RE: Consensus and the Concept of Blocking | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Rob Sandelin (floriferousmsn.com) | |
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 19:29:00 -0700 (MST) |
I have seen lots of dysfunctional behaviors, where people block an entire group of people because they want the attention of the group, or because they are pissed off and stopping the whole group is a way to get revenge. In these situations, and in other times of dysfunction, having a voting backup keeps your group functioning. I have witnessed bizarre behaviors from people who are "getting divorced" from a community. You can try to mediate, but if they won't participate, the best you can sometimes do is to protect your self and your community. It is sad when a community goes through something like this, but it does not have to destroy your ability to make agreements. It would be wonderful if everybody was reasonable and well adjusted, but it seems that is not always the case, and having a way to keep yourself from being damaged from direct assaults on your process is like having catastrophic health insurance. You hope you never need it, but if you do, it will save you lots of resources. Under normal group circumstances, voting probably will not be an issue you have to deal with if you have a well functioning consensus process. For some groups however, consensus is a mistake. Rob Sandelin -----Original Message----- From: cohousing-l-admin [at] cohousing.org [mailto:cohousing-l-admin [at] cohousing.org]On Behalf Of Sharon Villines Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 2:07 PM To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org Subject: [C-L]_Consensus and the Concept of Blocking > There is also a very important function of having a backup. It makes people > more cooperative. If I know that I can't stop the group just by blocking > consensus, and that they will outvote me at a future meeting, then even the > most uncooperative person is likely to make some moves towards compromise, > because they know they will simply get outvoted a couple meetings down the > road. It makes sense, if only to satisfy the bank, to have a back up voting procedure established to cover impossible situations that could occur. But in general I find the concept of "blocking" to be meaningless. Whether consensus is defined as either full agreement or the absence of objection, there is no consensus until there is full agreement or no objections. No one can block what doesn't exist. The lack of consensus means the group has not found a solution (or explained it adequately) for everyone to feel comfortable with it. To view someone who disagrees as uncooperative is to disparage the position of that person. Those who are agreeing are just as uncooperative from the objector's point of view. To hold that the one person is the uncooperative person, not the majority is an attitude that is not part of the _spirit_ of consensus. Once you start thinking this way, you are in the majority rules system. The other reason for having a back up voting and majority rules system in place is that consensus requires that the group have shared goals. There comes a time when the group does not have shared goals, the majority vote essentially splits the group or splits off a small minority. It would seem that sometimes this would be necessary and a mechanism in place to do it. After a majority vote in a cohousing community, I can't imagine continuing as before. It would be broken. Perhaps fixable, but definitely broken. Sharon -- Sharon Villines Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC http://www.takomavillage.org _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.332 / Virus Database: 186 - Release Date: 3/6/02 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.332 / Virus Database: 186 - Release Date: 3/6/02 _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l
-
CC&Rs in California Mccourt, Eileen, March 27 2002
-
RE: CC&Rs in California: decision making clauses Rob Sandelin, March 28 2002
- decision making clauses Rowenahc, March 28 2002
-
Consensus and the Concept of Blocking Sharon Villines, March 28 2002
- RE: Consensus and the Concept of Blocking Rob Sandelin, March 28 2002
- Re: Consensus and the Concept of Blocking Martie Weatherly, March 28 2002
-
RE: CC&Rs in California: decision making clauses Rob Sandelin, March 28 2002
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.