RE: Consensus: late blocks
From: TR Ruddick (truddickearthlink.net)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:25:51 -0700 (MST)
> From: Sharon Villines <sharon [at] sharonvillines.com>
> But the group doesn¹t have to decide by majority vote that it is blocked.
It
> can decide by consensus that there doesn't seem to be a solution other
than
> deciding another method of deciding -- arbitration, expert opinion, etc.

Sure.  What I'm referring to here are the processes that claim to reach
consensus by allowing the majority to decree that a particular member is
"blocking."  Perhaps related to that is the more subtle tyranny of
requiring the "blocker" to mend the proposal--why should an objector
inherit sole responsibility for promoting a proposal that perhaps is
inherently offensive?

I agree that Rob did a fine job of clarification.  Consensus may happen
when there is mild disagreement and the dissenters decide it's OK for the
majority to proceed despite their reservations.  It can also happen when
the parties agree to proceed with mediation, arbitration, facilitation, and
so forth.

But it's clearly not consensus when there are provisions in the group's
process that allow a majority to act unilaterally.

____  _
    |     |_)             Thomas E. "TR" Ruddick
    |     |  \             Nunquam Itum Agitabilum



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

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.