Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: new consensus resources

[Brian Bartholomew (bb]

> I disagree that people can't get "kicked out".
> For any process to work well, there need to be rules regarding those
> who break the rules.  This includes working by consensus.

I agree that, for instance, a threat of violence should be against the
rules and deserve sanctions.  But, is there *any* other process
behavior that is similarly unacceptable?

        Failing to argue your position rationally?

        Failing to phrase an argument in the form of an appeal to
        common values?

        Failing to continue restating your position after it's clear
        that you simply don't agree?

        Not being "reasonable"?

I would go so far as to say that consensus *means* there is no process
mechanism by which to force someone to do something (other than
deliver on their agreements).  I receive all the good stuff that comes
across this list about consensus as ways to compromise, negotiate,
brainstorm, communicate, and generally cooperate more effectively --
after you've decided that cooperation is what you choose to do.

What's the difference between:

        "We, the Prettier Flowers committee, want you to plant a
         rosebush by your door, and if you don't 'consent' we will sit
         through the required four meetings and then force you to do
         it by majority vote."

...and the same thing obscured by four meetings of yada yada so your
neighbors, OR YOU, still think you value consensus?  "No" doesn't mean
"yes, if you've bought me dinner and a movie", it means "no".

                                                        Brian