Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Consensus decision making

[Racheli Gai (racheli]

On Aug 11, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Sharon Villines wrote (in part) :

> The definition of what is "valid" in "blocking" seems antithetical to
> the basis for using consensus as a decision-making process.

I don't understand why you claim that, and in what way working by 
consensus is even
possible if there are no limits on what counts as legitimate grounds 
for blocking.


> How you
> get back on track once you begin (1) considering an objection a
> "block" and (2) ignoring it.

Obviously not all objections are efforts to block.  And I think that in 
order to have a
good consensus process, the community needs to try hard to resolve all 
objections.
If, after such efforts, a person decides to keep objecting (so that no 
decision can be
reached), and they do it without being able to establish that their 
objection is based
on community values (or some other grounds the community sees as 
legitimate),
then the community has a right to decide to move on, overriding the 
objection.
This isn't at all the same as "ignoring" an objection.


> The purpose of consensus decision-making is to ensure continued
> commitment to a community. If a group decides that only these
> objections or those objections have to be resolved, isn't it limiting
> that commitment? Isn't it, in effect, using majority rule decision-
> making?

I agree that the community needs to try to resolve all objections.  
Looking at whether
an objection is based on valid/legitimate grounds comes into play only 
if and when
a person is wishing to block (and, presumably, after long and serious 
efforts to
resolve their concerns have failed).  I also agree to the (implicit) 
assumption that efforts
to reach consensus can stem from refusal of the group to work seriously 
and creatively
to resolve someone's concern.  That's certainly not how things should 
be done when
the consensus process is done right.
But we  had people blocking for what seemed like completely frivolous 
reasons,
without any effort to even establish how letting a certain decision be 
made will hurt
the community or how their blocking is based on anything other than 
personal
preferences.
I think that when we talk about "commitment", it needs to be a two-way 
street, which
includes people's commitment to treat the process seriously, not to try 
to get their way
no matter what.

Racheli.