RE: Revisiting Decisions | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Racheli&John (jnpalmeattglobal.net) | |
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:42:01 -0700 (MST) |
** Reply to note from "Jeanne Goodman" <goodmanj [at] jpcohousing.org> Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:32:04 -0500 >From Racheli Sonora Cohousing 75% for revisiting decisions seems awfully high to me, too. In our community, we require that 5 members (out of 36 households) ask to re-open a consensed-on decision. If it was up to me only, I'd have the number even lower. I think it's important to remember that agreeing to discuss an issue once again isn't the same as agreeing to change the decision - all it says, really, is that some people are unhappy about a decision, and more discussion is necessary. Perhaps the decision will change, and perhaps not. But not agreeing to talk about it unless you have such a huge majority is something I'd be very uncomfortable with (and which, to me, seems somehow contrary to the spirit of consensus). R. _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l
- Revisiting Decisions, (continued)
-
Revisiting Decisions Gary Kent, December 4 2001
-
Re: Revisiting Decisions Diane Simpson, December 6 2001
- Re: Revisiting Decisions Sharon Villines, December 7 2001
- RE: Revisiting Decisions Jeanne Goodman, December 7 2001
-
Re: Revisiting Decisions Diane Simpson, December 6 2001
-
Revisiting Decisions Gary Kent, December 4 2001
- RE: Revisiting Decisions Racheli&John, December 7 2001
- Re: Revisiting Decisions Elizabeth Stevenson, December 7 2001
- Re: Revisiting Decisions Jeanne Goodman, December 7 2001
- Revisiting Decisions Ted Chesky, January 24 2002
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.