Re: 3 top conflict sources
From: Sharon Villines (
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 12:02:02 -0600 (MDT)
On 5/22/2003 12:04 PM, "Rob Sandelin" <floriferous [at]> wrote:

> I would include Sharons addition as a communications glitch, which of course
> is a very huge and board range of things. The issue she brings up is about
> personal/group definitions and maybe some power and control issues as well.

There are those who block discussions because they like "no rules" so they
can do as they please. The Free Spirit Dictocrats.

In other cases, I think it might go a bit deeper than glitches in
communication to a fundamental difference in the desire to communicate, or
to examine issues with a philosophical attitude.

Some people just don't care about what others see as underlying values and
don¹t want to engage long enough to figure them out. Those people will often
step aside and go along with whatever those who do care come up with but
often those who do care feel as if they can't go forward without _everyone_
participating in the discussion.

This is one element of Sociocracy that I have difficulty with. The
expectation in Sociocracy is that no one has to participate in any
discussion of issues as long as they agree to be bound by the result of the
discussion. Silence equals consent. Meetings are only attended by those who
care about the issues being discussed. I fear that those who are not
involved in the discussions will "get lost."

Sharon Villines
Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC

Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at]  Unsubscribe  and other info:

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.