Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Great moments in consensus -- Moment 2

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

Understanding the basis of consent in dynamic governance (sociocracy)  
effectively eliminates the four-million complexities we create around  
consensus decision-making -- complexities that are not only numerous  
but seem endless.

When calling the question, the question is:

Are there any objections to moving forward with this proposal?

That's all. The only question asked. If there are objections, each  
person explains their objection. Each objection needs to be  
addressed. Address the objection, don't make a rule about it. Focus  
on the person and their place in the community. Their relationship to  
the decision.

No thumbs up, down, or sideways. No stand asides. No I'm-not-votings.  
No-I'm-not=in-the-room. No list of rules to be consulted covering  
each possible situation.

If you have no objections, you consent.

Consent doesn't mean you are happy or you are sad or you are on the  
fence or you would rather be fishing. It means you have no objections  
to the proposal that would prevent you from working within it, to  
living with it. You can still have concerns. You can still not like  
the idea. All you are doing is saying, go ahead and we'll see if it  
works.

One more point that I think is helpful -- distinguishing between  
consensus and solidarity. We confuse consensus with solidarity.  
Sometimes we need solidarity. We need more than "go head, it doesn't  
really affect me anyway." We need active support and commitment.

Solidarity is needed when proposing an action that will require  
financial commitments that are essential to the life of the  
community. A decision to break the law. A decision that might incur  
liability.  Providing services to a resident that are essential to  
their health. These are situations where everyone has to be there  
100% or the whole mission is in jeopardy.

Consensus does not require solidarity.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
http://www.adeeperdemocracy.com