|Re: Double linking||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Sharon Villines (sharonsharonvillines.com)|
|Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 13:58:46 -0800 (PST)|
> On Dec 7, 2018, at 1:01 PM, Cheron Dudley <cherondudley [at] gmail.com> wrote: > > Our governance system of Sociocracy calls for “double-linking”. > We are a group of 28 households...42 people...and I’d like to know if other > sociocratic groups find double-linking to be necessary. Do you find it a > help or a burden The purpose of double linking is to form a feedback loop between two circles in such a way that each circle has to pay attention to the other. They have to pay attention to feedback. My question about double links in cohousing is whether feedback isn’t built into the daily lives of the group. But of course this depends on the daily conversation in a particular community. With meals, email, and bumping into each other, there is lots of opportunity for feedback. And the level of comfort is usually such that people will raise issues and freely protest if they aren’t listened to. If that is not true, formal double links may be beneficial. The other issue with double links in cohousing is that there are so many teams and working groups that everyone would be in meetings all the time. Double links with the major teams and the board or coordinating circle might be important if your board makes any decisions. But board meetings do give an opportunity for team leaders to share information. So at that level they are likely to be helpful. Some groups are trying to eliminate full group meetings. Without full group meetings, I think double links would be important. But when I think of our committee composition, there are so many overlaps and so few policy decisions that a formal double link wouldn’t add anything. Takoma Village is not sociocratic in the sense that we haven’t formally adopted it, but we use the same definitions for consent and all decisions are made by consent. We have a hierarchy of decision-making so with lack of consent, decisions rise to the full group meetings when they can’t be resolved in teams. We don’t use the election process. People choose responsibilities according to their own interests. This would be seen as unwise in sociocracy because the “volunteer” may not be the best person for the job. What happens is that that person does what they believe should be done, and usually they either drop out when things don’t work out, or another working group forms to take up the slack. We do have members who are capable and responsible in the areas of fiscal responsibility, legal issues, etc. Sharon ---- Sharon Villines, Washington DC Coauthor with John Buck of "We the People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy” 2nd Edition Print: ISBN: 978-0979282737 Digital: ISBN 978-0979282720 http://www.sociocracy.info In Spanish: ISBN: 978-0-9792827-4-4 (eBook) In Portuguese: ISBN: 978-0-9792827-5-1 (eBook) In Korean (under contract)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.