Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Objections in Consensus [was: principle vs preference / Formal Consensus

[Rosemary Gould (rgould]

Sharon,

I have a question about sociocracy. I'm a Quaker (in Baltimore Yearly 
Meeting, rather than Pacific) and I know that in Quaker history there 
have often been "blocks" which were not accepted at first, but then, 
over a period of years sometimes, as the individual Friend continued to 
present his or her objections, the meetings came around. This was true 
in the case of Friends owning slaves, for instance. Does sociocracy 
allow for objections to be presented repeatedly over a long period?

I put this question to the group because I think others might be 
interested in it.

Rosemary Gould
blueridgecohousing.org
Charlottesville, VA
> The same idea in sociocracy but as in other things, sociocracy has a 
> clearer process. In sociocracy there are no blocks or stand asides, 
> only objections. In order for an objection to be valid, it has to be 
> "argued and paramount" meaning that the objector has to present reasons 
> for objecting and the objection must be related to their inability to 
> work toward the aim of the proposal. This means the objection must be a 
> functional objection, not just a preference.
>
> "Argued" is not intended to discourage objections. It is the role of 
> the facilitator and the group to help someone clarify an objection that 
> may begin as a vague feeling.
>
> The group decides if the objection is valid. The facilitator would 
> propose that an objection was either not paramount or not something 
> that could be corrected by rejecting this proposal. The group would 
> then do a consent round in which the objector would not participate.
>