Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Dynamic Governance-Sociocracy workshop June 15-16 in Boston MA

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On 4 May 2012, at 5:00 PM, R Philip Dowds wrote:

> Many cohos are now experimenting with DECISION RULE alternatives to 
> unanimity, such as requiring more than one person to validate the objection, 
> or super-majority rule after the group has made a good faith effort to 
> address objections.

The problem here is the definition of "unanimity". Diane was speaking of 
"unanimous agreement." It's my belief that no one teaching consensus 
decision-making has ever defined consensus as unanimous agreement with a 
proposal, but rather unanimous consent to go forward with a proposal. Consent 
does not imply agreement. And never has.

Solidarity requires the full commitment of agreement. Underground groups 
involved in activities that risk life and limb require that members fully 
commit to their actions or there is danger to all. There may be times as well 
that a cohousing group wants/needs the same kind of commitment. During the 
development phase, for example, if there are only 4-5 households and they need 
to commit to an option on land, it can be fatal to the group for one household 
to withdraw. The group will want more than consent in this kind of decision. It 
needs solidarity.

So solidarity is an option just as majority vote or preference ranking are.

> SOCIOCRACY employs and relies on CONSENSUS, and is not intended as an 
> alternative to it. [snip] Is it really the right, or the best, set of people 
> for making such decisions?  What if the group is not operating in a vacuum, 
> but instead must have permanent relations with other groups?  These are 
> critical organizational questions for which Sociocracy tries to provide some 
> answers.

I believe what sociocracy brings to consensus decision-making is the structure, 
the organizational design. Consensus groups have been functioning as full group 
decision-making or cantilevered adaptations of parliamentary procedure. The 
sociocratic circle structure provides a method for making decisions by 
consensus that both ensures consensus within decision-making groups and between 
them. It structures the organization so decisions can be delegated while 
ensuring that there is consensus between circles. The overlapping circles 
ensure a whole organization consensus that works better than full-group 
decision-making.

Sociocracy still preserves the option, however, of making full group decisions. 
In cohousing this is very important to the sense of the group. It builds 
community. It's the way people get to know each other. Pot lucks and pool 
parties rarely get to all the ways a person sees the world. In sociocracy these 
are full circle meetings. All the circles meet together to discuss an issue. 
Discussion is valuable even when there is not a proposal or decision to be 
made. An issue could be discussed in a full circle meeting and each circle 
returning to develop proposals as the issue affects their circle. These 
solutions can then be discussed by the double links in the larger coordinating 
circle, leading to a coherent organizational plan for addressing the issue.

Sociocracy as based in cybernetic principles clarifies decision-making, but 
it's greatest value for consensus decision-making groups is to structure 
consensus decision-making so group size is not limited to 40-50 people and 
providing a structure in which decisions can be made expeditiously.

> My personal view is that one of Sociocracy's strengths is that it 
> authenticates and empowers coho committees or circles because the whole 
> community takes part in defining these groups and their legitimacy.  This 
> leads to trust.  Which leads to delegation.  Which leads to fewer meetings.  
> Which is good.

I agree. Though I don't think _fewer_ meetings is the ultimate goal. Fewer 
_unproductive_ meetings, probably.

I'm not an advocate of fewer meetings in and of themselves or as a goal for 
adopting sociocracy. I think meetings are important if you want to keep 
communications open and understand each other. Social functions are not very 
deep.  Life in a cocktail party didn't produce sociocracy or cohousing, for 
example. Social events are necessary to relax people and get to know another 
side of them, but they don't serve all purposes or all people. And need to be 
more varied than meals. I like the idea of sharing meetings, for example. 
Non-decision-making meetings.

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