Open Space facilitation offers an interesting example of a practice where certification was rejected from the beginning. This is important to me, as Open Space represents to me a profoundly human practice, something deep in our being, and something we can trace aspects of in our collective history. There is something spontaneous to it, which is to say any of us can practice it wherever we are.

Can we benefit from ongoing experience with it, and from interaction with those who are much practiced in it? Certainly. Which is to say it is a proper object of study and reflection. Why not then a certification or credential?

Is it not better to affirm that some practices are of the commons and not of a priestcraft?

I think this ties to conversations on parenting.

I'd like to tie this to questions of trainings in network weaving.

You asked what we wish to incent and create value around; for me there's great value in connection, love, respect, listening to others, vision, openness and concrete partnerships. I want to share works that show leadership; when I'm in good space these ideas, projects and people flow through me.

So how do we create fun ways to keep the flow? I'm making a game of it, playing with the possibilities. Where do these systems flourish now and how can we enhance current spaces?

This is a really important conversation, probably several conversations in the end. Arthur has done a wonderful job of teaching us about the diversity of types of currency, but to really design systems and implement systems of social exchange with them requires a much deeper analysis.

So, let us start by enumerating some of the properties of different kinds of currency. You can look at this different ways, but let me start with a loose taxonomy on some of the key properties.

First seems to be the distinction between money and what I will call signal currencies where the currency represents and intangible flow, information flows. With money, a more tangible flow is being represented by currency tokens or event.

We have money in an exchange or gift transaction. Resources are flowing from one individual or group to another, and currency tokens flow with and/or counter to the resource flow. Gift and exchange currencies differ in how they settle the balances, and they always involve the flows of physical resources in an economy.

The other great branch is the topic of this thread. I far from clear on the complete taxonomy of this space, but much of it is in our experience and from common sense. Lets look at some of the properties of these three:

Certification:

• Very specific, for an exact knowledge set, time period, version, etc.
• Depends on the reputation and sound practices of a certifying authority. You have to ground this chain someplace.
• Useful when little or no relationship exists between the parties.
• The certifying authority serves as a single point of reference for reputations and can provide risk mitigation functions, for example title insurance.
• Systems can provide risk metrics as input to insurance pricing models.

Credentials:

Hmm, this doesn't seem as precise as a certification. Would you agree that these are things like degrees, prior experience and so on? Things that you might put on a resume or CV to validate work you have done and skills you claim.

• Can be formal or informal.

• Formal examples are degrees from universities, or service with public institutions (work at universities, government, military service, etc.).
• Informal can be anything. Works you have done in the past whether for clients or works you can put in a portfolio.

• Experiential in nature. When a university certifies that you received a degree, they are saying that you when through a certain learning process and they measured certain outputs of your work there, but they can't say much about how you actually learned and grew in the process.
• That was then and that, this is now. A credential only says something about the past, and what we want to know is how someone will work out in some future project.
• Typically positive only. Nobody reports their failures if they can avoid it. You may need to explain gaps in your history.

Reputation:

I would say that reputation is those things that attach to an identity. In other words, to have a reputation, you have to have an identity, to be identifiable, and reputation then is an extension of identity to what can be found in public and private communication about that identity.

• Historical -- it is formed from a history of events deemed to be significant by the communicating group involved.
• Contextual -- different domains with different communication modes will have a different reputation for a given identity, even when the identity refers to the same person or organization.

That's more that I have time for right now, please add in discussion or pull parts to a workspace if that works better for collaboration. We need to get this detailed enough to begin to think about the design of currency based systems and social processes. We need to generate research questions that need to be answered to design and implement practical systems.

Let me try to tie this to "building a commons". We are creating a system of information and reputation exchange for the purpose of building a set of assets held in common for the purpose of creating an abundant future.

In that system everyone is welcome/encouraged to participate. Participation is measured through reputation, and reputation is higher or lower as a function of perceived skills/understanding.

The value to be obtained through participation is access to information and the opportunity to develop skills, through which one develops a reputation. Having a reputation in the system would then lead to opportunities to engage in real world projects as we design and implement new systems - changing the system as a whole from one of scarcity to one of abundance.

I like the idea of guilds because those practicing a skill are in the best position to evaluate the skill of another. I agree with Michael that formal credentials or certification may be inappropriate for a particular skill. But the more one participates, the more likely they will have the required skills and the more likely they will be recommended by others as opportunities present themselves.

I'm not sure how, or if we would need, a formal measure of participation/reputation - moving it closer to certification/credentials in Gerry's terms.

It sounds like an election with a severely curtailed electorate. Umm... Did anyone here NOT read "Animal Farm"?...

I am a huge fan of currencies and of course recognize reputation, credentials, and certification as valuable currency tools. This post specifically refers to network weaving in that context.

I am hesitant about credentialing network weavers...it seems to me like it isn't that sort of work and that credentialing might somehow throw off power balances that are delicate and yet critical to doing good network weaving.

I appreciated Gerry's clarifications about credentials, certifications, and reputation. Agreed. I would suggest also that they all are very tied to identity--you need a place to hang your hat(s)...you need an identity to attach a reputation, credential, or certification to.

Who gets what out of it? What would a certification in network weaving enable a network weaver to do more easily? What would a credential in network weaving enable more easily? And, well, what would a currency around reputations (the reputations are already there now--just not visible in currency) enable network weavers to do more easily?

What would having a credential or certification get for the credentialing or certifying body?

How would this impact the ecology of the system? For the better? For the worse?

Christophe Hinton said:

It sounds like an election with a severely curtailed electorate. Umm... Did anyone here NOT read "Animal Farm"?...

Please say more, it is unclear what part of this thread you are reacting to. (Yes I have read Animal Farm)

It was required reading in out freshman English in HS. And yes, say more.

You need to turn this around to some extent and ask who is the consumer of these flows. Who needs to know, and which of these is most useful. I work in an engineering field where certifications and credentialism are the exception rather than the rule. More often than not, the requirement for a certification or specific credential is a requirement by law or by the insurance companies, etc.

The other way to find out whether someone can do what you need them to is to talk to them and ask them to demonstrate the skills in question. How does someone get their first Open Space facilitator gig? Probably you are already becoming part of a community of practice, and are recommended by someone in your network or you co-facilitate with an experienced colleague until the two of you think you are ready to solo.

To faciliate Appreciate Inquiry you do not need a certification, however I share the dates of when I took the AI training and sometimes share the name of the people who taught the coarse on my vita.

Some people like credentials (both those receiving them and those using them to assess experience). With facilitation of groups, keynote speechs, network weaving it is based on one's experience. A new speaker usually commands less fee than an experienced one. Yet, as a speaker (there are no credentials to speak) it helped in the field of education to have a master's degree (in any subject).

I also think in crafting a new trade, such as networkweavers, it will help to design workshops that can set the tone of skills associated with Network Weavers. It also opens doors to partnerships with existing training institutions and their network of weavers.

Possible Network Weaver credentials might be an offering of classes that are associated with a higher pay scale in the field. For example, childcare workers do not need creditials, however, childcare workers with training get paid more. And, within organizations like Head Start they get paid more as they attend more training, which encourages childcare workers to seek out such training.

Who pays (what) for network weaving?

Michael Maranda said:

Who pays (what) for network weaving?

Good question. Traditionally, network weaving is something you do to increase the chances of finding economic opportunities. The same reason one gets certifications or joins a trade association. I have called that 1st dimensional networking.

Grass roots organizing is traditionally about bringing people together to accomplish some specific change around a specific issue. The networker can get paid if they find donors to support the effort. I think of that as 2nd dimensional networking.

In the NetworkWeaversPlan, I proposed local networking around the broader question "What can we do to make our community a better place to live", supported by locally relevant internet portal and communication sites - and a local networker, that could be sponsored by local businesses. I see that as a set of relationships that feeds value back into itself and is therefore 3rd dimensional networking - as is the proposal for EFN discussed in Connection Graphics.

Within that conceptual framework, I find it much easier to figure out how the networker gets paid if we follow the flow of value in three dimensions - where are the feedback loops?

I see a very strong connection between network weaving and open space facilitation. If we see open space all around, a network weaver is operating in that space. This connects to questions of values around both open space and network weaving... what values are front and center?

Values

Friendly and available space for dialogue, fairness and transparency in the process of conversation, respect, willingness to hear all voices in the circle and aid in finding natural partners (or providing opportunities for those connections to occur).

Michael Maranda said:

Open Space facilitation offers an interesting example of a practice where certification was rejected from the beginning. This is important to me, as Open Space represents to me a profoundly human practice, something deep in our being, and something we can trace aspects of in our collective history. There is something spontaneous to it, which is to say any of us can practice it wherever we are.

Can we benefit from ongoing experience with it, and from interaction with those who are much practiced in it? Certainly. Which is to say it is a proper object of study and reflection. Why not then a certification or credential?

Is it not better to affirm that some practices are of the commons and not of a priestcraft?

I think this ties to conversations on parenting.

I'd like to tie this to questions of trainings in network weaving.

Somebody, either you or Ted, made some very good arguments about why there should not be a certification for Network Weaving. As I remember, they were based on the Open Source movement.

My computer background is with non Open Source tools. In that world, certification is expected. I was certified as a Lotus Domino developer, as an Epic professional etc. That was VERY useful to me getting jobs, in the pay I got etc.

I had been thinking that certification could be a useful tool in helping to establish a profession of network weaving. But, I'm not at all committed to the idea, and I appreciate the points against it. It may not be at all necessary to have certification to establish network weaving as a profession, and we don't necessarily need to push for network weaving being a profession in the first place! Perhaps we'd be better off thinking of network weaving as a skill that everybody can have to varying degrees of proficiency -- something like public speaking. Some people get paid as public speakers, but I kindof doubt there's a certification program!

Not open source, but open space.

To be clear, presentation of the concepts and methods is in general a good thing... allowing a point of entry, and a context for improvement and reflection. I just feel reluctant to codify or crystalize things that are part of our human heritage, especially in ways that set up any potential barriers for others. To the extent it would be useful, i want to be on guard against those aspects.

Habib, it is interesting how we use the same field, software technology, as an example in opposite ways. It more typical engineering disciplines to require some sort of professional licensing, which I probably should add to my taxonomy. Certs like your examples are typically only good at getting past certain gatekeepers, and probably for getting small consulting gigs to work with specific tools. I'd just as soon not work for organizations with gatekeepers, and I never really had the temperment for the independent consulting space. I do have one big credential, BSEECS, MIT '83, and I don't deny how that continues to open doors and conversations.

On the other hand, I'm celebrating the 30th anniversary of my first computer job, and all I had at that point was a HS course in Fortran, and reading a book on BASIC. It was a summer job programming in BASIC at a very small company (downtown Chicago), and I think it started at $2.50/hr.

I would class all of this as credentials, I have very few certifications.

10 REM Congratulate Gerry

20 For X =1 to 30

30:"Happy Anniversary, Gerry"

40 Next X

/Edit...damn compilers! //Edit again. Too many colons. Note to self 50 GOTO remedial coding class. LOL!

Isn't it $X? It's been so long since I've written any BASIC.

IF I recall, the $ was for inputing a variable. Then again that's a big

60 IF...THEN

No, you were right. Variable names in Dartmouth BASIC are [A-Z][0-9]?, and arrays are the same.

OK, please don't make me dust off the basic. I haven't tried to program anything beyond Second Life and HTML in 20 years.

Network weaving does seem to center around creating Open Space and core competencies in building effective cross-disciplinary conversations. Someone from activist/organizer circles will likely do this differently than a programmer or IT professional....we have different toolkits to bring in and there are different types of weavers in the mix. Can you certify them all under one set of core competencies?

What we are pointing to is that to the extent that a practice or skill is more art than rule following, it is inappropriate to apply rigid metrics that are more quantitative than qualitative. Network weaving seems far to the artistic side of that spectrum. Tech work spans the entire range from mindless rule following, to a deeply artistic endeavor.