Nick Kearney

This is interesting to me, Brenda. My perception is that when the state of dialogue ( I like Nancy's way of putting it) is achieved, that everyone holds the space. The intention has to originate somewhere, but once it takes (admittedly achieving this is not simple) it becomes the intention of all.

Yes, Brenda, I think that is what I am suggesting; in the same way as the final objective of any teacher should be to become unnecessary (for each learner in turn), the person or persons who initiate the process do have undertand their objective as to set things up, start things off and then step aside. Open Space doesnt just happen, it has to be convened and set into motion, and dialogue similarly is not common, so that achieving a state of dialogue requires similar processes (sometimes more complex ones, dialogue involves a commitment of the whole person, not something we are often willing to engage in in many contexts). But the fact that somebody needs to start things off, does not mean that somebody has to direct the process (and directing, whether you do it from behind or in front or from the side, means controlling, and limiting, the process)

The hardest part however is perhaps that dialogue does not always progress smoothly from that starting point, it can be necessary to intervene and restart or reorient the process if it dissolve into something else. This requires the convenor, facilitator, individual, participant to be at the same time fully commited to the process and capable of observing the process on another level in order to decide whether intervention is necessary. Two minds. Fully participant and observing.

But I would suggest that this is perhaps something all participants should be abe to do, that it is part of dialogue, not the responsibility of one participant, but of all. One of the diificulties for anyone in dialogue is to resist the impulse to stop listening, and drive the agenda in a particular direction.

A convenor may be necessary, but convening is not the same as leading. In Open Space a convenor brings people together, and may explain ways of going about the definition of the agenda, but the actual definition of the agenda is up to the participants. You could say that a leader points the way, or shows the way, while a convenor creates a privileged democratic space to be explored, by all. I would even go so far as to wonder whether leadership and dialogue may not be incompatible. Leadership, however you cut its cloth, is about defining a linear direction, while dialogue is a space. Chalk and cheese.

It is an interesting model Derek, and it rings true with a lot of my experience in online contexts. It seems to me that there may be parallels between it, as a model describing individual behaviour, and Tuckman's model of group development, mentioned elsewhere in this forum by Cindy. That needs more thought, Tuckman was talking about groups, which aren't quite the same as communities, but what interests me is the fifth level Cindy mentioned with reference to Tuckman: transforming. I wonder how that, assuming that there are parallels, might fit into your model. Might it be a kind of accumulation of the previous stages, or does it move beyond them to something different, perhaps where the focus of the previous stages on the individual falls away?

Therese, you say that an online dialogue is not an end in itself, but a supplement to other mediums, some of which are synchronous (messaging, voice, F2F) and one of which is asynchronous. Searching for the difference between email and asynchronous forums I guess you mean one to one email rather than email between groups of people. Is that correct?
I am not sure but my interpretation is that you ascribe higher value to synchronous (and perhaps one to one) interactions, than to asynchronous (and perhaps group) interactions. And perhaps (it's the Internet for goodness sake) F2F more than online interaction.
I may have misunderstood, but if I have read you right I must disagree. My experience personally is that online asynchronous dialogue, (dialogue, not conversation) though rarely achieved unfortunately, has a quality, a rich intensity, that is rarely achieved offline. Perhaps because it allows for a focus and a respectful, mindful attention that is hard in most offline contexts, though not impossible.
I dont think a state of dialogue is easy to reach, online or off, but I have to express disagreement with the idea that we should content ourselves with mere fragments (bits of the best) in our online interactions. Dialogue is achievable, and I would argue that is probably one of the most intense and rewarding learning experiences we can have. I see this forum, potentially, as an opportunity for exploring ways of achieving that.

I have always found this model helpful as a way of thinking about the process of group formation. I have also found though that it is more useful as a model than a blueprint, I find the stages blend and recycle, and have found that the order can change at different stages.
As regards that last stage, of transforming, I agree with you that is probably the ultimate goal, both for the group and the individual. Not easy to achieve though, but then ultimate goals rarely are. I would argue that it is in this final stage, that dialogue emerges, the rest, though it may resemble dialogue and may be carried out in a spirit of dialogue, is perhaps just preparation for this.