Cohousing-L Mailing List: Consensus [was Affordable Housing

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

> On Feb 16, 2017, at 2:12 AM, Brian Bartholomew via Cohousing-L <cohousing-l 
> [at] cohousing.org> wrote:
> 
> The open
> source programming community "forks" projects when they come to an
> impasse like this.  If the group no longer contains humans with
> roughly similar goals, then the group has lost its utility, and should
> be replaced with smaller groups containing people who mostly agree.

In sociocracy/dynamic governance this is one of the ways of resolving an 
inability to achieve consent. 

The precondition to using consent is to have a common aim. If one person wants 
a giraffe and another wants a new water faucet, it is unlikely that they will 
reach consensus on whether to purchase one or the other, and a giracet won’t be 
of much value to either. (Try getting competitive bids on that!)

The first thing a common decision must have is an aim. What is this decision 
trying to do? What are we expecting will happen as a result of this decision? 
What do we need from this decision? 

Without a common aim, there is no group that needs a common decision. The 
common aim is what defines a group, at least a group whose members need each 
other to achieve a purpose.

The idea of “forking” is a nice one. Sociocracy says send the decision to a 
wider forum in which there will be a broader base and more information. If the 
sofa purchasing group can’t agree on a sofa color, the decision would go to the 
living room decision-making group where there is information about the context 
for the sofa. 

The sofa group or representatives of that group would also participate in the 
sofa decision at the living room level. It’s still a consensus decision but it 
has more information on which to base a decision.

Sometimes you just have to flip a coin. There may not be a better or worse 
solution. Start with the easiest to accomplish and see if it works.

Expert decisions are considered not to be appropriate for consensus. Or 
aesthetic decisions. I disagree. A condition of consensus decision-making is 
the time and willingness to work toward a decision. If the group has no 
expertise in plumbing and water is pouring out of the ceiling, you don’t have 
time to become an expert on plumbing.  You need a plumber who has the expertise 
to diagnose and fix. 

But if it is a question that is both an expert decision and an ethical choice, 
the group might be most satisfied if it learns about the subject itself, 
learning from experts but making its own decision based on its own ethical 
concerns. 

Pest control, for example. Experts can tell you what works where and when. If 
the group wants to make an ethical decision based on pain caused to to a rodent 
or danger to other animals, etc., it will have to make its own decision. This 
is where the two levels of decisions comes in:

1. What do I personally think is the best option?

2. Given all the circumstances, what do I think is the best option? The 
“circumstance" include all the limitations of the moment, including how others 
feel/think. 

The “good of the group” criterion is not a good one because

1. it most often really means the good of the group as the majority of the 
group define it, and
2. there is no group without individuals.

If the aim of the group is to reach consensus on  a plot of land, it may have 
to go to majority vote unless some people are willing to consent to an 
inconvenient location for them or leave the group. Or consent and leave.

Aesthetic decisions can be made by consensus by people who are experts at some 
level.People who understand and are sensitive to color. I’ve led at least three 
discussions to a consensus on aesthetic decisions — floor tiles, acoustical 
panels, exterior colors, and one I’ve forgotten just now. But we made it. It 
takes time. We also reached consensus on the art that was donated for the CH 
when we first moved in.

Consensus works when the aim is shared and people understand the two levels of 
decisions required. But it doesn’t mean consenting just because the majority is 
going the other way. If you object, you object. It is’t something you can live 
with or you disagree on safety or financial terms, etc. Groups are only 
individuals with a shared aim. The group needs all its members. And the members 
should be equally honored.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC
http://www.takomavillage.org