Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Voluntary vs mandatory cooking teams

[Bitner/Stevenson (lilbert]

We have mandatory cook teams, but it is one of the very few mandatory things
we have.  If you think about it, "mandatory" just means that there is alot
of social pressure to cook. Some places might not need an actual rule if
everyone feels that it's important. We never had an issue about it being
mandatory, so I've never thought about it.

That said, I think that people in buildings that were not specifically
designed for cohousing are at a disadvantage. There are not the same chances
for casual interaction that there are in purpose-built cohousing. I would
very much want the teams to be mandatory if I lived there. It really is not
coercion if there is consensus, and I think you could get consensus if
everyone agreed that the reason it's mandatory is that you all want the same
thing.  One thing we often do is try out things for a quarter or six months
and revisit the issue later. That gives people who are uneasy a way to allow
progress with a way out later if they really hate it.

Our experience with rules in general is that we frequently have to fine tune
them several times to get everybody happy.  We no longer sweat that process.
--
Liz Stevenson
Southside Park Cohousing
Sacramento, California

----------

>
> What do you think about voluntary vs.  mandatory cooking teams? We're kind
> of divided in the issue: those for mandatory feel that the soul of the
> co-house will be at risk if people decide to opt out, turning the house
> into just another tenament bldg in the long term. Those for voluntary
> don't like coercion and feel it goes against the spirit of our "free"
> community.  Comments?
>