Consensus, Majority Vote, "Blocks" | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Fred H Olson (fholsoncohousing.org) | |
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 06:07:46 -0700 (PDT) |
Rebecca Reid <rreid [at] cohousing.com> is the author of the message below. It was posted by Fred, the Cohousing-L list manager <fholson [at] cohousing.org> after deleting excess quoting of digest. -------------------- FORWARDED MESSAGE FOLLOWS -------------------- >> ok, the big list of synonyms: > >> willingness to compromise At Pioneer Valley there is no such thing as a "block"--that is, no one person can unilaterally veto something. Since everyone contributes something essential to the discussion, even what seems like an unreasonable objection has some piece of truth in it. If there is a person who has a serious objection to a proposal, it means we haven't finished yet. If the person with the objection manages to convince the rest that their objection is truly for the sake of the good of the whole, It is wise to consider it and see if changes to the proposal can fix it. If the person remains convinced even after being heard and having the proposal altered that the proposal is detrimental to the community, but no one else agrees, the proposal can go forward and they step aside. At least they get a good 'I told you so" if they turn out to have been right! In the beginning, 17 years ago, before we knew what we know now, we used to have blocking (then called "red carding"--anyone still use the card system?) and ended up with a "tyranny of the minority", or "veto power". It was clear that this didn't work, so we worked on it a lot. We've gotten much better at listening to each other and including other people's views since then. There's a lot less "head butting" now. Rebecca Pioneer Valley On Oct 2, 2011, at 8:27 AM, R Philip Dowds wrote: > > I agree that "blocking" (paramount objection) is mis-used and > misunderstood under many circumstances. And that tightening the > rules of objection can help many groups do their work. > > However, your particular formulation strikes me as having a fatal > flaw: After I explain, in articulate detail, why Proposal X is > contrary to our vision and mission documents, and will have ill > consequences for our community ? but find I am alone in these views, > and my community begs to differ ? then what? Should I go ahead and > block in the belief that I know what's better for the community than > the community itself knows? Or, should I abandon my principles and > firmly held convictions, and just get along? > > R Philip Dowds AIA > Cornerstone Cohousing > 175 Harvey Street, Unit 5 > Cambridge, MA 02140 > 617.354.6094 > > On Oct 1, 2011, at 12:15 PM, drmaryann99 [at] mac.com wrote: > >> At the same time we tightened up the requirements of a legitimate >> block. You must frame your block in terms of the community's vision/ >> mission or by able to say how proceeding would harm the community. >> This eliminated blocks because someone didn't 'like' the proposal.
-
Re: Consensus, Majority Vote, "Blocks" Eris Weaver, September 26 2011
- Re: Consensus, Majority Vote, "Blocks" R Philip Dowds, September 26 2011
- Quorum Requirements Sharon Villines, September 26 2011
- Consensus, Majority Vote, "Blocks" Fred H Olson, October 3 2011
-
Re: Consensus, Majority Vote, "Blocks" Michael Barrett, October 3 2011
- Re: Consensus, Majority Vote, "Blocks" Sharon Villines, October 3 2011
-
Re: Consensus, Majority Vote, "Blocks" R.N. Johnson, October 5 2011
- Re: Consensus, Majority Vote, "Blocks" Sharon Villines, October 5 2011
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.