[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 3:01 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>


(Hall ward)
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]
>>>>
>>>>    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/20130311/51043851/attachment.html>