|Re: Consensus decision making||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Muriel Kranowski (murielkvt.edu)|
|Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:50:17 -0700 (PDT)|
I wonder how much it really helps communities to avoid idiosyncratic blocking to say "Blocks must be justifiable in terms of the community's //needs//vision//principles//". If there's one thing that most people are good at, it's being able to justify nearly anything in the name of a higher principle, either sincerely or with a hidden agenda. I'll bet that even the personal-preference blockers whom Racheli has written about could justify themselves in that way if they knew that was the requirement.
Muriel at Shadowlake Village Cohousing in Blacksburg, VAAt 04:07 PM 8/6/2008, John Faust wrote to agree with Racheli (who made this same point again today:
I think Racheli's point is very important. Blocking should not be groundlessly exercised just because it is a consensus process. This is probably where vision/mission and principles come in. Blocking should be grounded in these base documents just as much as the proposals they would block. A block should only be valid if it clarifies that a proposal in some way "violates" the letter or intent of the vision/mission or principles. This still leaves a great deal of latitude but provides a basis for further discussion. Groundless blocking should not be an option.
- Re: Consensus decision making, (continued)
- Consensus and personal relatiionships Rob Sandelin, August 12 2008
- Re: Consensus decision making Matt Lawrence, August 11 2008
- Message not available
- Re: Consensus decision making Muriel Kranowski, August 11 2008
- Re: Consensus decision making Racheli Gai, August 11 2008
- Re: Consensus decision making Sharon Villines, August 11 2008
- Re: Consensus decision making Brian Bartholomew, August 12 2008
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.