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

[Lyle Scheer (wonko]

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

Ann Zabaldo wrote:
> Lyle --
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> You have given voice to issues I have w/ overriding a block.  I was  
> especially affected by this statement of yours:
> 
>> ... 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.
> 
> My thoughts exactly.
> 
> People love consensus when it's easy.  It's when it's hard and there's  
> groaning and gnashing of teeth that people get frustrated.  But it's  
> exactly at this place where consensus is best used.

It's a point that came up in our business meeting this Sunday...  We've
been talking about consensus, and did a survey a while back when Tree
came to do a workshop for us.

The survey had everyone rank from 1-5 on strongly disagree to strongly
agree various statements about consensus, such as:

- - A person should be able to block consensus for any reason

- - More than three green cards means no consensus

- - More than two orange cards means no consensus

(we currenly use a card color system for consensus... green means slight
reservation, orange is a "stand aside")

I found myself on the opposite side of most of my group, but it was
around the points we're talking about here.

I'm at the point where I think the card system detracts from our
conversation.  We look at the color card to see meaning.  Each person
decides for themselves what color to hold up, which makes the whole
thing rather arbitrary and in my mind just keeps us looking at numbers
and colors and not talking about the issue.

I've been taking a "strong agreement" stance with "a person should be
able to block consensus for any reason," which I find has generated some
strong reaction from others in our group.

Now, I remember from reading in one of these books about I think it was
the Sierra Club, or Greenpeace, or one of these environmental
organizations who had a full consensus process until some anarchists
came in with the express purpose of disrupting the organization and sat
in and blocked everything.  This is a good extreme counterexample to my
own argument of anyone at any time.  However, I maintain that at that
point, it actually benefits the organization to fully understand why and
what caused these anarchists to come in.  Anarchists is the term
described in the book, but perhaps it could be a label applied to these
people by the majority wanting to move on in the organization.

This is where I think a third neutral party would be potentially more
effective.  Perhaps the organization is moving to an extreme further
from the mainstream.  To consciously understand that, and then be able
to make the informed decision to continue to move to the extreme and
perhaps shed more of the mainstream, or move back towards that
mainstream is in my mind a more informed and useful decision than just
rejecting the input to the process.

> Before people start lobbing things at me please note I'm NOT talking  
> about the person who uses blocking as a veto and routinely or even  
> semi routinely blocks a decision. That's not a consensus problem.   
> That's a group development problem or a social issue.

Well, I'd say it's a consensus issue in that now you've got a much
slowed down general process.  No matter what you call it, I'm going to
assert that it is potentially healthier for the whole group to get to
the root of the issue than it is to override and ignore that there may
be a problem.

> I think it's well to remember Caroline Estes' rule of thumb:  if you  
> have blocked six times you've used up your life time allotment of  
> blocks.  So if you  take this "rule" seriously you can see you will  
> have very few blocks and the ones you do have will have some weight  
> and merit to them.

I'm going to make a contrary assertion here as a point of debate and to
provoke thought.  I'm not sure I agree with my own argument as I am
still working out these concepts for myself... but anyway:

There may be value to a larger group to give space to a minority that
cries wolf more often.  The point of consensus is to bring in the wisdom
of the whole.  Certain wisdom can be hard to swallow.  I suppose in my
above example if the so called anarchists freely admitted to blocking
just because it was fun, if not even your third party can find value and
this is repetitively causing loss of function of the group, it is time
to remove the problem.

I think the challenge is to the larger majority to discover what they
can learn from whatever the block is, and possibly I'm not willing to
just write off the person who is so conflicted or angry or incoherent or
whatever and has to say, "No," and walk out of the room.

Personally, I think in a good consensus process and a well facilitated
process, you never actually make the call for consensus until you have
worked through all concerns, made whatever changes you've made, and
asked the individuals specifically if they are willing to give their
consent to the modified proposal.  Thus, in the sense of a voting
process, a "call for consensus" is not something that ever really
happens.  Consensus gels.

The problem that arises is one of issues with a time sensitivity, or a
sense of urgency.

> BTW -- I'm getting to where I don't really believe there is such an  
> animal as a "block."  It's just another objection to be resolved.  And  
> an awful lot of the sturm and drang about consensus could be obviated  
> by early and ongoing training for the whole group.  It surprises me  
> how many groups read a book on consensus and expect to be able to use  
> it.  Sorta like learning to ride a bike by reading a manual.

Funny... I think that's what I meant above and then went to clip out
more of your response.  Ann, I think you and I are on similar
wavelengths in our exploration of consensus at the moment.

> Thanks to everyone for contributing to this thread regardless of what  
> you believe about consensus, blocking, etc.  It's the mix of ideas  
> that makes this such an engaging topic.

Indeed.  I find it incredibly challenging to myself.

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

iEYEAREDAAYFAknbj7AACgkQ00lQLawESXqV5wCfVZgKQChQh+NO7HJhmQMC51JJ
SD8AnAjZJVkjRcIQDogiWmqupW/Cw1AA
=oNHL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----