Often these are best done written

These written processes are good for the moment. But, over time people’s opinions and views change. So, I recommend deleting them after a set period of time.

How can people work towards working out issues without being in the same room at the same time ?

I have noticed that communicating thru email/online discussion groups can quickly get into blaming, name calling, nastiness, blaming and accusing, things spinning out of control. I wonder if this is caused by looking at a screen, instead of a live human being.

A purpose of the structure is to keeps the discussion focused and constructive.

All posts must be signed. Anonymous questions are immediately deleted. I have found anonymous notes/messages to be very destructive to community. How can anything be worked out if people don’t know who is communicating ?

Polite and respectful language is important for this to work.

I see two approaches to managing written content.

The person who starts the thread is the manager of that thread. The manager states the guidelines in the beginning and enforces the ground rules. This provides maximum flexibility with clarity around ground rules and who enforces.

The house creates guidelines for each process and has a person assigned to enforce guidelines.

Options:

- Proposal creator(s) answer questions about proposal

- Proposal creator(s) ask questions

- Concerns

- Surveys

- Specific to General and General to Specific

- Specific to General

- Seeking to Address Concerns

- Straw Pole, a non-binding vote

>> Proposal Creator(s) answer questions about proposal

The purpose is for everyone to gain a better understanding of the proposal.

The editor asks is there any questions about proposal/possibility X.

The editor is the only person who may answer the question.

Anyone can ask a question.

The questions are for clarifying questions about what is the proposal and how does it work. Questions that include expressing an opinion or judgments will be deleted.

>> Proposal Creator(s) ask questions

The purpose is for the editor and everyone to hear people’s answer to the question about the proposal/possibility.

The editor may ask for Reactions in general or more specific questions for people to respond to about the proposal or possibility.

It is not for expressing reactions to other people’s answers. It is not meant for conversation between people.

This is not for asking questions about proposal.

>> Concerns

Is the difference between current reality and ideal

--- purpose:

exploring the difference between what is happening now and what I want more of

--- structure:

A person write downs what is happening, then what he/she/they want more of

examples:

• there is not enough vegetables and want more healthy food

• there is too much noise and I want quiet

• I see the living room is ugly and want more beauty or order

expected response:

1) I have a similar or same concern, say in a couple sentence how this impacts you

2) I do not have this concern

3) I do not understand this concern

This is not a discussion. Do not respond to people responses, only the concern.

>> Surveys

Editor posts survey, results are shared below survey for all to read

includes strawpolls, non-binding votes, this is a great way to get a quick idea where people are at

This primarily for something that can answered thru multiple choice option or yes/no.

>> Specific to General and General to Specific

The purpose is to discover what the group has in common.

Important that each person use “I” language, says what works and or does not work for self

Process:

person puts out proposal

Do a go around to see how that does and does not work for people

If it does not work for someone, anyone can propose a more general proposal.

If it does work for everyone, anyone can propose a more specific proposal. If that does not work, then return to previous proposal.

For example of this process, go to “creating or fine tuning proposal page”. This is a button saying “examples of written”.

>> Specific to General

The purpose is to get a quick snap shot of where the group is by hearing where each individual is.

Write a general proposal, then a little more specific proposal, then a little more specific proposal, etc. Usually 3 – 6 proposals is enough

People put their name next to the options that is the most specific that he/she supports and assume person supports the more general options.

Below the poll is space for comments. People respond in "I" language, saying how something does and or does not work for him,her

For example of this process, go to “creating or fine tuning proposal page”. This is a button saying “examples of written”.

>> Seeking to Address Concerns

The purpose is for consider what may and may not work about the proposal. First when it is proposed, then with each revision.

The ability to see what works and doesn’t work may help a person become more open and flexible. Therefore, help find a proposal that will work.

If unable to fill out all parts wait to post until you can fill them out. The exceptions are the sections clarifying comments and likes.

Not having an answer, provides a chance to talk with others, hear other view points.

A proposal can not be repeated. This is to prevent looping, repeating. If you like a previous proposal, sign your name under likes. The purpose of this is to explore multiple possibilities.

I recommend having limit for length, number of words, this process is for quick, brief comment.

The goal of this process is to explore possibilities, not have lengthy conversations with or reactions to each other.

Process:

-------------- structure for starting thread

Name of person starting thread

seek/want - issue, concerns the proposal seeks to address

Proposal – who, what, when, where and how

clarifying comment and or unaddressed concerns

likes – person writes his/her name, if others in the house agree with proposal, they can say so, this helps everyone see where the house as a whole is

--------------- structure of response:

Name of person amending proposal

how current proposal may work for me or may work for another person

what does not work about proposal for me, therefore seek to address

state adjusted proposal

clarifying comments and or unaddressed concerns

likes – those who like the proposal can sign their name, instead rewriting the same proposal

For example of this process, go to “creating or fine tuning proposal page”. This is a button saying “examples of written”.

>> Straw Pole, a non-binding vote

This is for getting an idea where the group is around an issue without making a decision in the moment.

This can be very helpful for discovering what to do next. I remember at one house meeting, we were talking and talking about a proposal. Someone asked for a straw pole and we did it. We were very surprised to see everyone vote yes. We were so caught up in discussing, we did not realize we had already reached agreement.

This can also reveal there is some no votes at a time when those who want to vote yes, did not realize there were others members would vote NO.

One person motions, two second that.

How many say: (each person chooses one option)

--- no, if you voted no

will move out if passes

will attempt to live with

within my tolerance

--- equally yes and no

--- undecided

--- stand aside

--- no comment

--- yes, if voted yes

important for me to continue

yes, want this

This is not perfect. It is an approximation for the moment.