Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: decision-making process

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On Sep 17, 2014, at 12:05 PM, Mary Ann Clark <drmaryann49 [at] mac.com> wrote:

> Having well-defined common values is essential as is having the fortitude to 
> work the process. It also helped us to require that people who stand aside or 
> block articulate their objections in light of those values. 

One of the problems of defending an objection on the basis of the community's 
values is the vagueness of "values." Values statements are rarely as specific 
as: 

"Our purpose is to make shoes for casual wear by teenagers who are 
environmentally conscious and have one of several foot abnormalities."

That is a tangible purpose. You can argue how to define "environmentally 
conscious" and "abnormalities" but it's still clearer than a "values" statement 
which might be that "all teenagers should be able to participate in the school 
culture of cool shoes." 

When you try to write a statement that both includes individual values and 
avoids others, it can be very vague.

Better, I think, is writing a purpose for this specific proposal or decision. A 
discussion of the purpose should be held before the proposal is written and, if 
possible, have consent. In that discussion is the place to address general 
values if there are clear contradictions or mandates. A purpose defined in 
relation to "this proposal" will be much clearer because it is addressing a 
specific problem or opportunity and the specific actions that will be taken in 
relation to them.

The worst, in my opinion, is trying to argue either consent or objections on 
the basis of the "good  of the community." Who is defining "good of the 
community"? The majority. 

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Sociocracy: A Deeper Democracy
http://www.sociocracy.info