|Re: Re David Clement's concern about two members of the same household in a General Circle||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Sharon Villines (sharonsharonvillines.com)|
|Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 07:03:21 -0700 (PDT)|
> On Aug 21, 2019, at 8:47 PM, Diana Leafe Christian <diana [at] ic.org> wrote: > I also agree that it doesn’t matter if two people from the same > household are in a circle because in Sociocracy decisions are made with > Consent Decision-Making, not majority-rule voting or consensus. This depends on when you think a decision is made. In fact most decisions have been made before the consent round is even started. The arguments determine how people see the wind blowing. Arguments can be unbalanced. That is why diversity is important in policy making. If the board has a limited number of people, having a couple on the board, for example, will take up at least one seat that might be filled be filled with someone who represents a more diverse point of view. 6-8 people can only represent so many points on the star — younger, older, male, female, gay, straight, small units on the street, large units on the west side, pro social action, conservative, etc. Policies should be designed to address the concerns that any of those groups might have. > In Sociocracy their contributions to policymaking are, to quote Jerry again, > ideally are “persuasive rather than arm-twisting,” and General Circle members > chosen for their ability to serve the big picture, not those simply with free > time to attend meetings. This is the ideal, certainly, but is it true in fact? Do communities have their choice of people to serve on the board or is it a more limited number of people willing to do so? We’re having a discussion now on the sociocracy [at] groups.io email lisit about how a sociocratic structure would prevent a Donald Trump, or get rid of him faster if he did get elected. Sociocracy is only as good as the people who are willing to stand up and do what it allows or enables. > To ask a community’s General Circle to serve as its main governing > and policy-making circle could concentrate too much decision-making power in > the center, rather than, as I understand Sociocracy is designed, for > “distributed leadership,” spreading decision-making and leadership out to > each functional and daughter circle. I’ll be happy to talk with anyone about > this further, if interested. I don’t know what “in the center” means. A full circle would be more like a circle that encompasses all other circles within it. By law, depending on local laws, some decisions must be made by all the owners. Annual Budget, election of the board, etc. When we first started discussing sociocracy in cohousing, some people were resistant to having all the decisions made in small groups and also thought sociocracy prevented meetings as a whole. The sense of the community as a whole was important and they didn’t want to lose that. I raised this issue with Gerard. He said there is no reason except efficiency that a group can’t meet as a full circle and not have any sub-circles at all. But they must have an elected leader. In other words, function clearly and not have a leaderless group or make things up as you go. Most cohousing communities are the size that full circle meetings would be 20-30 people. Not everyone would attend every meeting. In my community we run about 60 adult members and would have more than 30-35 people in a meeting only if we were making a big difficult policy decision. (Ann may remember that differently.) In large organizations many circles would be that size. There aren’t absolute rules in sociocracy. There are various principles and practices that have been proven to work. If one of those doesn’t work in your group, using an alternative that produces the same effect and protects the equal valuing of each member of the group may work just as well. The principles are (1) consent governs policy decisions, (2) policies decisions are decided in teams or circles where everyone participates as an equal, and (3) circles are double-linked to create a circular hierarchy of feedback loops. Consent and a feedback structure are vital—not sure how these could be dropped and produce the same effect. But is everything else necessary for your group? Not if you can achieve the same results in a different way. The principles are principles because they work. They produce harmonious organizations that are effective in achieving their aims. I do think it is best to adopt all the principles and practices so you can see how they work before you decide this piece works better for our situation. Sharon ---- Sharon Villines Sociocracy: A Deeper Democracy http://www.sociocracy.info
Re David Clement's concern about two members of the same household in a General Circle Diana Leafe Christian, August 21 2019
- Re: Re David Clement's concern about two members of the same household in a General Circle Sharon Villines, August 22 2019
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.