Re: Moving back from concensus? | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: R Philip Dowds (rphilipdowds![]() |
|
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 16:00:16 -0800 (PST) |
Sharon — After thirteen years living at Cornerstone, my experience is this: The official rules may appear to allow an organized minority to ram something to a hasty and premature conclusion despite the misgivings of many. But in practice, this doesn’t happen. Most of my friends and neighbors are very wary of pushing too hard, of demanding a result that would rupture relations in the community. Despite our efforts to “streamline” the consensus process, we still have a latent culture of, “Nothing new can happen, nothing can change, until everyone likes it.” There’s definitely a downside to the high level of deference extended by the majority to the minority. The downside is all the proposals that never get proposed. Only the most courageous, most determined and most persistent are willing to bring a “hard” proposal into plenary. Thus we have rules we no longer follow, but cannot change. And good ideas we never try. Yes, I know that some consensus professionals maintain that if you invest enough time and good will, you can always find the compromise that everyone can “live with”. But that investment of time and empathy may be unaffordable to many ordinary members — the ones who are unwilling to meet each week, month after month, to find a place to build a bicycle shed. Thanks, RPD > On Dec 14, 2020, at 4:15 PM, Sharon Villines via Cohousing-L <cohousing-l > [at] cohousing.org> wrote: > >> On Dec 13, 2020, at 2:43 PM, R Philip Dowds via Cohousing-L <cohousing-l >> [at] cohousing.org> wrote: >> >> So officially, it’s a maximum two month, three plenary process. > > These kinds of limits make be uncomfortable. The objective of consensus is to > find a solution that works for everyone, not just some. How can anyone know > how long that will take? With limits to discussion it is very easy for > someone delay the decision until is forced to a vote. Limits create > opportunities to manipulate the process — to game the system. > > If there is extensive good faith discussion at the beginning, before the > proposal comes to the full membership, gaming the system might be avoided. > > But also as Philip says, decisions not made can also be paralysis which must > also be avoided. Moving forward if only by an inch is important the life of > the group. > >> Please keep in mind that consensus is a process, not an outcome. That is, >> consensus is a series of steps performed in an environment of attitudes. > > It seems to require constant reminders that consensus isn’t just a vote; it > isn’t just what happens on the final day when you declare consensus (or try > to declare consensus.) The consensus process and ultimately the decision > starts when the question/problem/suggestion is raised. The whole process is > the decision. > > Sharon > ---- > Sharon Villines > Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC > http://www.takomavillage.org > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: > http://L.cohousing.org/info > > >
- Re: Moving back from concensus?, (continued)
- Re: Moving back from concensus? Lyn Deardorff, December 13 2020
- Re: Moving back from concensus? R Philip Dowds, December 13 2020
- Re: Moving back from concensus? Mac Thomson, December 14 2020
- Re: Moving back from concensus? Sharon Villines, December 14 2020
- Re: Moving back from concensus? R Philip Dowds, December 14 2020
- Re: Moving back from concensus? Mariana Almeida, December 15 2020
- Re: Moving back from concensus? Sharon Villines, December 17 2020
- Re: Moving back from concensus? Sharon Villines, December 15 2020
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.