[sudo-discuss] sudo-discuss Digest, Vol 5, Issue 27

[Romy Ilano]

Hello

At the meeting I vounteered to make a diagram of the Articles of
Association.


https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Sub-Section_3.4.0_Process

Personal thoughts: Now everything is much clearer to me now and i can
understand why there is such a lively discussion. It was a little confusing
at first to me as an outsider. All of my friends are lawyers, but I work as
a software engineer. Long wikis with clauses are fun for them to read. I am
more into schematics.

I can understand it better now.

I liked the idea of "unit testing" with events occurring in fictional
stories so that we can see reasons why it makes sense to talk and debate
such matters. Personally I find transposing fictional events from SNAFU
groups such as the crazed hippie California cult leader Sal from the Beach
or Lord of the Flies less emotionally charged than referring to any events
happening to people we know.

[image: Inline image 1]


On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:49 AM, <sudo-discuss-request at lists.sudoroom.org>wrote:

> Send sudo-discuss mailing list submissions to
>         sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         sudo-discuss-request at lists.sudoroom.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         sudo-discuss-owner at lists.sudoroom.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of sudo-discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: computer donations + large event 3/21
>       (=?utf-8?B?bWF0dHNlbmF0ZUBnbWFpbC5jb20=?=)
>    2. Fwd: Revised 3/2013 Statement, The Sudo Room
>       (=?utf-8?B?bWF0dHNlbmF0ZUBnbWFpbC5jb20=?=)
>    3. Oakland Internet Cat Video Festival (Vicky Knox)
>    4. Re: computer donations + large event 3/21 (Steve Berl)
>    5. Re: Fwd: Request for sudo-announce Digest mode (Eddan Katz)
>    6. Artist in Residency Opportunity - Minecraft-Ars Virtua - No
>       experience needed (Danielle Siembieda)
>    7. Re: sudo-discuss Digest, Vol 5, Issue 26 (Romy Ilano)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:30:25 -0700
> From: "=?utf-8?B?bWF0dHNlbmF0ZUBnbWFpbC5jb20=?="
>         <mattsenate at gmail.com>
> To: ":::Marty:::" <mrwood at gmail.com>, "=?utf-8?B?c3Vkby1kaXNjdXNz?="
>         <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
> Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] computer donations + large event 3/21
> Message-ID: <513ed992.28d3440a.1cf2.017d at mx.google.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Yes.
>
> // Matt
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: ":::Marty:::" <mrwood at gmail.com>
> To: <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
> Subject: [sudo-discuss] computer donations + large event 3/21
> Date: Mon, Mar 11, 2013 1:28 PM
>
>
> Hi y'all.
>
> I was looking on the wiki regarding donations and is there an updated
> policy on computer donations? I have two complete systems (minus cases) and
> another few boxes of decent parts that i am trying to get rid of.
> Is this something that would be okay to bring by/freebox/ or put on the
> supply shelves. Is there any need for this sort of stuff?
>
> I also was looking on the calendar and wanted to let you know there is a
> poetry reading that would overflow into the common space on Thursday 3/21.
> It is there on the calendar but unpublished. One of the two meet ups could
> definitely use the Public School classroom if this event needs the bigger
> space.
>
> Best,
> -Marty
>
> --
>
> www.resonantcity.net
> twitter: @resonantcity <https://twitter.com/#!/resonantcity> ,
> @uselessunless <https://twitter.com/#!/uselessunless> [ personal ]
> http://www.facebook.com/ResonantCity <
> https://www.facebook.com/ResonantCity>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130312/d813bdd6/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:31:37 -0700
> From: "=?utf-8?B?bWF0dHNlbmF0ZUBnbWFpbC5jb20=?="
>         <mattsenate at gmail.com>
> To: "=?utf-8?B?c3Vkby1kaXNjdXNz?=" <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
> Subject: [sudo-discuss] Fwd: Revised 3/2013 Statement, The Sudo Room
> Message-ID: <513ed9da.e6c5440a.6533.2018 at mx.google.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
>
> // Matt
>
> ----- Forwarded message -----
> From: "Laurie Cooperman Rosen" <Lscoop at comcast.net>
> To: <exchequer at sudoroom.org>, <eddan at eddan.com>, <mattsenate at gmail.com>
> Subject: Revised 3/2013 Statement, The Sudo Room
> Date: Mon, Mar 11, 2013 8:56 PM
>
>
> Attached please find the revised 3/2013 Statement with the waste charge
> added.  Thank you!
> Laurie
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130312/c33a3136/attachment-0001.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: Tenant Ledger 03-11-2013.rtf
> Type: application/msword
> Size: 3201 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130312/c33a3136/attachment-0001.doc
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:54:13 -0700
> From: Vicky Knox <vknoxsironi at gmail.com>
> To: Sudo Room discuss <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
> Subject: [sudo-discuss] Oakland Internet Cat Video Festival
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAPwEF4qzYtVQzTpPKbWcbKktQq+JdQS8rs0bGBQAmiV9jhvDvw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Oh the joys of Oakland Wiki...
> http://oaklandwiki.org/Oakland_Internet_Cat_Video_Festival
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130312/77416ecd/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:45:45 -0700
> From: Steve Berl <steveberl at gmail.com>
> To: "mattsenate at gmail.com" <mattsenate at gmail.com>
> Cc: ":::Marty:::" <mrwood at gmail.com>, sudo-discuss
>         <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
> Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] computer donations + large event 3/21
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAB4gGncyCq5Jn3ZOpdKpkv9+moe7EoYvYjhROEp6YTTgAiavmw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> For getting rid of computer stuff there's always http://www.accrc.org
>
> Great organization doing good stuff.
>
> -steve
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:30 AM, mattsenate at gmail.com <
> mattsenate at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Yes.
> >
> > // Matt
> >
> >
> > ----- Reply message -----
> > From: ":::Marty:::" <mrwood at gmail.com>
> > To: <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
> > Subject: [sudo-discuss] computer donations + large event 3/21
> > Date: Mon, Mar 11, 2013 1:28 PM
> >
> >
> > Hi y'all.
> >
> > I was looking on the wiki regarding donations and is there an updated
> > policy on computer donations? I have two complete systems (minus cases)
> and
> > another few boxes of decent parts that i am trying to get rid of.
> > Is this something that would be okay to bring by/freebox/ or put on the
> > supply shelves. Is there any need for this sort of stuff?
> >
> > I also was looking on the calendar and wanted to let you know there is a
> > poetry reading that would overflow into the common space on Thursday
> 3/21.
> > It is there on the calendar but unpublished. One of the two meet ups
> could
> > definitely use the Public School classroom if this event needs the bigger
> > space.
> >
> > Best,
> > -Marty
> >
> > --
> >
> > www.resonantcity.net
> > twitter: @resonantcity <https://twitter.com/#!/resonantcity> ,
> > @uselessunless <https://twitter.com/#!/uselessunless> [ personal ]
> > http://www.facebook.com/ResonantCity <
> > https://www.facebook.com/ResonantCity>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sudo-discuss mailing list
> > sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> -steve
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130312/4a947191/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:33:34 -0700
> From: Eddan Katz <eddan at clear.net>
> To: Marina Kukso <marina.kukso at gmail.com>
> Cc: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
> Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] Fwd: Request for sudo-announce Digest mode
> Message-ID: <16EEC94D-E0AE-402F-9D00-04ED6C07A372 at clear.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I also like this idea. If someone can send out an initial draft over the
> weekend giving, others opportunity to plug in additional stuff (like with a
> link to a wiki page) - we can probably get it out on Monday.
>
> Since I am generally opposed to this kind of line-drawing - I will suggest
> that we have strict times by which things need to be updated in order to be
> included.
>
>
> sent from eddan.com
>
> On Mar 11, 2013, at 5:12 AM, Marina Kukso <marina.kukso at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Great idea - maybe this is something that we can do during weekly
> meetings? Come up with a few bullet points that can go out for the week
> ahead.
> >
> > - marina
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Matthew Senate <mattsenate at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> Aasronco has an important point about using sudo-announce. Not
> unreasonable to enable digest, but maybe there's a bigger point:
> >>
> >> Let's put together a weekly newsletter for sudo-announce. Then,
> additional, absolutely necessary messages can be sent in addition (max ~2-3
> / week, mostly 1 / week)?
> >>
> >> // Matt
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: Aaronco Thirtysix <aaronco36 at gmail.com>
> >> Date: Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:54 AM
> >> Subject: Request for sudo-announce Digest mode
> >> To: sudo-announce-owner at lists.sudoroom.org
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >> I've received the following three and SEPARATE sudo-announce postings
> >> within the last 24hrs:
> >>
> >> [sudo-announce] wednesday dinner meeting
> >> Leonid Kozhukh len at ligertail.com
> >> Tue Mar 5 14:51:10 PST 2013
> >>
> >> [sudo-announce] Microcontroller hacking tonight!
> >> hol at gaskill.com hol at gaskill.com
> >> Tue Mar 5 16:23:00 PST 2013
> >>
> >> [sudo-announce] THIS SAT 3/9: Today I Learned: Jewelry-Making and
> Jewelry Repair
> >> Marina Kukso marina.kukso at gmail.com
> >> Wed Mar 6 08:45:06 PST 2013
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> I'd like to request receiving future sudo-announce postings bundled in
> >> Digest mode, instead of individually as above.
> >> Have already attempted to manually make this change in the
> >> sudo-announce membership configuration page
> >> http://lists.sudoroom.org/options/sudo-announce/<email address>
> >>
> >> If the requested change fails to go into effect for future
> >> sudo-announce postings, then this same membership configuration page
> >> DOES seem to prevent the possible onslaught of individual
> >> sudo-announce postings sent to my Inbox.
> >> Through this Disabled checkbox option:
> >> ~~~ quoting ~~~
> >> Mail delivery
> >>
> >> Set this option to Enabled to receive messages posted to this mailing
> >> list. Set it to Disabled if you want to stay subscribed, but don't
> >> want mail delivered to you for a while (e.g. you're going on
> >> vacation). If you disable mail delivery, don't forget to re-enable it
> >> when you come back; it will not be automatically re-enabled.
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -A
> >> aaronco36 at gmail.com
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130312/d373dc4a/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 22:45:44 -0700
> From: Danielle Siembieda <dsiembieda at hotmail.com>
> To: "dorkbotsf-blabber at dorkbot.org" <dorkbotsf-blabber at dorkbot.org>,
>         <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>, "
> new-media-curating at jiscmail.ac.uk"
>         <new-media-curating at jiscmail.ac.uk>,
>         <discuss at lists.acemonstertoys.org>
> Cc: james at factorynoir.com
> Subject: [sudo-discuss] Artist in Residency Opportunity -
>         Minecraft-Ars Virtua - No experience needed
> Message-ID: <SNT118-W639CA2D1BB0FC01FD7E165D2E30 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> http://rhizome.org/announce/jobs/opportunities/59362/
> Ars Virtua Artist-in-Residence
>
> Call for Proposals
> Orwell Residence, Minecraft
> Deadline: Mar 21 midnight PST
>
> Artist, coders, poets, and engineers are invited to apply for a six week
> artist residency in the virtual environment / game space of Minecraft.
> Minecraft is a sandbox where creativity and ludology intersect in a highly
> social space rich with possibilities due to relative openness of the code
> and hosting options.
>
> Ars Virtua is soliciting proposals for its Artist-in-Residence program
> (AVAIR). Established and emerging artists are invited to participate. The
> residency will culminate in an exhibition and opening in Minecraft and
> documentation in Minecraft and on the web. Depending on the nature of the
> exhibition a downloadable "world" may also be made available. Residents
> will also receive a $400 stipend, training and mentorship as necessary.
>
> AVAIR is an extended performance that examines what it means to reside in
> a place that has no physical location. The purpose of the residency is to
> reflect on the nature of the game environment and terrestrial world in the
> context of contemporary art. NO Previous experience in virtual environments
> or Minecraft is necessary.
>
> Ars Virtua is keenly aware of the power of virtual worlds. The arts
> continue to shape our understanding of technologies, this residency targets
> both game-spaces and virtual environments as a place for emergent art,
> performance art, coded art and social experimentation. It is the purpose of
> this residency to give direct attention to the interrogation of the space,
> place, and metaphor. Residents will be encouraged to explore, experiment
> with and challenge traditional conventions of art making and distribution,
> value and the art market, artist and audience, space and place, data and
> reality.
>
> The residency will take place in Orwell on our semi-private server and in
> our building space. Potential residents are encouraged to visit beforehand.
>
> Application Process:
>
> Artists are encouraged to become familiar with Minecraft before applying.
> Be aware that there is a limited free trial, and that finalists will be
> contacted for an in world interview, if you do not have an account at that
> time one will be provided. Applications will be judged based on ideas
> presented and work previously executed. We are looking for an artist who is
> willing to work within what may be a new environment for them and be
> prepared to evolve in response to the malleable world that is Minecraft..
>
> To apply send the following information to avair @ arsvirtua.com:
> 1) Name, address, phone number, email address.
> 2) A brief statement about what interests you about Minecraft or what you
> might like to explore.
> 3) Link to an online portfolio (expect a 5 minute visit). If you do not
> have an online portfolio please briefly discuss your work.
> 4) one page proposal. Note that the proposal is NOT a commitment, but
> expresses your interest.
>
> Applications are due on or before March 21, please send any inquiries or
> additional questions to avair-at-arsvirtua.com.
>
> Ars Virtua is sponsored by the CADRE Laboratory for New Media, and by New
> Radio and Performing Arts, Inc. and its Turbulence.org website and in
> collaboration with the Streaming Museum.
>
> "AVAIR" was originally commissioned in 2006 by New Radio and Performing
> Arts, Inc., (aka Ether-Ore) for its Turbulence web site.LINK:
> http://arsvirtua.com/residence.php
>
> danielle siembieda
> siembieda.com
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130312/2d7f9d64/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:48:37 -0700
> From: Romy Ilano <romy at snowyla.com>
> To: "sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org"
>         <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
> Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] sudo-discuss Digest, Vol 5, Issue 26
> Message-ID: <AF6DE728-A311-41FC-8D69-0921D615E938 at snowyla.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Good morning everyone! I'm a new member. I've helped out with rps
> collective in the past and seek to connect you two groups in the future
> I like to do things
>
> I enjoyed Helping out with this:: I'd like to help out with cool gbjngs
> like this
> http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/exhibition/late021210
>
> I'm assuming there's a kickass evening tonight right? I'm still not clear
> on when new people can stop by and hack on projects
>
> I'm getting into the arduino lately and love programming iPhones.
>
>
> My favorite thing to do is build things.
>
> ---
>
> Romy Ilano
> Founder of Snowyla
> http://www.snowyla.com
> romy at snowyla.com
>
> On Mar 12, 2013, at 0:14, sudo-discuss-request at lists.sudoroom.org wrote:
>
> > Send sudo-discuss mailing list submissions to
> >    sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >    http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >    sudo-discuss-request at lists.sudoroom.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >    sudo-discuss-owner at lists.sudoroom.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of sudo-discuss digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >   1. Fwd: Does anyone want to form a delegation to attend
> >      Hackerspace Marin meetups? (Anthony Di Franco)
> >   2. Fwd: Re:  conflict resolution proposal (rachel lyra hospodar)
> >   3. Re: Fwd: Request for sudo-announce Digest mode (Marina Kukso)
> >   4. The Mandate Vote Proposal (MVP) (Eddan Katz)
> >   5. Saturday - Free Class - "Just enough Sketch-up to    pretend you
> >      can 3d model" (Max Klein)
> >   6. Re: conflict resolution proposal (Anthony Di Franco)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 23:16:52 -0700
> > From: Anthony Di Franco <di.franco at gmail.com>
> > To: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
> > Subject: [sudo-discuss] Fwd: Does anyone want to form a delegation to
> >    attend Hackerspace Marin meetups?
> > Message-ID:
> >    <CAOJkv1pEfpfV9z+u_CfnQRueXdf-5UNdQNUavt_GVmA3yVSEdA at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Forwarding more of what seems not to have gone through.
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Anthony Di Franco <di.franco at aya.yale.edu>
> > Date: Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM
> > Subject: Does anyone want to form a delegation to attend Hackerspace
> Marin
> > meetups?
> > To: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
> >
> >
> > c.f. http://www.meetup.com/Hackerspace-Marin/?gj=ej1b&a=wg2.2_rdmr
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130311/bab7a076/attachment-0001.html
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:52:50 -0700
> > From: rachel lyra hospodar <rachelyra at gmail.com>
> > To: "sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org"
> >    <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
> > Subject: [sudo-discuss] Fwd: Re:  conflict resolution proposal
> > Message-ID:
> >    <CAFp750tyjHgBD11WeqFyAV-nGweCt+0DwV7Kh53tR-FE+UsH2g at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> > (Forwarding message that seems to have failed to go through)
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra at gmail.com>
> > Date: Mar 9, 2013 2:03 AM
> > Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] conflict resolution proposal
> > To: <di.franco at aya.yale.edu>
> > Cc: "Eddan Katz" <eddan at eddan.com>, "Marina Kukso" <
> marina.kukso at gmail.com>,
> > "sudo-discuss" <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
> >
> > 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://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130311/fa36c450/attachment-0001.html
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 05:12:46 -0700
> > From: Marina Kukso <marina.kukso at gmail.com>
> > To: Matthew Senate <mattsenate at gmail.com>
> > Cc: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
> > Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] Fwd: Request for sudo-announce Digest mode
> > Message-ID:
> >    <CAPgqYn+DZ=HM=5XDEH1gArYV=VqO__DJrPDpbsBN5YB5-cd4KQ at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> > Great idea - maybe this is something that we can do during weekly
> meetings?
> > Come up with a few bullet points that can go out for the week ahead.
> >
> > - marina
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Matthew Senate <mattsenate at gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> Aasronco has an important point about using sudo-announce. Not
> >> unreasonable to enable digest, but maybe there's a bigger point:
> >>
> >> Let's put together a weekly newsletter for sudo-announce. Then,
> >> additional, absolutely necessary messages can be sent in addition (max
> ~2-3
> >> / week, mostly 1 / week)?
> >>
> >> // Matt
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: Aaronco Thirtysix <aaronco36 at gmail.com>
> >> Date: Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:54 AM
> >> Subject: Request for sudo-announce Digest mode
> >> To: sudo-announce-owner at lists.sudoroom.org
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >> I've received the following three and SEPARATE sudo-announce postings
> >> within the last 24hrs:
> >>
> >> [sudo-announce] wednesday dinner meeting
> >> Leonid Kozhukh len at ligertail.com
> >> Tue Mar 5 14:51:10 PST 2013
> >>
> >> [sudo-announce] Microcontroller hacking tonight!
> >> hol at gaskill.com hol at gaskill.com
> >> Tue Mar 5 16:23:00 PST 2013
> >>
> >> [sudo-announce] THIS SAT 3/9: Today I Learned: Jewelry-Making and
> Jewelry
> >> Repair
> >> Marina Kukso marina.kukso at gmail.com
> >> Wed Mar 6 08:45:06 PST 2013
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> I'd like to request receiving future sudo-announce postings bundled in
> >> Digest mode, instead of individually as above.
> >> Have already attempted to manually make this change in the
> >> sudo-announce membership configuration page
> >> http://lists.sudoroom.org/options/sudo-announce/<email address>
> >>
> >> If the requested change fails to go into effect for future
> >> sudo-announce postings, then this same membership configuration page
> >> DOES seem to prevent the possible onslaught of individual
> >> sudo-announce postings sent to my Inbox.
> >> Through this Disabled checkbox option:
> >> ~~~ quoting ~~~
> >> Mail delivery
> >>
> >> Set this option to Enabled to receive messages posted to this mailing
> >> list. Set it to Disabled if you want to stay subscribed, but don't
> >> want mail delivered to you for a while (e.g. you're going on
> >> vacation). If you disable mail delivery, don't forget to re-enable it
> >> when you come back; it will not be automatically re-enabled.
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -A
> >> aaronco36 at gmail.com
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130311/8097253c/attachment-0001.html
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:07:30 -0700
> > From: Eddan Katz <eddan at clear.net>
> > To: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
> > Subject: [sudo-discuss] The Mandate Vote Proposal (MVP)
> > Message-ID: <D28304A6-5FF4-417A-890F-D3361FB0D2E4 at clear.net>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > Since my new proposal is buried in the thread, I am starting a new
> thread submitting the following:
> >
> > Add the word "mandate" before the word "vote" in step 1, prong 3, so
> that it would read:
> >
> > - At least 1 week before the meeting at which a [mandate] vote on the
> amendment will be held
> >
> >
> > This proposal is to bring greater clarity to the voting and drafting
> process, which I believe has been a significant obstacle in knowing how to
> proceed.
> >
> > The way it would work then, would be that a proposal is made for
> something - such as the creation of a constable/ombudsperson/steward. To be
> precise, the mandate vote that is called for does not constitute approval
> of the specific language that will modify the Articles of Association.
> >
> > If meeting the appropriate vote threshold, all members of Sudo Room are
> then invited to propose language o effectuate that mandate.
> >
> > The drafting process would work best as a consensus process if there are
> more than one specific language proposals. Presumably, the language
> proposals, which can be only about a part of implementing the mandate, not
> necessarily the whole thing. When there are different proposals that
> articulate solutions from various perspectives, the back-and-forth
> compromise & debate opens up the possibility of compromise and thus
> consensus.
> >
> > So, in order to do this in a performative fashion - I am officially
> proposing the Mandate Vote proposal (not a change to the Articles of
> Association). I will put together a wiki page that will include
> explanations of what problem is being addressed, how this will solve it,
> and what other impacts can be anticipated.
> >
> > If a mandate exists amongst Sudo Room members to put together a specific
> language proposal, I will then invite commentary and suggestions p my
> proposed language. In this case, very simply, the addition of the word
> mandate before vote in the Amendments section.
> >
> > As I've suggested for other drafting initiatives in order to allow for
> the broadest participation in a structured way - this will be a 3-stage
> process. For ten days following the vote - a GREEN draft will be
> distributed and discussion will focus at a more broad and thematic level.
> For the 3 days following, an ORANGE draft will be up for discussion that
> will work on sentence-level changes in the relevant parts of the draft.
> There will then be 1 day for word specific changes (only) before the draft
> text is submitted for consensus approval.
> >
> > If consensus is not achieved, no changes in the Articles are effectuated.
> >
> >
> > sent from eddan.com
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130311/dff185ba/attachment-0001.html
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 23:54:43 -0700
> > From: Max Klein <isalix at gmail.com>
> > To: sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org, sudo-announce at lists.sudoroom.org
> > Subject: [sudo-discuss] Saturday - Free Class - "Just enough Sketch-up
> >    to    pretend you can 3d model"
> > Message-ID:
> >    <CAKbmofhceujph8G-deP83H5=vGF6-Qe7OMPf13qjqcBCmcURNQ at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> >
> > Glance
> >
> >   - *WHEN* 2pm on Saturday the 16th of March.
> >   - *DURATION* 2 hours
> >   - *LOCATION* sudo room <http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Getting_there>
> >   - *PRICE* $0
> >   - *NUTSHELL* Live Sketchup and print tutorial
> >   - *INSTRUCTOR* Max Klein aka notconfusing <http://notconfusing.com>
> >
> > Plan
> >
> >   - Understand the workflow (Idea>Design>STL>Slice>Print).
> >   - *IDEA* a miniature plate for canapes and appetizers that is ring and
> >   allows you to hold a drink in the same hand.
> >   - *DESIGN* we?ll make a 3d digital representation in sketchup
> >   - *STL* gloss over this detail and leave it for another class
> >   - *SLICE* gloss over this detail and leave it for another class
> >   - *PRINT* marvel, and take home.
> >
> > Learn
> >
> > On the right you?ll see some examples of what I?ve 3D printed at sudo
> room,
> > having learned all my skills at sudo room, from sudoers.
> >
> >   - 3D Printing Theory
> >   - Sketchup
> >      - Navigation
> >      - Basic Shapes
> >      - Shape Manipulation
> >      - Advanced Shapes
> >         - Exporting
> >       - Slic3r slicing software (in a minor way)
> >   - Repetier Host Printer Software (in a minor way)
> >   - How to manually adjust the 3d printer in times of crisis.
> >
> > Bring
> >
> >   - Come with a laptop with sketchup <http://www.sketchup.com/>
> installed.
> >   There?s a free version for Windows and Mac. If you don?t have this
> >   installed, you cannot begin immediately.
> >   - Bring a mouse. Sketchup is much easier with a mouse, and all but
> >   impossible to learn with the track pad. Essential.
> >
> > Attend Kind people RSVP on the
> > wiki<
> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Just_enought_Sketch-up_to_pretend_you_can_3d_model#Attend
> >,
> > but all those who show up will be welcomed.
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130311/cbcd0052/attachment-0001.html
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:13:38 -0700
> > From: Anthony Di Franco <di.franco at aya.yale.edu>
> > To: rachel lyra hospodar <rachelyra at gmail.com>
> > Cc: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>, Eddan Katz
> >    <eddan at eddan.com>
> > Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] conflict resolution proposal
> > Message-ID:
> >    <CAOJkv1qhzeLDAT+=gUxLDSm9JfGOnkWPRTx9e1Hpwa=M6kuzFA at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Explicit information from the source about how the name "Constable" fit
> > into my draft and how I was attempting to use it to frame things:
> > I chose "Constable" specifically because in many places and times it has
> > been the title of a record-keeper and notice-giver in the context of
> > common-law legal proceedings, which are some of the less statist legal
> > traditions we have in the West. Also because I remember from my
> childhood,
> > as did Jordan, this fictional
> > constable<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odo_(Star_Trek)>,
> > an impartial outsider to the partisan conflicts around him, and a
> rigorous
> > and clear-headed detective; above all, someone who consistently cut
> through
> > noise and got to the bottom of things. I ultimately found it was not
> > suitable because it was not consistently taken this way by others. In the
> > interest of clearer communication, I am happy to be moving on to a name
> > based on "Steward" or any other that may yet prove to be best at
> > communicating the right intentions and values.
> > I hope you will find if you carefully read my proposal that it well
> > reflects these intentions, which seem to me to be very much in line with
> > your own, and consistent with the values of sudo room, and I hope you
> will
> > also point out where you find that my proposal does not reflect these
> > intentions or is otherwise lacking so that it can be addressed.
> > I did not originally include any language about implementation of
> conflict
> > resolutions in my draft, which is referred to in our current articles,
> > unfortunately, as "enforcement", a term I also hope to abolish, until you
> > asked whether I was acting in the capacity of Constable to implement a
> > hypothetical decision to ban Timon. The question was moot and the answer
> to
> > it turned out to be no anyway, but it brought to my attention that we
> have
> > nothing in the current Articles about implementing decisions resulting
> from
> > conflict resolution, nor was there anything about it in my draft at that
> > time. In response, I added some language about remedies going along with
> > implementation plans and about the Constable-now-Conflict-Steward being a
> > key part of the process of articulating the plan and seeing that it is
> > implemented. I carefully avoided speaking of enforcement and explicitly
> > stated that remedies should be restorative rather than retributive.
> > One important question that is apart from the main point I am trying to
> > make here, but should be brought up explicitly ASAP, is how we plan to
> > implement decisions to ban people if and when it comes to that, and
> whether
> > private or city-owned police forces might become involved, and if so,
> when
> > and how, and how this all fits with the stated and otherwise held values
> of
> > the group. I will try to find a good way to bring this up again so that
> it
> > is not buried under a giant textwall.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 11:04 AM, rachel lyra hospodar
> > <rachelyra at gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Well, IMO it would make more sense to re-examine and re-draft the role
> in
> >> light of the new framing, and see what else changes, rather than simply
> >> changing the title.
> >>
> >> Thought artifacts are real, yo. Let's not encode too many into the
> >> Articles.
> >> On Mar 9, 2013 10:06 AM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Then, conflict steward <=> constable?
> >>> On Mar 9, 2013 2:09 AM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra at gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I love 'steward'!
> >>>>
> >>>> To me it sounds welcoming and helpful, and opens up possibilities
> around
> >>>> what else the role could be... for example, maybe someone from the
> >>>> community at large who wants to do, say, an unconference, could ask a
> >>>> sudo-ite to steward their event, ie, be a point of contact for the
> space?
> >>>> Or as our fundraising structure ramps up, projects could have a
> funding
> >>>> steward (also builds in accountability there!) that keeps an eye on
> the
> >>>> process and helps to clarify it. I know that's a ways down the road
> but
> >>>> honestly I have never seen a funding structure that was unconfusing,
> so
> >>>> I'll just go ahead and predict that ours might be, too.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also in the case of amendments, if someone has an amendment they'd
> like
> >>>> to make but is confused or intimidated by the process, a steward
> might be a
> >>>> good neutral ally who can help everything along before & during the
> meeting.
> >>>>
> >>>> (Am I a consensus nerd if I point out that this kind of evolution of
> >>>> ideas is part of the strength of that method?)
> >>>>
> >>>> :D
> >>>> R.
> >>>> On Mar 8, 2013 3:00 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Steward? (See union steward, stewardship, etymology: house ward)
> >>>>> On Mar 8, 2013 2:21 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco at gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I tried to avoid "enforcement" specifically and its presence if and
> >>>>>> where it remains is a bug. I would not mind it being summarily
> expunged
> >>>>>> from the draft wherever you find it. I generally went with
> "implementation"
> >>>>>> as a neutral term and made clear elsewhere that restorative
> remedies are
> >>>>>> strongly preferred.
> >>>>>> "Constable" I have found to have a range of nuanced meanings, many
> of
> >>>>>> which seem to fit our situation well, from the very thorough
> wikipedia page
> >>>>>> about it. It is the best word I know of so far, but I too would
> like one
> >>>>>> that requires less up-front study of wikipedia to appreciate.
> >>>>>> On Mar 8, 2013 2:12 PM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra at gmail.com
> >
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'd be interested in the structured editing time suggested here by
> >>>>>>> marina!
> >>>>>>> -I am interested in examining ways to transmute the Constable
> >>>>>>> suggestion, with its problematic Enforcement language, into an
> >>>>>>> Ombudspersonish solution, perhaps creating a sudo functionary role
> that is
> >>>>>>> more flexible and applicable to a greater range of situations.
> >>>>>>> -I am also very interested in seeking ways and places we can
> >>>>>>> streamline the articles, since overall to me they seem kind of
> opaque due
> >>>>>>> to complexity & language.
> >>>>>>> -I am interested in seeking ways to create some clarity around the
> >>>>>>> differences between unanimity, consensus, and voting, and which is
> used
> >>>>>>> when.  This could also include reaching clarity on how to get to
> the point
> >>>>>>> where we are in consensus.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I also do want to explicitly state once again that I have concerns
> >>>>>>> about the denotations (ie, some of the stuff it actually says in
> the
> >>>>>>> dictionary WRT the word) of 'constable' and 'enforcement' and am
> hoping we
> >>>>>>> can come up with words less evocative of archaic and violent forms
> of
> >>>>>>> social engineering.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> R.
> >>>>>>> On Mar 7, 2013 1:18 PM, "Marina Kukso" <marina.kukso at gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> also, i'd like to add that i'd be interested in having a
> structured
> >>>>>>>> articles of association workshop sometime after this friday.
> we've tried
> >>>>>>>> these before and they were not super productive. i think that
> where we
> >>>>>>>> faltered before was in not having a very good list of "target
> areas"
> >>>>>>>> identified ahead of time. here's an example of a possible "target
> area":
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "The process to amend these articles of association entails:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [MISSING INFO: how to get a strong amendment that has buy in from
> >>>>>>>> the sudo community]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>   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://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130312/6afdbf96/attachment.html
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sudo-discuss mailing list
> > sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> >
> >
> > End of sudo-discuss Digest, Vol 5, Issue 26
> > *******************************************
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130313/80063c92/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
> End of sudo-discuss Digest, Vol 5, Issue 27
> *******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130314/ad500a51/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SudoRoom.png
Type: image/png
Size: 74075 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130314/ad500a51/attachment.png>