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

[Thomas Lofft (tlofft]

Working towards a sense of consensus?
 
I prefer to think in terms of collaboration, which I define as working together 
to utilize the strengths of each (idea, person, etc.) as differentiated from 
thinking you are giving up part of A to accomodate B or vice versa; typically 
first defining the common vision and mission, setting common goals, identifying 
essential values, determining objectives, timelines, budgets, etc.  This word 
suggests to me that the group has defined the commanalities which they all 
embrace and from that foundation they will move forward to develop every aspect 
of their community based on the vision and mission statements that have been 
adopted.  All of this can be done collaboratively from the beginning, rather 
than jumping immediately to alternative end points which then seem to become 
points in need of defense;
 
while 'reconciliation' says to me there first has to be a dispute or disruption 
between parties;
 
and 'convergence' suggests that different ideas have to be bent to enter into a 
common direction;
 
and 'compromise' seems to suggest that part of one alternative definitely has 
to be foregone to accommodate elements of other alternatives;
 
   

Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Consensus, Majority Vote, "Blocks" [was Report on
Survey of Cohousing Communities 2011. Just released. A must read!
To: Cohousing-L <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
Message-ID: <BEAB7248-C8CF-4FB2-92B9-C75E4F17A5D1 [at] comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
 
Convergence is good, but what I really like is harmonization. Or, maybe 
reciprocity.
 
RPD
 
On Sep 27, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Daniel Lindenberger wrote:
 
> 
> I'm a fan of convergence!
> 
> 
> On 27/09/2011 12:33 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:
>> CoHo:
>> 
>> I like reconciliation.
>> 
>> WT
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Racheli Gai"<racheli [at] sonoracohousing.com>
>> To: "Cohousing-L"<cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:46 AM
>> Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Consensus, Majority Vote, "Blocks" [was Report on Survey
>> of Cohousing Communities 2011. Just released. A must read!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I completely agree with Sharon about the need to get away from
>> 'compromise' as a word and as a good thing to work for in the context of
>> using consensus.
>> 
>> Racheli, Sonora Cohousing, Tucson.
>> 
>> On 09/26/2011 04:37 PM, Sharon Villines wrote:
>>> On 25 Sep 2011, at 7:24 PM, Moz wrote:
>>> 
>>>> One thing that I think Sharon's not
>>>> emphasising is a willingness to compromise outside of your
>>>> core values. I think it helps to be enthusiastic about the
>>>> prospect of compromise.
>>> Perhaps accommodation or pleasing would be the best word here. Compromise
>>> can produce a result that doesn't make anyone happy. Poorly
>>> air-conditioned air, for example, is worse than too hot or too cold. It's
>>> stale and makes no one happy.
>>> 
>>> Working for the best possible solution for everyone allows you to begin
>>> looking at things in new ways. The compromise mind-set too often produces
>>> manipulation ? I want 20 so I'll start with 200 and look like I'm giving
>>> something away when I settle for 30 ? or simply halving the difference. I
>>> want 2 meals a week and you want 6 so we have to settle for 4. No one will
>>> be happy. The meal program won't be comprehensive, and those who can only
>>> participate in 2 will feel burdened by working for 4 or not participating
>>> at all (depending on circumstances).
>>> 
>>> So I tend to avoid the word "compromise".
>>> 
>>>> What's become obvious to me in the last month or two as our
>>>> co-ho experiment moves into its third iteration is that the
>>>> shared aim is crucial, and it's often a long process to
>>>> discover what peoples aims actually are. Frustrating though
>>>> it is, a lot of people don't ever sit back and think about
>>>> what they want and form a strategy for getting it.
>>> Or they hear everyone talking about things from their own framework and
>>> think everyone is talking about the same thing.