Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Consensus decision making

[Racheli Gai (racheli]

Yeah, I agree.  Which is why we also have the requirement that a few 
other
people (I don't remember the number we stipulated) need to see that 
there is a
legitimate connection between the objection and a community value/goal.

Note that for a person to see a block as valid doesn't mean that s/he 
wishes
to block themselves, or that they think that a block is called for.

Racheli.

On Aug 11, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Muriel Kranowski wrote:

> I wonder how much it really helps communities to avoid idiosyncratic
> blocking to say "Blocks must be justifiable in terms of the community's
> //needs//vision//principles//".  If there's one thing that most people 
> are
> good at, it's being able to justify nearly anything in the name of a 
> higher
> principle, either sincerely or with a hidden agenda.  I'll bet that 
> even
> the personal-preference blockers whom Racheli has written about could
> justify themselves in that way if they knew that was the requirement.
>
>      Muriel
>      at Shadowlake Village Cohousing in Blacksburg, VA
>
> At 04:07 PM 8/6/2008, John Faust wrote to agree with Racheli (who made 
> this
> same point again today:
> > I think Racheli's point is very important. Blocking should not be
> > groundlessly exercised just because it is a consensus process. This is
> > probably where vision/mission and principles come in. Blocking should 
> > be
> > grounded in these base documents just as much as the proposals they 
> > would
> > block. A block should only be valid if it clarifies that a proposal in
> > some way "violates" the letter or intent of the vision/mission or
> > principles. This still leaves a great deal of latitude but provides a
> > basis for further discussion. Groundless blocking should not be an 
> > option.
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/