minor expansion on mash-up: we discussed this in prep for the July 06 gathering, and I think it's still a good idea... in essence we're talking about providing a space for cross-fertilization across networks - cutting edge of open space

(side q: do we use July basedon tradition, or for spacing between other events?)

tradition - timing can certainly be an open question - at this point nothing is decided

How do we feel about using Open Space and some Appreciative Inquiry?

i'm partial to the Spanish Inquisition. anything Python.

Shall we tie you to the comfy chairs, Michael? ;^)

How would Appreciative Inquire and Open Space work together, Julie? I really am not that familiar with Appreciative Inquiry.

Shouldn't we decide what our event is for before we settle on a format?

(of course no worries if there's also a conversation to be had about how AI and OST work together, but is this the best place for that? maybe it is, and if so, please carry on)

Tell you what, Ted, if someone could give me a quick definition of AI, then the rest might not be necessary. OR if this turns into a conversation of more than ten posts, then I will post a thread about it at Open Space Research or wherever it's deemed most appropriate.

Julie's the best AI definer, as she understand AI to be a whole conference kind of process. I've never experienced that.

For me AI is a concept, that I have experienced. The idea is that questions influence their own answers, so asking questions in an appreciative manner creates a different kind of future. Asking "Do you like Chicago sports?" leads nowhere if the person isn't a sports fan. An appreciative version of the same question is "What's your favorite thing about Chicago sports?" Then the answer can be, "When the World Series comes around and the lakefront is empty, it's so peaceful. I love it when baseball fans go to the games or to the bars."

My take on it is the background behind what Julie's talking about, which is a process that she'll have to tell us about.

Ted, I'm reminded of the story you told me about being at a Chicago conference that involved two groups of people that were focused on their own thing. As such, no one merged in the first day. Then, since you're the brilliant man you are, you posed a question for a session on the second day that actually brought both groups together. (Sorry if I got some of the facts wrong.)

The O.net conference seemed to have so much to cover and so little time as it was. If we bring in another group, I see two things happening:

1. the problem is perpetuated, and we have little time to cover a wide range of issues.
2. we narrow the focus of the event in a way the incapsulates the issues that relate only to BOTH groups in the conference. As such, we are able to get in depth within the sessions and discussions as well as intermingle.

As for AI, it might be a good way to get to meet and know people at the very beginning as an ice breaker, if nothing else. Keep in mind, though, that I wasn't there Friday of 06, so I don't know how you all broke the ice.

Another take on this whole meeting concept. Let's say we pose the question: What is the outcome we seek? What will happen afterwards? What is the bottomline, so to speak? Community? Talk? Working friendships? Whatever comes up? "Whatever happens is the only thing that could have happened?" Or are we getting closer to a linear kind of process where the outcome desired might drive the organizing the meeting?

If you asked me in one sentence where the opportunity is, I would say: "Connect established giving networks with the emerging online networks so that more people get plugged into programs where they can make a real contribution online and off."

Seen in that way, the key players would be open space folks, o.net types, community foundations, and the nonprofits that community foundations support. How can the techies get the charities into the 21st century, with a website, say? How can the techies get plugged into local volunteer or leadership roles? How can foundations use Peter's work to energize funders? Each person might leave with at least three valuable connections and at least one real world action opportunity, in concert with others.

I'm actually not that interested in the mashup idea this year. I'm more interested in a pure "The World We Want" kind of thing. Clearly o/net people are interested in that idea, and all would be welcome, it wouldn't be about excluding anyone, but the mashup idea where two or more networks maintain their identities doesn't really appeal to me. The World We Want feels like a unifying theme that could bring diverse people together, seeking ways to work together on "The World We Want."

In terms of icebreakers, I've never seen them used in an open space. They're generally not necessary because people are passionate about the theme and thus are excited to get right to work, and they get to know each other that way.

When I came back from the July conference, I told people as much as I could about the experience and relayed that I achieved every goal I'd had. So many people said, "Yeah, but what's going to happen now that you and everyone else are back in the real world."

So far, what's happened for me is that I've:

1. gotten newspaper and magazine subscriptions
2. started plans for a New Year's Virginia Beach conference
3. tossed around going to Mexico for the Taxco conference
4. told people I'm writing a book based on information I shared and Rich Henry and others said I need to share with the world.

What I haven't done is:

1. start writing the book
2. keep in close contact with all of the people I wish I had ... though we all have communicated at least once, so I might be being hard on myself
3. change the world
4. keep up on anyone's projects except EFN.

What I'd like to see happen at the next conference I attend/help generate is:

1. everyone who wants to do so state their individual goals
2. a voluntary buddy system that works on helping each other achieve those goals during the conference and afterwards
3. beautiful connections, collaberations, and ideas, as I saw and experienced at the July 06 conference.

I'm feeling this HUGE sense of community and love right now. Here we are starting to plan something that's 11 months from now because we want to get it just right for EVERYONE, not just ourselves.

Pats on the back and even bigger hugs all around.

Kim: are the newspaper and magazine subscriptions part of a larger plan?

Phil: I like that approach

Ted: I'm not for bringing networks together so they can maintain their identities.

They're part of caring about the world as a community again and getting back in touch with what's going on. After I divorced a man who was politics 24/7, I took a year-long siesta from news.

To amend, I always cared about the world; I just didn't always make time for it.

Kim, don't burn yourself out, it is necessary to focus on the things right in front of us, and now you have quite a lot in front of you.

Ted, I agree completely about doing something new and centering it on TWWW. We will have to wait and see whether we can get the community foundations behind it. Between now and then we need to develop a working model for these community foundations to engage the on-line communities. Probably in the comments at TWWW someplace I remember a discussion about how foundation might invest very modest sums of money in projects the spring from grass/net-roots organizing.

Phil seems to suggest two intersecting conference tracts, and I think that might be a very good concept. Ideally we can identify at least one person of Peter's stature to convene the donors conversation, and we would intersect that with Open Space in the middle of it.

I wish I could remember the name Julie had for the phases of the AI process, but basically there are two at the start to open up dreams and visions, and it concludes with forming actions. Julie was suggesting that Open Space would fit in the middle, which sounds excellent.

We have a lot of time before a conference next year, and the question is what can we build in the mean time to create a foundation. What are the next small steps. We need to keep working on EFN infrastructure and launch the first versions of our Internet based services long before the conference.

I am not denying the value of the TWWW conference. However I see it as an EFN project not a generalized ONet thing. I see EFN as a subset of ONet and this feels like Onet is becoming a subset of EFN.

A mash-up would allow each network to exist on it's own terms.

While I think that essentially all of us on ONet are working for the world we want, I think that we do it our own way and not all of those will neccessarily be a part of TWWW Network and not doing it the TWWW Network way, wht ever tht develops to be. If EFN develops a TWWW Network, what is the problem with the ONetters of EFN coming to an ONet conference and sharing thier work just as Martin, Jill, Arthur and EFN did this year? Or, if EFN builds a large TWWW network, what is the problem with that network having their own conference and dealing with their own network concerns?

I dont consider TWWW an EFN project per se... EFN may be picking it up too, but its something bigger than that.

I support TWWW efforts, and have done so outside of EFN framework... also trying to bring more ON folk to the question of TWWW...

TWWW is not (yet?) a network either... it's a question that is there to stir our visioning souls

I second what Michael just wrote. Also, I think both Ted and I are saying that what we are proposing is not the next O-net Chicago conference. I'm not interested in convening another one of those, but that would not prevent anyone who wanted to convene an O-net conference next summer, in Chicago or otherwise.

Gerry, your words of wisdom to me rang quite true considering ... as I was reading what you wrote, I reached behind me to stretch and knocked over a full glass of water. Seemed I wasn't focusing enough on what was in front of me. :)

I'm curious about why you're not interested in another O.net conference. What's the difference between that and a TWWW conference?

I'd like O-net folk to be there and to have a strong hand in planning and getting the word out - I just want it to have the wider frame of TWWW ... otherwise we're repeating a ritual that has some aspect of navel gazing... and a degree of closure that we might not want.

But these two conferences have been super... and were very different from each other ... so I am a little surprised at the expressed disinterest. I think it seems a stronger statement than either Ted or Gerry intend. I think the emphasis is really on something that goes wider... and thats good... but there are so many new people coming in that are ready to join that "something wider". You wont want to miss it...

Yes, Michael, although I say this with understanding that time and attention are limited. I like that O-net conferences are going to be happening in other places. I am saying that I want to work on what Ted is proposing, and would not step forward to convene a second event.

To me, TWWW is both wider and more focussed. The idea is that we will be convening a conversation about and involving local people, foundations, issues and so on. What makes it wider is that we want to create a model that can be replicated in many communities with variations.

Independently of any conferences we want to create on-line supports for TWWW both to suppor the local action fronts and connect the communities and share resources and ideas, to filter the good stuff up and out to wider audiences. A strong action focus locally and a global vision and network of participation.

I see TWWW as much bigger than o/net, potentially. This is not a competition, but TWWW has a focus, while o/net does not. Of course anyone is free to organize an o/net event anywhere they like, even in Chicago. I'd likely attend an o/net conference in Chicago, were it to happen. The thing is, I'd like to see my work here at o/net connect with the larger world, and that's where this discussion comes from. What would that event look like. I wouldn't see any contradiction at all with Martin, Jill, Arthur, Linda and everyone coming to the kind of event we're talking about here with exactly their projets. The point would then be, "How do these things fit into something larger, if they do?" If they don't, no worries. If they do, WOW!

Good, let's continue to focus on the larger. Thats what I have always wanted from o-net also.