Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Change to traditional consensus

[Karen Gimnig Nemiah (gimnig]

I don't know of a group that has made the kind of change you are talking
about.  I do have some thoughts about how a process like that might work,
and in particular a few things you have mentioned.

In general, when groups are talking about changing their governance system
(usually between versions of consensus or between consensus and sociocracy)
I recommend that they look at their culture around decisions making.
Usually when those conversations are happening there are issues in the
culture around trust, some members feeling unheard or dismissed, and some
version of power struggle.  I don't believe those things are generally
caused by or resolved by a governance structure.  That stuff all lives in
the relationships and the most efficient lever I know for changing it is to
improve facilitation of your meetings to include more safety, more
opportunities for being heard, and more variety of input methods (verbal
and non-verbal).  Those things can usually all be worked on without a
change in governance.

Your description of traditional consensus as a process in which "most
decisions are made by the whole group" concerns me.  If most decisions are
made by the whole group, meeting fatigue will be intense.  Most decisions
(examples: which brand of light bulbs to purchase, when to salt paths for
ice, what type of fertilizer to use on common landscaping, which accountant
to hire . . . ) are most efficiently and effectively made by small groups
of people who have interest and/or skill in the relevant area.  That said,
I would hope for all of those decisions to be made in the *spirit of
consensus. *By that, I mean that the people making the decisions are aware
of and concerned about the values and preferences of the group as a whole
and are responsive to anyone who chooses to give input on a particular
decision.  This also requires that the members in general know, or have a
way to know, which group is making which kinds of decisions.  So, for
example, if someone learns about a new and better light bulb and wants the
community to switch to those, they know who to talk to about making that
change and when they have that conversation they a welcomed to participate
in the decision until consensus is reached, peacefully, among those
involved.

While structures can certainly make that kind of decision making easier or
harder, in the end what makes it happen is how people treat each other and
the communication skills that they have and can employ.  If you'll forgive
me for a little self-promotion, a good process consultant from outside the
community can really help a community to make that shift.

In Community,
Karen Gimnig Nemiah
678-705-9007
www.karengimnig.net
Scheduling Calendar <https://calendar.app.google/ET3DvVyg9fyfSq6NA>




> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 12:23:17 -0500
> From: Sophie Rubin <yophiest [at] gmail.com>
> To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org
> Subject: [C-L]_ reversion to or change to traditional consensus model
>         for governance?
> Message-ID:
>         <CALyTN=
> nMJnyMeguVcXwUd75RUNB-NtH6wjT4Rab6CsWPFmRO3Q [at] mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Does anyone know of a community that has either moved away from a
> traditional model of consensus for community governance and then returned
> to it, or that moved from a non-consensus based model of decision making to
> a more traditional model of consensus?
>
> (I say traditional because sometimes "consent" is considered a form of
> consensus, as with sociocracy, but I would call that something more like
> "modified consensus." What I'm looking for when I say traditional consensus
> is that most decisions are made by the whole group and that everyone in
> the group generally needs to agree in order for things to happen.)
>
> Thanks in advance for your input!
>
> Sophie Rubin
> Cherry Hill Cohousing, Massachusetts
>
>