Hi John, There are many opportunities to invite and initiate around this theme of "participant-facilitator" or "stakeholder-spaceholder". Probably an overwhelming number of options. What might work? It does seem at least a few here are interested. At least for now, I'd love to continue here on the OSList. This topic really took off with Tony Budak's invitation around furthering Harrison Owen's attempt to open space for an 8 billion person conversation. His original invite to 8 billion in January 2019 was spoken via Zoom to Opening Space for Peace and High Performance in NYC's International House, an annual open space. His talk and invitation to 8 billion people was published as a video - https://youtu.be/M_6dPhwJqbI. (In many ways, it was one of Harrison's best talks, I highly recommend it!) Harrison has helped me understand that space is already open. I'll paraphrase him poorly I'm sure, but our job with that knowledge is just to increase our awareness of space already being open. We can always invite. And to be okay with no one responding. If I still care, I can still move the work forward, even by myself. Or with a small group. Most human advances started with individuals and small groups. Tony's comments about peripheral small groups advancing the conversation relates in this way to the topic of participant-facilitator. I've have experienced and deeply resonate with what Tony summarized from the Damon Centola work. Such insights are especially helpful to those who see themselves as both spaceholders and stakeholders on this OSList forum. But what norms and behavior changes are really needed? A big aspect of Harrison's perspective on this (and I haven't asked permission for any of my paraphrasing, and I'd be happy to be corrected), is that no one of us actually really has a clue. If they say they know, they're deceiving us, themselves, or both. Although I resonate with the truth of essential human individual cluelessness, I've also encountered too often how fequently some one actually has a clue, but no one's listening. At least for quite a while, at the cost of much human suffering. I continue to feel this way about OST. Maybe I'm deluding myself, but I've seen such amazing things happen when people are invited into Open Space. I can tell so much would be better if more of these invitations would happen, like ten years ago. Open Space has been very helpful for me to get closer to those "people of the clue". I've encountered so many things at OST events that I can tell would make a key difference. For example Permaculture, Authentic Agile, Family Constellations, Ecstatic Dance, Peacemaking Circles... But having a clue is only a seed. There's so much more for that to mature into something that bears fruit in real people's lives. Well how does all of this relate to the concept of participant-facilitator? Making a living doing this space-holding stuff really demands we let go of what we think our clients need to do. The client is the stakeholder. It's best we only hold space for them (facilitate). We most certainly don't get a vote. Yet it's not really true we have no stake or "skin-in-the-game". If our clients do well, so do we. To your original question: /*As each of us closely watches our system(s) of interest, and supports emerging changes/adaptations that we consider positive, to what degree should we introduce our own ideas of where and how the system should proceed? */I've got answers as well as questions about this topic, but I've already typed too much. I'm curious. What are your thoughts? Thanks again for opening this topic. And thanks to Harrison Owen and Tony Budak for building the initial invitations for this topic.     Harold /* */ On 5/7/23 1:30 PM, John Warinner via OSList wrote: > Hi Harold, > > Thanks for sharing your perspectives. > > Yes, the role of Participant-Facilitator is familiar to me and akin to > what I meant by Stakeholder-Spaceholder.  Most of my activity with > OS/dialogue is also spent in that realm. > > I am sensitive to your question about the degree of interest of others > in this dialogue. > > I suggested to Tony Budak that we may want to utilize his weekly > Learning Cafe platform to provide those interested with a live, > interactive dialogue on this topic. > > Please let me know if you are aware of any other options for taking > this conversation off-line out of respect for the OSList members who > are not interested to observe and/or participate. > > Thank you, > JohnW > > -- Harold Shinsato harold@shinsato.com https://shinsato.com

 Harold

I must disagree with you on your last point Harold. You were off to a good start, you did definitely not write too much. On Mon, 8 May 2023, 22:45 Harold Shinsato via OSList, <everyone@oslist.org> wrote: > Hi John, > > There are many opportunities to invite and initiate around this theme of > "participant-facilitator" or "stakeholder-spaceholder". Probably an > overwhelming number of options. What might work? It does seem at least a > few here are interested. At least for now, I'd love to continue here on the > OSList. > > This topic really took off with Tony Budak's invitation around furthering > Harrison Owen's attempt to open space for an 8 billion person conversation. > His original invite to 8 billion in January 2019 was spoken via Zoom to > Opening Space for Peace and High Performance in NYC's International House, > an annual open space. His talk and invitation to 8 billion people was > published as a video - https://youtu.be/M_6dPhwJqbI. (In many ways, it > was one of Harrison's best talks, I highly recommend it!) > > Harrison has helped me understand that space is already open. I'll > paraphrase him poorly I'm sure, but our job with that knowledge is just to > increase our awareness of space already being open. We can always invite. > And to be okay with no one responding. If I still care, I can still move > the work forward, even by myself. Or with a small group. Most human > advances started with individuals and small groups. > > Tony's comments about peripheral small groups advancing the conversation > relates in this way to the topic of participant-facilitator. I've have > experienced and deeply resonate with what Tony summarized from the Damon > Centola work. Such insights are especially helpful to those who see > themselves as both spaceholders and stakeholders on this OSList forum. > > But what norms and behavior changes are really needed? A big aspect of > Harrison's perspective on this (and I haven't asked permission for any of > my paraphrasing, and I'd be happy to be corrected), is that no one of us > actually really has a clue. If they say they know, they're deceiving us, > themselves, or both. > > Although I resonate with the truth of essential human individual > cluelessness, I've also encountered too often how fequently some one > actually has a clue, but no one's listening. At least for quite a while, at > the cost of much human suffering. > > I continue to feel this way about OST. Maybe I'm deluding myself, but I've > seen such amazing things happen when people are invited into Open Space. I > can tell so much would be better if more of these invitations would happen, > like ten years ago. > > Open Space has been very helpful for me to get closer to those "people of > the clue". I've encountered so many things at OST events that I can tell > would make a key difference. For example Permaculture, Authentic Agile, > Family Constellations, Ecstatic Dance, Peacemaking Circles... > > But having a clue is only a seed. There's so much more for that to mature > into something that bears fruit in real people's lives. > > Well how does all of this relate to the concept of > participant-facilitator? Making a living doing this space-holding stuff > really demands we let go of what we think our clients need to do. The > client is the stakeholder. It's best we only hold space for them > (facilitate). We most certainly don't get a vote. Yet it's not really true > we have no stake or "skin-in-the-game". If our clients do well, so do we. > > To your original question: > > > > *As each of us closely watches our system(s) of interest, and > supports emerging changes/adaptations that we consider positive, to what > degree should we introduce our own ideas of where and how the system should > proceed? *I've got answers as well as questions about this topic, but > I've already typed too much. I'm curious. What are your thoughts? > > Thanks again for opening this topic. And thanks to Harrison Owen and Tony > Budak for building the initial invitations for this topic. > > Harold > > On 5/7/23 1:30 PM, John Warinner via OSList wrote: > > Hi Harold, > > Thanks for sharing your perspectives. > > Yes, the role of Participant-Facilitator is familiar to me and akin to > what I meant by Stakeholder-Spaceholder. Most of my activity with > OS/dialogue is also spent in that realm. > > I am sensitive to your question about the degree of interest of others in > this dialogue. > > I suggested to Tony Budak that we may want to utilize his weekly Learning > Cafe platform to provide those interested with a live, interactive dialogue > on this topic. > > Please let me know if you are aware of any other options for taking this > conversation off-line out of respect for the OSList members who are not > interested to observe and/or participate. > > Thank you, > JohnW > > > > -- > Harold Shinsato > harold@shinsato.com > https://shinsato.com > _______________________________________________ > OSList mailing list -- everyone@oslist.org > To unsubscribe send an email to everyone-leave@oslist.org >

 Harold

1. Apologies to all for my clumsiness in initiating this dialogue. With this post, I am attempting to pull Kari, Harold, and the rest of us into one conversation under one unified email thread! Kari's posts from the other thread inserted below for posterity. 2. Harold, I agree with Kari. I enjoyed and appreciate your post. You definitely did not write too much! Good stuff. Well stated. Please keep it flowing! 3. Back to responding to my own question (as Harold requested): *As each of us closely watches our system(s) of interest, and supports emerging changes/adaptations that we consider positive, to what degree should we introduce our own ideas of where and how the system should proceed?* I will offer four related thoughts: (a) We all have "stakes" in the systems we care about. We all also have unique perspectives that are relevant to the systems we participate in. As long as our intentions are genuinely/sincerely aimed toward what we perceive to be "the Common Good," I believe we have a responsibility to engage and share our perspectives and suggestions. To me it is not a question of "if" but "when" and "how." (b) When we are balancing Sponsor/Facilitator/Participant roles, one strategy is to WAIT (at the risk of biting off the tips of our tongues) to provide others the open space to say (in their words) what we wish to say (in our words). Sometimes this happens... and it is delightful! Other times, we WAIT until we reach a point where it appears to us that what we wish to say has not, and will not, be said by others... AND we fear that the Common Good will be underserved without this input... THEN I believe it is serving the Common Good to share the perspective that we have to share. (c) One real-life example. I am a hydrologist. I have collaborated with other people to sponsor, organize and faciliate an Open Space dialogue about the water that flows through a basin that I care about. As I participate in the dialogue, I recognize a prevailing paradigm focused on the "scarcity" of water flowing through the system. Lots of comments along the lines of, "there isn't enough for everyone," hence the need for change. Because of the prevailing "scarcity" paradigm, the dialogue drifts toward "haves and have nots," "giving and taking", "givers and getters," and "winners and losers." I WAIT for someone to question, "How much water is there?" "What is the evidence that "there isn't enough for everyone"?" But this question does not arise. I develop the feeling that I may be one of the few participants in the space that "knows" the numbers... and detects the paradigm in play. The Sponsor part of me wants to optimize the Common Good. The Facilitator part of me wants to keep the space open for the other participants. The Participant part of me wants to share something along the lines of, "What if there IS enough for everyone?"... or "I believe there IS enough for everyone. Our average annual supply is X. Our average annual consumptive use is Y. Z flows through the watershed in an average year... and Z is two-thirds of X." I have learned (in time) that few (if any) of the other participants "know" this. I have also learned (in time) that some may not believe it when I share it with them. But it is my conviction because I have personally studied the data and developed this perspective/belief. *I am being careful here NOT to say that I "know" it is "True."* (d) One more idea before I drop the mic, because I think it is important and relevant. How often do we participate in dialogue as a small fraction of ourselves? Who am I in this space, here and now? Am I the caring Sponsor? Am I the judicious Facilitator? Am I the passionate Participant? Am I the Community Citizen? Am I the son of the fighter pilot (father) or the sociologist (mother). Am I the Agricultural Engineer or the Ecological Designer... or am I the Poet that only my family knows? As Father Time continues to herd me toward my 60th birthday, I have started to believe that this "being a small fraction of ourselves" may be one of the "seeds" at the root of our problem(s). Thanks again for this Open Space! JW *John Warinner*(541) 815-4103 johnwarinner@gmail.com <johnw@watersolving.com> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 4:11 PM Kári Gunnarsson via OSList < everyone@oslist.org> wrote: > I must disagree with you on your last point Harold. You were off to a good > start, you did definitely not write too much. > > > > On Mon, 8 May 2023, 22:45 Harold Shinsato via OSList, <everyone@oslist.org> > wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >> There are many opportunities to invite and initiate around this theme of >> "participant-facilitator" or "stakeholder-spaceholder". Probably an >> overwhelming number of options. What might work? It does seem at least a >> few here are interested. At least for now, I'd love to continue here on the >> OSList. >> >> This topic really took off with Tony Budak's invitation around furthering >> Harrison Owen's attempt to open space for an 8 billion person conversation. >> His original invite to 8 billion in January 2019 was spoken via Zoom to >> Opening Space for Peace and High Performance in NYC's International House, >> an annual open space. His talk and invitation to 8 billion people was >> published as a video - https://youtu.be/M_6dPhwJqbI. (In many ways, it >> was one of Harrison's best talks, I highly recommend it!) >> >> Harrison has helped me understand that space is already open. I'll >> paraphrase him poorly I'm sure, but our job with that knowledge is just to >> increase our awareness of space already being open. We can always invite. >> And to be okay with no one responding. If I still care, I can still move >> the work forward, even by myself. Or with a small group. Most human >> advances started with individuals and small groups. >> >> Tony's comments about peripheral small groups advancing the conversation >> relates in this way to the topic of participant-facilitator. I've have >> experienced and deeply resonate with what Tony summarized from the Damon >> Centola work. Such insights are especially helpful to those who see >> themselves as both spaceholders and stakeholders on this OSList forum. >> >> But what norms and behavior changes are really needed? A big aspect of >> Harrison's perspective on this (and I haven't asked permission for any of >> my paraphrasing, and I'd be happy to be corrected), is that no one of us >> actually really has a clue. If they say they know, they're deceiving us, >> themselves, or both. >> >> Although I resonate with the truth of essential human individual >> cluelessness, I've also encountered too often how fequently some one >> actually has a clue, but no one's listening. At least for quite a while, at >> the cost of much human suffering. >> >> I continue to feel this way about OST. Maybe I'm deluding myself, but >> I've seen such amazing things happen when people are invited into Open >> Space. I can tell so much would be better if more of these invitations >> would happen, like ten years ago. >> >> Open Space has been very helpful for me to get closer to those "people of >> the clue". I've encountered so many things at OST events that I can tell >> would make a key difference. For example Permaculture, Authentic Agile, >> Family Constellations, Ecstatic Dance, Peacemaking Circles... >> >> But having a clue is only a seed. There's so much more for that to mature >> into something that bears fruit in real people's lives. >> >> Well how does all of this relate to the concept of >> participant-facilitator? Making a living doing this space-holding stuff >> really demands we let go of what we think our clients need to do. The >> client is the stakeholder. It's best we only hold space for them >> (facilitate). We most certainly don't get a vote. Yet it's not really true >> we have no stake or "skin-in-the-game". If our clients do well, so do we. >> >> To your original question: >> >> >> >> *As each of us closely watches our system(s) of interest, and >> supports emerging changes/adaptations that we consider positive, to what >> degree should we introduce our own ideas of where and how the system should >> proceed? *I've got answers as well as questions about this topic, but >> I've already typed too much. I'm curious. What are your thoughts? >> >> Thanks again for opening this topic. And thanks to Harrison Owen and Tony >> Budak for building the initial invitations for this topic. >> >> Harold >> > ================================================= *JW INSERTING KARI'S POST(s) HERE... MORE CLUMSINESS, SORRY.* On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 3:39 PM Kári Gunnarsson <kortleggur@gmail.com> wrote: > This conversation brings my thoughts to the facilitator/sponsor divide and > the role of the participant. When I initiate something I feel myself as in > the role of a sponsor, than I can act as a facilitator for the sponsored > theme while at the same time embodying the theme as the sponsor and the > space as the facilitator. To venture forward and also participate is at the > risk of loosing some of the embodiment of the other servises that I am > holding in my presence. > > What are the tricks and structures for this to be more successful? > > On Mon, 8 May 2023, 20:57 John Warinner, <johnwarinner@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thank you Kari. I appreciate your feedback. >> >> I appreciate the forum and opportunity to share my perspective. >> >> I will leave the space open and welcome others to share their >> perspectives. >> >> Thank you, >> JohnW >> >> >> *John Warinner*(541) 815-4103 >> johnwarinner@gmail.com <johnw@watersolving.com> >> >> >> On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 1:35 PM Kári Gunnarsson <kortleggur@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi John and Harold >>> >>> I love this conversation and I love for it to stay here. We are a few >>> people here who can form a nexus of caring about this topic. It is a >>> recurring topic for me as it is the role that I usually seek for my >>> interests. >>> >>> The role of Participant-Facilitator >>> >>> >>> *END OF JW INSERT* ================================================= > >> On 5/7/23 1:30 PM, John Warinner via OSList wrote: >> >> Hi Harold, >> >> Thanks for sharing your perspectives. >> >> Yes, the role of Participant-Facilitator is familiar to me and akin to >> what I meant by Stakeholder-Spaceholder. Most of my activity with >> OS/dialogue is also spent in that realm. >> >> I am sensitive to your question about the degree of interest of others in >> this dialogue. >> >> I suggested to Tony Budak that we may want to utilize his weekly Learning >> Cafe platform to provide those interested with a live, interactive dialogue >> on this topic. >> >> Please let me know if you are aware of any other options for taking this >> conversation off-line out of respect for the OSList members who are not >> interested to observe and/or participate. >> >> Thank you, >> JohnW >> >> >> >> -- >> Harold Shinsato >> harold@shinsato.com >> https://shinsato.com >> _______________________________________________ >> OSList mailing list -- everyone@oslist.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to everyone-leave@oslist.org >> > _______________________________________________ > OSList mailing list -- everyone@oslist.org > To unsubscribe send an email to everyone-leave@oslist.org >

 Harold

Smiles I should start with some framing, the question I am pondering is about participation of the "other" participants and their role in the shared open space responsibility of holding, facilitating and sponsoring as well as participating. My hypothesis is that it is never I alone who embody the roles, no matter what I tell myself, is is a shared responsibility no matter my senior or junior status, the flow is there and the spark lives. My mom, the highschool teacher with more degrees than fingers on one hand, as she is retiring today, said something last week to me that has had me at awe, thinking about the dialogue here. As she tutor mathematics to her classes of senior high school, she has come to the conclusion that her role is to say that she will not be taking question before the students have asked there searing partner first and they agree that they collectively need her attention. Her report is that her students find this annoying at first but later complain that the other teachers don't facilities learning as well as she dose. She sites some brain research where they looked at pictures of the brains of student when listening to a superior or listening to a peer and how, when interacting with peer, more of the centers were open and active. The conclusion here for her is that to open the brain space, the students need to interact with their peers to have a clue about what is going on. I guess this is one of the biologies of the open space Thecnology, it is the opening of our whole being when connecting heart to heart with our peers. To have a structure that not only allows it, not only fosters it and supports it, but blatantly demands it of us. (googling "blatantly" to make sure I got the right word in English... "in an open and unashamed manner", yes, this is a good word). So yeah, a well constructed and facilitated open space would have these elements at play. Possibly creating peers out of people who would otherwise not approach each other as a peers. Now my mind is starting to take over with some academic nonsense that will maybe close the space somewhat, but I can't resist, so I will evoke the ephemeral consept of liminality, where thought a ritualistic space like airport security or other ceremony we loose our sense of aloneness and become togetherness with the other people in the space, peers in experience. Activating the biologies of openness, high performance and high learning. The constraints of the ceremony masters (the airport security staff) we struggle together to get this task collectively done, helping each other grow to the task at hand. So back to the question of the many hats. If I am the designer of the airport, the security staff and the passanger (an experience I actually have in real life with all three) I am maybe a little bit more understanding of the whole process, but I am also reduced and elevated to an equal while also pushing forward from the past and back from the future thinking to the present moment as I go to catch my flight, journeying with my equals, my peers though this paradise or hellscape of my own creation as the designer, the sponsor of the whole experience. "Out of character: I love telling this airport story as a allegory of liminality, I hope you are not tired of hearing it" One more understanding digested and thank you John and Harold for Holding this topic in this space. Well it's time for bed now for me. I will try to find the brain research citation, I look forward to youall reactions. This is on the cusp of something interesting. A way of being both open and space perhaps. With love, :Kári the geographer P.s. John, no apologies needed, the more of the clumsiness, the more of the equalness I guess. A good ingredient for a peer connection, I always try to add a little clumsiness, without it it would not be spiced right. On Tue, 9 May 2023, 00:59 John Warinner, <johnwarinner@gmail.com> wrote: > 1. Apologies to all for my clumsiness in initiating this dialogue. With > this post, I am attempting to pull Kari, Harold, and the rest of us into > one conversation under one unified email thread! Kari's posts from the > other thread inserted below for posterity. > > 2. Harold, I agree with Kari. I enjoyed and appreciate your post. You > definitely did not write too much! Good stuff. Well stated. Please keep > it flowing! > > 3. Back to responding to my own question (as Harold requested): > > *As each of us closely watches our system(s) of interest, and > supports emerging changes/adaptations that we consider positive, to what > degree should we introduce our own ideas of where and how the system should > proceed?* > > > I will offer four related thoughts: > > (a) We all have "stakes" in the systems we care about. We all also have > unique perspectives that are relevant to the systems we participate in. As > long as our intentions are genuinely/sincerely aimed toward what we > perceive to be "the Common Good," I believe we have a responsibility to > engage and share our perspectives and suggestions. To me it is not a > question of "if" but "when" and "how." > > (b) When we are balancing Sponsor/Facilitator/Participant roles, one > strategy is to WAIT (at the risk of biting off the tips of our tongues) to > provide others the open space to say (in their words) what we wish to say > (in our words). Sometimes this happens... and it is delightful! Other > times, we WAIT until we reach a point where it appears to us that what we > wish to say has not, and will not, be said by others... AND we fear that > the Common Good will be underserved without this input... THEN I believe it > is serving the Common Good to share the perspective that we have to share. > > (c) One real-life example. I am a hydrologist. I have collaborated with > other people to sponsor, organize and faciliate an Open Space dialogue > about the water that flows through a basin that I care about. As I > participate in the dialogue, I recognize a prevailing paradigm focused on > the "scarcity" of water flowing through the system. Lots of comments along > the lines of, "there isn't enough for everyone," hence the need for > change. Because of the prevailing "scarcity" paradigm, the dialogue drifts > toward "haves and have nots," "giving and taking", "givers and getters," > and "winners and losers." I WAIT for someone to question, "How much water > is there?" "What is the evidence that "there isn't enough for everyone"?" > But this question does not arise. I develop the feeling that I may be one > of the few participants in the space that "knows" the numbers... and > detects the paradigm in play. The Sponsor part of me wants to optimize the > Common Good. The Facilitator part of me wants to keep the space open for > the other participants. The Participant part of me wants to share > something along the lines of, "What if there IS enough for everyone?"... or > "I believe there IS enough for everyone. Our average annual supply is X. > Our average annual consumptive use is Y. Z flows through the watershed in > an average year... and Z is two-thirds of X." I have learned (in time) > that few (if any) of the other participants "know" this. I have also > learned (in time) that some may not believe it when I share it with them. > But it is my conviction because I have personally studied the data and > developed this perspective/belief. *I am being careful here NOT to say > that I "know" it is "True."* > > (d) One more idea before I drop the mic, because I think it is important > and relevant. How often do we participate in dialogue as a small fraction > of ourselves? Who am I in this space, here and now? Am I the caring > Sponsor? Am I the judicious Facilitator? Am I the passionate > Participant? Am I the Community Citizen? Am I the son of the fighter > pilot (father) or the sociologist (mother). Am I the Agricultural Engineer > or the Ecological Designer... or am I the Poet that only my family knows? > As Father Time continues to herd me toward my 60th birthday, I have started > to believe that this "being a small fraction of ourselves" may be one of > the "seeds" at the root of our problem(s). > > Thanks again for this Open Space! > JW > > > *John Warinner*(541) 815-4103 > johnwarinner@gmail.com <johnw@watersolving.com> > > > On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 4:11 PM Kári Gunnarsson via OSList < > everyone@oslist.org> wrote: > >> I must disagree with you on your last point Harold. You were off to a >> good start, you did definitely not write too much. >> >> >> >> On Mon, 8 May 2023, 22:45 Harold Shinsato via OSList, < >> everyone@oslist.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi John, >>> >>> There are many opportunities to invite and initiate around this theme of >>> "participant-facilitator" or "stakeholder-spaceholder". Probably an >>> overwhelming number of options. What might work? It does seem at least a >>> few here are interested. At least for now, I'd love to continue here on the >>> OSList. >>> >>> This topic really took off with Tony Budak's invitation around >>> furthering Harrison Owen's attempt to open space for an 8 billion person >>> conversation. His original invite to 8 billion in January 2019 was spoken >>> via Zoom to Opening Space for Peace and High Performance in NYC's >>> International House, an annual open space. His talk and invitation to 8 >>> billion people was published as a video - https://youtu.be/M_6dPhwJqbI. >>> (In many ways, it was one of Harrison's best talks, I highly recommend it!) >>> >>> Harrison has helped me understand that space is already open. I'll >>> paraphrase him poorly I'm sure, but our job with that knowledge is just to >>> increase our awareness of space already being open. We can always invite. >>> And to be okay with no one responding. If I still care, I can still move >>> the work forward, even by myself. Or with a small group. Most human >>> advances started with individuals and small groups. >>> >>> Tony's comments about peripheral small groups advancing the conversation >>> relates in this way to the topic of participant-facilitator. I've have >>> experienced and deeply resonate with what Tony summarized from the Damon >>> Centola work. Such insights are especially helpful to those who see >>> themselves as both spaceholders and stakeholders on this OSList forum. >>> >>> But what norms and behavior changes are really needed? A big aspect of >>> Harrison's perspective on this (and I haven't asked permission for any of >>> my paraphrasing, and I'd be happy to be corrected), is that no one of us >>> actually really has a clue. If they say they know, they're deceiving us, >>> themselves, or both. >>> >>> Although I resonate with the truth of essential human individual >>> cluelessness, I've also encountered too often how fequently some one >>> actually has a clue, but no one's listening. At least for quite a while, at >>> the cost of much human suffering. >>> >>> I continue to feel this way about OST. Maybe I'm deluding myself, but >>> I've seen such amazing things happen when people are invited into Open >>> Space. I can tell so much would be better if more of these invitations >>> would happen, like ten years ago. >>> >>> Open Space has been very helpful for me to get closer to those "people >>> of the clue". I've encountered so many things at OST events that I can tell >>> would make a key difference. For example Permaculture, Authentic Agile, >>> Family Constellations, Ecstatic Dance, Peacemaking Circles... >>> >>> But having a clue is only a seed. There's so much more for that to >>> mature into something that bears fruit in real people's lives. >>> >>> Well how does all of this relate to the concept of >>> participant-facilitator? Making a living doing this space-holding stuff >>> really demands we let go of what we think our clients need to do. The >>> client is the stakeholder. It's best we only hold space for them >>> (facilitate). We most certainly don't get a vote. Yet it's not really true >>> we have no stake or "skin-in-the-game". If our clients do well, so do we. >>> >>> To your original question: >>> >>> >>> >>> *As each of us closely watches our system(s) of interest, and >>> supports emerging changes/adaptations that we consider positive, to what >>> degree should we introduce our own ideas of where and how the system should >>> proceed? *I've got answers as well as questions about this topic, but >>> I've already typed too much. I'm curious. What are your thoughts? >>> >>> Thanks again for opening this topic. And thanks to Harrison Owen and >>> Tony Budak for building the initial invitations for this topic. >>> >>> Harold >>> >> > ================================================= > *JW INSERTING KARI'S POST(s) HERE... MORE CLUMSINESS, SORRY.* > > On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 3:39 PM Kári Gunnarsson <kortleggur@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> This conversation brings my thoughts to the facilitator/sponsor divide >> and the role of the participant. When I initiate something I feel myself as >> in the role of a sponsor, than I can act as a facilitator for the sponsored >> theme while at the same time embodying the theme as the sponsor and the >> space as the facilitator. To venture forward and also participate is at the >> risk of loosing some of the embodiment of the other servises that I am >> holding in my presence. >> >> What are the tricks and structures for this to be more successful? >> >> On Mon, 8 May 2023, 20:57 John Warinner, <johnwarinner@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Thank you Kari. I appreciate your feedback. >>> >>> I appreciate the forum and opportunity to share my perspective. >>> >>> I will leave the space open and welcome others to share their >>> perspectives. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> JohnW >>> >>> >>> *John Warinner*(541) 815-4103 >>> johnwarinner@gmail.com <johnw@watersolving.com> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 1:35 PM Kári Gunnarsson <kortleggur@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi John and Harold >>>> >>>> I love this conversation and I love for it to stay here. We are a few >>>> people here who can form a nexus of caring about this topic. It is a >>>> recurring topic for me as it is the role that I usually seek for my >>>> interests. >>>> >>>> The role of Participant-Facilitator >>>> >>>> >>>> *END OF JW INSERT* > ================================================= > >> >>> On 5/7/23 1:30 PM, John Warinner via OSList wrote: >>> >>> Hi Harold, >>> >>> Thanks for sharing your perspectives. >>> >>> Yes, the role of Participant-Facilitator is familiar to me and akin to >>> what I meant by Stakeholder-Spaceholder. Most of my activity with >>> OS/dialogue is also spent in that realm. >>> >>> I am sensitive to your question about the degree of interest of others >>> in this dialogue. >>> >>> I suggested to Tony Budak that we may want to utilize his weekly >>> Learning Cafe platform to provide those interested with a live, interactive >>> dialogue on this topic. >>> >>> Please let me know if you are aware of any other options for taking this >>> conversation off-line out of respect for the OSList members who are not >>> interested to observe and/or participate. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> JohnW >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Harold Shinsato >>> harold@shinsato.com >>> https://shinsato.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OSList mailing list -- everyone@oslist.org >>> To unsubscribe send an email to everyone-leave@oslist.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSList mailing list -- everyone@oslist.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to everyone-leave@oslist.org >> >

 /*As each of us closely watches our system(s) of interest, and
 supports emerging changes/adaptations that we consider positive,
 to what degree should we introduce our own ideas of where and how
 the system should proceed?*/

 I will offer four related thoughts:

 (a) We all have "stakes" in the systems we care about. We all also
 have unique perspectives that are relevant to the systems we
 participate in.  As long as our intentions are genuinely/sincerely
 aimed toward what we perceive to be "the Common Good," I believe
 we have a responsibility to engage and share our perspectives and
 suggestions.  To me it is not a question of "if" but "when" and "how."

 (b) When we are balancing Sponsor/Facilitator/Participant roles,
 one strategy is to WAIT (at the risk of biting off the tips of our
 tongues) to provide others the open space to say (in their words)
 what we wish to say (in our words). Sometimes this happens... and
 it is delightful!  Other times, we WAIT until we reach a point
 where it appears to us that what we wish to say has not, and will
 not, be said by others... AND we fear that the Common Good will be
 underserved without this input... THEN I believe it is serving the
 Common Good to share the perspective that we have to share.

 (c) One real-life example.  I am a hydrologist.  I have
 collaborated with other people to sponsor, organize and faciliate
 an Open Space dialogue about the water that flows through a basin
 that I care about.  As I participate in the dialogue, I recognize
 a prevailing paradigm focused on the "scarcity" of water flowing
 through the system.  Lots of comments along the lines of, "there
 isn't enough for everyone," hence the need for change.  Because of
 the prevailing "scarcity" paradigm, the dialogue drifts toward
 "haves and have nots," "giving and taking", "givers and getters,"
 and "winners and losers."  I WAIT for someone to question, "How
 much water is there?"  "What is the evidence that "there isn't
 enough for everyone"?"  But this question does not arise.  I
 develop the feeling that I may be one of the few participants in
 the space that "knows" the numbers... and detects the paradigm in
 play.  The Sponsor part of me wants to optimize the Common Good. 
 The Facilitator part of me wants to keep the space open for the
 other participants.  The Participant part of me wants to share
 something along the lines of, "What if there IS enough for
 everyone?"... or "I believe there IS enough for everyone.  Our
 average annual supply is X.  Our average annual consumptive use is
 Y.  Z flows through the watershed in an average year... and Z is
 two-thirds of X."  I have learned (in time) that few (if any) of
 the other participants "know" this.  I have also learned (in time)
 that some may not believe it when I share it with them.  But it is
 my conviction because I have personally studied the data and
 developed this perspective/belief. /I am being careful here NOT to
 say that I "know" it is "True."/

 (d)  One more idea before I drop the mic, because I think it is
 important and relevant.  How often do we participate in dialogue
 as a small fraction of ourselves?  Who am I in this space, here
 and now?  Am I the caring Sponsor?  Am I the judicious
 Facilitator?  Am I the passionate Participant?  Am I the Community
 Citizen?  Am I the son of the fighter pilot (father) or the
 sociologist (mother).  Am I the Agricultural Engineer or the
 Ecological Designer... or am I the Poet that only my family
 knows?  As Father Time continues to herd me toward my 60th
 birthday, I have started to believe that this "being a small
 fraction of ourselves" may be one of the "seeds" at the root of
 our problem(s).

Hi John, No worries about the clumsiness. Luckily all old messages are viewable and searchable here. https://oslist.org/empathy/list/everyone.oslist.org I tend to delete most of the email thread from my replies because eventually the message to the OSList will get too big and will get blocked by the 1 megabyte limit. (We need the limit to help prevent us from being tagged a "spammer".) This awareness that we all have "stakes" in our client systems seems critical. Absolute neutrality? I doubt it's possible. If anything, we were drawn to our clients because we cared about them as well as what they care about. What do we do with the knowledge that comes from caring? Is it a kindness to withhold something that might help? In short, most of the time the answer is yes, we should hold back. Especially if we're doing Open Space, but not only then. Why? First of all, usually we don't have permission. Unwanted help is abuse. Second is the one you mentioned already. The temptation is to offer it too quickly. Even if the client wants the help, did we really understand what's going on? There are many studied cognitive biases and effects related to this. There's the Dunning-Kruger effect where people who are less competent often overestimate their competence. That effect has a corollary for those who have some mastery, in that we wisely underestimate our competence because we know how vast is what we don't yet know. Maybe this is why Harrison steps back entirely. We become much more humble. This second reason is why I find it really helpful to do an authentic open space for a client system, and not advocate anything. Just listen, observe and learn. Help after that is more likely to really help. This last reason I list might be the most important. As Harrison would say, what we do for our clients, they won't do for themselves. A related awareness to this is the Navy submarine captain who wrote a book about stepping back as the leader. Stepping back helps spread leadership and competence to the people under his command. They usually know the sub better than him anyway, especially in this story (https://youtu.be/HYXH2XUfhfo). Given all that, John, it sounds like you know what you're doing in how you are operating. I very much enjoyed your systems awareness of water as a hydrologist, and your patience holding something important. Finding the sharing balance is one I struggle with very much. Maybe it's better to give away the goods in the face of obvious ignorance, but my own experience is usually lightly planting seeds around the edges might be more effective. But I'd agree with the idea, sometimes it is better to just hand off the responsibility to the listener, and let it go. Like Jesus told his apostles, shake the dust off your feet if the town doesn't receive what you have to offer. And I'm totally with you about bring our whole self to the dialog. How can we really care if we compartmentalize? There are lots of folks here on the OSList that help teach how to bring the whole self as an OS Facilitator. I've benefited from Genuine Contact training. And there are lots of people teaching this beyond the OSList as well. How have you practiced not just bringing a "small fraction of ourselves" to dialog?     Regards,     Harold On 5/8/23 6:59 PM, John Warinner via OSList wrote: > > /*As each of us closely watches our system(s) of interest, and > supports emerging changes/adaptations that we consider positive, > to what degree should we introduce our own ideas of where and how > the system should proceed?*/ > > /* > */ > > I will offer four related thoughts: > > (a) We all have "stakes" in the systems we care about. We all also > have unique perspectives that are relevant to the systems we > participate in.  As long as our intentions are genuinely/sincerely > aimed toward what we perceive to be "the Common Good," I believe > we have a responsibility to engage and share our perspectives and > suggestions.  To me it is not a question of "if" but "when" and "how." > > (b) When we are balancing Sponsor/Facilitator/Participant roles, > one strategy is to WAIT (at the risk of biting off the tips of our > tongues) to provide others the open space to say (in their words) > what we wish to say (in our words). Sometimes this happens... and > it is delightful!  Other times, we WAIT until we reach a point > where it appears to us that what we wish to say has not, and will > not, be said by others... AND we fear that the Common Good will be > underserved without this input... THEN I believe it is serving the > Common Good to share the perspective that we have to share. > > (c) One real-life example.  I am a hydrologist.  I have > collaborated with other people to sponsor, organize and faciliate > an Open Space dialogue about the water that flows through a basin > that I care about.  As I participate in the dialogue, I recognize > a prevailing paradigm focused on the "scarcity" of water flowing > through the system.  Lots of comments along the lines of, "there > isn't enough for everyone," hence the need for change.  Because of > the prevailing "scarcity" paradigm, the dialogue drifts toward > "haves and have nots," "giving and taking", "givers and getters," > and "winners and losers."  I WAIT for someone to question, "How > much water is there?"  "What is the evidence that "there isn't > enough for everyone"?"  But this question does not arise.  I > develop the feeling that I may be one of the few participants in > the space that "knows" the numbers... and detects the paradigm in > play.  The Sponsor part of me wants to optimize the Common Good.  > The Facilitator part of me wants to keep the space open for the > other participants.  The Participant part of me wants to share > something along the lines of, "What if there IS enough for > everyone?"... or "I believe there IS enough for everyone.  Our > average annual supply is X.  Our average annual consumptive use is > Y.  Z flows through the watershed in an average year... and Z is > two-thirds of X."  I have learned (in time) that few (if any) of > the other participants "know" this.  I have also learned (in time) > that some may not believe it when I share it with them.  But it is > my conviction because I have personally studied the data and > developed this perspective/belief. /I am being careful here NOT to > say that I "know" it is "True."/ > > (d)  One more idea before I drop the mic, because I think it is > important and relevant.  How often do we participate in dialogue > as a small fraction of ourselves?  Who am I in this space, here > and now?  Am I the caring Sponsor?  Am I the judicious > Facilitator?  Am I the passionate Participant?  Am I the Community > Citizen?  Am I the son of the fighter pilot (father) or the > sociologist (mother).  Am I the Agricultural Engineer or the > Ecological Designer... or am I the Poet that only my family > knows?  As Father Time continues to herd me toward my 60th > birthday, I have started to believe that this "being a small > fraction of ourselves" may be one of the "seeds" at the root of > our problem(s). > > Thanks again for this Open Space! > JW > > *John Warinner > *(541) 815-4103* > *johnwarinner@gmail.com > > -- Harold Shinsato harold@shinsato.com https://shinsato.com