about 1649, 1654
Let's not talk about the list.
That said, I question dividing the list by topic. Any of the truly good
seminars I've been part of allow members to wander, yet hold fast to a few
principles. The learning-org concept loses its shimmer when sliced to
topics. I applaud every time a writer does not labor the connection of
his statement to learning-org terminology and literature, yet has such a
connection or eventually finds one: this is a measure of our maturity and
openness. I tire of topics (ie resistance), but may never tire of a
learning community. Big churches split, not by subject matter, but more
often by mood, personality, or different interpretation of the same
principles. The new groups need to form full and compatible teams. If we
split, which I'm not recommending, let's split into Team A and Team B.
Obviously, I'm trying to turn list-talk into a learning-org question: how
are learning communities best split, and when do they need to be split?
-- Kent Myers kent_myers@smtplink.sra.com