Re: guidlines on consensus acceptance - communities movement
From: Tree Bressen (treeic.org)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:49:33 -0800 (PST)
Hi Sharon & folks,

I have long wanted to participate in a list for intentional communities
that would reflect the breadth of community, rather than a narrow list
like Cohousing-L. Cohousing-L is such a wonderful resource with open
sharing people, wouldn't it be great to have an email list open to all
intentional communities so they could share. So when a list was
announced in the last Fellowship for Intentional Communities
newsletter, I immediately joined.

The rules for participation on the list tell the story about why there
are so few intentional communities and no list on which they share
information. The rules grew and grew over the first month so that I
finally sent a message that I knew would get me evicted. The list of
rules:

[snip]

After cohousing, it was a very strange set of rules. And, of course, I
said so, and am no more on the list. But I thought this might present a
good comparison of the different mind-set of cohousers compared to
other intentional communities.

Hey now! The rules and administration of that particular list (for new communities starting up) that you cite seem rather peculiar to me too, and i doubt the list will have a long life. But please don't take that list vs. Coho-L as a valid comparison of cohousing vs. the broader intentional communities movement--it's not fair to pick out one offputting example to discredit a vast set of communities. I could just as well find some offputting cohousing start-up group and compare it to one or more well-established non-cohousing communities and say that cohousing is worse than other communities, but why would i do that?

Cheers,

--Tree



-----------------------------------------------

Tree Bressen
1680 Walnut St.
Eugene, OR 97403
(541) 484-1156
tree [at] ic.org
http://www.treegroup.info


Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.