Consensus (was Affordability?) | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Becky Weaver (beckyweaverswbell.net) | |
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:27:09 -0700 (PDT) |
--- Brian Bartholomew <bb [at] stat.ufl.edu> wrote: > Unfortunately, the message > I'm getting here is that consensus can't be trusted > for interior > decoration, much less things impacting personal > financial survival. "Consensus" is not a person or organization, that can be trusted, or not trusted. It is a decision-making process. Well-conducted consensus decision-making processes work extremely well for important matters, such as those impacting individuals' financial survival. They also help build trust among individuals in a group. Whereas some decision-making processes, such as majority rule, can undermine trust over time. Interior decoration is not terribly important in the grand scheme of things; and decisions about interior decoration are probably not best made by consensus. Often, consensus-based groups consent on some other way to make interior-decorating type decisions, for example by selecting a professional interior decorator to make the choices. Interior-decoration type decisions can be changed without bankrupting anybody; the worst impact a change could have is that a family might get a countertop or carpet they don't like. Precisely because this is a fairly minor consequence (and I say that as a person who once had to live with a road-sign-orange countertop), during a time of intense activity, a functioning consensus-based organziation will probably push this type of decision to a level that does not require full community consensus. Thus allowing the community to focus on the very important, financial-impact type issues. I think that what Sharon was trying to express - and I'm sure she'll help me out if I'm mistaken - is that *if* a project aspect such as a van is *not* considered an important, financial-survival type item, it might get relegated by the community to interior-decoration-type status. And then it's on the table for budget cuts when push comes to shove. Which, if the van is not a core community value, is probably appropriate. If the van is a core personal value for only a few members, and the community has to make a hard decision, the van might have to go for the financial well-being of the community as a whole. Not because nobody cares or is untrustworthy; but because the community is struggling to find a solution that will cause the least harm overall. No decision-making process can keep bad stuff from happening out there in the big wide world. Prices rise, clouds rain, and people have to cope somehow. Consensus processes only work in groups that have a common aim. If that aim is "a rural community with a commuter van" then the van is probably safe. If the aim is "a rural community with homeschooling and an appple orchard," the van might be in trouble. Becky Weaver Kaleidoscop Village, Austin, Texas Where none of our interior decorating decisions are being made by consensus ___________________________________ A man becomes his attentions. His observations and curiosity, they make and remake him. --William Least Heat Moon
- Re: Affordability?, (continued)
- Re: Affordability? Becky Weaver, March 15 2007
-
Re: Affordability? Sharon Villines, March 15 2007
- Message not available
- Re: Affordability? Sharon Villines, March 16 2007
- Re: Affordability? Brian Bartholomew, March 16 2007
- Consensus (was Affordability?) Becky Weaver, March 16 2007
- Re: Consensus (was Affordability?) Becky Weaver, March 16 2007
- Re: Consensus (was Affordability?) Brian Bartholomew, March 16 2007
- Re: Consensus (was Affordability?) Becky Weaver, March 16 2007
- Re: Consensus failures Rob Sandelin, March 17 2007
- Message not available
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.