Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: CH use rules -

[Wayne Tyson (landrest]

CoHo:

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that the prevalent taboo is 
against questioning the concept of rules, and that no discussion of social 
engagement as an alternative to posted rules (avoidance of social 
engagement) is permitted. Is this universally agreed to by virtually all 
co-housing residents or is there a minority, other than slackers, who would 
prefer to engage the slackers after a violation of social mores (everyone 
should know that consideration of others--in common houses and beyond--is 
their responsibility as adults or children) rather than posting a set of 
rules in advance of said (presumed) violation?

WT

PS: Sharon's interpretation seems much more reasonable to me--should they be 
incorporated into the posted "community agreement?" She also is very 
perceptive with her remark about "condo commandos" (are "commanders" social 
or authoritarian?) who "don't want to have any fun."


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sharon Villines" <sharon [at] sharonvillines.com>
To: "Cohousing-L" <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: [C-L]_ CH use rules -


> On 11 May 2011, at 2:09 AM, Tamara Maher wrote:
>
> > The problem is, folks are so "rule-shy" that they won't even allow a
> > discussion of this topic. Wouldn't it be better to have a conversation so
> > everyone really understands the expectations?
>
> One discussion that would help is one on rules. What do they mean to 
> people? I find that many people are so timid that if there are any rules 
> at all, they go out of their way to do things even more strictly "just in 
> case." And some, honestly, don't want any rules so they can do as they 
> please and not bother with anyone. (Even in cohousing.)
>
> To me a rule says this is what we have agreed to do unless:
>
> (1) we notify the community that in a particular instance we want/need to 
> do something else. In other words we need an exception.
>
> (2) There is an emergency or unusual pressing situation in which the 
> normally expected behavior is not appropriate or possible.
>
> One option is to call them "Community Agreements." That puts the "we" back 
> in the "rule." "We agreed," not "the rule is."
>
> Often "rule" is heard to mean a law that is inflexible and probably even 
> stupid that is made by a government official or condo commando who doesn't 
> want any to have any fun.
>
> Sharon
> ----
> Sharon Villines
> Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC
> http://www.takomavillage.org