Re: Consensus decision making
From: Racheli Gai (
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
Yeah, I agree. Which is why we also have the requirement that a few other people (I don't remember the number we stipulated) need to see that there is a
legitimate connection between the objection and a community value/goal.

Note that for a person to see a block as valid doesn't mean that s/he wishes
to block themselves, or that they think that a block is called for.


On Aug 11, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Muriel Kranowski wrote:

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.

     at Shadowlake Village Cohousing in Blacksburg, VA

At 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.

Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.