[sudo-discuss] Fwd: Re: conflict resolution proposal

[rachel lyra hospodar]

Forwarding message that failed to go through.
 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra at gmail.com>
Date: Mar 9, 2013 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] conflict resolution proposal
To: <di.franco at aya.yale.edu>
Cc: "Eddan Katz" <eddan at eddan.com>, "Marina Kukso" <marina.kukso at gmail.com>,
"sudo-discuss" <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>

Responses inline below

mediumreality.com

On Mar 9, 2013 11:25 AM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It seems to me like the name change is compelling because it fit the role
as conceived better,

I find the name change compelling because it is not a re-naming but an
evolution, more reflective of my values and of those I would hope this
organization espouses (ie, for those who exist as a priveleged class in a
police state where entire other classes of people experience violence on
the daily to be sensitive to what it might mean to invoke power, especially
using a framing evocative of police power)

You might think this is the same thing as what you have said above. I do
not.

>and the role was conceived in response to concrete experiences rather than
according to a conceptual template associated with a name or an existing
other role in another context, the name being mostly an afterthought,

Our opinions on the power of language to expose bias, and reinforce it,
differ.

>albeit one that led in practice to distraction

I disagree. You are missing my point. I believe the languaging of the
documents we use to govern ourselves is not a distraction but in fact is
their stuff of substance.

>and more attention than it was worth relative to more substantive things
buried deeper in the details.

I disagree.

> That said, I look forward to any insights that come from you or others
from reframing and will read back over things myself with an eye toward
them.

I have given feedback on the languaging several times, essentially the same
feedback. Hopefully the things I have said here to further explain will
help.

> One insight I have now is that perhaps all Sudo Functionaries should
instead be Sudo Stewards of various kinds, perhaps with cheeky informal
archaic titles as inside jokes of sorts,

For our functionality, inside jokes & obfuscatory terms will serve the
purpose of discouraging outsiders & newcomers from feeling like they
belong. Our goal should be to decrease the learning curve for our
governance structures.

>fitting the culture of hacking and repurposing things, but mainly
descriptively named. This would give more substance to the minor edits I
made to the other roles and would be a good basis for splitting this change
into two separate ones to consider.

See below.

>
> Well, IMO it would make more sense to re-examine and re-draft the role in
light of the new framing, and see what else changes, rather than simply
changing the title.

see the preceding for my TL;DR

>
> Thought artifacts are real, yo. Let's not encode too many into the
Articles.
>
> On Mar 9, 2013 10:06 AM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Then, conflict steward <=> constable?
>>
>> On Mar 9, 2013 2:09 AM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>> I love 'steward'!
>>>
>>> To me it sounds welcoming and helpful, and opens up possibilities
around what else the role could be... for example, maybe someone from the
community at large who wants to do, say, an unconference, could ask a
sudo-ite to steward their event, ie, be a point of contact for the space?
Or as our fundraising structure ramps up, projects could have a funding
steward (also builds in accountability there!) that keeps an eye on the
process and helps to clarify it. I know that's a ways down the road but
honestly I have never seen a funding structure that was unconfusing, so
I'll just go ahead and predict that ours might be, too.
>>>
>>> Also in the case of amendments, if someone has an amendment they'd like
to make but is confused or intimidated by the process, a steward might be a
good neutral ally who can help everything along before & during the meeting.
>>>
>>> (Am I a consensus nerd if I point out that this kind of evolution of
ideas is part of the strength of that method?)
>>>
>>> :D
>>> R.
>>>
>>> On Mar 8, 2013 3:00 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Steward? (See union steward, stewardship, etymology: house ward)
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 8, 2013 2:21 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I tried to avoid "enforcement" specifically and its presence if and
where it remains is a bug. I would not mind it being summarily expunged
from the draft wherever you find it. I generally went with "implementation"
as a neutral term and made clear elsewhere that restorative remedies are
strongly preferred.
>>>>> "Constable" I have found to have a range of nuanced meanings, many of
which seem to fit our situation well, from the very thorough wikipedia page
about it. It is the best word I know of so far, but I too would like one
that requires less up-front study of wikipedia to appreciate.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 8, 2013 2:12 PM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd be interested in the structured editing time suggested here by
marina!
>>>>>> -I am interested in examining ways to transmute the Constable
suggestion, with its problematic Enforcement language, into an
Ombudspersonish solution, perhaps creating a sudo functionary role that is
more flexible and applicable to a greater range of situations.
>>>>>> -I am also very interested in seeking ways and places we can
streamline the articles, since overall to me they seem kind of opaque due
to complexity & language.
>>>>>> -I am interested in seeking ways to create some clarity around the
differences between unanimity, consensus, and voting, and which is used
when.  This could also include reaching clarity on how to get to the point
where we are in consensus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also do want to explicitly state once again that I have concerns
about the denotations (ie, some of the stuff it actually says in the
dictionary WRT the word) of 'constable' and 'enforcement' and am hoping we
can come up with words less evocative of archaic and violent forms of
social engineering.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> R.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 7, 2013 1:18 PM, "Marina Kukso" <marina.kukso at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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/20130311/f323bf63/attachment.html>