Re: A Glimps of Cohousing in 2060
From: Elizabeth Magill (pastorlizmgmail.com)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 17:00:35 -0800 (PST)
Well, I'm not sure why we want to "avoid a blocker scenario". Presumably blocks 
are because a person is concerned that it is a good decision? I'd like to see 
us more willing to work through the objections than to find ways to avoid 
having blocks.

In my experience the question "what is the community value you are protecting" 
can be used as well as any other question to pressure a blocker to conform with 
the group. 

Do you ask all presenting proposals to describe what community value they are 
protecting?

(Writing this makes me realize that I'm certainly holding a grudge that I need 
to get over, but if you can try to see through my tone--I do think that we need 
to see blocking as contributing to decision making, not conflicting with 
decision making.)

-Liz
(The Rev.) Elizabeth M. Magill
www.worcesterfellowship.org
www.mosaic-commons.org
508-450-0431




On Jan 5, 2015, at 6:57 PM, Patricia Lautner <lautnerp [at] jpcohousing.org> 
wrote:

> 
> I really believe it's possible to avoid the 'blocker' scenario so long as
> your community has a strict practice that a block must only happen to
> protect a commonly held value.  In our community, this is understood so
> well that blocking almost never comes up.  And when it does, the blocker is
> gently reminded and urged to explain to the community what common value
> they are protecting.  Usually at that point the blocker will say that they
> probably can't block but they feel strongly or something like that.  (What
> happens next is entirely dependent on the skill of the facilitator
> 
> Patti Lautner
> JPCohousing - Boston
> www.communitasdevelopment.com
> 
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Carol Agate <carolagate [at] me.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Sharon,
>> 
>> What if it’s always the same few people who block?
>> 
>> Carol
>> Cornerstone Village, Cambridge
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 24, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Sharon Villines <sharon [at] 
>>> sharonvillines.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Dec 24, 2014, at 8:44 AM, R Philip Dowds <rpdowds [at] comcast.net> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Said another way … I agree that toleration of diversity and the end of
>> oppression are much to be desired.  But I’m not convinced that consensus
>> decision-making is the key to this challenge.
>>> 
>>> If it is used as an opportunity to understand and allow for diversity,
>> it can be. When objections are taken seriously and resolved instead of
>> submerged or over powered.
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately, subversion or overpowering is to often used, consciously
>> or unconsciously. The majority wants you to consent for the "good of the
>> community," one of my pet peeves. The "good of the community" is most often
>> raised when the majority unites against the "holdouts" or the "blockers."
>> Is it ever defined before discussion starts?
>>> 
>>> That is one reason why I would like to see preference ratings use more
>> often. Even if it isn't used to make the final decision, it can be very
>> revealing of where individuals stand on a spectrum of I can live with this
>> or I think this is a good idea.
>>> 
>>> Sharon
>>> ----
>>> Sharon Villines
>>> Sociocracy: A Deeper Democracy
>>> http://www.sociocracy.info
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
>>> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
>> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>> 
>> 
>> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
> 
> 


Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.