|Re: Consensus [was balance]||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Rob Sandelin (floriferousmsn.com)|
|Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:46:23 -0800 (PST)|
Unanimous agreement in a group bigger than a dozen is extraordinarily difficult. And what most groups call consensus is really unanimous agreement. Consensus is not about agreement. Let me repeat that. Consensus is not about agreement. The root of consensus is consent, which means give permission. When you consent you give the group permission to go ahead, even though you might disagree with some details. Often it is required and necessary to give permission to something you don't entirely agree with in order for the group to move ahead and have the experience to learn from. It's ok to move ahead with imperfect if the end result can be easily changed or modified after experience. Almost all the time, the end result does not really matter and can be changed later so giving permission should come easily in order to try out new ideas and processes. Only when the end result will cause serious damage or be very difficult to change or fix should permission be withheld until all conditions possible are thoroughly examined. In most cases, after buildout, these kinds of hard to change decisions are fewer and further between. Most the stuff you decide is easy to change later. When simple things take huge effort to accomplish, people give up and often stop participating in the system. Consensus they say is broken, process is not worth the effort, nothing ever gets done. This is sometimes actually the truth, if simple things get bogged down, your process is problematic and should be held accountable. One solution is to give subgroups, teams or committees decision making ability in their realms which reduces the number of people in the process. It is also not a crime against cohousing to revert to a voting process, sometimes having a vote backup after x tries at consensus can get things moving. Consensus is a just a tool, not a religion, not a requirement. Rob Sandelin Sharingwood Resident of 20 years.
- Re: hurting others, Subj: limited-access events in common space, (continued)
Re: hurting others, Subj: limited-access events in common space Diana E Carroll, February 23 2010
- Re: hurting others, Subj: limited-access events in common space Kristen Simmons, February 24 2010
- balance Lyle Scheer, February 24 2010
- Consensus [was balance] Sharon Villines, February 24 2010
- Re: Consensus [was balance] Rob Sandelin, February 24 2010
- Re: Consensus [was balance] Sharon Villines, February 25 2010
- Re: Consensus [was balance] Ann Zabaldo, February 25 2010
- Re: Consensus [was balance] Brian Bartholomew, February 26 2010
- Re: hurting others, Subj: limited-access events in common space Diana E Carroll, February 23 2010
- Re: hurting others, Subj: limited-access events in common space Muriel Kranowski, February 23 2010
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.