Re: Revisiting Decisions
From: Elizabeth Stevenson (
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:32:01 -0700 (MST)
In practice, I think the number of people required to revisit a decision is
very different, depending on whether the community is built or not. We had
the somewhat draconian number of 2/3 to revisit(I think) before we moved in.
It was absolutely necessary with turnover of members that they understand
that each new member would not be able to change all the previous decisions,
especially for a group that had the trials and tribulations that ours did.

That said, I don't think we've ever even had to fall back on that rule since
we moved in. When there is sentiment toward making any decision, it gets
brought up at a meeting.

So many of our decisions are time-limited anyway. At this stage, most of our
decisions are about things that need fairly regular revisiting, like the
budget. Most decisions seem to only last from a quarter to a year. Contrast
that with having to decide which architect to get or purchasing land, and
you have a very different process, requiring different rules.

Liz Stevenson
Southside Park Cohousing
Sacramento California

tamgoddess [at]
> From: Racheli&John <jnpalme [at]>
> Reply-To: cohousing-l [at]
> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:36:30 MST
> To: cohousing-l [at]
> Subject: RE: [C-L]_Revisiting Decisions
> ** Reply to note from "Jeanne Goodman" <goodmanj [at]> Fri, 7 
> Dec
> 2001 16:32:04 -0500
> From Racheli
> Sonora Cohousing
> 75% for revisiting decisions seems awfully high to me, too.
> In our community, we require that 5 members (out of 36
> households) ask to re-open a consensed-on decision.  If it was
> up to me only,  I'd have the number even lower.
> I think it's important to remember that agreeing to discuss
> an issue once again isn't the same as agreeing to change the
> decision - all it says, really, is that some people are unhappy
> about a decision, and more discussion is necessary.  Perhaps
> the decision will change, and perhaps not.  But not agreeing
> to talk about it unless you have such a huge majority is
> something I'd be very uncomfortable with (and which, to
> me, seems somehow contrary to the spirit of consensus).
> R.
> _______________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list
> Cohousing-L [at]  Unsubscribe  and other info:

Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at]  Unsubscribe  and other info:

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.