Re: Formal Consensus | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Brian Bartholomew (bbstat.ufl.edu) | |
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:06:07 -0700 (PDT) |
I think it is comparing apples to apples to evaluate all the systems of group decisionmaking being discussed with this question: What percentage of all residents have to consent, to impose a cost on what percentage of all residents who do not consent? I tally the results into categories as follows: 1. The laissez-faire, completely unregulated, free market values consent the most. If you don't consent to buy that car, no group of shoppers or owners can override your nonconsent. One person can make a nonconsent stick. Only one person has mentioned that her forming coho group had no voting fallback. 2. Two (unrelated?) people can make a nonconsent stick. 3. The percentage to make a block stick depends on the circumstances of that meeting. Some a% of the residents attend a meeting, where b% of the attendees agree that a nonconsent is "invalid", "unprincipled", "contrary to our values", etc. The consent-overriders may not be a majority of residents. In this situation the nonconsenter must continually marshal voting-style support for their position, and get enough block-supporters to attend each and every meeting. I think this analysis of power mechanics reveals cohousing consensus to be indistinguishable from the US Congress. Congressmen also claim to be "representing" those people whose consent they don't have, using shared values of Mom, apple pie, and pork. If cohousings give nonconsenters more of what they want, it is because the participants do that by choice; it is not required by most processes I've read about here. 4. At least one cohousing has CC&R's that say if quorum isn't met at a capital expenditure meeting, they can keep calling meetings, but with each meeting needing half the quorum of the preceeding meeting. At this point, I'm quite disillusioned about "consensus". Brian
- Re: Objections in Consensus [was: principle vs preference / Formal Consensus, (continued)
- Re: Objections in Consensus [was: principle vs preference / Formal Consensus Sharon Villines, March 29 2007
- Re: Objections in Consensus [was: principle vs preference / Formal Consensus Sharon Villines, April 6 2007
-
Re: principle vs preference / Formal Consensus Racheli Gai, March 29 2007
- Formal Consensus Maggie Dutton, March 29 2007
- Re: Formal Consensus Brian Bartholomew, March 29 2007
- Re: Formal Consensus Buzz Harris, March 29 2007
- Formal Consensus Maggie Dutton, March 29 2007
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: Formal Consensus vs Sociocracy Maggie Dutton, March 30 2007
- Re: Formal Consensus vs Sociocracy Brian Bartholomew, April 1 2007
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.