Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Re: Consensus & Majority Voting

[Martie Weatherly (martiew]

I cannot find the original email that started this thread, but as I
remember it, it was a community with a design question about a wall that
had been brought up three meetings in a row and everyone was getting
tired of it. 

Yes, that makes people question consensus and think there should be
another way. 

But I did not see anyone advise the original community that 1) many
design questions should not be made by consensus but by a smaller team
or maybe by a straightforward vote. and 2) The question that was
stumping this community seemed to me to be how to make decisions, not
anything to do with the wall. Until they can separate that out, send the
wall decision to a team, and get at the underlying issues about how to
make decisions, they will continue to flounder and question consensus. 

I like the part of this thread that has emphasized training in consensus
and facilitation. Go back to your mission and vision statements and
re-presence what you are all there for. And then have conversations
about how you are going to make decisions, which ones go to teams with
the power to make the decision, and what is most important to you as a
community. 

Martie Weatherly
Liberty Village
martiw [at] earhtlink.net

don i arkin wrote:
> 
> Rob writes that:
> >
> >In a healthy consensus process, I have watched functional groups....make
> 5-6
> >consensus decisions in one 3 hour meeting [because] They understand
> consensus, all the members are trained in it as a requirement to
> participate, they have outstanding facilitation, and communication is a
> priority.
> 
> but on the other hand, he finds that:
> >Most cohousing groups don't have a process for dealing with process
> >problems, few ever intervene with inapproiate or damaging behaviors of
> >individuals, and seldom do groups formally train themselves in  good
> process
> >and expect all new members to take the same training. So in most
> cohousing
> >groups, consensus really means cave into the dominant personalities
> demands
> >or spend weeks going around and around.
> >
> Robert responds:
> 
> Why is this the case?  Although I really favor the idea of consensus with
> no
> voting backup, I'd certainly rather vote than be in a group like the one
> Rob
> describes above.  Is it really true that most groups never go through
> formal
> training?   >>>>>>
> If cohousing groups are really failing (or flailing) at consensus the way
> Rob
> describes above, then it would seem to be one of the more pressing
> problems
> facing cohousing.
> ************
>         Robert, I fear that you have hit the nail on the head!  Even
> though Sonora has had 2 full weekend trainings with Laird, and a half day
> with Rob S., we are still most decidedly flailing and failing at
> consensus.  Many of us don't want to put a heck of a lot more time into
> training. How much is enough?  I fear that the difference between a truly
> "intentional" community and cohousing may come into play here.  In
> cohousing, many people just want to be good neighbors, not the deeper
> level of personal committment & all that some people seem to feel is
> essential to consensus.  Yes, cohousing does need to face this pressing
> problem honestly.
>         Sharon, from Sonora
> _______________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list
> Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
> http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l
_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l