Reef Commons: what if we put all the common spaces in Front

The Reef
11

Hello @reeflings,

It looks like we’ll be doing some rounds to see where everybody stands on this, so if you have space it would be lovely it you could give this some thought.

One thing that is important to me is to get to this discussion with a shared understanding of the sizes and the number of people we will be.

On the number of people, the estimated numbers are around 33 adults and 7 children. The file with the estimation is saved in Team R&O’s folder: Login – Nextcloud

On the sizes, one reference we have is my own apartment, which is 75 m² net, which would be 90-95 m² brut. The width of the living room is about 6 meters, and from front to back is about 13 meters, all net. A sketch of the plan is saved in the estimations folder: Login – Nextcloud

As agreed at the last plenary we will NOT yet be talking about the price increase. At the same time it is imporant to be aware of the fact that nothing is for free, hence my invitation to get a feel for the size of spaces, as this will be one possible option to bring down the price a little.

A final suggestion to get a feel for the size of spaces would be to visit the blue-yellow pre-portal of hell that sells furniture around the globe, where they note the size of the rooms and mini-houses they have on demo. This could also be useful for your own unit. I wrote something about that here: What a small unit could look like - #3 by Lee

7 Likes
12

do you know where we can find this program? i remember there was a table with pros and cons if i remember well. thanks

13

It’s in Team Reef > Proposals > 2024 > “le programme v3”: Login – Nextcloud

2 Likes
14

hi @reef-full ,
(@reef-associate : this Wednesday’s plenary is only for full members, but feel free to complete the pro and con’s list)

On the agenda of coming Wednesday’s full members plenary meeting we’ll have the topic ‘Common spaces - where to put them’.

Some history to this topic

  • This topic was discussed on three occasions:
    • when preparing the ‘Le program private and common spaces’ on which the architects made a proposal for the division of three buildings. (link to consolidated document).
    • in the plenary of 15/10/2024 where a brief list of pro’s and con’s was given (link to the presentation, slide 9)
    • in the plenary of the 26/10/2024 where we had an open discussion on where everybody stood towards this topic, leading to extra pro’s and con’s (that you can find back in the minutes). An extra action point came out of out for team building: ask the architects for a sketch for these two scenarios (which they’ve promised to deliver before next Wednesday)

Approach suggested by team building of this topic on the full members plenary of coming Wednesday

  • Team building has made a summary of the pro’s and con’s mentioned during the above discussions. The file can be found here. => associate and full members, please read and feel free to complete this list
  • We’ll be getting the sketches of the two scenarios from the architects => do a round in the plenary and complete the list with pro’s and con’s.
  • apply the same approach as in the meeting before the summer holidays:
    • every full member pronounces it’s preference
    • the preference for the majority of the people will be set as the proposal
    • check if this proposal is sth every member can live with. And if not see how the proposal can be adapted so everybody can live with it.

As it’s a difficult/sensitive topic, if somebody wouldn’t agree with this approach, doesn’t have enough information to take this decision, please speak out now.

So @Lee : if there are no remarks to this approach and if nobody indicates there is a lack of information to take the decision, i would change the objective of this topic to ‘consent on the location of the common spaces’

8 Likes
15

I personally worry a bit that receiving the plans from the architects on the same day as we are having the plenary is a bit too short to jump immediately to consent. I first thought “we can always give it a try,” but as a matter a fact, I think this makes it really difficult for those who cannot attend the meeting to express their views, and that doesn’t sit well with me given the importance of the topic.

So my preference would be to stick to exploration, and give everybody the space to reflect in between this and the next meeting. Would that work, or is there an urgency that I’m not seeing?

3 Likes
16

This is not wrong. @RichardB said “after the decision to purchase the site, decisions over the common spaces are the most important we’ll ever make, because a cohousing is defined by its common spaces”.

3 Likes
18

@reeflings

I’ve added the extra pro’s and con’s that came out of last wednesday’s plenary (13/11/2024).
This will be used as input for the plenary of 21/11/2024, where the aim is to come to a decision on where to locate the common spaces.
If you cannot be present coming Thursday and you want to vote by proxy, let chris or me know. Like Chris mentioned, this is not ‘one proposal’ you consent to or not, so some extra input will probably be needed.

Link to the pro’s and con’s in the ‘location of the commons spaces’ under the ‘common spaces folder’ (under team building)

6 Likes
19

I cannot be present and nominate @Lee as my proxy.

2 Likes
20

hello @reeflings, I have been rereading all the arguments and I added some extra in the document regarding privatisation of common spaces & less competitiveness / more fairness regarding to the process of choosing an apartment.

4 Likes
21

Hi @reeflings !

I’ve spent the last week thinking about the decision we are in the process of making regarding whether to have the common space in both the Obelix and Idéfix buildings, or have one common space in Obelix. I have my own preference, as do others, but this post concerns my role as the facilitator, and will attempt to provide clarity about the decision-making process itself.

As you all know, we use sociocracy to organise ourselves and make decisions because it is designed (amongst other things) to allow every member’s voice to be heard, and to arrive at decisions that everyone consents to (and can therefore live with). A proposal is put forward, questions are asked and answered, and any concerns are raised. If those concerns can be dealt with, the proposal is consented to. If not, the proposal is reworked and/or adapted, sometimes in that moment, and at others at some point later, to return to a plenary on another day.

Why am I (over)explaining this? Because what we are faced with currently is different. What we have is an initial proposal (common space in both the Obelix and Idéfix buildings) and a counter-proposal (one common space in Obelix). According to Many Voices, One Song (our go-to manual for sociocracy): “The complexity, both around process and on content-level, increases immediately as soon as a counter-proposal is on the table, and we have seen many groups lose their focus in the face of this complexity.”

Which is in no way to say that members shouldn’t make counter-proposals, just that they are a special type of challenge from a facilitation perspective. It should be noted that neither the initial proposal nor the counter-proposal has ever been on our agenda as a potential decision, only as discussion points. Which means that the Full Members have never been asked to consent to either proposal, which is always our starting point before considering other forms of decision-making (more on this below). It is also worth noting that when we consent (or not) to proposals at a plenary meeting, we are doing so (as much as possible) with the interest of the Reef in mind, rather than in accordance to our preferences.

So this is what I propose for the plenary on Thursday, based on the sociocracy handbook and what our governance document says about making level 4 decsions :

  • We make a decision on the original proposal (questions/concerns/consent)
  • We make a decision on the counter proposal (questions/concerns/consent)
  • Those not at the plenary have the right to object to either proposal in the following two days

If all members can live with one proposal, but some cannot live with the other, then the decision is made. If everyone can live with both proposals, or if both proposals have some people who cannot live with them, we follow our governance document and move to alternative methods of decision-making, which would be qualified majority voting (QMV) or multi-voting (some form of the latter being the most likely).

If we arrive at this point, there are additional challenges, such as how much weight to give to personal preferences vs the good of the Reef, or how to weight certain criteria. It’s also more complicated to give a proxy if we go with multi-voting over QMV. This can all be worked out in the period between this week’s plenary and the following meeting, at which time (according to Team Building) a decision will have to be made.

One last thing. I think we can all agree that there have been times when we avoided complex or difficult decisions by ‘kicking the can down the road’. I do not think this is one of those times. Having two diametrically opposed proposals, with passionate voices on both sides and differing perspectives about what is in the best interest of the project itself, is no small thing to deal with. And this will undoubtedly not be the last time that we are in this position. Which is why I think it is important to stick to our working methods and governing guidelines as much as possible.
:slight_smile:

(For more info on counter-proposals, see page 215 of Many Voices, One Song: Login – Nextcloud)
(For more info on how we aim to make decisions at the Reef, see Section 5 of the governance document: Login – Nextcloud)

8 Likes
22

That sounds great, but I am not sure the “understand - explore - decide” pattern is going to be useful here.

I personally have a desire to get a better view on which are the main arguments pro and against both options. And that makes me wonder what are the conditions for finding acceptance of the final decision. The way I imagine things, I think that the people who have a preference for the option that will not be chosen, will be more at peace if they have a good understanding of the key arguments / main needs that inspire the choice for the other option.

The way things are now, we only have a list of arguments, but we didn’t really exchange much about these. So I wonder whether maybe we can do be a multi-vote on the different arguments on the list (say something like 10 sticky dots per quadrant)? Then we will see which are the arguments that are important for many people, which does of course not mean that we shouldn’t hear from people who care about a minority argument.

Just a thought though.

2 Likes
23

For me, it’s not problem to do a multi-vote per quadrant type of exercise on our way to consent rounds, rather than the conventional questions and concerns rounds beforehand. I think it should also involve the opportunity for people to explain their positions, which is doable. In terms of facilitation, governance and sociocracy, the main thing for me is that whatever we do leads to a consent round for each proposal, which will either result in a decision, or to the next (and final) step in the process, which is some form of voting to decide between the two options… :slight_smile:

1 Like
24

Dear all,
I would like to say that if there are people with strong feelings about separating common spaces for more “abstract” reasons, but very valid, such as feeling that they would lose ownership of part of the physical space or their Reef life would be limited to Obelix…in my opinion the non separation is more likely to be regarded as a mistake in the long run, even if functionality is perfect with everything in one building. If the potential common space in Idefix is regarded as a “privileged” space for some people with strong feelings to enjoy it, maybe the group should prioritize common access to such space. Just my opinion :slight_smile:

3 Likes
25

Hi @MariaAM , great to hear from you! I read your post a few times to make sure I understood it, and now I think I do. Except this:

What do you mean? If it is a common space, it is by definition accessible to all… what am I missing?

As I have understood the conversation of the last two plenaries we dedicated to common spaces, we are in a space of “personal taste” rather than one of “good of the group”. A lot of good arguments have been made both ways, and people differ mostly in the weight they attach to the different arguments. So “abstract” reasons are not necessarily better or worse than less abstract ones. Sarah said something like “the head says A, the heart says B”, which is a nice way to convey that both A and B are respectable, even attractive choices.

Moreover it seems that everyone “can live with” (hence, consents to) both proposals. At least, this was one of the outcomes I picked up from the plenary at Joannes’s. I see now that Chris proposes verifying this by consenting to both proposals before moving to other methods of decision making, so we will soon know for sure.

I hope we do! This would be a fantastic way to make an important decision as a group: throw your hat into the ring, argue for your idea, and then trust that the process will produce the least bad decision, even if that is not the decision you yourself would have made in isolation.

For me, this is liberating. It means I can have a strong opinion, argue for it passionately, and still not be sad if the group decides otherwise. It comes with the awareness that, as a collective project that needs to deal with external constraints (the site, the PPAS, the budget, the laws of static physics…), it will necessarily yield a compromise rather than something perfect. And that’s fine.

3 Likes
26

Hi @MariaAM!

I’m not sure I fully understand what you are trying to say. Would you mind adding a couple of sentences to explain your view?

27

I tried to say that I think that some reasons matter more than others because some reasons affect us as a group. Reasons that matter more are people saying that i) they would not feel entitle to be in that side of the building ii)they would lose access to a privilege side of the project iii) their Reef life will be limited to Obelix.
In my opinion, if the potential common space in idefix is seen as a very good one because of light, sun, silence, etc. and some reeflings would like to have access to that privilege space, the group should support (and maybe even foster) a balanced distribution of “good” spaces, as much as possible.

With the non separation we risk creating a “rich reef” with a building for those who could afford private gardens (with their own rules for pets for instance), less neighbours, more silence, etc and a “less rich reef” in a more ordinary building. This is maybe an oversimplification, but I think it risks affecting the dynamics and the “soul” of the project in the long run.

We may make a mistake about a specific common space by separating everything, but I think it is easier to live with this mistake than creating a sort of Melrose Place (exclusive batiment) with Idefix, by letting it only for private purposes.

I hope it is clearer now, and I’m sorry for the confusion…it’s very late. I won’t be there tomorrow and wanted to share my view anyway :slight_smile:

5 Likes
28

Having said this, I can also live with every decision. Mine is just a reflection without having taken part in any physical discussion. I do not intend to put anything upside down, it’s just the way I came to the conclusion to vote for separate common spaces.

6 Likes
29

I agree with this. By putting the common living room next to the sunniest part of the garden in front of Idefix, we make sure that no single apartment has an overwhelming advantage. Choosing individual apartments is already a tough and sensitive process, and placing a private unit in a prime location could create unnecessary tensions.
For those with less favorable apartments—perhaps with less sunlight in their apartment or on their terraces—knowing that the shared spaces can compensate for this, allows everyone to feel equally invested in our cohousing, regardless of their individual apartment’s characteristics. This choice removes some of the pressure from the apartment selection process and supports the idea that everyone has equal access to the best parts of the cohousing.

See you tomorrow:)

4 Likes
30

Thanks, Maria, it is clearer now. I disagree, though, about “rich” and “poor” as a way to divide the group. It is arbirtrary, and even risks to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I could equally well (and equally arbitrarily) divide it into “socialites” (let’s build one community with reeflings, neighbors, anyone like-minded in Brussels – which is in the funding documents, after all) and “isolationists” (I want a physical separation between in-group and out-group).

More in general, I propose we refrain from speaking for others, unless we in the capacity as their proxy, of course. There is a risk of misreprentation. Take my case: I am one of the people that will most likely not have a sunlit apartment. This is because I have a personal preference for not having too much direct sunlight through the window, not because I am poor, but because I don’t enjoy it. I also worry about temperature regulation: once a passive building gets hot, it stays hot. Other people seem to want those units, so it makes sense they, and not me, would get them. In consequence, I will not choose them unless I have no other option.

That is not a sign of me being cut out from anything: it’s just a choice. I do not need anyone to “provide me” with access to a sunlit common space. If I want it, I will argue for it myself! Other people will speak their own mind in the plenary – indeed they have done so already. :slight_smile:

5 Likes
31

I would like to add a small clarification on process, in relation to Chris’ proposal to first consent to both proposals, and then do a vote.

We discussed it together, and we worked out that the typical use case of a counterproposal that is being quoted (p. 215) is more one along the lines of “let’s do flyers” vs “let’s do posters”, rather than two mutually exclusive proposals. On that same page it also clearly says that the formally correct way to move forward is a selection process between the two proposals.

Based on the sociocratic principles, a selection process (i.e. an argumented vote) is the only way to take a decision like this, which is mostly based on personal preference. The way it goes is that everybody in the round will get the opportunity to vote for the option of their preference, and to share the arguments that matter most for them. What is important here, and this is the advantage of a selection process, is that all arguments are welcome: rational, abstract, personal, emotional, … it really doesn’t matter. Doing it this way, some people who may have been neutral in the first round, may change their choice in the second round, leading to a more pronounced final vote. This is another plus of a selection process.

If we go into consent and objections first, we risk opening a discussion about what is a valid objection (is it personal preference or is it the interest of the group?), which can only lead to tension without much further progress towards a decision. I’m not sure I expressed myself very clearly at the meeting, but this is why I objected to this.

4 Likes