Re: Teeth in Rules [Was dogs in community] | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Sharon Villines (sharon![]() |
|
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:47:29 -0700 (PDT) |
On 25 Jun 2011, at 10:21 PM, John Carver wrote: > > On 25/06/2011 11:53 AM, Sharon Villines wrote: >> A good question was raised in the Dynamic Governance workshop at Coho >> University at the Coho Conference. Is a proposal clearly defined if it >> doesn't include "teeth". Is it a proposal at all? Or is it meaningless? > > Conversely, if it needs enforcement to function, do you really have an > agreement? We have people who have said they agree to anything when there are no consequences because they know they don't have to comply. Others seem to weigh the consequences and decide if they want to pay them or not. Even in cohousing. So I guess you could say we don't have an agreement under those circumstances — we have a decision to which no one objected. Sharon ---- Sharon Villines Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC http://www.takomavillage.org
- Re: Teeth in Rules [Was dogs in community], (continued)
- Re: Teeth in Rules [Was dogs in community] Karen Carlson, June 25 2011
- Re: Teeth in Rules [Was dogs in community] PattyMara Gourley, June 25 2011
- Re: Teeth in Rules [Was dogs in community] Joanie Connors, June 25 2011
- Re: Teeth in Rules [Was dogs in community] John Carver, June 25 2011
- Re: Teeth in Rules [Was dogs in community] Sharon Villines, June 27 2011
- Re: Teeth in Rules [Was dogs in community] Norman Gauss, June 26 2011
- Re: dogs in community Wayne Tyson, June 26 2011
- Re: dogs in community Joanie Connors, June 26 2011
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.