Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: Standing Aside

[Fred H Olson WB0YQM (fholson]

Rob Sandelin ROBSAN [at] EXCHANGE.MICROSOFT.COM 
is the author of the message below but due
to a listserv problem it was posted by the COHOUSING-L sysop (Fred).

Fred's aside: Rob, congrats on your improved net access.  Looks like 
your address will sometimes come out a bit different (alias added).
Also I edited the message below to remove the telltale
wordprocessor remnants "=" and "=20" at the ends of lines and 
reformated the lines...  

****************  FORWARDED MESSAGE FOLLOWS *********************


Buzz wrote:  
A trickier situation arises when the decision is about something 
optional, but it really affects everyone, not just those choosing to 
participate, so if one Stands Aside, one is affected anyway.  A good 
example is streetlights.  I'm not sure where this situation evolved to 
now, but at Nyland a while back, I understand some residents wanted 
outdoor lighting (parking lots, etc).  The people who didn't want them 
just couldn't Stand Aside, because they would be equally subjected to 
the light, so they Blocked that decision. 


One thing that sometimes gets missed in decision making is a good 
evaluation of the why.  Why do you want streetlights, why do you not 
want streetlights.  Once those are known, then the next step can be 
evaluating how to meet the needs of both.

There is a great example of this idea in the book "Getting to yes, 
negotiating agreements with out giving in".  Two people argue in a 
library, one wants the window open, one wants it closed.  The argument 
is about how much to open the window and goes nowhere.  The librarian 
comes in and asks each of them, WHY.  Then she thinks a minute, goes 
into another room and opens a window, meeting the needs of the person 
who wanted some fresh air, and meeting the needs of the person who did 
not want a draft.

Much of what successful consensus reflects is understanding the why 
and meeting the needs of the participants.  Standing aside is a way of 
meeting the needs of all the partipants, because sometimes what meets 
needs best is to NOT participate. 

If you find that your group methodology is based around equal 
participation in everything by everbody  and it is that way because of 
"fairness" I would really caution you, from  my own experience and 
that which I have learned from other communties, to watch very 
carefully for tensions and conflicts and deal with them early on.  
Fairness is a very tricky and subjective concept, often having many 
differing perceptions and angles, and which can often lead down the 
very dark road of resentment and bitterness.

Rob Sandelin
Northwest Intentional Communities Association