Here are some questions and answers about what this space is, how it fits into what's already up and running, why we're doing this, and a bit of how it works.
See also WhatAreTheRules | HowToUseWiki | NetSpaceDevelopment? | NetSpaceSpirit | SandBox
Q: who can post a question?
A: anyone, of course! <grin>
Q: how to post a question?
A: click the 'edit text of this page' link at the bottom of the page and then just add it to the text that's already here. click save and admire your handiwork! AND NOTE... that this is the same way to edit any page here!
Q: how to make those bars between questions?
A: when you click on the edit link, you'll see the formatting trick, which is to type four hyphens together at the BEGINNING of a line. try it in the SandBox!
Q: what else do you want to know?
A: who will post the next question?!
A: Anyone here can translate into whatever languages they know. You can even put the instructions (help) in your own language. That would be a fantastic contribution to the whole, no?
Q: What about the reliability of this site? Is it hosted on a server that is reliable? Is there anyone to contact if something breaks down, or canīt it? I know some of you have used it with clients, so I guess you think it is very good!
A: Technically, the .NET site is hosted WITHIN the .ORG site. http://www.openspaceworld.NET simply redirects to a folder within the .ORG site. So the .NET site is as reliable as .ORG, which has been hosted by the same company since 1999, without any real difficulty. If there are any troubles, click NetSpaceHolders?. Of course, if you see any content that needs fixing, feel free to click 'Edit' at the bottom of any page and fix that page. This site runs on community-solutions more than technical-solutions. The operative metaphor is MeatBall:BarnRaising.
More questions???
Q: what are the "givens" that are implied in this new site. There are implied givens in your other sites and yet they have not seemed to be openly stated. For example, for me, the word "practitioners" is not something I agree with at all. I have noticed it having slid into use on this list and elsewhere as though that is what we refer to ourselves as. Is it a "given" that this is some of the agreed upon vocabulary and if so, whoever made that decision? --BirgittWilliams? (asked via the OSLIST)
A: I think this would be an excellent page/project to open all by itself. So far, the givens are essentially that we are in open space, that we will do things in circles, running on passion bounded by responsibility and will self-organize other structures and agendas and discussions and resources as we go along and find needs and interests and the time to execute such things. It is a time and space in which to move forward together. If you will bring your expertise in naming "givens" to a new page here, then perhaps we will tease out more of them. I think that would be a help to me and the rest of us working here. Maybe you could call that page NetSpaceGivens. Also, I think VocabularyControl would make an interesting page all on its own. --MichaelHerman
A: Could we DefinePractitioner?
A: Our LicenseDiscussion? has begun. Maybe that's a good place to talk about some of this stuff?
Q: It seems hard to have ContentControl here. People can change what I said after the fact?
A: Again, our LicenseDiscussion? has begun. Maybe that's a good place to talk about some of this stuff?
Q: How does this site relate to the OSWorldORG:OSLIST? Since I like the list so much, why participate here?
Q: So how do we get started? I know that question isn't really accurate because lots of people have already done a lot of work before the public invitation, but now that the rest of us are here, what do we do? --TedErnst
A: see the NetSpaceDevelopment? page for the list of things that i have thought up that might need doing. add your own to that list. that is our working bulletin board. then use your two clicks to fish around where you can and make some growing here, being mindful of the structures and shapes and tones that are growing here and also noted in the NetSpaceSpirit links, which i know you've already surfed, ted. as things get done, we'll see them in the RecentChanges space and it will also help if we leave notes in the development page, moving things to the done pile or posting questions we might have about how we went about doing things. --MichaelHerman
Q: The whole thing still seems a bit abstract. Any practical advice for getting my mind around what this space might be and what I can do? I surfed the web a bit and found some icons to start brainstorming on that score, but the rest just seems beyond me. Is looking at other wikis the way to go? --TedErnst
Q. I think that the questions and answers should be reorganized to have the last questions first. - ArturSilva
A: Great, why don't you take care of that, Artur. Or... better yet... have a look at the questions and group them by major issue, major question, making a list of those questions and breaking this page into many smaller pages, each answering a different question. That way this becomes a page of questions linked to subpages with answers. [Great suggestions, Michael. But I thing this will need a more experienced OST practitionner (to make a distintion from other "practices", related or not with OST) and one that is a native speaker of English. So ;-) ArturSilva]
hmmmmmm...... communicating like this is interesting and a bit strange, AND I suppose it could become comfortable....
Q: The first one: I'm not sure what others are thinking about the word "practitioner," but now that I'm paying more attention, I can see how the use of that term in the opening page to this web site serves to create some exclusivity on this site. Seems pretty clear that practitioners (whoever they are) are invited to communicate here, which implies that non-practitioners aren't. That's a chillier approach than the OSLIST, seems to me, where it feels like all comers are welcome anytime. Is the exclusive approach what we want? How do we "know" what we want? How do we know who "we" are? --JulieSmith
A: This site is not the OSLIST, which is for everyone. It is also not OSWorldORG:EnglishHomepage site, which is also for everyone. The opening page of .NET does not even say 'practitioners' though the CallForOnlineLeaders is addressed to 'practitioners.' That is because this site is for practitioners ...it is for them to post the proceedings from their OST events (something only practitioners lead) and also for convening ongoing follow-up and project groups in an OST-informed way. This is specifically a space for practitioners to work AND for them to invite others into for the purposes of working in OST in a more visible way. The organizers of this site are inviting practitioners to invite others. In this way, all are welcome. Once we have more stuff here, the invitation might be made directly to others to surf around and read, but it may or may not make sense for visitors to be directly invited to join whatever projects are going on here. That is likely left to each individual practitioner and workgroup to decide. --MichaelHerman
Some more questions and comments (4 indeed):
Q: I have noticed that Ted began an interesting page on WikiRoles comparing them with OST roles. I would like to have a more open dialogue about the relations between the Wiki spirit and the Open Space spirit. I think we could discover very interesting things about both of them that have never been made explicit, as far as I know. Is this the place to have that dialogue? (Reasons for yes - it is fundamental for what and how we will develop here. Reasons for no - it will not be very visible) - ArturSilva
A: can certainly have that or any dialogue here, though wiki is not the best medium for lengthy dialogue. it is, however, a very good tool for "storing collective knowledge," including storing group knowledge about the status of a given project, situation, or issue. Project plans, project documentation, conference proceedings, all of these are evolving records of what we know NOW more than they are dialogues. Wiki works for group drafts of common documents wherein participants contribute to a larger whole product (a plan, project, proceedings), rather than back and forth dialogues where speakers/viewpoints do not ever dissolve into the whole. if there is a topic you want to develop here, write what you know about or see in it and invite others to edit or extend your work directly, not commenting ON it, but commenting IN it. that way OUR view of the topic grows in a more useful, finished and still evolving form.
Q: the work of a WikiGnome is limited if many pages are "read only". Suppose a gnome discovers a link that is not working in a read only page or discovers a link that is working but doesn't conduct to OST material but to a completelly diferent subject from what is announced in the read only page; what should he do? And if the page is not read only shall he supress the non working link or just put a note of caution? - ArturSilva
A: there are no read only pages at OSWorldNET:OpenSpaceWorldNET, so we need not be concerned with this for the development of THIS wiki. There are read-only pages in the OSWorldORG:EnglishHomepage wiki, but that is not yet expected to be a community-developed site. The invitation at .ORG is to post your current info, not to manage and maintain the whole site. As a result, the site doesn't move as much and links are less likely to be broken and need fixing. Those read-only pages then work the same as fixed pages, a Gnome would email one of the webmaster team.
Q: What is the adequate way to deal with Projects that use OST (or claim to use OST) to conduct meetings on completelly different subjects or methods, and those different subjects or methods are then develloped at length, diverting from the OST material? (this is, by the way, related with the point on SpiritofOST above and with what I am now begining to call the MetaFoundationsofOST) - ArturSilva
A: This NET space is especially FOR the posting of notes on other subjects. I hope we will have many conferences and projects here that do just what you say... USE OST to work on OTHER things. This is a place where we SHOW what OST is, rather than TELL what it is. It is also the place to SHOW that it operates on itself, walks its talk, as easily as it operates on other topics.
A: There is no international body that judges if I'm using OST correctly or not. That's pretty much the point of the whole deal, isn't it? Who am I to judge someone else? --TedErnst