RE: A consensus question. | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Rob Sandelin (Exchange) (Robsan![]() |
|
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 16:21:33 -0600 |
Stuart brought up the issue of decision legacy, where changing an established decision is difficult if not impossible to do within consensus process because everyone then has to agree with the changes or the old decision stands. Yep. That's a reality. One idea to avoid this to set a sunset clause on some decisions. This decision stands for 3 years and then with three years of experience, we have to reaffirm it or change it, or junk it. Often a good solution to situations which become trapped in either/ or scenarios is to "try out" an idea. Lets try this for a week, year whatever and see how it works. One of the more ominous sides of legacy decisions is that things don't get brought up that should. If you know that cats have never been allowed, says so right in the agreements document, then you may never bring the issue up for discussion because it's pointless. This can then spill over into general apathy - Why bring up issues if you know one or more individuals feel strongly about it? Hot issues get avoided because it takes more energy to deal with them than the issue is worth. Yikes! False consensus! In my opinion, many groups that are using consensus, should not be. They lack the committment, communication and group mission that consensus requires. You can have a very cooperative process, where all ideas are equally and fairly considered on their honest merits, an honest evaluation given by all, and then a vote held to make the final choice. Consensus can also be misapplied to decisions that really are matters of preference, where there is no best solution, such as color choices. In my opinion, spending three group meetings to try and pick a color of tile by consensus is an absurd waste of time. A tiered voting system in that situation works really well and is also very quick. I think it is a good idea to regularly air out your old community agreements and try them on and see if they still fit. This is a very good excuse to have an annual meeting, where you focus on just those sorts of things. Sharingwood's agreements are long overdue for just such a treatment.......We are in the process of revisioning our community goals right now. Once that has run its course, I think we will be ready to examine our agreements and remove the deadwood. Rob Sandelin Sharingwood Where tommorrow we will spend the morning consolidating our visions.
-
A consensus question. Stuart Staniford-Chen, March 15 1996
- RE: A consensus question. Marci Malinowycz, March 15 1996
- RE: A consensus question. Rob Sandelin (Exchange), March 15 1996
- Re: A consensus question. Stuart Staniford-Chen, March 15 1996
- Re: A consensus question. Michael John Omogrosso, March 19 1996
- Re: A consensus question. Shava Nerad, March 19 1996
- Re: A consensus question. Monty Berman, March 20 1996
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.