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.
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…
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
