RE: revisiting decisions
From: Rob Sandelin (Exchange) (RobsanExchange.MICROSOFT.com)
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 12:24:54 -0500
I missed the original context of this, but since Sharingwood is doing
exactly this, let me add my $.02.

In my perspective, one of the largish mistakes Sharingwood continues to
repeat is that new comers get very little orientation to our group
process and history. There is no concerted effort at teaching folks how
to be part of our group and thus, they enter with often no experience
being part of a group, and have problems right away figuring out that
the group is the focus, not their individual wants and whims. Many
newcomers don't know anything about what consensus is, how we use it, or
why. Over the course of several meetings the more adept pick this up,
but it never explained to them. Some new folks have remarked, why don't
we just vote and be done with it, and then get a bunch of flak from the
other members, and still don't know what consensus is or why we use it.
So I reccomend a thorough training course for new members about your
decision process, and as much group history as you can, especially going
over each previous decision and explaining why the decision was made,
what the side issues were and answering any questions. If I were in
charge, this would be a prerequisite before a new person could enter
into the decision making.  

When you join a community, you are expected to honor the previous
agreements, even though you did not help make them.  This is much harder
to do than for those agreements that you participated in making, so
recognize a thorough orientation to the previous agreements is needed.

One of the values of new folks is that they bring a new perspective to
an old situation. Granted, they may have to have the same discussions
about the rental policy the rest of held 3 years ago, before they
understand what the issues are.  As long as this can be done in a small
group and not on everyones time, this should be fine. Provide learning
opportunities like this when you can, its a great way to get a good
understanding and new perspectives. In most consensus groups I am aware
of, which aint too many but a fair sample, the old agreement stands
until a new consensus is reached.

One of the things to watch for in this situation is "The naysayer".  The
naysayer is the experienced person who says: " We tried that once and it
didn't work".  What this can really mean is: " I don't want to change
the status quo".  This often gets applied inappropriately where one
situation gets carried over into all others that are like it.  For
example, "we tried working with an architect once, but they were
clueless" with the conotation that all architects are clueless,
therefore using them is a bad idea. The naysayer is usually not very
good at looking at a variety of options and so helping them by
brainstorming up lots of alternatives and options helps them overcome
their inability to see multiple solutions and applications. They
typically aren't too happy about all these choices, but it does open
them to see there is more than one option.

One perspective I would offer is that every decision you make as a group
will be changed. Someday. Nothing is permanent about your agreements.
Very few things you do now will still be done the same way 100 years
from now, so accept that things are going to change, embrace the
attitude that flexability and change are OK, and then you can avoid
being the stuffy person who whines: " But we have always done it this
way".

One other piece I would add, write up the goals your decisions and
agreements are trying to accomplish, as a part of the agreement
document. This helps you figure out three years from now, What in the
world were we thinking when we decided THAT? Goals and intents should be
somewhat consistent as part of your mission statement, the ends to those
goals may flucuate a great deal.

Rob Sandelin
Sharingwood
Where if everyone listened to ME, boy would we be in deep do do. So
thankfully I'm just a piece of the whole.


Original Message-----
Sent:           Saturday, May 18, 1996 8:49 AM
Subject:        Re: revisiting decisions



Sometimes with a lot of new people, you need to "revisit" in small group
discussion instead of changing the policy. New people don't always know
or
understand the reasons behind a policy.Many times they don't realize
that we
already tried other options. Sometimes they are right - we tried things
early
on, and we couldn't do it. But now we know each other better, and that
idea
might work just fine.

Mela Silva
Southside Park
Sacramento CA








Original Message-----
Sent:           Saturday, May 18, 1996 8:49 AM
Subject:        Re: revisiting decisions



Sometimes with a lot of new people, you need to "revisit" in small group
discussion instead of changing the policy. New people don't always know
or
understand the reasons behind a policy.Many times they don't realize
that we
already tried other options. Sometimes they are right - we tried things
early
on, and we couldn't do it. But now we know each other better, and that
idea
might work just fine.

Mela Silva
Southside Park
Sacramento CA






Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.