charta – the way out

Welcome Forums constitution – basics charta – the way out

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #306
    juan petry
    Keymaster

    hello to all,

    i was traveling to many living communities. and i get some really important and basic information from long term members of other living communities. the resumen of all this is:

    • a lot of communities have problems with a lot of rules
    • a lot of communities have problems with some blocking members (troublemakers)

    we where talking about this with some guys from barcelona a few weeks ago in the dragon house and also it is an important item in the conversation by mail. in the draft of our charta i would like to put this:

    every member of familiafeliz have one vote in the yearly plenum. the vote is non-transferable. a person lost her/his vote in the familiafeliz plenum, if another member apply for dismission. a member could apply for dismission of one member per year, independend of the right to vote. a person get back the right to vote, if the dismission is rejected by the plenum after all applications for dismissions are decided.

    a person lost the membership (dismission) if another member apply for that in the familiafeliz plenum (yearly reunion of all members) and if this person is not part of any unit of familiafeliz  – except her/his home-unit and units with other members, who are applicated to be dismissed . the plenum decide.

    every yearly familiafeliz plenum starts with handling and deciding of dismissions before other topics are handled.

    this means: to be in or out of familiafeliz is defined by the behaviour of one member (to work and / or live with other members in UNITs) and the reaction of other members (does anybody like to be in a unit with this person).

    a sample: the person is on drugs or violent against somebody. nobody want to work with him in UNITs. the person returns from hospital and enter again her/his home-unit. he is not part of any other unit except the home-unit. one member apply for dismission in the next familiafeliz plenum. the plenum decide. the member who applied has to accept the plenum result. he is free to apply one year later again. if the dismission is confirmed by the plenum, the person has to leave the home- unit and is not member of familiafeliz any more. he has no votes in the later handled topics in the plenum.

    a more complex sample: two member want to kick out each other in the next yearly familiafeliz plenum for any reason. both are applying for dismission of each other in the first topic of the yearly familiafeliz plenum. both are part of the same home unit and one other unit. because of the both applications, BOTH have no vote for BOTH decisions! maybe both are working in one UNIT and for that they are part of their home – unit AND one active UNIT. in that case the second UNIT does not count because it is a unit with another member, who is applicated to be dismissed. the plenum decide (and it is equal if the plenum decide about person a or b before, because both have no vote for all applications for dismission.)

    what i want with this construction…

    i want to give a signal that it is up to each member to be activ in units and to take care of interaction with other members in units. membership is not a right, given one time forever, it should be the result of the daily life.

    i want to have a clear and easy “way out”. also i want to protect every member to be out automatically (imagine one has an accident and is a vegetative state patient for long time…this person could not be part of any unit for that time…).

    also i want to rise up the hurdle for everybody to apply for dismission of anybody else, because this other person could still apply for dismission of the initiated member. this gives the plenum also the tool, to reject further applications of a “troublemaker”.

    so. whats your impression to all this?

    #468
    norbert
    Participant

    Hey 🙂

    I just have thought about that a few days.

    membership is not a right, given one time forever, it should be the result of the daily life.

    I like that part a lot – it explains a deep vision in short words (it can be discussed to say “is” instead of “should be” in my opinion)
    Maybe it can be used as a headline above that charta-paragraph. Or a headline above the whole charta.

    Ok – i understand that that part of the charta is needed and usefully. Especially against troublemakers, agressive Persons and so on (the hardest worst cases that can happen but should not happen).

    At first i thought that nearly one year (in worst case) can be a long time to deal with.
    But (because i think that a charta should not to try to solve social problems) now i think the less defined rules and the more time the more chances to discuss and solve problems “eye to eye and ear to ear” (NOT “eye for eye and teeth for teeth ;)) and in the following the more chances for pardon and mercy.

    The more i think about that i realize that freedom is a complicated and maybe a hard way of life – but it looks like a lucky and exciting one 😉

    Ok – the result of that post in one word: agreed

    Lg, Norbert

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.