Allowing "block" creates vetoes
From: Brian Tremback (brian.trembackgmail.com)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 04:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
Personal pronouncements about what's good for the community aren't
necessarily inferior to conventional wisdom, but probably irrelevant if no
other supporters can be found. My point was that deciding what's good for
the community is capable of being debated, whereas personal claims - like
what would affect my ability to participate or continue to live here - are
not. Considering the good of the community is more likely to start a
discussion, while a personal claim is more likely to end one.

Brian Tremback
Burlington Cohousing


@ R Philip Dowds:
> Yes, but ...
>
> If all others think a proposal is fine for the community and just one
> member thinks it is bad for the community is it not just a tad arrogant to
> believe one's personal view is clearly superior to the combined wisdom of
> everyone else?
>
>
> On Oct 21, 2011, at 7:16 AM, Brian Tremback wrote:
>> > I wonder if the basis of a valid block would not be better conceived as
>> > "detrimental to the community" rather than "negatively affect a member's
>> > ability to participate". Whether something is detrimental to the
>> community
>> > is open for discussion. Whether something will affect one's ability to
>> > participate only has to be claimed and is not open for discussion or
>> > verification.
>
>

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.