Fwd: conflict resolution proposal
by Anthony Di Franco
Forwarding more of what seems not to have gone through.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anthony Di Franco <di.franco(a)gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] conflict resolution proposal
To: rachel lyra hospodar <rachelyra(a)gmail.com>
Cc: Marina Kukso <marina.kukso(a)gmail.com>, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)eddan.com>,
sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org>
In that case, I hope you can participate directly in drafting changes that
reflect your views and I look forward to seeing them.
Once I have things on git, if you wish to work in that medium, let me know
if you aren't familiar and need any help getting going.
Otherwise, I'll look on the wiki and the mailing list as usual.
On Mar 9, 2013 12:03 PM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Responses inline below
>
> mediumreality.com
> On Mar 9, 2013 11:25 AM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me like the name change is compelling because it fit the
> role as conceived better,
>
> I find the name change compelling because it is not a re-naming but an
> evolution, more reflective of my values and of those I would hope this
> organization espouses (ie, for those who exist as a priveleged class in a
> police state where entire other classes of people experience violence on
> the daily to be sensitive to what it might mean to invoke power, especially
> using a framing evocative of police power)
>
> You might think this is the same thing as what you have said above. I do
> not.
>
> >and the role was conceived in response to concrete experiences rather
> than according to a conceptual template associated with a name or an
> existing other role in another context, the name being mostly an
> afterthought,
>
> Our opinions on the power of language to expose bias, and reinforce it,
> differ.
>
> >albeit one that led in practice to distraction
>
> I disagree. You are missing my point. I believe the languaging of the
> documents we use to govern ourselves is not a distraction but in fact is
> their stuff of substance.
>
> >and more attention than it was worth relative to more substantive things
> buried deeper in the details.
>
> I disagree.
>
> > That said, I look forward to any insights that come from you or others
> from reframing and will read back over things myself with an eye toward
> them.
>
> I have given feedback on the languaging several times, essentially the
> same feedback. Hopefully the things I have said here to further explain
> will help.
>
> > One insight I have now is that perhaps all Sudo Functionaries should
> instead be Sudo Stewards of various kinds, perhaps with cheeky informal
> archaic titles as inside jokes of sorts,
>
> For our functionality, inside jokes & obfuscatory terms will serve the
> purpose of discouraging outsiders & newcomers from feeling like they
> belong. Our goal should be to decrease the learning curve for our
> governance structures.
>
> >fitting the culture of hacking and repurposing things, but mainly
> descriptively named. This would give more substance to the minor edits I
> made to the other roles and would be a good basis for splitting this change
> into two separate ones to consider.
>
> See below.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> see the preceding for my TL;DR
>
> >
> > 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(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Then, conflict steward <=> constable?
> >>
> >> On Mar 9, 2013 2:09 AM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra(a)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(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Steward? (See union steward, stewardship, etymology: house ward)
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mar 8, 2013 2:21 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco(a)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(a)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(a)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]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>> 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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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_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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
> >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
> >>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
> >>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
> >>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
> >>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> >>>>>>
>
13Â years, 2Â months
- 1
- 0
Fwd: conflict resolution proposal
by Anthony Di Franco
Forwarding more of what seems not to have gone through.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anthony Di Franco <di.franco(a)gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] conflict resolution proposal
To: rachel lyra hospodar <rachelyra(a)gmail.com>
Cc: Marina Kukso <marina.kukso(a)gmail.com>, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)eddan.com>,
sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org>
It seems to me like the name change is compelling because it fit the role
as conceived better, and the role was conceived in response to concrete
experiences rather than according to a conceptual template associated with
a name or an existing other role in another context, the name being mostly
an afterthought, albeit one that led in practice to distraction and more
attention than it was worth relative to more substantive things buried
deeper in the details.
That said, I look forward to any insights that come from you or others from
reframing and will read back over things myself with an eye toward them.
One insight I have now is that perhaps all Sudo Functionaries should
instead be Sudo Stewards of various kinds, perhaps with cheeky informal
archaic titles as inside jokes of sorts, fitting the culture of hacking and
repurposing things, but mainly descriptively named. This would give more
substance to the minor edits I made to the other roles and would be a good
basis for splitting this change into two separate ones to consider.
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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Then, conflict steward <=> constable?
> On Mar 9, 2013 2:09 AM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steward? (See union steward, stewardship, etymology: house ward)
>>> On Mar 8, 2013 2:21 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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_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.
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
13Â years, 2Â months
- 1
- 0
Fwd: conflict resolution proposal
by Anthony Di Franco
Forwarding more of what seems not to have gone through.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: rachel lyra hospodar <rachelyra(a)gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] conflict resolution proposal
To: di.franco(a)aya.yale.edu
Cc: Eddan Katz <eddan(a)eddan.com>, Marina Kukso <marina.kukso(a)gmail.com>,
sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org>
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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Then, conflict steward <=> constable?
> On Mar 9, 2013 2:09 AM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steward? (See union steward, stewardship, etymology: house ward)
>>> On Mar 8, 2013 2:21 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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_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.
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
13Â years, 2Â months
- 1
- 0
Fwd: conflict resolution proposal
by Anthony Di Franco
Forwarding more of what seems not to have gone through.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anthony Di Franco <di.franco(a)gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] conflict resolution proposal
To: rachel lyra hospodar <rachelyra(a)gmail.com>
Cc: Marina Kukso <marina.kukso(a)gmail.com>, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)eddan.com>,
sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org>
Then, conflict steward <=> constable?
On Mar 9, 2013 2:09 AM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steward? (See union steward, stewardship, etymology: house ward)
>> On Mar 8, 2013 2:21 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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_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.
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
13Â years, 2Â months
- 1
- 0
Fwd: conflict resolution proposal
by Anthony Di Franco
Forwarding more of what seems not to have gone through.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: rachel lyra hospodar <rachelyra(a)gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 2:03 AM
Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] conflict resolution proposal
To: di.franco(a)aya.yale.edu
Cc: Eddan Katz <eddan(a)eddan.com>, Marina Kukso <marina.kukso(a)gmail.com>,
sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Steward? (See union steward, stewardship, etymology: house ward)
> On Mar 8, 2013 2:21 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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_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.
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>
>>>
13Â years, 2Â months
- 1
- 0
Fwd: conflict resolution proposal
by Anthony Di Franco
Forwarding more of what seems not to have gone through.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anthony Di Franco <di.franco(a)gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] conflict resolution proposal
To: rachel lyra hospodar <rachelyra(a)gmail.com>
Cc: Marina Kukso <marina.kukso(a)gmail.com>, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)eddan.com>,
sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org>
(Hall ward)
On Mar 8, 2013 3:00 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Steward? (See union steward, stewardship, etymology: house ward)
> On Mar 8, 2013 2:21 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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_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.
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>
>>>
13Â years, 2Â months
- 1
- 0
Fwd: conflict resolution proposal
by Anthony Di Franco
Forwarding more of what seems not to have gone through.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anthony Di Franco <di.franco(a)gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] conflict resolution proposal
To: rachel lyra hospodar <rachelyra(a)gmail.com>
Cc: Marina Kukso <marina.kukso(a)gmail.com>, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)eddan.com>,
sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org>
Steward? (See union steward, stewardship, etymology: house ward)
On Mar 8, 2013 2:21 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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_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.
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
>>
13Â years, 2Â months
- 1
- 0
Re: [sudo-discuss] conflict resolution proposal
by Eddan
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.
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
13Â years, 2Â months
- 8
- 14
Sun. Mar. 17: Vegan Pizza Night + Oakland Wiki Vegan/Vegetarian Edit Party!
by Marina Kukso
Hi Sudoers,
Join us at Chateau Bellevue (359 Bellevue Ave., Oakland) at 5PM on March
17th for *Vegan Pizza Night and Oakland Wiki Vegan/Vegetarian Edit Party*!
We'll be making vegan pizza and adding content to Oakland Wiki (
oaklandwiki.org) about vegan/vegetarian resources in Oakland (restaurants,
best grocery stores, fun social events, excellent nonprofits and volunteer
opportunities, and whatever else you can think of). Oakland Wiki is a
*free*website about Oakland that
*anyone* can edit. We are currently working on adding a lot of great
content about vegan and vegetarian resources in Oakland to the wiki, and
would love to have your contributions to this shared community resource
(check out our current vegan/vegetarian guide here:
http://oaklandwiki.org/Vegetarians_and_Vegans). During the night, we'll be
showing people how to edit and working together to add content to the wiki.
Bring some toppings (or your favorite dough!), your laptop, and a
vegan/veggie friend!
Best,
Marina
PS - Alcohol will not be turned away.
13Â years, 2Â months
- 1
- 1
Fwd: Re: conflict resolution proposal
by rachel lyra hospodar
Forwarding message that failed to go through.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra(a)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 9, 2013 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] conflict resolution proposal
To: <di.franco(a)aya.yale.edu>
Cc: "Eddan Katz" <eddan(a)eddan.com>, "Marina Kukso" <marina.kukso(a)gmail.com>,
"sudo-discuss" <sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org>
Responses inline below
mediumreality.com
On Mar 9, 2013 11:25 AM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It seems to me like the name change is compelling because it fit the role
as conceived better,
I find the name change compelling because it is not a re-naming but an
evolution, more reflective of my values and of those I would hope this
organization espouses (ie, for those who exist as a priveleged class in a
police state where entire other classes of people experience violence on
the daily to be sensitive to what it might mean to invoke power, especially
using a framing evocative of police power)
You might think this is the same thing as what you have said above. I do
not.
>and the role was conceived in response to concrete experiences rather than
according to a conceptual template associated with a name or an existing
other role in another context, the name being mostly an afterthought,
Our opinions on the power of language to expose bias, and reinforce it,
differ.
>albeit one that led in practice to distraction
I disagree. You are missing my point. I believe the languaging of the
documents we use to govern ourselves is not a distraction but in fact is
their stuff of substance.
>and more attention than it was worth relative to more substantive things
buried deeper in the details.
I disagree.
> That said, I look forward to any insights that come from you or others
from reframing and will read back over things myself with an eye toward
them.
I have given feedback on the languaging several times, essentially the same
feedback. Hopefully the things I have said here to further explain will
help.
> One insight I have now is that perhaps all Sudo Functionaries should
instead be Sudo Stewards of various kinds, perhaps with cheeky informal
archaic titles as inside jokes of sorts,
For our functionality, inside jokes & obfuscatory terms will serve the
purpose of discouraging outsiders & newcomers from feeling like they
belong. Our goal should be to decrease the learning curve for our
governance structures.
>fitting the culture of hacking and repurposing things, but mainly
descriptively named. This would give more substance to the minor edits I
made to the other roles and would be a good basis for splitting this change
into two separate ones to consider.
See below.
>
> 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.
see the preceding for my TL;DR
>
> 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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Then, conflict steward <=> constable?
>>
>> On Mar 9, 2013 2:09 AM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Steward? (See union steward, stewardship, etymology: house ward)
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 8, 2013 2:21 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco(a)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(a)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(a)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]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> 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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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_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.
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>
13Â years, 2Â months
- 1
- 0