Re: CONCENSUS: A TIME TO RETH | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Mmariner (Mmariner![]() |
|
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 95 00:46 CST |
Jake said: > Because I didn't feel that the course taken was really >dangerous for the group I was able to just stand aside but I >still felt that it would prove to be the wrong (read: >disfunctional) course. Was the issue a procedural or human behavior related? Though I'm not very experienced with consensus in a community context, I could see where group decisions about behavior as opposed to building something or allocating funds would have several iterations. For example, we could decide today that children had to have an adult present to be in a certain area of the common house. Then later, when the children were older and/or more understanding of dangers, the rule could be lifted. So, I'd feel that standing aside for a human behavior issue would be less necessary, because many of today's decisions may need to be adapted, after the group experiences the consequences of the decision. Standing aside should seemingly be taken very seriously where a decision involves large costs or that would require lots of time/energy/materials to UNDO. This is theoretical on my part - what's your EXPERIENCE? Mike M.
-
CONCENSUS: A TIME TO RETH Jake Morrison, February 5 1995
- Re: CONCENSUS: A TIME TO RETH Mmariner, February 5 1995
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.