|Re: Consensus [was balance]||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Sharon Villines (sharonsharonvillines.com)|
|Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:22:38 -0800 (PST)|
On Feb 25, 2010, at 12:46 AM, Rob Sandelin wrote:
Unanimous agreement in a group bigger than a dozen is extraordinarily difficult. And what most groups call consensus is really unanimous agreement.
Gerard Endenburg, who developed sociocracy, calls unanimous agreement solidarity. There are times when solidarity is what is wanted/needed, for example, when making a commitment to an illegal political activity. The underground during WWII required solidarity or a less than committed member could endanger the lives of others.
At a lesser level, a group I was a member of needed everyone to commit to active participation in a very challenging fundraising activity to acquire a property. There was a drop-dead deadline. Without solidarity, the efforts of others would be wasted.
I think it is important to recognize solidarity as an option, and having it allows consensus to be freed of the necessity to serve both purposes.
Sharon ---- Sharon VillinesNothing exists without order. Nothing comes into existence without chaos. Albert Einstein
- Re: hurting others, Subj: limited-access events in common space, (continued)
- 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
- Message not available
- Re: hurting others, Subj: limited-access events in common space Muriel Kranowski, February 23 2010
- Re: hurting others, Subj: limited-access events in common space Paul, February 24 2010
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.