Hi there @reeflings
Here is the link to the preparation document for deciding on the guestroom and buanderie location: Login – Nextcloud
We did all we could to get this ready in good time, but we were dependent on the architects finishing the plans and answering our questions. They also had a lot on and did their best to finish things under a tight schedule.
There might be some incoherences because we had to change it quite a lot last minute, so don’t hesitate to let us know!
First of all, apologies if I came across as confrontational in the discussion in the plenary. In this post I will explain my position and make a request in view of the decision we are supposed to be taking.
The reason why I did not consent to the agenda is a governance problem: as I see it, none of the three options should have been brought to the plenary.
The most obvious one is option 3. Reason: the full specifications for the guestroom have already been decided, first in le programme (guestroom of good quality, with good privacy, in line with our commitment to openness and hospitality), and then in the difficult decision to split the common spaces into two, with a Reef Zone of 66 m2 in Idefix containing a reeflings-only living room and a guest-room. Alternative ideas, including a guest room in Obelix with a mezzanine, were proposed and discarded. Discussing this option is a waste of plenary time. The plenary had already spoken, could now please the architects, supported by our representatives in Team Build, execute on the mandate. Failure to do so systematically will result in delays, as it is indeed already doing. Some of you had a conversation with me during the lunch break, where I made a case that the governance reform is expected to shorten decision-making time not by making faster decisions, but my making decisions only once. This means telling the architects “interesting idea, but we do not have a mandate to pursue it. Please execute on the mandate”. To be clear, I think this is not on the architects, but on us. That got me upset, and maybe I was a bit too assertive in the plenary. Apologies for that. I still stand by every word.
Beyond the governance option, there is a problem of substance: devoting 66 m2 in an expensive part of the Reef to a reeflings-only living room and nothing else looks luxurious, even wasteful. That space costs us almost 290,000 EUR. I am willing to pay it if it includes a good guest room, but not if it is just a semi-private living room. Indeed, that and only that is what I consented to in November.
We could sell the Reef Zone as a 1-bedroom unit with a weight presumably superior to 1 - let’s say 1.025 like I3. That would earn us 66 x 1.025 x 3,500 EUR (baseline price per m2 used by the architects in the weighting proposal) = 236,775 EUR.
But instead we do not sell it. In addition, we have to pay for it’s finishings as a group – let’s say 66 m2 x 800 EUR = 52,800, conservatively. So the additional cost to the group of the Reef Zone is 236,775 (foregone revenue) + 52,800 (hard cash) = 289,575.
Over the 1,900 m2 vendables of The Reef, this represents an increase of 152.4 EUR per m2. Another way to say the same thing: if you are buying a 100 m2 apartment at weight 1, the Reef Zone costs you 15,240 EUR.
Option 2 is to be rejected in the name, again, of our openness/hospitality goal. We know that laundry rooms are generally low-quality spaces. François also told us that previous attempt to make the laundry room into a Wasbar-type social space failed – the machines are just too noisy. So reducing the multi-function room (“hospitality/openness flagship”) to make space for a (noisy, needs to be soundproofed well with additional costs etc. etc.) laundry room is difficult to justify.
That leaves option 1. I think option 1 is the only viable way to go here. It preserves the August decision’s idea of an intimate space (a common 1-bedroom unit, but with lots of sunlit garden space) shared by Reeflings and guests, who share a living room and an opening onto the garden. The bedroom part of the Reef Zone has a wall, a door, soundproofing and good privacy. The multifunction room’s integrity is preserved, in line with our commitment to hospitality.
However, option 1 is underdeveloped. Clearly there is space for exploring creative solutions within option 1, and people care about them. Transparent walls? bedroom reconfigurable into a sitting space? Stealing 5 m2 from I1?
I have tried to argue why, as I see it, none of the three option was plenary material. My request is then to do the following:
Ping @reef-coordination and @Sarah as author of the proposal.
Hi alberto,
I have a different understanding of things
In the consolidated version that went to the architects mid 2024. This was was requested:
Multipurpose room +/- 120 m2 gros
Reefonly zone of +/- 40 m2 gros
Guestroom of 15-20 m2 gros : host minimum 2 people, and ideally + 2 children, with a minimum of comfort and privacy => with walls and a door, and with a bathroom nearby. Location: in the Reeflings only zone
atelier of 20 m2 brut
buanderie of 12 m2 brut
In the discussion leading to this consolidated version I asked the question: does the 15-20 m2 come on top of the common spaces , or is this included.in the common spaces. The answer was ‘included’. For me this leads to going either to the multipurpose room or to the reefonly zone (i don’t see the guestroom as part of the atelier or buanderie very feasable due to their size, or their function). As i left immediately on holidays, not being connected to internet and desperately needing a break, I only made a remark on this after my holidays, after it being sent to the architects. (link to post). In this post i expressed my worry already to have a guestroom of 15-20 m2 gros in a 40 m2 gros reefonly zone, would not leave over much reefonly zone.
What did the architects return, based on our request:
a multipurpose room of 115 m2 (they corrected this last week, so not 120 m2) => corresponds to what we asked in our program
a reefonly zone of 66 m2 => 26 m2 extra , so logic that the guestroom would be situated here => not completely corresponds to our program as it adds 26 m2 extra
a buanderie of 12 m2 brut => corresponds to what we asked in our program
atelier of 20 m2 brut => foreseen on -1 => corresponds to what we asked in our program.
Option 1 - for me - corresponds for me fully to what we asked for in our program. Not ideal as it already adds an extra 26 m2 to what we asked for. That the guestroom or the space of this commons space in Idefix is not ideal with a partition in the middle, i agree. But asking to add another 10 m2 to make have an absolutely perfect guestroom, is for me even less ideal as we will be adding an extra 36 M2 on top of what we asked.
Option 3 also corresponds to what we decided in the discussions leading to the consolidated version of our programm (see my remarks above).
I agree that this leave a reefonly zone of 66 m2 , where we only asked for one of 40 m2, making it quite expensive. So here we have an extra 26 m2 that we didn’t ask for (instead of than a possible 36 m2).
A solution to this would be to ask the architects to convert these m2 into m2 vendable. I don’t know if that will be working as the m2 next to I1 are ‘dark/lightless walls’ around the elevator’. This would lead to a 127m2 unit, which should be a 3 BR, but because of the lack of walls that let in light, i am afraid that will not be possible (but willing to check with hte architects), so for me a not very attrictive/sellable unit.
Another solution we thought off but was not presented, was to move the buanderie to this ‘dark space’. This the architects also indicated as not being in favor of (reason: it will break the space). I also have the impression it creates a larger big buanderie, while i hear we want to rather reduce its size
I have calculated the extra budget we added in comparison to what we consented to by voting on JET-14. We come to a total extra budget of more or less 715.380 euro. (for details:
Extra cost in relation to initial budget.odt (19.1 KB)
I want to bring up the subject of Sustainability up again, in the blueprint mentionned as one of the core values. So far no (extra) budget is foreseen for that. What - to my understanding- is now foreseen in the FS/calculation of the architects is what is the current norm in Belgium: reaching a certain peb value for new construction. As profiling us as a cohousing with sustainability as its core value, i expect this asks for extra budget. Mentionning ‘schoonschip’ in every presentation is completely in line with this. So before adding more budget (in price and in extra time), i would like to have clarity on what this budget will be, how it will be funded. If 715,380 euro is the budget for inclusion and hospitality, i would find it more than reasonable/fair to have a budget of more or less 360,000 euro for Sustainability. But i hear (and understand) that people with tight budgets are very hesitant to add extra budget to what is today on the table. I hear also talking of a budget of 100.000 for sustainability. For a project of about 9,000,000 euro, this is for me unreasonable/unacceptable.
I want to remind that the first survey launched in context of the common spaces indicated the guestroom, laundry room and atelier not as musts but shoulds/coulds.
With the request to have clarity on what units are left over for the current and coming exploring members (deadline now set at 05/02/2025 if i understood well), I personally think we should focus on priorities. The way i see it: getting clarity on a budget that everyone can live with for sustainability is the biggest priority here. As the extra budget of 715,380 euro was a ‘good enough for now, safe enough to try’ decision. I fear that having no clarity on the sustainability budget, might lead in a month or so to having to reversing some of the extra spaces added and/or extra elevators added, as they will impact the units available, so that a fair budget for sustainability can be foreseen. (or maybe you can give clarity on this right away?). So spending time now on adding extra m2/extra budget for the commons, i find completely unfounded.
the way is see it
or we take our time to explore things with the guestroom, sustainability,… with the disadvantage that telling what exactly the units will be for the current and future exploring members, will take still some weeks/ a month (?). (also mentioning that i am not sure that we can startup the discussions with the bureaux d’études if the plans are not fixed, to be checked with the architects)
or we accept one of the options for guestroom/buanderie (mentioned above/ in the proposal presented on 25/01) and focus on getting clarity on the Sustainability budget so we can fix the plans and units asap.
or we leave things open for the guestroom/buanderie as Joannes mentionned: we foresee the necessary things in the multipurpose room to foresee a mezzanine (for guestroom) later if needed, after testing if the 115 m2 brut are or are not necesssary as multipurpose room (as we don’t have a view now on who will use it/what for/what frequency). We don’t yet decide where the buanderie goes, we foresee things that it can go to -1, idefix,… So leaving flexibility, but meaning that once we move in, we won’t yet have a guestroom, nor a buandery. We focus on getting clarity on the sustainability budget so we can fix the plans and units asap.
Thanks for recapitulating the history of this.
Agreed. There should be enough space for everything: we asked for
And we got 66m2, more than we asked for. So, there’s room for everything. Let’s move to a helping circle that arranges that everything.
Sustainability is super important, but please let’s not discuss it in this thread. Broadening discussions without necessity is another way to slow down. Let’s make this decision and move on to the next one.
This looks like a publicly accessible link. Can you please change it to an internal one, and add where it is saved? TIA!
Also I would like to respectfully challenge the way you calculate the extra costs. Following this logic the price per square meter would have increased by 400 euro, which is clearly not the case.
But more importantly I would like to back-up @alberto’s approach: your concern about the budget for sustainability has been heard loud and clear, and at the same time, if we want to make progress, we can’t open all topics all at once. It’s on the list, and we will look into it shortly.
Here’s one of the first things that came up with a quick research: movable wall panels apparently can be soundproof. If that’s true then maybe we can put the guest room on the left, open if there’s noboby. See e.g. Can Partition Walls Be Soundproof and Movable?
We’ll bring it up tomorrow at the meeting with the architects, and then launch the helping circle.
Hi @Lee I don’t remember if you already talked about the helping circle, but if you are still looking for people, I would like to join.
Thanks for that. And I’m sorry for also fighting back “énergiquement”. But as much as I don’t mind having tensed conversation, it does mean that it is harder to keep cool and I tend to answer aggressively. That makes for a not so pleasant discussion, and it also seems to be a problem for the group when this kind of exchange happen, so we might want to watch it.
Thanks @els for your answer above, I also still stand by the fact the the exploration was valuable and justified. A few extra words on that below…
It was indeed the underlying assumption for everybody, based on the drawings we got from the architectes. But then the situation changed when we discovered the curtain drama, which meant that the assumption wasn’t fully workable as is. When the info you are working with changes, it seems reasonable to reassess and explore the options available.
Also there was new information as it became apparent that being able to host a family of 4 was important.
So we tried to find creative solutions as a response to both these issues and I still think it was valid to explore option 3, as it wasn’t clear at that point that it was definetely going to work having the guestroom in Idéfix with our specifications and without increasing the budget. I also personally don’t remember it being formally rejected at any point.
As for option 2, a few people were (at least initially) opposing putting the buanderie in level -1, so it seemed right to explore putting it in Obélix (I refer you to Lie’s post here).
Because we are in a group and we have different views on things, it is fair to explore all options; and especially when different people are objecting all the different options, the only reasonable thing is to make a decision taking that into account and giving a chance for a group discussion before the group makes a decision.
The only thing that we might have done differently is to put our discussions and ideas online earlier for people to be updated earlier. But we really hoped we would have all the information in good time, and it seemed important to have the complete and precise picture as we anticipated it to be a sensitive matter…
I would like it to be clear again that we did ask all of this and more to the architects. Because it sounds here as if we under-explore or discarded that option, which is absolutely not the case. And it feels frustrating to not have the time and effort we put in recognized.
Beyond that, let’s see what the architectes come back with, and whether they can deliver an acceptable option within budget.
If we can get all we want with a guestroom in Idéfix, then it will be the easy option as this was indeed our preferred initial plan, and I’m not even sure we will need a helping circle.
But I do agree that increasing our common space already cost us extra budget, and I’m not ready to increase it any more. So if we decide to also put the buanderie in -1, the extra cost for both spaces shouldn’t be over the 65 000 (and ideally it would be much less, as a big argument for moving the buanderie was to save on budget).
With respect, it is incorrect to say that “information changed”. No news arrived about the parameters constraining our design, like building codes or stability data. Let’s call things by their name. What happened here is that the architects made a mistake by (1) not respecting our programme and (2) not flagging that they were not respecting it.
This is not great, but neither is it a disaster. People make mistakes. So, no drama so far. Let’s acknowledge this one instead of getting defensive-
The discussion was meant to establish that the appropriate response to all this from the group should be something like this:
The Reef: This does not work. Please redraw respecting the parameters you were given.
S&F: But this way we cannot have light from the two sides of the building!
The Reef: Light from the two sides of the building would be nice, but it is not in Le Programme, so it is not essential. The wall and good privacy, on the other hand, is. So, let’s look for a creative solution. If we do not find it, we just build a wall, because that is the mandate of the plenary.
In my view, this issue bounced to the plenary (1) unnecessarily, (2) in a context when we are being told by S&F that we are too slow in decision making. Moreover, it introduced an element of frustration, at least in me: what is the point of spending three plenaries making decisions on the location and size of common spaces if then a relatively minor issue like double exposure leads to reopening those decisions?
I therefore saw it as a learning opportunity: point some attention to it, and make sure we stand by collective decisions in the future.
Ok guys, trying to take this a step forward …
We need to decide on where we want to place the laundry room this Wednesday. This is necessary to be able to proceed with the conversations with the technical experts.
Here are the elements that I gathered from the proposal, the discussions and from my own research:
Some people feel strong resistance towards making the multi-purpose room smaller. Some others reside on the other end of the spectrum, and wonder how much this room is going to be used, and whether it really needs to be 115 m².
The laundry room can be 12 m² (= the size of my bedrooms), possibly smaller.
In Sweden, it is common practice to have a common laundry room (usually in the basement). In one article I found, the number reported is 4 washing machines for 85 apartments. Fitting in 2-3 washing machines and possibly 1 dryer should therefore be fine (even if we will also need some space for a ventilation system).
To be noted: this will require a booking system, but that’s not something we can’t create.
In our -1 level, it will be possible to share private cellar space and go for modular systems, so even if the space will be smaller, there should be on average 3 m² of private storage space per unit.
Some people find it important that there will be enough light and that it will be cosy. In principle this should be possible, even without a window (Google search: shared laundry facility Sweden).
Given the discussion above, I am not sure whether it is worth it to do a selection process between putting the laundry room in the basement or putting it at the side of the multi-purpose room. I would be inclined to bring the proposal to the plenary to put it in the basement, and see how far we get. Any thoughts are very welcome.
What I would not do however, is go into the details of already committing to adding windows to a possible laundry room in the basement. I would first like to hear from the architects and the technical experts what the implications of windows are in terms of future-proofing, e.g. water inflow (floods), heat protection (it will be the only cool place if there is a power cut during a heat wave) and other dramatic scenarios (radio-activity etc).
For the decision on where to place the guest room we have a bit more time (end of the month), so if need be we can postpone this a little.
To start, my analysis is that the situation has been a bit messy, and that in part this is because some of our wishes in the programme have been not so clear or else incompatible.
Where this got us right now, is that @alberto is objecting against putting the guest room in Obelix. This is on the grounds that this was part of the decision of splitting the common spaces between Obelix and Idefix, and that 66 m² for a common living room only is too much and too expensive.
Sarah seems to imply to take this as the starting point indeed:
The question then is “can we have everything that we want?”. I’m afraid the answer to that is no, but that doesn’t mean of course we can’t make a compromise somewhere.
This is the list of things that people find important (for as far as I understand things of course):
Possibility to accommodate a family
Soundproof & privacy
Keeping the common living room space intact
Access to the back garden
This is where you start to play around with compromises and/or creative ideas such as sliding partition wall panels and what not. For the latter, we asked the architects last time, you would need an anchor point, meaning you can’t attach these panels to a window, so you would need to insert at least a small cement wall (i.e. splitting the window to the back garden into two). This also means that you can’t postpone this decision indefinitely.
My proposal here would be that the volunteers for a helping circle @Sarah (?) @mieke and @alberto come forward with a proposal to the plenary meeting of 15 February, presenting a couple of options (glass walls, movable walls, fixed walls, …) and that we decide by a selection process. How would that be for a way forward?
I also came to that conclusion, I guess we didn’t hear any strong voices against it during the plenary, so we can see whether everybody can live with that option at this point. I feel that taking the option of windows out of the picture might change things a bit, but let’s see.
I’m not saying that we necessarily need to keep the option on the table, but we need to get the facts right and be fully clear on the reason for objecting. I’m not sure I understand “it was part of the decision of splitting the common spaces”. I don’t remember it being part of that decision, and in fact, looking back into the document of pros and cons we discussed at the time, it does seem that we didn’t settle on the location of the guestroom (e.g. “If guestroom would need to fit in reefonly zone: big enough guestroom?”).
I’m not trying to be difficult, as i said, I’m perfectly fine with putting it in Idefix. It seems reasonable to choose it for the proposal as a lot of people seemed to think it was better not having the guestroom in Obelix, and I don’t think anybody had strong feelings against putting it in Idefix. That for me is good enough a reason.
Just a few clarifications:
With regard to process:
Alberto – I’m trying to understand if we have a governance (or working methods) problem, as you suggest. You clearly believe that a decision had been made to put the guest room in the Reef-only zone (and that therefore it has been a waste of time discussing options), but having spent the last half an hour reviewing proposals and plenary minutes, I’m not sure it was. For the record, I am personally very much in favour of the guest room being in the Reef-only zone under Idefix, but I’m just not sure that we have agreed to that yet…
In the plenary of 1/8/24 we consented to including a guest room in our list of ‘asks’ to the architects, but we didn’t specify anything about location. Lie added that it be a part of the Reef-only zone later when she consolidated the info afterwards, but that wasn’t part of the group discussion or consent, a point that Els made at the time (Le programme v3: consolidated for the architects - #6 by els).
Here we consented to splitting the common space between Obelix and Idefix, and nothing more. Although the guest room featured in all the various pros and cons discussions, it wasn’t a feature of the final decision…
If this is the case, then you have a point. But I don’t remember having this discussion as part of anything we consented to, and I can’t find any record of it in the plenary minutes…
I’m not sure that the plenary has spoken on this particular point, but I’m happy to be corrected if I’ve missed something…
With regard to the proposal:
I actually thought that the discussion at the last plenary about where to put the buanderie/guest room was quite productive, although perhaps I have to say that as the facilitator 
When we took the temperature with a round on what people’s starting position was, nobody seemed particularly against having the buanderie in the basement. Therefore, I’m also in favour of @lee’s suggestion to bring a proposal to the next plenary to do exactly that, and see if we can deal with any concerns or objections that come up in the resulting rounds…
Concerning the guest room, the round at the last plenary gave a more mixed picture. Roughly half were strongly in favour of option 1 (guest room in Idefix), half ok with either option 1 or 3 (guest room in Idefix or Obelix) and one household was strongly in favour of option 3 (guest room in Obelix). Therefore, I think a helping circle of any interested parties would be a good step forward.
In light of my post above, normally I would say that it should diligently consider both Idefix and Obelix as options for now, leading to a selection process. But I also think that having it in Idefix could potentially be consented to, unlike the Obelix option, so perhaps the helping circle could focus on the Idefix option as the basis for the proposal. However, it might also be a good idea for the helping circle to explore the Obelix option if they find that any aspect of their Idefix proposal looks problematic or contentious, rather than starting from scratch after the plenary (in the unlikely event that we can’t consent to the Idefix option)…
Reading Els’s recapitulation above, you find that the architects – on the basis of le programme – proposed a “Reef zone” of 66 m2. This was much larger than the requested living room (40 m2). By putting the guest room (16 m2) in the same block, they made a common space that was still somewhat larger than requested. The difference could be attributed to the constraints imposed by the site.
(emphasis mine)
I have to disagree. We went through all the pros and cons of a specific configuration, which had the guest room in Idefix. We mentioned, for example, the separation of the guest room from the possibly noisy activities in the multifunction room; we mentioned the possibility for the guests to share the reeflings-only living room with us, etc. We also made it clear that Idefix would be used for the Reef Zone, and Obelix for the multi-function room, and not vice versa, as in the proposal from the architects.
Also, I insist: a Reeflings-only living room of 290,000 EUR is too expensive.
In the deep democracy shuffle (did I get the name right?) the case was made – by Lee and me, at least – that having the Reef Zone in Obelix (where now is O1) would enable a guestroom with a mezzanine, increasing its capacity without adding more surface. People mostly agreed this was an advantage, but not enough of one to make them deviate from the Idefix solution for the Reef Zone.
The overall outcome of all this is that we were still deciding, in January, on the execution of le programme (August). Hence my frustration and alarm on governance.
The ‘soft shoe shuffle’ 
@alberto - I agree 100% with all your reasoning about why we should put the guest room in the Idefix Reef-only, but not that it was clear to everyone involved that this had been decided. It’s not at all a problem for me that we disagree on that part, but I do think that your frustration and alarm here highlights something that we need to learn from and adapt to, which will have a positive effect on both our decision-making speed and our group discussions. As Lee has been saying for quite a while now, we have to be clearer, particularly during plenaries, about what we have decided on or agreed to, and make a meticulous record of it. I wonder if the decision log needs to be a bit more comprehensive, and perhaps filled in at the time of the decision, or by whoever takes the minutes…
I also understood it this way and I am in favour of that idea.
A comment by @Joannes during the last plenary also made me reflect more about the location of the guest room… I would like to plead not to rush the decision about the guest room—(“buildings learn, and so do we”). Once we move into the Reef, we’ll get a much better sense of how we use the space, how often guests visit, and where a guest room would make the most sense.
What does matter now is making sure the common areas in Idefix and Obelix are designed in a way that could fit a guest room later if we need chose what would be the best location. In the meantime, we already have solutions—there are spare bedrooms, and as @ChrisM mentioned once (please correct me if I am wrong), in the cohousing in New Zealand, the guest room was barely used, at least much less than imagined because visitors would stay in rooms of people who were away instead of the guest room.
So would it be an option to wait and see? This way, we make the right choice at the right time, instead of guessing now.
Postponing the decision doesn’t work, as we would need to make provisions beforehand.
The guest room is in the programme of August 2024, so it is not possible to just go back on it.
I think it’s also important to not extrapolate the situation of Earthsong Cohousing (New Zeeland) to us. First of all they are located in the countryside, so I’m guessing their units are three times as big as ours. That makes it easier to accommodate guests. The second difference is that we have quite a lot of expats, who tend to have visitors who stay for a long time. Unless you are offering to have some of our minis’ grandparents to stay in your spare room for a week?
I don’t think we have enough info to decide on a guest room right now. I personally wonder how we all see the use of this guest room? I have an idea about it, but I have no idea how the other households think about it. I wonder if expat families having people visiting over would like to host them in their apartments or how they see the use of the guest room (just a simple bed because the rest of the facilities that they will use will be in their apartments - or not?) I really feel that this decision is best made with experience. Instead of rushing into a choice, l would prefer to give ourselves time to understand how we’ll actually use the space. As we live here and see how guests come and go, we’ll get a clearer sense of what makes the most sense for everyone.
But yes, at the same time I do think that we have to make sure now that the common areas in Idefix and Obelix are designed in a way that could fit a guest room later if we need chose what would be the best location.
We discussed it and they would be willing to, but I think the order of things is that we now first get a clearer view on what it is that we want before we go back to them.
I would first list the options and gather the feedback from the group on that, and only then go with a small list of options that could be consented to to the architects. A possible timeline could be to consult the group on the 15th, and bring a proposal on the 25th. If you would have time and space, there is still time free on the agenda of this Wednesday (5th), so that’s also possible.
When you communicate with the architects, may I please insist to always use Edgeryders, or else put the Protonmail in cc of all your communication? This is a working method that makes sure that everybody can follow what’s going on, and also that we can ensure continuity in case somebody needs to take a break.
I have a lot of doubts about putting permanent walls (glass or cement) in Idefix for a guest room. I think it will limit the possibilities to use the space. I also have concerns about blocking the access to the back garden.
From a first search on the internet it seems that soundproofing is possible.
In sociocracy this phenomenon is called “navigate by tension”, which means that tensions are just a symptom that point to the need to be clearer. So let’s try indeed to do exactly that. IMHO this is not so much an issue of the decision log (in theory this should just be a copy/paste of the meeting minutes). It’s a reflex that should be developed by the facilitator: before we conclude a topic, let’s voice / repeat the conclusion and check whether the note-taker has written it down, and only then do the consent round or move on to the next topic.
Agree.
Agree. In fact this is my main source of frustration. Decision-making must be a one way street. Once we decide, we need to resist the temptation of reopening. We all have our pet issues that we would like to see revisited: as we make more decisions, more will come. Reopening might lead to better decisions, but it costs time.
I am also not ready to agree to a 290K semi-private living room.