[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 3:00 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>


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]
>>>
>>>    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/20130311/6dab8634/attachment.html>