|Re: Objection Versus Extortion||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Kay Argyle (Kay.Argyleutah.edu)|
|Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:07:20 -0700 (PDT)|
We've had proposals derailed by demands that a project be expanded far beyond its budgeted scope, address tangential issues better handled separately, or scaled back to pointlessness. Nothing as egregious as what Philip describes, but nonetheless lousy process and a misuse/misunderstanding of consensus. Typically these failures haven't involved formal blocks, but rather sending back to committee -- amounting to a de facto block, when the "concerns" are incapable of being satisfied. I would not attribute any of the failures to a lack of upfront work, inattention to the quality of the solution, or too many options on the table. Rather, someone holds out for some unobtainable ideal rather than anything possible, or insists that a particular community value totally trumps other considerations, including other values. In one case a tough-minded facilitator ("I won't say, 'Nobody leaves this room until this passes,' BUT ...") at the next meeting was able to get the project back on track, as written, by pushing until the objections (from people untroubled by the problem and not impacted by the proposed fix) gave way to stand-asides. In other instances, facilitators have been more deferential, with the result that, since the changes required were impractical, or even, in the judgment of the parties bringing the proposal, harmful, the projects were abandoned (and in a couple of cases, households started house-hunting). More's the pity, we've never required that blockers help find an acceptable alternative solution; we merely default to the status quo, even when it is widely acknowledged to be untenable. Kay Wasatch Commons
- Re: Objection Versus Extortion, (continued)
- Re: Objection Versus Extortion drmaryann49, October 20 2011
- Re: Objection Versus Extortion Sharon Villines, October 25 2011
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.