blocking consensus
From: Kay Argyle (argylemines.utah.edu)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:10:01 -0700 (MST)
I've got a question about formal consensus process.

I've been told repeatedly that the only justification for blocking consensus
is that you think the proposal will harm the community, and not because you
dislike it personally.

If a proposal makes requirements of you that you find objectionable, but
seems unlikely to cause harm to the community, and the community doesn't
want to be talked out of it -- what are your options?  Aside from selling
your house, or saying "I won't! And you can't make me."

How far can one stretch the definition of "harm"?  I don't think having
unhappy or angry members, even only one or two, can be regarded as *good*
for a community.

Due to a proposal under consideration, this question has unfortunately
acquired practical importance for me.

Kay
Wasatch Commons
Salt Lake City, Utah
argyle [at] mines.utah.edu
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*

_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.