Cohousing-L Mailing List: principle vs preference / Formal Consensus

[Lynn Nadeau (welcome]

The CT Butler book, On Conflict and Consensus, with its "Formal Consensus" 
process, is the guide for consensus process at both RoseWind Cohousing and 
the Port Townsend EcoVillage. 

The tricky part of this process is one we haven't had to deal with in either 
group: a block is only valid if based on "principle" rather than 
"preference."  In general, of course, consensus is about what is best for 
the group, not just what YOU think is a great idea. We've always had the 
concept that one wouldn't block unless one thought the proposal would lead 
to something bad for the group (undue legal or financial risk, serious 
erosion of community, etc). 

With more than 15 years of experience, at RoseWind we typically don't call 
for consensus until things are well worked out. Potential blocks are in 
effect handled ahead of time, through discussion circles, emails, give and 
take in various ways, seeking solutions all can consent to. Or lacking that, 
we may drop a proposal. 

But we've never come down to "your block is invalid because we don't think 
you are really motivated by principle." Surely there could be sticky spots 
where the blocker believes they are acting on principle, but the group 
doesn't agree. I've always wondered what would happen then? Who decides, 
without falling into a majority-rule sort of model? 

If a person themself set aside their dissent, realizing it wasn't about 
principle, that would work. But to have a block invalidated by the rest of 
the group? Kind of like "consensus minus one" - I find it hard to imagine 
that the dissenter would still feel part of the group, and could see that 
being a prelude to losing a member. Anyone have experience of that juncture? 

Lynn at RoseWind
Port Townsend WA
www.rosewind.org