|Re: RE: Consensus: late blocks (TR Ruddick)||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Ann Zabaldo (zabaldoearthlink.net)|
|Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 08:15:44 -0700 (MST)|
Hi Diane and others -- I really like CT Butler's thinking on this whole "blocking" thing -- he maintains that on the path to consensus an individual may "withhold consent" but only the group can decide if it is "blocked." This still indicates the process comes to a standstill, however. And in my understanding of consensus process this is just one of many places in the path where the conversation starts again. I also am looking for another term for this particular place in the consensus process...something that indicates the path to consensus is "interrupted" but not shut down. Ann Zabaldo On 2/1/04 6:01 PM, "Dave & Diane" <coho [at] theworld.com> wrote: > I agree that it's wrong-headed terminology and wonder what terminology > you would use to replace it. > --Diane Simpson > > JP COHOUSING 617-524-6614 > P.O. BOX 420 BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS > HTTP://WWW.JPCOHOUSING.ORG > "The people who surround you define the quality of your life." _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L
RE: Consensus: late blocks (TR Ruddick) Dave & Diane, February 1 2004
- Re: RE: Consensus: late blocks (TR Ruddick) Ann Zabaldo, February 2 2004
- Re: RE: Consensus: late blocks (TR Ruddick) Sharon Villines, February 2 2004
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.