[sudo-discuss] Fwd: conflict resolution proposal

[Anthony Di Franco]

Forwarding more of what seems not to have gone through.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anthony Di Franco <di.franco at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] conflict resolution proposal
To: rachel lyra hospodar <rachelyra at gmail.com>
Cc: Marina Kukso <marina.kukso at gmail.com>, Eddan Katz <eddan at eddan.com>,
sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>


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]
>>
>>    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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/c8c39ce2/attachment.html>