[sudo-discuss] conflict resolution proposal

[Marina Kukso]

also, i'd like to add that i'd be interested in having a structured
articles of association workshop sometime after this friday. we've tried
these before and they were not super productive. i think that where we
faltered before was in not having a very good list of "target areas"
identified ahead of time. here's an example of a possible "target area":

"The process to amend these articles of association entails:

[MISSING INFO: how to get a strong amendment that has buy in from the sudo
community]

   1. Announcing the proposed amendment, posted: [MISSING INFO: who does
   this?]
      - On the official *sudo room* wiki.
      - On the *sudo room* *discussion* email list
      - At least 1 week before the meeting at which a vote on the amendment
      will be held
   2. Recieving feedback and commentary posted: [MISSING INFO: for how long?
      - On the official *sudo room* wiki.
      - On the official *sudo room* anonymous etherpad:
      https://pad.riseup.net/p/sudoroom
      - On any *sudo room* email list.
   3. Adding an agenda item to an official meeting's agenda.
      - The agenda item includes time to review the feedback, recieve
      in-person feedback, and discuss.
      - *Decision procedure:* Consensus [MISSING INFO: unresolved question
      of digital, in person, both, etc. also it seems like we're missing a step
      between receiving in person feedback, discussion etc,. and then
having time
      to incorporate that feedback into a new text. in fact, maybe this was the
      source of the confusion yesterday?]"



On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Marina Kukso <marina.kukso at gmail.com> wrote:

> hi everyone,
>
> according to the articles, we only have a few decisions that we make:
>
> - conflict resolution
> - amendments
> - budget
> - endorsements
>
> voting procedures for all of these (in terms of 2/3, consensus, etc.) are
> clearly spelled out. it looks like what eddan is proposing below is the
> flowerings of an amendment to create a new thing to vote on - the creation
> of new roles.
>
> (also, i believe that in places where eddan uses "unanimity" below it
> would actually be accurate to instead say "consensus.")
>
> - marina
>
> ps - on a related note, i think the articles have done a good job clearly
> laying out how we vote on things once we have something solid in place.
> from my perspective, we've been running into murky areas when trying to get
> to a solid decision that can be voted on (in the past, we've run into
> problems getting a single budget to vote on (this should be much resolved
> with our new budget sheet), getting a single conflict resolution decision
> to vote on (we're in the process of addressing this now), and getting a
> single amendment text to vote on). "reaching consensus" would be the
> catch-all way that we "get to a single decision to vote on" (i mean, what
> "consensus" really does is move away from the idea of having a single thing
> to vote up or down on), but i wonder if what we need is a little bit more
> defined structure on the process of reaching consensus, ie, working with
> others to draft amendments, etc.? we have some of that, but maybe we need
> more? maybe not even anything formal, but sort of "best practice"...what do
> others think?
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Anthony Di Franco <di.franco at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Your logic here suggests to me that decision procedures when in conflict
>> resolution should be considered separately from general decision
>> procedures, and the old decision procedures should be moved out to a
>> general decision-making scope, perhaps with sensible modifications, and the
>> ones in my amendment specific to conflict resolution should apply within
>> conflict resolution.
>> What we have now seems to be simply a conflation of the two and an
>> oversight in the original draft.
>> On Mar 7, 2013 9:59 AM, "Eddan Katz" <eddan at clear.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Marina, In-line replies below.
>>>
>>> sent from eddan.com
>>>
>>> On Mar 7, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Marina Kukso <marina.kukso at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> hi eddan,
>>>
>>> thanks for laying out the situation and providing links to the relevant
>>> parts of the articles.
>>>
>>> i have a couple questions -
>>>
>>> 1) i'm not sure what section of the articles your suggestion to approve
>>> the constable role by a 2/3 vote is based on (maybe this is a brand new
>>> suggestion?).
>>>
>>>
>>> In a strict sense, there is no language defining how to add a new role.
>>> I laid out the questions below because I do think guidance on this falls in
>>> between the cracks somewhat and those questions are intended to get us to a
>>> conventionally understood agreement on it.
>>>
>>> I do remember this being brought up the first time around we put the
>>> Articles together, but that we were convinced to remain silent on it in
>>> order to ensure that the number of official roles be kept to the minimum
>>> necessary. I also remembering that something about being silent on it
>>> didn't seem right at the time, but I hadn't been able to put my finger on
>>> it at the time.
>>>
>>> So here's the rub: if we are to rely on the process by which we make
>>> amendments solely as guide, we must still figure out how to move forward
>>> when we hit a dead end or doesn't come out the way we had intended. There
>>> is some additional confusion caused by the the fact that this very section
>>> calls for a vote on the amendment, which is a different method than
>>> consensus.
>>>
>>> What kind of threshold would then be necessary to approve this by vote?
>>> There are only 3 options - majority, super-majority (2/3), or unanimity. We
>>> intentionally did not include any voting requiring unanimity because of the
>>> problems introduced by single-person veto obstruction of what the group as
>>> a whole wants (while protecting minority opinion).
>>>
>>> In other words, if one person among us, whoever it is, doesn't think we
>>> should have any more additional roles - then the decision to never have any
>>> more roles fulfilling any functions is imposed on the group as a whole.
>>> This is a problem when a need for a particular role is identified and
>>> clearly agreed upon. But this is also a structural dynamic that would
>>> persist with any amendment on any issue introduced in the future. While the
>>> language-drafting process is more clear and offers practicable solutions,
>>> the approval of such an amendment is defaulting to being a unanimous vote
>>> for all future amendments.
>>>
>>> It was this kind of result that moved us to vote on the initial articles
>>> under the threshold of a compact, which is a minimum number (i.e.,
>>> "coalition of the willing") rather than a percentage of the whole. Having
>>> watched some of the Republican house filibuster on C-SPAN last night, I
>>> shudder at the prospect of our entire initiative being held up at gun point
>>> by some zealot trying to manipulate the process for purposes other than
>>> solving the task at hand.
>>>
>>> To answer your question, I do not think that 2/3 vote on the constable
>>> role is a new suggestion. Having reached a dead end on approval (see
>>> above), I think that the kind of decision it is (dispute, fiscal solvency,
>>> membership, etc.) should guide the threshold by which the vote is decided.
>>> Reading the Amendment section in isolation without reference to any other
>>> part of the document leaves us highly vulnerable to being paralyzed (See
>>> current Republican-led Congress); and in my view can't really make sense.
>>>
>>> The reason I think the addition of a Constable role should be 2/3 is
>>> because this whole suggestion and the process we've embarked upon started
>>> with a pretty much universally shared distaste for how the conflict
>>> resolution process was turning out. The conversation focused around safe
>>> space initially and then was expanded some, but still closely connected to
>>> safe space.
>>>
>>> Basically, making sure we have an equitable process where everyone feels
>>> free and encouraged to contribute, and where the system is set up
>>> specifically not to allow the loudest voices to drown out minority opinion
>>> and dissent. While the process moved us into the amendment drafting and
>>> approval section, I would argue that this situation and relevant
>>> considerations still most consistently falls under the notion of safe
>>> space, at least in my mind.
>>>
>>> So even though the Conflict Resolution section in which the different
>>> categories of issues are laid out can be interpreted to only be relevant to
>>> anything taking place in dispute resolution, I do not think that this
>>> interpretation allows us any guidance on how to make any other decision
>>> other than resolving disputes. In order to get something done, we would
>>> then be steering people to the dispute resolution process to work it out.
>>> All I can say to that is Oy Vey!
>>>
>>> I think that the guidance of how to approve things (except for
>>> language-drafting) should stay within the categories set out. At least
>>> that's what I thought we were doing when we forked it out that way.
>>>
>>> For the reasons above, I think the appointment of a Constable position
>>> be approved by a 2/3 vote and the language defining that role be drafted
>>> with a consensus process.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) regarding the suggestion that we have two separate voting plans for
>>> the creation of a new role and for making all other amendments to the
>>> articles. are you suggesting that this is how we do it this time around, or
>>> that this is something we should address in future amendments?
>>>
>>>
>>> I actually do think there is some merit to splitting apart the decision
>>> about something in a more general sense for a vote, and working through the
>>> drafting process separately. I am not suggesting that though, because I
>>> think we'd be best served by making as narrow a decision as possible given
>>> that we haven't thought through other scenarios.
>>>
>>> I would support making this kind of split for all decisions that involve
>>> officially adding functionary roles, but am not even advocating for that
>>> here.  It seems to me like the best thing to do is recognize that it is
>>> definitely relevant for making a constable role, if not others as well.
>>>  Our experience has shown that sometimes deliberative discussion veers off
>>> a productive process when there is no one assigned to pointing us to where
>>> we should go next.
>>>
>>> For the unique situation of making a foundationary role for someone that
>>> makes sure we move forward in the process, I propose a 2/3 vote, under the
>>> Safe Space designated threshold. I still think we should call it an
>>> ombudsperson instead, but know that it is completely beside the point.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - marina
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eddan <eddan at clear.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Sudo folk -
>>>>
>>>> As now ought to be assumed amongst the illustrious Sudo Room body,
>>>> dedicated as we are to a deliberative process, a point of contention arose
>>>> around the process itself.  The honest disagreement and confusion, as far
>>>> as I understand it, is fundamentally about how we agree to approve the
>>>> establishment of a position deputized to make sure the process is followed
>>>> and make sure that conflicts move towards fair and efficient resolution.
>>>> If the previous sentence makes some sense but also makes your head hurt, as
>>>> it does mine, you won't be surprised to find out there was some confusion
>>>> in this evening's meeting over what exactly we're supposed to do.
>>>>
>>>> The vote on adding the role of constable came up as was announced last
>>>> week, and it was agreed that Anthony has followed meticulous process as we
>>>> have it laid out so far, giving everyone plentiful opportunity to discuss
>>>> and object and to make available in-person and on-line opportunities to
>>>> improve on the proposal.  Discussion over the need for such a role has
>>>> persistently come up that represented various points of view on several
>>>> specific aspects of the proposal.  Debate was halted at regular intervals
>>>> to give the less aggressive and talkative folks (in addition to me) around
>>>> an opportunity to interject; and everyone was reminded of the option for
>>>> anonymous commenting on the etherpad and for direct editing on the wiki.
>>>> This took place over a period of about 6 weeks and more, in as formal a
>>>> method as we've made up along the way so far.
>>>>
>>>> The reasonable difference in interpretation to put it simply, is how to
>>>> add a position to the Articles of Association by: (1) 2/3 vote; or must be
>>>> done (2) by consensus.  There are many other issues implied by this for
>>>> sure, some of which have been brought up already and other conditionals
>>>> still to be worked out.  I also think re-hashing the play-by-play events of
>>>> tonight would be unproductive and that considerations on the merits of the
>>>> constable role be limited to high-level comments and would be best served
>>>> without delving into too many details about the role.  In other words, I'm
>>>> suggesting we separate out the process by which we (a) find consensus on
>>>> language amending the articles of association; and (b) decide on whether we
>>>> need to add a Constable (or related functionary) role.
>>>>
>>>> So this is the part where it gets kind of tricky. Here are some
>>>> questions it seems to me need to be clarified in order to move forward:
>>>> What does the Amendments section of the Articles (
>>>> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Article_4._Amendments)
>>>> say about the process by which we approve adding a functionary position?
>>>> What does the Functionaries section (
>>>> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Section_2.2_Sudo_Functionaries)
>>>> say about how to amend the Articles to create another position?
>>>> Do the decision procedures categorized in the dispute resolution
>>>> process (
>>>> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Section_3.4_Enforcement)
>>>> give us guidance on the process that should be followed in creating a new
>>>> functionary role?
>>>> If so, what process (
>>>> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Sub-Section_3.40_Process)
>>>> for approving the addition of a Constable (or equivalent) role be followed?
>>>> What part of the agenda structure (
>>>> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Sub-Section_3.0.1_Agenda)
>>>> is the most appropriate category for adding a functionary role?
>>>> How do we go about advancing our values (
>>>> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Values) in making
>>>> these decisions?
>>>>
>>>> I won't represent anyone else's position on their behalf, but will say
>>>> that I think consensus is not the right process by which the Constable role
>>>> be approved.  This being said, I do think that whatever language is drafted
>>>> to amend the Articles to include this new role be done by consensus.
>>>> Having a common understanding of how this ought to be done in detail is
>>>> crucial, in my opinion, to avoid further misunderstandings and wide
>>>> divergence of interpretation.  I propose as I did at the meeting tonight
>>>> that these two parts of the decision need to be disentangled for any
>>>> progress to be made.  Upon reflection, I would have presented that proposal
>>>> differently and with more specific reference to the Articles.  Suffice it
>>>> to say that we're figuring out how to do this stuff in some ways we're not
>>>> used to, and that we all have a lot to learn from each other.
>>>>
>>>> In sum, I propose that there be a vote next week on adding a Constable
>>>> (or equivalent) to the functionaries in the Articles, and that the vote
>>>> require 2/3 approval, our highest threshold thus far.  Since there are so
>>>> many ancillary issues, I'd rather hear other Sudo folks' perspective before
>>>> making too much of a case for this way of moving forward.  Seems to me that
>>>> the complications of getting to this vote make the greatest case for the
>>>> need for such a role, to keep things moving in a productive direction.  The
>>>> constable (or ombudsperson as I had proposed), is not an ultimate judge of
>>>> conflicts in my understanding.  In fact, rotating ombudspeople and/or a
>>>> jury of peers is more along the lines of what I've heard proposed.  Rather,
>>>> I think we need someone like a Constable to make sure we get unstuck when
>>>> trying to resolve disputes and decide on things.
>>>>
>>>> May God Bless Sudo Room.
>>>>
>>>> sent from eddan.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 22, 2013 11:17 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Sudyo,
>>>>  I have edited in a more advanced draft of my proposal for a rigorous
>>>> conflict resolution process and for the role of a Constable to facilitate
>>>> the keeping of open and transparent records about conflicts and where their
>>>> resolution stands.
>>>>  I emailed a bit about this a few weeks ago in response to the long and
>>>> unsatisfactory non-process the group had just spent a lot of time in, and I
>>>> presented a much briefer version of this proposal at last week's meeting. I
>>>> intend to have it up for a vote at the next eligible meeting.
>>>>  I have tried to incorporate the feedback I received during the meeting
>>>> and to think through a process that would capture the original intent of
>>>> the sketchy previous language but flesh it out with comprehensive detail
>>>> and precision, and I had firmly in mind the memories of the shortcomings of
>>>> the old process in practice.  While I was there mucking around in the
>>>> articles I fixed a few other odd things that were lying around. (It also
>>>> still seems to me that the numbering is off.)
>>>> The whole draft, with my and other changes, is, as usual, here:
>>>> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association/Draft
>>>>
>>>>  Highlights:
>>>> Emphasize horizontality in the Functionaries in general and in the
>>>> Constable in particular: section 2.2: "Any member of sudoroom may perform
>>>> any of the functions of any of the Functionaries, but the Functionaries are
>>>> expected to perform their duties regularly and must perform them if no one
>>>> else can or will." and section 3.4.1 below.
>>>> Define role of Constable (section 2.2)
>>>> Point person for facilitating the conflict resolution process according
>>>> to the Articles, but not necessarily a moderator.
>>>> Stewards selection of a moderator and schedules meetings among
>>>> conflicting parties and moderator.
>>>> Documents all meetings and communications relevant to the conflict
>>>> resolution process.
>>>> Promotes good-faith participation in the process by conflicting parties
>>>> on a basis of mutual respect and growth towards better relationships and a
>>>> stronger community.
>>>> If conflict resolution goes before the whole group, co-facilitates with
>>>> Facilitator, and handles points of information about conflict resolution
>>>> with reference to the documentation.
>>>> Does not act as Constable in conflicts involving self.
>>>> Precise and comprehensive conflict resolution procedure:
>>>>
>>>> Section 3.4 Enforcement
>>>> [edit]Sub-Section 3.4.0 Process
>>>> The resolution of disputes and disagreements within sudo room is
>>>> encouraged through informal process and the spirit of a collaborative
>>>> environment. There is a process, however, by which issues that are not
>>>> resolved informally and that arise within the scope of these articles of
>>>> association:
>>>> The party who seeks resolution finds someone to act as Constable in the
>>>> matter, and works with this Constable to find a Mediator.
>>>> The Mediator is an impartial and uninvolved third party who consents to
>>>> assist, and with whom all conflicting parties consent to work with towards
>>>> a solution.
>>>> The Constable organizes meetings for conflict resolution and maintains
>>>> records of all meetings and relevant communications among the conflicting
>>>> parties.
>>>> The Constable, Mediator, and the conflicting parties arrange to meet to
>>>> work out a resolution to the conflict that all conflicting parties consent
>>>> to.
>>>> If at least one conflicting party does not consent to meet, or if at
>>>> least one conflicting party is unavailable to meet in a reasonable time,
>>>> all relevant circumstances considered, or if the Constable and Mediator
>>>> agree after at least one meeting that further meetings would not be likely
>>>> to lead to resolution, the issue is brought before the group in the
>>>> following way:
>>>> The issue is added to the agenda of the next official meeting scheduled
>>>> at least one week in the future, and all relevant documentation is gathered
>>>> together by the Constable and made available to the group at least one week
>>>> beforehand, preferably on the wiki, and notice is broadcast to the group,
>>>> preferably on the mailing list, but information that would compromise
>>>> anyone's privacy or dignity is not made public. In the description of the
>>>> issue, the form of redress sought in by the plaintiff(s) is included. Both
>>>> the Constable and Mediator must give their approval of the factual content
>>>> of the documentation before it is posted. Both the Constable and Mediator
>>>> must expressly affirm that the form of redress sought by the plaintiff(s)
>>>> is consistent with sudo room's values.
>>>> During each meeting's agenda item on Conflict Resolution, all
>>>> unresolved issues on the wiki are brought up for discussion followed by a
>>>> vote.
>>>> First, the Constable presents all relevant documentation about the
>>>> issue.
>>>> Then, a category of severity is established by consensus according to
>>>> sudo room's values and the facts of the case. The category determines the
>>>> voting threshold for sustaining a sanction against any party to the
>>>> conflict. The categories are (in order of decreasing severity):
>>>> Any matter calling for membership suspension or termination.
>>>> Decision Procedure: 2/3 vote
>>>> Other serious conflict.
>>>> Decision Procedure: 2/3 vote
>>>> Conflict where only fiscal issues are involved and only fiscal redress
>>>> is sought.
>>>> Decision Procedure: 1/2 vote
>>>> All other conflicts.
>>>> Decision Procedure: Consensus
>>>> Positive feedback.
>>>> Decision Procedure: Auto-approval
>>>> Then, the opportunity to represent perspective is granted to each
>>>> conflicting party and to the Mediator, and general discussion may be held
>>>> about the issue if any member wishes. The Constable co-facilitates with the
>>>> Facilitator in order to answer questions specific to the conflict and
>>>> provides information about the history of the conflict by referring to the
>>>> documentation.
>>>> Then, a brief period of deliberation of definite time is held, during
>>>> which members are free to consider the issue or discuss it directly with
>>>> others.
>>>> Then, members may propose alternative remedies to the conflict, which
>>>> are added to a list of potential remedies if neither the Constable nor the
>>>> Mediator objects. They may be overruled in their objections if a second
>>>> member supports the proposal.
>>>> Finally, a vote is held on the plaintiff(s)' proposed remedy, and then
>>>> alternative remedies are voted upon in the order they were proposed, but
>>>> only if at least one member indicates that the one under consideration is
>>>> still relevant. After all remedies have been considered in this way, the
>>>> matter is considered resolved.
>>>> Any conflicting party unsatisfied with the decision may place an appeal
>>>> on the agenda in the same way that conflicts are placed on the agenda,
>>>> except that a majority of the group must vote to accept the appeal during a
>>>> meeting, and the process begins anew. The appeal must propose an
>>>> alternative remedy and refer to values that were not served by the original
>>>> decision.
>>>> If at the end of any step in the process more than an hour has passed
>>>> during the current meeting in considering the conflict, any member may
>>>> request that a majority vote be held on whether to table the conflict until
>>>> the next meeting.
>>>> [edit]Sub-Section 3.4.1 Principles and Values Specific to Conflicts
>>>> The accused are presumed innocent unless and until proven otherwise
>>>> beyond reasonable doubt.
>>>> Respect for the privacy and dignity of all members is consistently
>>>> maintained.
>>>> Proportional and effective remedies should be sought.
>>>> Restorative remedies are strongly preferred over retributive remedies.
>>>> More precise language about functionaries:
>>>> Facilitator
>>>> Maintains the agenda for meetings, ensures topics are dealt with, and
>>>> recognizes speakers in a fair and inclusive way.
>>>> Ensures that all group business is handled and all group decisions are
>>>> made in the way described in these Articles of Association, by bearing them
>>>> in mind and referring to them whenever needed.
>>>> Uses own best judgment to resolve ambiguity in the Articles of
>>>> Association about how business is handled in meetings, but may be
>>>> challenged in this by anyone who does not consent, which results in a
>>>> majority vote on sustaining or overturning the Facilitator's judgment.
>>>> Scribe
>>>> Takes notes during meetings and collaborates with others to include
>>>> their notes in final meeting minutes.
>>>> Posts notes publicly after each meeting.
>>>> Exchequer
>>>> Presents the budget during meetings, as articulated in the budget
>>>> process below.
>>>> Receives dues and donations and pays expenses on behalf of the group,
>>>> using the group's accounts.
>>>> Maintains accurate budget documentation and makes it available to the
>>>> group.
>>>> Constable
>>>> Point person for facilitating the conflict resolution process according
>>>> to the Articles, but not necessarily a moderator.
>>>> Stewards selection of a moderator and schedules meetings among
>>>> conflicting parties and moderator.
>>>> Documents all meetings and communications relevant to the conflict
>>>> resolution process.
>>>> Promotes good-faith participation in the process by conflicting parties
>>>> on a basis of mutual respect and growth towards better relationships and a
>>>> stronger community.
>>>> If conflict resolution goes before the whole group, co-facilitates with
>>>> Facilitator, and handles points of information about conflict resolution
>>>> with reference to the documentation.
>>>> Does not act as Constable in conflicts involving self.
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>
>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130307/88c1f804/attachment.html>