Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: consensus and majority vote

[cscheuer (cscheuer]

> Discussing rules helps insure a buy-in, and also
> allows bringing up and re-discussing/changing rules.  Even though on the
> surface it might seem like a more restrictive setup, it's actually more
> freeing by its nature, because it allows questioning and changing of 
> arrangements, if people are dissatisfied.  And it also allows participants
> to have a better idea where they stand.

I totally agree, and think that formal community organizations are a great
idea and a great tool for facilitating community. I wouldn't want to be
part of a cohousing community with no formal structures. 

I was responding because I feel its important to remember that we can, and
do, accomplish amazing communities without those structures and should not
lock ourselves into thinking a particular formal construct is the only
means of achieving richer communities. Its not the construct that makes the
community work, Its the community that makes the construct work. Obviously
some structures (feudal for example) are prohibitive of positive community
development and others facilitate positive community development.

Chris Scheuer

PS - I'm with you about the implicit rules as well. They can be more
constraining than any formal rules and the repercussions of violating them
greater. 

_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l