experiment.
Michael W added some ideas he would try:
* He seconded using a microphone passed around the circle and good sound from online participants.
* A traveling laptop and Zoom buddy (as we did).
* Good acoustics in the space
* Using a “talking piece in the breakouts"
Ian, who has done multiple hybrid experiments reinforces solutions are heavy on tech, with an online and in-person host, though concluded having everyone online rather than hybrid to prevent an inevitable feeling for some of being left out.
Michael H imagined an approach where everyone used tech even though they were in person to keep the benefits of face to face while everyone can be together online.
Tom acknowledged the challenges from personal experiences.
* Affirmed the buddy system and equated it to having caregivers.
* Liked the idea of thinking about it as a disability accommodations.
* Seconded a big screen for the main circle
* Setting up different Zoom locations for each breakout space so online people can move themselves
* He suggested some specific technologies:
* Throwable mics: https://catchbox.com/.
* Meeting owl - a stand in the middle of a circle to better see and hear: https://owllabs.com https://owllabs.com/. And they can be rented: https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/owl-labs-meeting-owl-pro-360-1080p-conference-camera
Lisa affirmed having someone dedicated to supporting those in the online space.
Patrice proposed trying Open Space in the Metaverse.
Tom spoke of trying it a couple times with a tech savvy group on a platform called https://spatial.io/. While it worked, the headsets have a 2-hour constraint. And they are expensive. He shared a link to his art gallery with links for creating breakout spaces: https://www.41xrt.com/art
On Jan 19, 2026, at 8:21 AM, Lisa Fain lfain@centerformentoring.com wrote:
Hi Peggy,
Ive not done hybrid participation in the context of open space but I have done so in other contexts. We usually designate someone from the facilitation team to be on the zoom in the room so they can flag comments for the main facilitator and help amplify the voices of those online as needed. Hope this helps!
Lisa
Get Outlook for iOS https://aka.ms/o0ukef
From: Peggy Holman via OSList everyone@oslist.org
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2026 10:39:11 AM
To: Open Space Listserv everyone@oslist.org
Subject: [OSList] Question about slightly hybrid Open Spaces
Hi my friends,
I’m looking for guidance on a wrinkle in a mostly in-person Open Space that will happen again. I am working with a small business and opened the space for their 23 member organization last week. While most of the staff lives locally, we had three people who lived too far away to come in person. So they joined via Zoom. Three laptops were present on site with each of the three remote participants spotlighted and occupying a chair in the opening and closing circles. They each entered a different Zoom breakout room when we dispersed to different sessions and they were moved to the breakout spaces by their in-the-room “buddies.” The breakout sessions worked reasonably well. But they had trouble hearing, even using a microphone, in the big circle. Plus, it was pretty unwieldy for the people who were handling the tech in the room.
While it worked well enough that everyone stayed, we all have a hunch it could be a much better experience!
Has anyone done something like this? What have you learned? What suggestions do you have for their next gathering?
Thanks for any counsel.
Appreciatively,
Peggy
P.S. They will run the next Open Space themselves with me available for coaching before or after.
Peggy Holman
peggy@peggyholman.com
Bellevue, WA 98006
206-948-0432
www.peggyholman.com
Enjoy the award winning Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into Opportunity https://peggyholman.com/papers/engaging-emergence/
"An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire and not get burnt, is to become
the fire".
-- Drew Dellinger
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
just a thought - i have little experience with this... but what if someone
joined the session on zoom in by their phone and then the phone can be
passed around like a microphone?
Susan Partnow
she/her/hers
4425 Baker Ave NW
Seattle, WA 98107
tel. 206-310-1203
*"Deep listening is the kind of listening that can help relieve the
suffering of another person...You listen with only one purpose: to help him
or her to empty his heart." --*Thich Nhat Hanh
On Sat, Jan 24, 2026 at 9:30 AM Peggy Holman via OSList everyone@oslist.org
wrote:
Hi Ian,
I appreciate the clarifications that differentiate a large group of mostly
strangers almost evenly split between in-person and online and an
organization working together with just a few online. It helps to
understand some of the characteristics when discerning what is best for the
group.
Things like:
- Purpose of the convening
- Relationships among participants
- Size of the group
- Mix of in-person/online
Anything else anyone notices?
Peggy
On Jan 23, 2026, at 11:47 PM, Ian Andersen sailorandersen@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Peggy,
Many thanks for your reflections and summary. I want to add that my
hybrids were large with something like 60/40 splits between online and
in-person. As in your example - with just three remote - I agree that a
buddy system plus good tech is a better solution. My meetings were with
people where only a random few already knew each other.
Warm regards,
Ian
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Jan 2026, at 22:19, Peggy Holman via OSList everyone@oslist.org
wrote:
Wow! Many thanks for all the responses. It has taken me a few days of
sitting with them to respond. I’ll be sharing my thoughts with the option
to see your comments with the team in the organization that hosted the
meeting.
The range of responses excites me because it means we are still new enough
in this realm to be experimenting and learning from each other about if,
when, and how we work with hybrid gatherings. Below are my thoughts based
on what I took from your responses. Below my signature is my summary of
what I heard.
*My thoughts: *
I was surprised by how many of you said don’t do it. I appreciated
Michael Wood’s acknowledgement that perhaps I had a good reason for
choosing to do so. I did. Michael Herman spoke to an aspect of why the
team and I chose to do a limited hybrid event: “it doesn't make sense to
take away all the chatting and connecting of in-person because three can't
join. why limit all those who can?”
The organization’s staff meetings are normally online. They had a strong
desire to be together in person. As an intact team, they are already
committed to working well with each other. It was a serious commitment to
rearrange schedules so it could happen. Still, the logistics were time and
cost prohibitive for the 3 remote staff members to come. Without being
online, they would simply have been absent. Something no one wanted.
What has come clearer to me from your comments is that because the whole focus
of the gathering was to help grow a more engaged workplace, having three
remote members might have actually been a positive. This is a group
already committed to each other. While the online three each had a buddy,
they were also left with others if the buddies wanted to go to different
breakout sessions. So everyone in the room was involved in making it work
for the remote people. Birgitt’s disability metaphor strikes me as apt. I
have read stories of how having a disabled student in a context where the
class is invited into supporting that person in belonging is uplifting for
everyone, with lifelong benefits for everyone involved. That seemed to be
the case at the gathering. People were there for each other.
As Paul suggested, we framed it as an experiment that would be messy.
Everyone engaged with that, even when frustrating. My question to the list
was prompted by wanting to do it better in future meetings.
I was surprised everyone saw Zoom as the technology to use. My hunch
was having people on different FaceTime connections might be more flexible.
Perhaps Zoom is a good way to go with someone dedicated to managing the
tech. I hadn’t thought about having a Zoom room in each breakout space
rather than people each in their own Zoom breakout space. My hunch is
sticking with the people being in their own space with a buddy in the room
ultimately keeps everyone engaged and the experience more relational.
Still, separate Zoom connections for each room is an option to consider.
A number of you spoke to having good tech and dedicated tech support.
That sounds like the area were we have lots of room for improving the
experience.
Kathy - thanks for the offer for your tech person to talk with the team.
I’ll follow up if they wish to do so.
Tom - I appreciate the suggestions for specific mikes and cameras. Super
helpful!
We were fortunate to have a *decent physical space *for the breakout
rooms, where people, including remote people, could hear each other. Some
of the tech suggestions can hopefully improve the main circle experience.
I would also stick with using a buddy system. My sense is that it
helped with minimizing the feeling of being left out by online
participants. I would also approach it as we did - in a messy-ish way where
in person buddies could pass their online person to someone else if they
were going to another breakout space. I think it keeps everyone aware of
and committed to a good experience for all.
The team, which usually all meets online, does plan to meet again in
person, probably in 3 or 6 months. My hope is they run it themselves, with
some coaching from me if they wish. If I’m involved, I will let you know
how it goes.
In summary…
What I’d do again: buddies, a good physical space, enlisting everyone in
being there for each other.
What could improve things: a dedicated tech person, good mics and cameras,
and big screen in the main space.
An open question: Continue with Zoom? Organizing online by rooms or by
people?
Thanks again for your thoughts. My summary of what people wrote is below.
Appreciatively,
Peggy
What I heard:
- Birgitt, Michael Wood, Ian, and Patrice spoke of being on-line or
in-person being only. Don’t do hybrid. Michael acknowledged there may be
circumstances where there’s a good reason to do so.
Birgitt extended this hybrid question to being aware of disabilities and
preparing conditions for inclusion and belonging.
While no one had a “perfect solution,” many had suggestions of things
they’ve tried or could imagine helping:
From Kathy’s experience:
- A dedicated tech person
- A large screen so Zoom people and in-person people can see and hear each
other. - A group microphone passed around the circle
- Separate screens and zoom links tied to breakout rooms.
Paul said embrace the messiness. Set an expectation that it won’t be
perfect and invite people to adapt and experiment.
Michael W added some ideas he would try:
- He seconded using a microphone passed around the circle and good sound
from online participants. - A traveling laptop and Zoom buddy (as we did).
- Good acoustics in the space
- Using a “talking piece in the breakouts"
Ian, who has done multiple hybrid experiments reinforces solutions are
heavy on tech, with an online and in-person host, though concluded having
everyone online rather than hybrid to prevent an inevitable feeling for
some of being left out.
Michael H imagined an approach where everyone used tech even though they
were in person to keep the benefits of face to face while everyone can be
together online.
Tom acknowledged the challenges from personal experiences.
- Affirmed the buddy system and equated it to having caregivers.
- Liked the idea of thinking about it as a disability accommodations.
- Seconded a big screen for the main circle
- Setting up different Zoom locations for each breakout space so online
people can move themselves - He suggested some specific technologies:
- Throwable mics: https://catchbox.com/.
- Meeting owl - a stand in the middle of a circle to better see and hear:
https://owllabs.com. And they can be rented:
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/owl-labs-meeting-owl-pro-360-1080p-conference-camera
Lisa affirmed having someone dedicated to supporting those in the online
space.
Patrice proposed trying Open Space in the Metaverse.
Tom spoke of trying it a couple times with a tech savvy group on a
platform called https://spatial.io/. While it worked, the headsets have a
2-hour constraint. And they are expensive. He shared a link to his art
gallery with links for creating breakout spaces: https://www.41xrt.com/art
On Jan 19, 2026, at 8:21 AM, Lisa Fain lfain@centerformentoring.com
wrote:
Hi Peggy,
Ive not done hybrid participation in the context of open space but I have
done so in other contexts. We usually designate someone from the
facilitation team to be on the zoom in the room so they can flag comments
for the main facilitator and help amplify the voices of those online as
needed. Hope this helps!
Lisa
Get Outlook for iOS https://aka.ms/o0ukef
From: Peggy Holman via OSList everyone@oslist.org
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2026 10:39:11 AM
To: Open Space Listserv everyone@oslist.org
Subject: [OSList] Question about slightly hybrid Open Spaces
Hi my friends,
I’m looking for guidance on a wrinkle in a mostly in-person Open Space
that will happen again. I am working with a small business and opened the
space for their 23 member organization last week. While most of the staff
lives locally, we had three people who lived too far away to come in
person. So they joined via Zoom. Three laptops were present on site with
each of the three remote participants spotlighted and occupying a chair in
the opening and closing circles. They each entered a different Zoom
breakout room when we dispersed to different sessions and they were moved
to the breakout spaces by their in-the-room “buddies.” The breakout
sessions worked reasonably well. But they had trouble hearing, even using a
microphone, in the big circle. Plus, it was pretty unwieldy for the people
who were handling the tech in the room.
While it worked well enough that everyone stayed, we all have a hunch it
could be a much better experience!
Has anyone done something like this? What have you learned? What
suggestions do you have for their next gathering?
Thanks for any counsel.
Appreciatively,
Peggy
P.S. They will run the next Open Space themselves with me available for
coaching before or after.
Peggy Holman
peggy@peggyholman.com
Bellevue, WA 98006
206-948-0432
www.peggyholman.com
Enjoy the award winning Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval
into Opportunity https://peggyholman.com/papers/engaging-emergence/
"An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire and not get
burnt, is to become
the fire".
-- Drew Dellinger
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
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
Worth a try.
On Jan 24, 2026, at 11:19 AM, Susan Partnow susanpartnow@gmail.com wrote:
just a thought - i have little experience with this... but what if someone joined the session on zoom in by their phone and then the phone can be passed around like a microphone?
Susan Partnow
she/her/hers
4425 Baker Ave NW
Seattle, WA 98107
tel. 206-310-1203
"Deep listening is the kind of listening that can help relieve the suffering of another person...You listen with only one purpose: to help him or her to empty his heart." --Thich Nhat Hanh
On Sat, Jan 24, 2026 at 9:30 AM Peggy Holman via OSList <everyone@oslist.org mailto:everyone@oslist.org> wrote:
Hi Ian,
I appreciate the clarifications that differentiate a large group of mostly strangers almost evenly split between in-person and online and an organization working together with just a few online. It helps to understand some of the characteristics when discerning what is best for the group.
Things like:
Purpose of the convening
Relationships among participants
Size of the group
Mix of in-person/online
Anything else anyone notices?
Peggy
On Jan 23, 2026, at 11:47 PM, Ian Andersen <sailorandersen@gmail.com mailto:sailorandersen@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Peggy,
Many thanks for your reflections and summary. I want to add that my hybrids were large with something like 60/40 splits between online and in-person. As in your example - with just three remote - I agree that a buddy system plus good tech is a better solution. My meetings were with people where only a random few already knew each other.
Warm regards,
Ian
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Jan 2026, at 22:19, Peggy Holman via OSList <everyone@oslist.org mailto:everyone@oslist.org> wrote:
Wow! Many thanks for all the responses. It has taken me a few days of sitting with them to respond. I’ll be sharing my thoughts with the option to see your comments with the team in the organization that hosted the meeting.
The range of responses excites me because it means we are still new enough in this realm to be experimenting and learning from each other about if, when, and how we work with hybrid gatherings. Below are my thoughts based on what I took from your responses. Below my signature is my summary of what I heard.
My thoughts:
I was surprised by how many of you said don’t do it. I appreciated Michael Wood’s acknowledgement that perhaps I had a good reason for choosing to do so. I did. Michael Herman spoke to an aspect of why the team and I chose to do a limited hybrid event: “it doesn't make sense to take away all the chatting and connecting of in-person because three can't join. why limit all those who can?”
The organization’s staff meetings are normally online. They had a strong desire to be together in person. As an intact team, they are already committed to working well with each other. It was a serious commitment to rearrange schedules so it could happen. Still, the logistics were time and cost prohibitive for the 3 remote staff members to come. Without being online, they would simply have been absent. Something no one wanted.
What has come clearer to me from your comments is that because the whole focus of the gathering was to help grow a more engaged workplace, having three remote members might have actually been a positive. This is a group already committed to each other. While the online three each had a buddy, they were also left with others if the buddies wanted to go to different breakout sessions. So everyone in the room was involved in making it work for the remote people. Birgitt’s disability metaphor strikes me as apt. I have read stories of how having a disabled student in a context where the class is invited into supporting that person in belonging is uplifting for everyone, with lifelong benefits for everyone involved. That seemed to be the case at the gathering. People were there for each other.
As Paul suggested, we framed it as an experiment that would be messy. Everyone engaged with that, even when frustrating. My question to the list was prompted by wanting to do it better in future meetings.
I was surprised everyone saw Zoom as the technology to use. My hunch was having people on different FaceTime connections might be more flexible. Perhaps Zoom is a good way to go with someone dedicated to managing the tech. I hadn’t thought about having a Zoom room in each breakout space rather than people each in their own Zoom breakout space. My hunch is sticking with the people being in their own space with a buddy in the room ultimately keeps everyone engaged and the experience more relational. Still, separate Zoom connections for each room is an option to consider.
A number of you spoke to having good tech and dedicated tech support. That sounds like the area were we have lots of room for improving the experience.
Kathy - thanks for the offer for your tech person to talk with the team. I’ll follow up if they wish to do so.
Tom - I appreciate the suggestions for specific mikes and cameras. Super helpful!
We were fortunate to have a decent physical space for the breakout rooms, where people, including remote people, could hear each other. Some of the tech suggestions can hopefully improve the main circle experience.
I would also stick with using a buddy system. My sense is that it helped with minimizing the feeling of being left out by online participants. I would also approach it as we did - in a messy-ish way where in person buddies could pass their online person to someone else if they were going to another breakout space. I think it keeps everyone aware of and committed to a good experience for all.
The team, which usually all meets online, does plan to meet again in person, probably in 3 or 6 months. My hope is they run it themselves, with some coaching from me if they wish. If I’m involved, I will let you know how it goes.
In summary…
What I’d do again: buddies, a good physical space, enlisting everyone in being there for each other.
What could improve things: a dedicated tech person, good mics and cameras, and big screen in the main space.
An open question: Continue with Zoom? Organizing online by rooms or by people?
Thanks again for your thoughts. My summary of what people wrote is below.
Appreciatively,
Peggy
What I heard:
- Birgitt, Michael Wood, Ian, and Patrice spoke of being on-line or in-person being only. Don’t do hybrid. Michael acknowledged there may be circumstances where there’s a good reason to do so.
Birgitt extended this hybrid question to being aware of disabilities and preparing conditions for inclusion and belonging.
While no one had a “perfect solution,” many had suggestions of things they’ve tried or could imagine helping:
From Kathy’s experience:
* A dedicated tech person
* A large screen so Zoom people and in-person people can see and hear each other.
* A group microphone passed around the circle
* Separate screens and zoom links tied to breakout rooms.
Paul said embrace the messiness. Set an expectation that it won’t be perfect and invite people to adapt and experiment.
Michael W added some ideas he would try:
* He seconded using a microphone passed around the circle and good sound from online participants.
* A traveling laptop and Zoom buddy (as we did).
* Good acoustics in the space
* Using a “talking piece in the breakouts"
Ian, who has done multiple hybrid experiments reinforces solutions are heavy on tech, with an online and in-person host, though concluded having everyone online rather than hybrid to prevent an inevitable feeling for some of being left out.
Michael H imagined an approach where everyone used tech even though they were in person to keep the benefits of face to face while everyone can be together online.
Tom acknowledged the challenges from personal experiences.
* Affirmed the buddy system and equated it to having caregivers.
* Liked the idea of thinking about it as a disability accommodations.
* Seconded a big screen for the main circle
* Setting up different Zoom locations for each breakout space so online people can move themselves
* He suggested some specific technologies:
* Throwable mics: https://catchbox.com/.
* Meeting owl - a stand in the middle of a circle to better see and hear: https://owllabs.com https://owllabs.com/. And they can be rented: https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/owl-labs-meeting-owl-pro-360-1080p-conference-camera
Lisa affirmed having someone dedicated to supporting those in the online space.
Patrice proposed trying Open Space in the Metaverse.
Tom spoke of trying it a couple times with a tech savvy group on a platform called https://spatial.io/. While it worked, the headsets have a 2-hour constraint. And they are expensive. He shared a link to his art gallery with links for creating breakout spaces: https://www.41xrt.com/art
On Jan 19, 2026, at 8:21 AM, Lisa Fain <lfain@centerformentoring.com mailto:lfain@centerformentoring.com> wrote:
Hi Peggy,
Ive not done hybrid participation in the context of open space but I have done so in other contexts. We usually designate someone from the facilitation team to be on the zoom in the room so they can flag comments for the main facilitator and help amplify the voices of those online as needed. Hope this helps!
Lisa
Get Outlook for iOS https://aka.ms/o0ukef
From: Peggy Holman via OSList <everyone@oslist.org mailto:everyone@oslist.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2026 10:39:11 AM
To: Open Space Listserv <everyone@oslist.org mailto:everyone@oslist.org>
Subject: [OSList] Question about slightly hybrid Open Spaces
Hi my friends,
I’m looking for guidance on a wrinkle in a mostly in-person Open Space that will happen again. I am working with a small business and opened the space for their 23 member organization last week. While most of the staff lives locally, we had three people who lived too far away to come in person. So they joined via Zoom. Three laptops were present on site with each of the three remote participants spotlighted and occupying a chair in the opening and closing circles. They each entered a different Zoom breakout room when we dispersed to different sessions and they were moved to the breakout spaces by their in-the-room “buddies.” The breakout sessions worked reasonably well. But they had trouble hearing, even using a microphone, in the big circle. Plus, it was pretty unwieldy for the people who were handling the tech in the room.
While it worked well enough that everyone stayed, we all have a hunch it could be a much better experience!
Has anyone done something like this? What have you learned? What suggestions do you have for their next gathering?
Thanks for any counsel.
Appreciatively,
Peggy
P.S. They will run the next Open Space themselves with me available for coaching before or after.
Peggy Holman
peggy@peggyholman.com mailto:peggy@peggyholman.com
Bellevue, WA 98006
206-948-0432
www.peggyholman.com http://www.peggyholman.com/
Enjoy the award winning Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into Opportunity https://peggyholman.com/papers/engaging-emergence/
"An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire and not get burnt, is to become
the fire".
-- Drew Dellinger
OSList mailing list -- everyone@oslist.org mailto:everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email to everyone-leave@oslist.org mailto:everyone-leave@oslist.org
See the archives here: https://oslist.org/empathy/list/everyone.oslist.org
OSList mailing list -- everyone@oslist.org mailto:everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email to everyone-leave@oslist.org mailto:everyone-leave@oslist.org
See the archives here: https://oslist.org/empathy/list/everyone.oslist.org
I don’t think anyone mentioned using an OWL Videocam system for an OST
hybrid gathering. I tried that once with a group of 100 with 5 participants
on Zoom. It was a really bad idea. With multiple microphones the video
camera got very confused on where to focus. Too much attention was focused
on trying to grt the tech working.? I think the idea of buddies with
cellphones or iPad/tablets offers the best option for the situation Peggy
described.
Newell Eaton
Integrative Leadership Practices
Albany NY USA
On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 4:18 PM Peggy Holman via OSList everyone@oslist.org
wrote:
Wow! Many thanks for all the responses. It has taken me a few days of
sitting with them to respond. I’ll be sharing my thoughts with the option
to see your comments with the team in the organization that hosted the
meeting.
The range of responses excites me because it means we are still new enough
in this realm to be experimenting and learning from each other about if,
when, and how we work with hybrid gatherings. Below are my thoughts based
on what I took from your responses. Below my signature is my summary of
what I heard.
*My thoughts: *
I was surprised by how many of you said don’t do it. I appreciated
Michael Wood’s acknowledgement that perhaps I had a good reason for
choosing to do so. I did. Michael Herman spoke to an aspect of why the
team and I chose to do a limited hybrid event: “it doesn't make sense to
take away all the chatting and connecting of in-person because three can't
join. why limit all those who can?”
The organization’s staff meetings are normally online. They had a strong
desire to be together in person. As an intact team, they are already
committed to working well with each other. It was a serious commitment to
rearrange schedules so it could happen. Still, the logistics were time and
cost prohibitive for the 3 remote staff members to come. Without being
online, they would simply have been absent. Something no one wanted.
What has come clearer to me from your comments is that because the whole focus
of the gathering was to help grow a more engaged workplace, having three
remote members might have actually been a positive. This is a group
already committed to each other. While the online three each had a buddy,
they were also left with others if the buddies wanted to go to different
breakout sessions. So everyone in the room was involved in making it work
for the remote people. Birgitt’s disability metaphor strikes me as apt. I
have read stories of how having a disabled student in a context where the
class is invited into supporting that person in belonging is uplifting for
everyone, with lifelong benefits for everyone involved. That seemed to be
the case at the gathering. People were there for each other.
As Paul suggested, we framed it as an experiment that would be messy.
Everyone engaged with that, even when frustrating. My question to the list
was prompted by wanting to do it better in future meetings.
I was surprised everyone saw Zoom as the technology to use. My hunch
was having people on different FaceTime connections might be more flexible.
Perhaps Zoom is a good way to go with someone dedicated to managing the
tech. I hadn’t thought about having a Zoom room in each breakout space
rather than people each in their own Zoom breakout space. My hunch is
sticking with the people being in their own space with a buddy in the room
ultimately keeps everyone engaged and the experience more relational.
Still, separate Zoom connections for each room is an option to consider.
A number of you spoke to having good tech and dedicated tech support.
That sounds like the area were we have lots of room for improving the
experience.
Kathy - thanks for the offer for your tech person to talk with the team.
I’ll follow up if they wish to do so.
Tom - I appreciate the suggestions for specific mikes and cameras. Super
helpful!
We were fortunate to have a *decent physical space *for the breakout
rooms, where people, including remote people, could hear each other. Some
of the tech suggestions can hopefully improve the main circle experience.
I would also stick with using a buddy system. My sense is that it
helped with minimizing the feeling of being left out by online
participants. I would also approach it as we did - in a messy-ish way where
in person buddies could pass their online person to someone else if they
were going to another breakout space. I think it keeps everyone aware of
and committed to a good experience for all.
The team, which usually all meets online, does plan to meet again in
person, probably in 3 or 6 months. My hope is they run it themselves, with
some coaching from me if they wish. If I’m involved, I will let you know
how it goes.
In summary…
What I’d do again: buddies, a good physical space, enlisting everyone in
being there for each other.
What could improve things: a dedicated tech person, good mics and cameras,
and big screen in the main space.
An open question: Continue with Zoom? Organizing online by rooms or by
people?
Thanks again for your thoughts. My summary of what people wrote is below.
Appreciatively,
Peggy
What I heard:
- Birgitt, Michael Wood, Ian, and Patrice spoke of being on-line or
in-person being only. Don’t do hybrid. Michael acknowledged there may be
circumstances where there’s a good reason to do so.
Birgitt extended this hybrid question to being aware of disabilities and
preparing conditions for inclusion and belonging.
While no one had a “perfect solution,” many had suggestions of things
they’ve tried or could imagine helping:
From Kathy’s experience:
- A dedicated tech person
- A large screen so Zoom people and in-person people can see and hear each
other. - A group microphone passed around the circle
- Separate screens and zoom links tied to breakout rooms.
Paul said embrace the messiness. Set an expectation that it won’t be
perfect and invite people to adapt and experiment.
Michael W added some ideas he would try:
- He seconded using a microphone passed around the circle and good sound
from online participants. - A traveling laptop and Zoom buddy (as we did).
- Good acoustics in the space
- Using a “talking piece in the breakouts"
Ian, who has done multiple hybrid experiments reinforces solutions are
heavy on tech, with an online and in-person host, though concluded having
everyone online rather than hybrid to prevent an inevitable feeling for
some of being left out.
Michael H imagined an approach where everyone used tech even though they
were in person to keep the benefits of face to face while everyone can be
together online.
Tom acknowledged the challenges from personal experiences.
- Affirmed the buddy system and equated it to having caregivers.
- Liked the idea of thinking about it as a disability accommodations.
- Seconded a big screen for the main circle
- Setting up different Zoom locations for each breakout space so online
people can move themselves - He suggested some specific technologies:
- Throwable mics: https://catchbox.com/.
- Meeting owl - a stand in the middle of a circle to better see and hear:
https://owllabs.com. And they can be rented:
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/owl-labs-meeting-owl-pro-360-1080p-conference-camera
Lisa affirmed having someone dedicated to supporting those in the online
space.
Patrice proposed trying Open Space in the Metaverse.
Tom spoke of trying it a couple times with a tech savvy group on a
platform called https://spatial.io/. While it worked, the headsets have a
2-hour constraint. And they are expensive. He shared a link to his art
gallery with links for creating breakout spaces: https://www.41xrt.com/art
On Jan 19, 2026, at 8:21 AM, Lisa Fain lfain@centerformentoring.com
wrote:
Hi Peggy,
Ive not done hybrid participation in the context of open space but I have
done so in other contexts. We usually designate someone from the
facilitation team to be on the zoom in the room so they can flag comments
for the main facilitator and help amplify the voices of those online as
needed. Hope this helps!
Lisa
Get Outlook for iOS https://aka.ms/o0ukef
From: Peggy Holman via OSList everyone@oslist.org
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2026 10:39:11 AM
To: Open Space Listserv everyone@oslist.org
Subject: [OSList] Question about slightly hybrid Open Spaces
Hi my friends,
I’m looking for guidance on a wrinkle in a mostly in-person Open Space
that will happen again. I am working with a small business and opened the
space for their 23 member organization last week. While most of the staff
lives locally, we had three people who lived too far away to come in
person. So they joined via Zoom. Three laptops were present on site with
each of the three remote participants spotlighted and occupying a chair in
the opening and closing circles. They each entered a different Zoom
breakout room when we dispersed to different sessions and they were moved
to the breakout spaces by their in-the-room “buddies.” The breakout
sessions worked reasonably well. But they had trouble hearing, even using a
microphone, in the big circle. Plus, it was pretty unwieldy for the people
who were handling the tech in the room.
While it worked well enough that everyone stayed, we all have a hunch it
could be a much better experience!
Has anyone done something like this? What have you learned? What
suggestions do you have for their next gathering?
Thanks for any counsel.
Appreciatively,
Peggy
P.S. They will run the next Open Space themselves with me available for
coaching before or after.
Peggy Holman
peggy@peggyholman.com
Bellevue, WA 98006
206-948-0432
www.peggyholman.com
Enjoy the award winning Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval
into Opportunity https://peggyholman.com/papers/engaging-emergence/
"An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire and not get
burnt, is to become
the fire".
-- Drew Dellinger
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