Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: qualifying a block as legitimate

[Lyle Scheer (wonko]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

This reflects why I feel somewhat ambivalent to Sharon's description of
sociocracy.

It seems to key on being a good speaker, and being in a space where you
feel safe enough to speak, and it puts that onus on the minority with
the objection, which I feel may sometimes be inappropriate.

It's that particular space... safety and encouragement for the minority
block that I believe is extremely critical to have good facilitation around.

So much of what I've heard about processes of when to override a block
don't seem to take into account that the people deciding to override the
block are the majority that disagree with the block.  There is something
wrong with that.  No, let me rephrase slightly... there is much
potential for abuse of that, and it seems in my mind that it would pull
focus from the discovery and learning process around the reasons for the
block into the mechanics of the override.

I suppose I would be better with those sorts of processes if the arbiter
of the override was a neutral third party.

- - Lyle

Rod Lambert wrote:
> I found Sharon's sociocratic governance description very helpful in 
> understanding how it works, especially on what constitutes reasoned 
> objections. On occasion it does seem that those that "talk to think 
> overpower those that "think to talk". What John Cleese called the 
> "articulate incompetent" sometimes sway the decision while those with 
> unarticulated gut feelings are left out of the process.
> I wondered if adding in something someone else said on this theme a few 
> months ago would further improve the way decisions get made. I believe 
> someone had said that if someone blocked (or objected?) to a decision 
> they took on the responsibility, with the help of 2 or 3 willing 
> members, to generate an "improved" proposal for later decision.
> 
> Rod Lambert
> Ecovillage at Ithaca NY
> 
>>> This is a topic we are now discussing.  Do any communities require an
>>> announced consensus block to be judged to be valid or legitimate  
>>> before allowing it to stand?
>>   
> 
> We don't have anything in our bylaws but have never overruled an  
> objection.
> 
> There is a distinction in sociocratic governance that might be helpful.
> 
> People may object but may not veto. A block, as I understand it is  
> essentially a veto.
> 
> An objection must be (1) paramount and (2) reasoned.
> 
> "Paramount" in a cohousing community would mean that if this proposal  
> is adopted it will affect your ability to live in or to support the  
> community. Being able to live happily in the community, to  
> enthusiastically support it, is a value "above all others" for most  
> cohousers. If painting the barn neon purple will affect you this way,  
> you may well be "missing in action" the next time the community needs  
> you. You will have emotionally withdrawn your consent. You have an  
> obligation to let the community know this.
> 
> "Reasoned" means you must explain your objection sufficiently well for  
> others to help resolve it. An objection may be vague like a bad  
> feeling, it doesn't have to be "factual," but you must participate in  
> efforts to clarify those feelings. Many objections start as feelings  
> so "reasoned" means "expressed." Reasoning requires you to help  
> clarify and resolve the objection.
> 
> If you say "No" and walk out of the room, that is a veto. If you say,  
> "No, I don't like this" and refuse to explain why or to help people  
> understand your reasons, that is a veto. You are in effect being a  
> dictator and not engaging in your community's decision-making process.  
> If you say no and give a speech no one understands and you refuse to  
> explain it, that is a veto.
> 
> The decision-making standard in sociocratic governance is that  
> everyone in the community should be able "to live with it." At first  
> this sounds like a pretty low standard, but it is balanced with  
> continual "measuring" to determine if the decision is producing the  
> desired results. Decisions are often made in small chunks for short  
> periods of time so better decisions can be made based on the  
> experiences gained from the previous decision.
> 
> Successive approximations are considered to be the best way to move  
> forward -- not one big decision to last for all time. A small step may  
> either resolve the objection or demonstrate to everyone else that the  
> objection was well founded.
> 
> Sharon
> ----
> Sharon Villines
> Coauthor with John Buck of
> "We the People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy"
> A Guide to Sociocratic Principles and Methods
> ISBN: 9780979282706
> http://www.sociocracy.info
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: 
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)

iEYEAREDAAYFAknbawQACgkQ00lQLawESXpxjACg1eGTq2aM+UM4DB1uUFTEqtts
+0kAoM1FPcYNdLdbU19xBMRe0ufEJuiD
=WCLb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----