Objections in Consensus [was: principle vs preference / Formal Consensus
From: Sharon Villines (sharonsharonvillines.com)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 05:39:21 -0700 (PDT)

On Mar 29, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Tree Bressen wrote:

Butler & Rothstein's Formal Consensus method, requires a block to be validated by the full group in order to hold.

Laird Schaub -- convince at least one other member of the community (presumably not your spouse) that your block
is valid?  If not, it doesn't count.

The Quakers allow the facilitator to overrule a block, even from multiple
people,

the community's steering/coordinating committee should have the power and
responsibility to render a judgment on whether it holds or not.

The same idea in sociocracy but as in other things, sociocracy has a clearer process. In sociocracy there are no blocks or stand asides, only objections. In order for an objection to be valid, it has to be "argued and paramount" meaning that the objector has to present reasons for objecting and the objection must be related to their inability to work toward the aim of the proposal. This means the objection must be a functional objection, not just a preference.

"Argued" is not intended to discourage objections. It is the role of the facilitator and the group to help someone clarify an objection that may begin as a vague feeling.

The group decides if the objection is valid. The facilitator would propose that an objection was either not paramount or not something that could be corrected by rejecting this proposal. The group would then do a consent round in which the objector would not participate.

Objections are valued and invited in sociocracy because they lead to better proposals, ones that meet the needs of more members of the group. This builds a stronger group, not only because there is more trust but because it will not undermine itself with poor decisions.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
http://www.sociocracy.info

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.