Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Consensus, Majority Vote, "Blocks" [was Report on Survey of Cohousing Communities 2011. Just released. A must read!

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On 25 Sep 2011, at 11:04 AM, R Philip Dowds wrote:

> \I would go further:  Members who did not actually participate in the 
> crafting of a proposal should think really hard — like, I mean, really, 
> really hard — before they block it in a community-wide meeting.  Weak 
> participation = diminished rights. (Yes?)

Participating in the process of resolving an objection is not the same as 
participating in crafting a proposal. Join the team or shut up is not a good 
strategy. While it is certainly frustrating to have a do-nothing know-it-all 
community member who can find fault with everything, the objective of a 
proposal is to find the best solution possible in current circumstances that 
will allow the group to move forward. Having everyone that a proposal affects 
participate in a group to research and write it would effectively mean 
developing all proposals in full community meetings. Not workable.

Delegation of operational tasks is not the same as delegating policy decisions. 

Policy requires the consent of everyone it affects.

It is the responsibility of those delegating to be clear about what they expect 
and the responsibility of the proposal writers to check for feed back. And the 
responsibility of everyone to object to anything about the policy that will 
cause them to disengage emotionally from the community or prevent them from 
engaging. 

Objections should be invited because they improve the proposal. They should 
make it clearer and more supportive. 

There is nothing so frustrating as writing a proposal, passing it with no 
objections raised, and then having people grumble and ignore the policy because 
it didn't work for them — for whatever reason.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines, Washington DC
Coauthor with John Buck of
"We the People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy"
ISBN: 9780979282706
http://www.socionet.us