-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Oh hai,
We're going to have a small NymRights gathering at sudo room next
Saturday at 2pm. A quick summary of what we'll be discussing. Anyone
is welcome to join, the more people we get involved, the better a
group we can be!
On the agenda:
Discussion of Phoenix Plenary from February
Creation of suggested naming policy for websites
Upcoming IIW workshop and IDESG meeting (which is in Mountain View)
Stay tuned to nymrights.org for more updates!
Cheers,
aestetix
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJROYvJAAoJEOrRfDwkjbpTrJ0IAIljuEbsgL05Eg34e9iwMRdD
hfU7JRuXeUrLeZLMBY4fjjRCz4KOmcx91srpK4VEYD+PmK0dFtM2zp5Y991juOff
JE6ppyeMo8wboKcsaU6v7oin68afWdYeX6sEhgdzNbdvQDxmmyuPaP/GZOKz6ZNw
gYkbBw/tDhygRbr0WQvU0A1B98Ck0HUaOwXbHL4aiAZqmATDK7/npqWITn8rZDPP
gjWfWmsecBWJTvzo6xL1pKPCFo2FgUOusPlANIgXKnxqZuKH2UAz58hdArvSuGhb
/c9JgyWkyAQhD8XoyBhvyNjPS5y52xUJ7gKp4+n0kq9IyR9SIzj/SPmvHg7+Wl8=
=sLam
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
thanks to Hol and all the folks at Microcontroller Hack Night who made
my first time to Sudo Room so engaging, enjoyable and delicious! Great
guac and salsa!
Sudo Room felt kind of like when I first came into Portland's Free
Geek 12 years ago. Lots of radical F/OSS folks trying to solve the
worlds problems by helping each other learn to do stuff! The major
difference was that Free Geek specifically targets the two most
formidable problems with technology (imho) by using e-waste and the
Digital Divide against each other. But we had lots of tinkering just
the same.
I adore what yalls have created and hope to return again soon. Er, I
forgot the name of the northern European guy (I thank he was Dutch)
with whom I was speaking about bike powered electronics, but I have
loads more questions.
phil
------------------------------------------------------
erotic elegance and ergonomic efficiency
------------------- Bike Smut --------------------
I thought of this during the meeting but didn't want to veer too far off
topic, but since the analogy of articles amendment to software
development (particularly version control) came up, I thought this was
pertinent. At certain points during the Articles of Association, it
might be a good idea to write tests.
Test Driven Development is an integral part of a lot of software
development - coming up with different situations and contexts of how
your software is used. But it can actually be applied here quite easily
- especially to the 'conflict resolution' sections. How well do the
articles we've agreed upon handle different types of conflicts? Well,
we can write test cases for them. For instance:
Test Case 1: Someone has stolen money from the donations jar
Test Case 2: An injury happens at Sudoroom
The more tests we write, the better the coverage of the articles are in
different situations. This may also help elucidate the gaps where our
articles may need amending.
Writing tests also actually helps clarify the meaning and intention of
articles with more obtuse language.
I was going to go create a wiki page on it, but the server rejected me
from creating a login for some reason :(
Bill
Woops... I sent the wrong CVE. There was one for Tornado that was also open
and when I bopped back and forth between my windows I copy-pasted the wrong
URL. Sorry.
I'll try to figure out which one I'd pulled up from the scripts I ran on
sudoroom.org yesterday (as opposed to the others that popped up from the
other things I was looking at. *groan*).
- Lish (feeling really dumb at the moment...)
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Matthew Senate <mattsenate(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> you should join our list sudo-sys :D
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-sys
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Lisha Sterling <lishevita(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I just wanted to give a heads up that we've got some cross-site scripting
>> vulnerabilities in the sudoroom websever that sits at 50.0.83.116
>>
>> https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2012-4558
>> for more info...
>>
>> - Lisha
>>
>> --
>> http://www.alwayssababa.com/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
>>
>
--
http://www.alwayssababa.com/
I agree with the sentiment, and in lieu of suggesting an alternative at first, decided to ask for more thoughts, so thanks.
However, even if it is a process we do now, I disagree that (a) it is absolutely necessary for the exchequer specifically to do this rather than to support the overall process and encourage better systems to automate and (b) it need not be codified in the description of the role, but instead as documentation, best practices, recommendations, etc such as on a wiki page. Further, I would suggest if we did want to keep it in, that we think long and hard, but add it to the fiscal solvency process, for which we are collectively responsible, and the exchequer may be the first or default person to implement or act.
Do you think it reasonable to make a new wiki page instead for exchequer operational insight?
// Matt
----- Reply message -----
From: "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco(a)gmail.com>
To: "Matthew Senate" <mattsenate(a)gmail.com>
Cc: "sudo-discuss" <sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org>
Subject: [sudo-discuss] Constable amendment changes
Date: Thu, Mar 7, 2013 9:04 AM
In the second case, I added this because handling the money and being
authorized to use the accounts was key to my being exchequer, and will
remain so, and even if aspects of the processes of handling money are
delegated, distributed, automated, (it happened with wepay a bit,) these
basics remain necessary as a default.
On Mar 7, 2013 2:49 AM, "Matthew Senate" <mattsenate(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> hey all,
>
> here are the changes I described in the mtg tonight:
> http://sudoroom.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Articles_of_Association%2FCon…
>
> This page's history has:
> (a) the current Articles
> (b) the proposal from tonight
> (c) my proposed changes
>
> // Matt
>
> p.s.
>
> I left out some bits about Facilitator and Exchequer, but the rest is
> mainly re-worded, reduced, and refined. The omitted pieces (due to
> unnecessary in the first case since majority vote already over-rules
> facilitator, and too specific for the second case):
>
> Facilitator:
>
> ** 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.
>
> Exchequer:
>
> ** Receives dues and donations and pays expenses on behalf of the group,
> using the group's accounts.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
I'm responding to what Eddan has said, with my perspective from faciliator
last night.
1. The Articles say that amendments require consensus.
2. From my perspective as Facilitator last night, consensus on the
Constable changes were almost reached, because
3, A straw poll of those wanting to vote, gave a unanimous yes,
4, and then a straw poll for accepting constable changes was almost
unanimous, except that,
5. A member blocked the consensus process, which
6. Is an allowable and natural part of the consensus process.
Up to here, I think that the process and content ran properly and validly -
albeit tiring and onerous (to be expected).
7. The next step in the Consensus process, is to address the blocking
concern (I may not have faciltated this portion correctly).
8. The reason given, as I saw it, from the blocking member was that they
wanted more time to personally comb and edit the Constable policy.
9. Group must consider if there is valid reason to extend blocking member
additional time, beyond the prescribed proposal process.
En sum,
I think that as facilitator I should have extended the discussion past 6 to
7,8, and 9.
That's my lesson from last night.
notconfusing
From: Eddan <eddan(a)clear.net>
> To: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 02:43:28 -0800
> Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] conflict resolution proposal
> 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_Functiona…)
> 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(a)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.
>
>
hey all,
here are the changes I described in the mtg tonight:
http://sudoroom.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Articles_of_Association%2FCon…
This page's history has:
(a) the current Articles
(b) the proposal from tonight
(c) my proposed changes
// Matt
p.s.
I left out some bits about Facilitator and Exchequer, but the rest is
mainly re-worded, reduced, and refined. The omitted pieces (due to
unnecessary in the first case since majority vote already over-rules
facilitator, and too specific for the second case):
Facilitator:
** 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.
Exchequer:
** Receives dues and donations and pays expenses on behalf of the group,
using the group's accounts.
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<http://sudoroom.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Articles_of_Association/Draft…>
]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:
1. The party who seeks resolution finds someone to act as Constable in
the matter, and works with this Constable to find a Mediator.
1. 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.
2. The Constable organizes meetings for conflict resolution and
maintains records of all meetings and relevant communications among the
conflicting parties.
3. The Constable, Mediator, and the conflicting parties arrange to
meet to work out a resolution to the conflict that all
conflicting parties
consent to.
2. 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:
1. 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.
2. During each meeting's agenda item on Conflict Resolution, all
unresolved issues on the wiki are brought up for discussion followed by a
vote.
1. First, the Constable presents all relevant documentation about
the issue.
2. 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):
1. Any matter calling for membership suspension or termination.
- *Decision Procedure:* 2/3 vote
2. Other serious conflict.
- *Decision Procedure:* 2/3 vote
3. Conflict where only fiscal issues are involved and only
fiscal redress is sought.
- *Decision Procedure:* 1/2 vote
4. All other conflicts.
- *Decision Procedure:* Consensus
5. Positive feedback.
- *Decision Procedure:* Auto-approval
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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<http://sudoroom.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Articles_of_Association/Draft…>
]Sub-Section 3.4.1 Principles and Values Specific to Conflicts
1. The accused are presumed innocent unless and until proven otherwise
beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Respect for the privacy and dignity of all members is consistently
maintained.
3. Proportional and effective remedies should be sought.
4. Restorative <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice> remedies
are strongly preferred over
retributive<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice>
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.
