Test Post.
by Braddo at 10/25/2009 8:06:16 PM
Chris Corrigan: key reason for events like this is to build the practice of public engagement
by Braddo at 10/25/2009 8:23:23 PM
Chris Corrigan: ...build the practice of conversational leadership.
by Braddo at 10/25/2009 8:24:11 PM
@Paul Rickett A dozen people here, Paul. Thanks for joining online.
by Braddo at 10/25/2009 8:27:32 PM
@Robert Ballantyne We're rather spread out for that. And our starting session is in a room w/ only my machine and tht's for Scribble. But good idea for next session. Noted.
by Braddo at 10/25/2009 8:38:26 PM
BIO Open Space Gathering Agenda
twitpic.comPeople moving to break out sessions. Seems we're moving away from our theme, Moving From Vision to Action. If we trust Open Space Technologies & principle that "whatever happens is the right thing to happen," what does this say about the community? (..at least those gathered here? And can we take those people here are representative? Does representation matter?)
by Braddo at 10/25/2009 8:48:44 PM
Listening in on conversations: it sounds like many of our issues begin with a lack of common understanding of or agreement on the meaning of key terms, e.g. sustainability, green, density, population cap., community, etc. I wonder if the reason we feel our conversations around critical issues are stalled or so quickly polarized is because we all come to the table saying the same words but meaning different things by them. Is Bowen a Tower of Babel.
by Braddo at 10/25/2009 8:59:09 PM
Here's one proposed definition or clarification: A community (as opposed to a municipality, I suppose) is not a business, i.e. it can't have strategic objectives or goal lines that once crossed we might say "Hooray! We're done." How can a community be done. What would happen after that? We are "in community" the same way we are "in relationships." So in this sense, we'd say "We live in community on Bowen," which is quite different from saying "We live in the community of Bowen." Would our conversations around things such as the OCP, CRC and so on be different if we came to the table with the understanding that we live in community, not live in the community
by Braddo at 10/25/2009 9:26:22 PM
@Chris Corrigan I think that is the first thing that needs to be said. The thing called "We" has no voice yet. "We" doesn't speak with many voices all at once, as in a referendum, perhaps. It speaks with a single voice, if it can speak at all. This leads to Anonymous' comment "What do we need to live with the always uncertain future?"
by Braddo at 10/25/2009 9:34:00 PM
Sorry for the "Anonymous" thing...sometimes the comment box gives me my name and sometimes, it calls me Anonymous. I am anonymous.
by Matthew at 10/25/2009 9:34:52 PM
That's why its an Official Commnity Plan rather than an Official Municipal Plan. The OCP guides the Muni (or should)
by Paul Rickett at 10/25/2009 9:36:13 PM
Its also why its important to hear many voices and listen to the other side of the arguments. We have to try and find the common ground.
by Paul Rickett at 10/25/2009 9:38:36 PM
Not sure I agree with @paulrickett. The OCP is written into the bylaws of the municipality. It is an instrument of the municipality. Frankly, I don't think the real community (y'know that silent majority) have much connection with the OCP at all.
by Robert Ballantyne at 10/25/2009 9:39:32 PM
@robertb That's the good news, the Muni has to be guided by it - but they aren't the lead on the process. Yr prbly right on with last sentence
by Paul Rickett at 10/25/2009 9:41:16 PM
The process of coming to terms--coming to common understanding of words--is hard work. Will enough people want to take the time & effort? Do they want to? Why? What if they don't want to?
by Braddo at 10/25/2009 10:00:21 PM
That's the $64K Q!
by Paul Rickett at 10/25/2009 10:02:09 PM
Is it harder for people in the same group (i.e. shared experience, stories, such as we have on Bowen) to talk about contentious ideas, than it is for people in completely separate groups to talk about such issues?
by Braddo at 10/25/2009 10:04:42 PM
Consultants teach 'active listening,' therapists teach 'mirroring.' The techniques to achieving a common understanding of words are available. But, Braddo, you are right... will enough people want to take the time and make the effort. It is easier to hear only what we want to hear. The issue, however is not about what we want... but the choices we either decide to make, or allow others to decide for us.
by Robert Ballantyne at 10/25/2009 10:05:24 PM
Braddo, can you say who is there? Don't know the protocol about confidentiality.
by Robert Ballantyne at 10/25/2009 10:18:09 PM
Things happen on macro levels, e.g. global warming, but I don't feel sweatier. Things happen on micro-level, e.g. cancer is on the increase, but I am healthy. In the middle level, I am doing just fine. I can buy into the academics, the numbers, but there is no emotional response that might spur action. How do we create emotional connection--passion?--to issues? If we act from need, how do we create awareness of needs in this insulated middle?
by Braddo at 10/25/2009 10:20:08 PM
A common thread in all the conversations: the limits we perceive--e.g. population caps, density, even the notion of community itself--are just that: perceived limits. Bermuda, for example, is not much larger than Bowen, yet has 65,000 people. What is the conversation under the conversation about, say pop cap?
by Braddo at 10/25/2009 10:27:13 PM
Braddo: I see yer name on the tags for 3:30-4:30 "Fear/ignorance..." Will you be able to continue typing to us during the next hour?
by Robert Ballantyne at 10/25/2009 10:29:28 PM
@Robert Ballantyne Protocol is be nice :-)
by Braddo at 10/25/2009 10:29:57 PM
by Braddo via Twitpic at 10/25/2009 8:44:27 PM