|Re: Consensus [was balance] - voting||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Brian Tremback (brian.trembackburlingtontelecom.net)|
|Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 03:48:01 -0800 (PST)|
Ann,We have resorted to voting once in our 2+ year history. Our bylaws allow voting after failure to reach consensus twice. Voting on the issue can only take place if a simple majority agrees to allow a vote. And again, a simple majority rules when voting on the issue.
There was a mix of feelings expressed after the vote was resorted to. One was that it became clear that there was a winner and a loser. There was also a sense of failure that we weren't successful coming to consensus. For some, there was a sense of relief that we got the issue behind us.
Once the discussion of an issue develops "sides" that are for and against, I think voting has the potential to be less divisive than struggling for consensus. However, the failure of the consensus process probably begins to occur at the moment of polarization, not later on when voting is resorted to.
Brian Tremback Burlington Cohousing
Re: Consensus [was balance] - voting Brian Tremback, February 26 2010
- Re: Consensus [was balance] - voting Sharon Villines, February 27 2010
- Re: Consensus [was balance] - voting Ann Zabaldo, February 27 2010
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.