Re: Consensus vs Majority Voting | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Howard Landman (howardpolyamory.org) | |
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:13:01 -0600 (MDT) |
> Most of us have grown in cultures where when one > side is "right", the other is "wrong"(and being wrong is bad!); You know, there *ARE* times when one side or person *IS* right and another is wrong. This in fact is usually the case in science or engineering or mathematics when there is a disagreement. And being wrong *IS* bad ... unless you think the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse, and creationists trying to force their particular cult's ludicrous creation myth down the throats of our young people in place of fact-based knowledge of evolution, are just peachy. Feelings have no legitimate place in these discussions. You can't BS an electron or make it behave differently because you're unhappy. Nature just does what it does, following its own laws. You can be in harmony with those laws ("the Tao") or out of harmony with them. And there are times when it is *ONLY* how people feel which matters. Facts - if such can even be said to exist - are irrelevant. Only perceptions and emotions count. The trick for me is to know, for each thing in my life, where on the spectrum between those two extremes it lies, and to act appropriately. > authentic consensus work calls for a paradigm shift > truly committed to consensus I don't subscribe to the religion that consensus is the only or always the best way of making decisions. It's just one decision-making process out of many. It has some good properties and some bad properties, and whether it is the right thing to use in any particular context depends very much on that context. At RRC, some things require community consensus and some don't. It depends on various factors like: - how many people does this affect? - do we already have a policy in place for this? - can this be handled by a committee? - does this bring any of our core values into question? - does this challenge a previously-consensed decision? For example, construction or landscape changes can be: Level 1: no approval necessary Level 2: approval of immediate neighbors required Level 3: approval of neighbors and Design Review Committee required level 4: community consensus required and we have a policy in place to determine the level. When there is fuzziness, people usually bump up the level just to be safe. Recently, installation of the first "swamp cooler" in the development should have been level 3 by the policy, but the unit owner decided to bring it to the whole community since there were a few niggling concerns about maintenance, damage, what happens on resale of the unit, etc. This was a good move since some people at the meeting raised issues that no one else had considered. And I'll be doing some "level 1" concrete work in my backyard soon, but I've already started talking to my neighbors about it. Howard A. Landman River Rock Commons Fort Collins CO _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l
- Re: Consensus vs Majority Voting, (continued)
-
Re: Consensus vs Majority Voting Sharon Villines, July 17 2002
- Functional group training in consensus Rob Sandelin, July 22 2002
- Re: Functional group training in consensus Sharon Villines, July 22 2002
-
Re: Consensus vs Majority Voting Sharon Villines, July 17 2002
-
RE: Consensus vs Majority Voting Racheli Gai, July 17 2002
- Re: Consensus vs Majority Voting Howard Landman, July 17 2002
- Re: Consensus vs Majority Voting Racheli Gai, July 17 2002
- Re: Consensus vs Majority Voting Sharon Villines, July 17 2002
- RE: Consensus vs Majority Voting Rob Sandelin, July 22 2002
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.