Re: Consensus, Majority Vote, "Blocks"
From: Sharon Villines (
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
On 5 Oct 2011, at 4:46 PM, R.N. Johnson wrote:

> would have been "cleaner" from a consensus point of view, to adopt a lifetime 
> cap on blocks.  The effect is similar, but instead of the community 
> "overriding" the dissenter, the frequent dissenter chooses to use up their 
> lifetime supply of
> blocks

But what is the point of making decisions? I think it is to make the best 
decision possible. The one that is the most effective in enriching the lives of 
community members. The place  limits on ones ability to do that would be 

If improvement is the purpose of the decision, then random limits on vetoes 
means once a person has used up their vetoes, they can no longer insist that a 
better solution could be found. 

It also infers that one has a certain number of vetoes.

I think all the qualifiers and limits on consensus decision-making distract 
from the purpose of consensus in the first place. The purpose of requiring 
consent loses meaning. 

Sharon Villines
Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.