|Ccnflict Resolution: Is fall-back voting ever necessary?||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Joani Blank (jeblankic.org)|
|Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 04:54:11 -0600|
I've not read any of the books on negotiation or consensus decision-making, but I've experienced it for six plus and three plus years in two cohousing groups. I find it helpful, rather than to talk about--or even think about "blocking," we need to turn our thoughts finding a solution that everyone can sign on to or that everyone can be okay with. Before that point arrives, we can always say that we haven't yet reached consensus yet. In the Doyle Street community, we have an agreement to work toward consensus during three different meetings on any given issue before even proposing a fall-back vote. (Can't remember what the required majority is). In 6 1/2 years at Doyle St., we've only resorted to a vote one time, and that was at least four years ago. Kevin told you about the N Street system (13 households?), and now you are hearing about another small community. Sharingwood is also relatively small. I can see how in a significantly larger community where many people actively participate in the meetings, the conflicts may seem more complex and overwhelming, making people reluctant to stick it out until consensus is reached. On the other hand, in a large group, it is likely that there will be several people starting out with a "minority" position, and creating safety in numbers for those holding that opinion. Joani Blank Doyle St and Old Oakland CoHousing(s)
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.