[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: Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 10:06 AM
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>


Then, conflict steward <=> constable?
On Mar 9, 2013 2:09 AM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:

> I love 'steward'!
>
> To me it sounds welcoming and helpful, and opens up possibilities around
> what else the role could be... for example, maybe someone from the
> community at large who wants to do, say, an unconference, could ask a
> sudo-ite to steward their event, ie, be a point of contact for the space?
> Or as our fundraising structure ramps up, projects could have a funding
> steward (also builds in accountability there!) that keeps an eye on the
> process and helps to clarify it. I know that's a ways down the road but
> honestly I have never seen a funding structure that was unconfusing, so
> I'll just go ahead and predict that ours might be, too.
>
> Also in the case of amendments, if someone has an amendment they'd like to
> make but is confused or intimidated by the process, a steward might be a
> good neutral ally who can help everything along before & during the meeting.
>
> (Am I a consensus nerd if I point out that this kind of evolution of ideas
> is part of the strength of that method?)
>
> :D
> R.
> On Mar 8, 2013 3:00 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steward? (See union steward, stewardship, etymology: house ward)
>> On Mar 8, 2013 2:21 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I tried to avoid "enforcement" specifically and its presence if and
>>> where it remains is a bug. I would not mind it being summarily expunged
>>> from the draft wherever you find it. I generally went with "implementation"
>>> as a neutral term and made clear elsewhere that restorative remedies are
>>> strongly preferred.
>>> "Constable" I have found to have a range of nuanced meanings, many of
>>> which seem to fit our situation well, from the very thorough wikipedia page
>>> about it. It is the best word I know of so far, but I too would like one
>>> that requires less up-front study of wikipedia to appreciate.
>>> On Mar 8, 2013 2:12 PM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd be interested in the structured editing time suggested here by
>>>> marina!
>>>> -I am interested in examining ways to transmute the Constable
>>>> suggestion, with its problematic Enforcement language, into an
>>>> Ombudspersonish solution, perhaps creating a sudo functionary role that is
>>>> more flexible and applicable to a greater range of situations.
>>>> -I am also very interested in seeking ways and places we can streamline
>>>> the articles, since overall to me they seem kind of opaque due to
>>>> complexity & language.
>>>> -I am interested in seeking ways to create some clarity around the
>>>> differences between unanimity, consensus, and voting, and which is used
>>>> when.  This could also include reaching clarity on how to get to the point
>>>> where we are in consensus.
>>>>
>>>> I also do want to explicitly state once again that I have concerns
>>>> about the denotations (ie, some of the stuff it actually says in the
>>>> dictionary WRT the word) of 'constable' and 'enforcement' and am hoping we
>>>> can come up with words less evocative of archaic and violent forms of
>>>> social engineering.
>>>>
>>>> R.
>>>> On Mar 7, 2013 1:18 PM, "Marina Kukso" <marina.kukso at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> also, i'd like to add that i'd be interested in having a structured
>>>>> articles of association workshop sometime after this friday. we've tried
>>>>> these before and they were not super productive. i think that where we
>>>>> faltered before was in not having a very good list of "target areas"
>>>>> identified ahead of time. here's an example of a possible "target area":
>>>>>
>>>>> "The process to amend these articles of association entails:
>>>>>
>>>>> [MISSING INFO: how to get a strong amendment that has buy in from the
>>>>> sudo community]
>>>>>
>>>>>    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/20130311/86a92c7c/attachment.html>