Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Allowing "block" creates vetoes

[R Philip Dowds (rpdowds]

Yes, but ...

If all others think a proposal is fine for the community — and just one member 
thinks it is bad for the community — is it not just a tad arrogant to believe 
one's personal view is clearly superior to the combined wisdom of everyone else?

My own standards for blocking are quite different.  I might block if I believe 
the proposal ...
... is actually illegal, like, discriminatory against someone's civil rights as 
defined by the law; or
... discriminatory against me personally, like denial of communal parking 
access to Subaru Outbacks; or
... makes it very hard or impossible for me to do the communal jobs I've been 
assigned, or to honor the communal commitments we all share.  Like, all 
Managing Board meetings must be at noon on a weekday, even if I (as Clerk) am 
full time employed out of town (which I am).

Based on these standards, I have never blocked anything, and do not expect to.  
But I can and do argue strenuously against things I find to be illogical, 
inconsistent, or silly.

RPD

On Oct 21, 2011, at 7:16 AM, Brian Tremback wrote:

> I wonder if the basis of a valid block would not be better conceived as
> "detrimental to the community" rather than "negatively affect a member's
> ability to participate". Whether something is detrimental to the community
> is open for discussion. Whether something will affect one's ability to
> participate only has to be claimed and is not open for discussion or
> verification.