@alberto @RichardB @Sophie_Beese and @Sarah, I’m looking for a couple of peer reviewers for my proposal (internal link). Would you possibly have the time to have a look at my proposal? If not, no problem of course.
1 Like
I just did. Like you write, this was foreseen, and discussed at length when we were drafting the statutes. I see no reason to change our position from those times, so for me the proposal is OK.
1 Like
Hey @Lee, all good for me, as indeed, that was always the way that was suggested.
Tiny detail, I got confused with the title (it made me think of the market situation etc.), maybe it could have “when purchasing a site” or something like that added?
And a small clarifying question, is it one vote per person or per household?
I guess you’ll be giving examples of successful cohousings at the plenary? I’d be curious 
All good for me too
I guess the main question is why 70% (and not the more frequent 75%), but I assume this is just because the example we’re basing this on used that threshold.
And this was indeed agreed upon before, so no worries for me!
Uf! @alberto @Sophie_Beese and @Sarah: I apologise for the confusion!
I posted the wrong link 
. This is the correct one (“decision to move forward”): https://c301.nl.tabdigital.eu/f/63606
2 Likes
Still all good for me
1 Like
Me too!
1 Like
Hello @Lee , sorry, somehow the notification for this thread was only sent to me today…not sure what the issue was, but I went throgh the “decision to move forward” proposal and added two comments / questions.
1 Like