Send sudo-discuss mailing list submissions to
   sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
   http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
   sudo-discuss-request@lists.sudoroom.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
   sudo-discuss-owner@lists.sudoroom.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of sudo-discuss digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Fwd: Does anyone want to form a delegation to attend
     Hackerspace Marin meetups? (Anthony Di Franco)
  2. Fwd: Re:  conflict resolution proposal (rachel lyra hospodar)
  3. Re: Fwd: Request for sudo-announce Digest mode (Marina Kukso)
  4. The Mandate Vote Proposal (MVP) (Eddan Katz)
  5. Saturday - Free Class - "Just enough Sketch-up to    pretend you
     can 3d model" (Max Klein)
  6. Re: conflict resolution proposal (Anthony Di Franco)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 23:16:52 -0700
From: Anthony Di Franco <di.franco@gmail.com>
To: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
Subject: [sudo-discuss] Fwd: Does anyone want to form a delegation to
   attend Hackerspace Marin meetups?
Message-ID:
   <CAOJkv1pEfpfV9z+u_CfnQRueXdf-5UNdQNUavt_GVmA3yVSEdA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Forwarding more of what seems not to have gone through.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anthony Di Franco <di.franco@aya.yale.edu>
Date: Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM
Subject: Does anyone want to form a delegation to attend Hackerspace Marin
meetups?
To: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>


c.f. http://www.meetup.com/Hackerspace-Marin/?gj=ej1b&a=wg2.2_rdmr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130311/bab7a076/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:52:50 -0700
From: rachel lyra hospodar <rachelyra@gmail.com>
To: "sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org"
   <sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
Subject: [sudo-discuss] Fwd: Re:  conflict resolution proposal
Message-ID:
   <CAFp750tyjHgBD11WeqFyAV-nGweCt+0DwV7Kh53tR-FE+UsH2g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

(Forwarding message that seems to have failed to go through)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 9, 2013 2:03 AM
Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] conflict resolution proposal
To: <di.franco@aya.yale.edu>
Cc: "Eddan Katz" <eddan@eddan.com>, "Marina Kukso" <marina.kukso@gmail.com>,
"sudo-discuss" <sudo-discuss@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@gmail.com> wrote:

Steward? (See union steward, stewardship, etymology: house ward)

On Mar 8, 2013 2:21 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@clear.net> wrote:

Dear Sudo folk -

As now ought to be assumed amongst the illustrious Sudo Room body,

dedicated as we are to a deliberative process, a point of contention arose

around the process itself.  The honest disagreement and confusion, as far

as I understand it, is fundamentally about how we agree to approve the

establishment of a position deputized to make sure the process is followed

and make sure that conflicts move towards fair and efficient resolution.

If the previous sentence makes some sense but also makes your head hurt, as

it does mine, you won't be surprised to find out there was some confusion

in this evening's meeting over what exactly we're supposed to do.

The vote on adding the role of constable came up as was announced

last week, and it was agreed that Anthony has followed meticulous process

as we have it laid out so far, giving everyone plentiful opportunity to

discuss and object and to make available in-person and on-line

opportunities to improve on the proposal.  Discussion over the need for

such a role has persistently come up that represented various points of

view on several specific aspects of the proposal.  Debate was halted at

regular intervals to give the less aggressive and talkative folks (in

addition to me) around an opportunity to interject; and everyone was

reminded of the option for anonymous commenting on the etherpad and for

direct editing on the wiki.  This took place over a period of about 6 weeks

and more, in as formal a method as we've made up along the way so far.

The reasonable difference in interpretation to put it simply, is

how to add a position to the Articles of Association by: (1) 2/3 vote; or

must be done (2) by consensus.  There are many other issues implied by this

for sure, some of which have been brought up already and other conditionals

still to be worked out.  I also think re-hashing the play-by-play events of

tonight would be unproductive and that considerations on the merits of the

constable role be limited to high-level comments and would be best served

without delving into too many details about the role.  In other words, I'm

suggesting we separate out the process by which we (a) find consensus on

language amending the articles of association; and (b) decide on whether we

need to add a Constable (or related functionary) role.

So this is the part where it gets kind of tricky. Here are some

questions it seems to me need to be clarified in order to move forward:

What does the Amendments section of the Articles (

http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Article_4._Amendments)

say about the process by which we approve adding a functionary position?

What does the Functionaries section (

http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Section_2.2_Sudo_Functionaries)

say about how to amend the Articles to create another position?

Do the decision procedures categorized in the dispute resolution

process (

http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Section_3.4_Enforcement)

give us guidance on the process that should be followed in creating a new

functionary role?

If so, what process (

http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Sub-Section_3.40_Process)

for approving the addition of a Constable (or equivalent) role be followed?

What part of the agenda structure (

http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Sub-Section_3.0.1_Agenda)

is the most appropriate category for adding a functionary role?

How do we go about advancing our values (

http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Values) in making

these decisions?

I won't represent anyone else's position on their behalf, but will

say that I think consensus is not the right process by which the Constable

role be approved.  This being said, I do think that whatever language is

drafted to amend the Articles to include this new role be done by

consensus.  Having a common understanding of how this ought to be done in

detail is crucial, in my opinion, to avoid further misunderstandings and

wide divergence of interpretation.  I propose as I did at the meeting

tonight that these two parts of the decision need to be disentangled for

any progress to be made.  Upon reflection, I would have presented that

proposal differently and with more specific reference to the Articles.

Suffice it to say that we're figuring out how to do this stuff in some ways

we're not used to, and that we all have a lot to learn from each other.

In sum, I propose that there be a vote next week on adding a

Constable (or equivalent) to the functionaries in the Articles, and that

the vote require 2/3 approval, our highest threshold thus far.  Since there

are so many ancillary issues, I'd rather hear other Sudo folks' perspective

before making too much of a case for this way of moving forward.  Seems to

me that the complications of getting to this vote make the greatest case

for the need for such a role, to keep things moving in a productive

direction.  The constable (or ombudsperson as I had proposed), is not an

ultimate judge of conflicts in my understanding.  In fact, rotating

ombudspeople and/or a jury of peers is more along the lines of what I've

heard proposed.  Rather, I think we need someone like a Constable to make

sure we get unstuck when trying to resolve disputes and decide on things.

May God Bless Sudo Room.

sent from eddan.com

----

On Feb 22, 2013 11:17 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco@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@lists.sudoroom.org

http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

_______________________________________________

sudo-discuss mailing list

sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org

http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

_______________________________________________

sudo-discuss mailing list

sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org

http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

_______________________________________________

sudo-discuss mailing list

sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org

http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

_______________________________________________

sudo-discuss mailing list

sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org

http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

_______________________________________________

sudo-discuss mailing list

sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org

http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130311/fa36c450/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 05:12:46 -0700
From: Marina Kukso <marina.kukso@gmail.com>
To: Matthew Senate <mattsenate@gmail.com>
Cc: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] Fwd: Request for sudo-announce Digest mode
Message-ID:
   <CAPgqYn+DZ=HM=5XDEH1gArYV=VqO__DJrPDpbsBN5YB5-cd4KQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Great idea - maybe this is something that we can do during weekly meetings?
Come up with a few bullet points that can go out for the week ahead.

- marina


On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Matthew Senate <mattsenate@gmail.com>wrote:

Hey all,

Aasronco has an important point about using sudo-announce. Not

unreasonable to enable digest, but maybe there's a bigger point:

Let's put together a weekly newsletter for sudo-announce. Then,

additional, absolutely necessary messages can be sent in addition (max ~2-3

/ week, mostly 1 / week)?

// Matt

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Aaronco Thirtysix <aaronco36@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Subject: Request for sudo-announce Digest mode

To: sudo-announce-owner@lists.sudoroom.org

Hello,

I've received the following three and SEPARATE sudo-announce postings

within the last 24hrs:

[sudo-announce] wednesday dinner meeting

Leonid Kozhukh len at ligertail.com

Tue Mar 5 14:51:10 PST 2013

[sudo-announce] Microcontroller hacking tonight!

hol at gaskill.com hol at gaskill.com

Tue Mar 5 16:23:00 PST 2013

[sudo-announce] THIS SAT 3/9: Today I Learned: Jewelry-Making and Jewelry

Repair

Marina Kukso marina.kukso at gmail.com

Wed Mar 6 08:45:06 PST 2013

---

I'd like to request receiving future sudo-announce postings bundled in

Digest mode, instead of individually as above.

Have already attempted to manually make this change in the

sudo-announce membership configuration page

http://lists.sudoroom.org/options/sudo-announce/<email address>

If the requested change fails to go into effect for future

sudo-announce postings, then this same membership configuration page

DOES seem to prevent the possible onslaught of individual

sudo-announce postings sent to my Inbox.

Through this Disabled checkbox option:

~~~ quoting ~~~

Mail delivery

Set this option to Enabled to receive messages posted to this mailing

list. Set it to Disabled if you want to stay subscribed, but don't

want mail delivered to you for a while (e.g. you're going on

vacation). If you disable mail delivery, don't forget to re-enable it

when you come back; it will not be automatically re-enabled.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks,

-A

aaronco36@gmail.com

_______________________________________________

sudo-discuss mailing list

sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org

http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130311/8097253c/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:07:30 -0700
From: Eddan Katz <eddan@clear.net>
To: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
Subject: [sudo-discuss] The Mandate Vote Proposal (MVP)
Message-ID: <D28304A6-5FF4-417A-890F-D3361FB0D2E4@clear.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Since my new proposal is buried in the thread, I am starting a new thread submitting the following:

Add the word "mandate" before the word "vote" in step 1, prong 3, so that it would read:

- At least 1 week before the meeting at which a [mandate] vote on the amendment will be held


This proposal is to bring greater clarity to the voting and drafting process, which I believe has been a significant obstacle in knowing how to proceed.

The way it would work then, would be that a proposal is made for something - such as the creation of a constable/ombudsperson/steward. To be precise, the mandate vote that is called for does not constitute approval of the specific language that will modify the Articles of Association.

If meeting the appropriate vote threshold, all members of Sudo Room are then invited to propose language o effectuate that mandate.

The drafting process would work best as a consensus process if there are more than one specific language proposals. Presumably, the language proposals, which can be only about a part of implementing the mandate, not necessarily the whole thing. When there are different proposals that articulate solutions from various perspectives, the back-and-forth compromise & debate opens up the possibility of compromise and thus consensus.

So, in order to do this in a performative fashion - I am officially proposing the Mandate Vote proposal (not a change to the Articles of Association). I will put together a wiki page that will include explanations of what problem is being addressed, how this will solve it, and what other impacts can be anticipated.

If a mandate exists amongst Sudo Room members to put together a specific language proposal, I will then invite commentary and suggestions p my proposed language. In this case, very simply, the addition of the word mandate before vote in the Amendments section.

As I've suggested for other drafting initiatives in order to allow for the broadest participation in a structured way - this will be a 3-stage process. For ten days following the vote - a GREEN draft will be distributed and discussion will focus at a more broad and thematic level. For the 3 days following, an ORANGE draft will be up for discussion that will work on sentence-level changes in the relevant parts of the draft. There will then be 1 day for word specific changes (only) before the draft text is submitted for consensus approval.

If consensus is not achieved, no changes in the Articles are effectuated.


sent from eddan.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130311/dff185ba/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 23:54:43 -0700
From: Max Klein <isalix@gmail.com>
To: sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org, sudo-announce@lists.sudoroom.org
Subject: [sudo-discuss] Saturday - Free Class - "Just enough Sketch-up
   to    pretend you can 3d model"
Message-ID:
   <CAKbmofhceujph8G-deP83H5=vGF6-Qe7OMPf13qjqcBCmcURNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Glance

  - *WHEN* 2pm on Saturday the 16th of March.
  - *DURATION* 2 hours
  - *LOCATION* sudo room <http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Getting_there>
  - *PRICE* $0
  - *NUTSHELL* Live Sketchup and print tutorial
  - *INSTRUCTOR* Max Klein aka notconfusing <http://notconfusing.com>

Plan

  - Understand the workflow (Idea>Design>STL>Slice>Print).
  - *IDEA* a miniature plate for canapes and appetizers that is ring and
  allows you to hold a drink in the same hand.
  - *DESIGN* we?ll make a 3d digital representation in sketchup
  - *STL* gloss over this detail and leave it for another class
  - *SLICE* gloss over this detail and leave it for another class
  - *PRINT* marvel, and take home.

Learn

On the right you?ll see some examples of what I?ve 3D printed at sudo room,
having learned all my skills at sudo room, from sudoers.

  - 3D Printing Theory
  - Sketchup
     - Navigation
     - Basic Shapes
     - Shape Manipulation
     - Advanced Shapes
        - Exporting
      - Slic3r slicing software (in a minor way)
  - Repetier Host Printer Software (in a minor way)
  - How to manually adjust the 3d printer in times of crisis.

Bring

  - Come with a laptop with sketchup <http://www.sketchup.com/> installed.
  There?s a free version for Windows and Mac. If you don?t have this
  installed, you cannot begin immediately.
  - Bring a mouse. Sketchup is much easier with a mouse, and all but
  impossible to learn with the track pad. Essential.

Attend Kind people RSVP on the
wiki<http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Just_enought_Sketch-up_to_pretend_you_can_3d_model#Attend>,
but all those who show up will be welcomed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130311/cbcd0052/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:13:38 -0700
From: Anthony Di Franco <di.franco@aya.yale.edu>
To: rachel lyra hospodar <rachelyra@gmail.com>
Cc: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>, Eddan Katz
   <eddan@eddan.com>
Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] conflict resolution proposal
Message-ID:
   <CAOJkv1qhzeLDAT+=gUxLDSm9JfGOnkWPRTx9e1Hpwa=M6kuzFA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Explicit information from the source about how the name "Constable" fit
into my draft and how I was attempting to use it to frame things:
I chose "Constable" specifically because in many places and times it has
been the title of a record-keeper and notice-giver in the context of
common-law legal proceedings, which are some of the less statist legal
traditions we have in the West. Also because I remember from my childhood,
as did Jordan, this fictional
constable<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odo_(Star_Trek)>,
an impartial outsider to the partisan conflicts around him, and a rigorous
and clear-headed detective; above all, someone who consistently cut through
noise and got to the bottom of things. I ultimately found it was not
suitable because it was not consistently taken this way by others. In the
interest of clearer communication, I am happy to be moving on to a name
based on "Steward" or any other that may yet prove to be best at
communicating the right intentions and values.
I hope you will find if you carefully read my proposal that it well
reflects these intentions, which seem to me to be very much in line with
your own, and consistent with the values of sudo room, and I hope you will
also point out where you find that my proposal does not reflect these
intentions or is otherwise lacking so that it can be addressed.
I did not originally include any language about implementation of conflict
resolutions in my draft, which is referred to in our current articles,
unfortunately, as "enforcement", a term I also hope to abolish, until you
asked whether I was acting in the capacity of Constable to implement a
hypothetical decision to ban Timon. The question was moot and the answer to
it turned out to be no anyway, but it brought to my attention that we have
nothing in the current Articles about implementing decisions resulting from
conflict resolution, nor was there anything about it in my draft at that
time. In response, I added some language about remedies going along with
implementation plans and about the Constable-now-Conflict-Steward being a
key part of the process of articulating the plan and seeing that it is
implemented. I carefully avoided speaking of enforcement and explicitly
stated that remedies should be restorative rather than retributive.
One important question that is apart from the main point I am trying to
make here, but should be brought up explicitly ASAP, is how we plan to
implement decisions to ban people if and when it comes to that, and whether
private or city-owned police forces might become involved, and if so, when
and how, and how this all fits with the stated and otherwise held values of
the group. I will try to find a good way to bring this up again so that it
is not buried under a giant textwall.


On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 11:04 AM, rachel lyra hospodar
<rachelyra@gmail.com>wrote:

Well, IMO it would make more sense to re-examine and re-draft the role in

light of the new framing, and see what else changes, rather than simply

changing the title.

Thought artifacts are real, yo. Let's not encode too many into the

Articles.

On Mar 9, 2013 10:06 AM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco@gmail.com> wrote:

Then, conflict steward <=> constable?

On Mar 9, 2013 2:09 AM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra@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@gmail.com> wrote:

Steward? (See union steward, stewardship, etymology: house ward)

On Mar 8, 2013 2:21 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@clear.net> wrote:

Dear Sudo folk -

As now ought to be assumed amongst the illustrious Sudo Room

body, dedicated as we are to a deliberative process, a point of contention

arose around the process itself.  The honest disagreement and confusion, as

far as I understand it, is fundamentally about how we agree to approve the

establishment of a position deputized to make sure the process is followed

and make sure that conflicts move towards fair and efficient resolution.

If the previous sentence makes some sense but also makes your head hurt, as

it does mine, you won't be surprised to find out there was some confusion

in this evening's meeting over what exactly we're supposed to do.

The vote on adding the role of constable came up as was

announced last week, and it was agreed that Anthony has followed meticulous

process as we have it laid out so far, giving everyone plentiful

opportunity to discuss and object and to make available in-person and

on-line opportunities to improve on the proposal.  Discussion over the need

for such a role has persistently come up that represented various points of

view on several specific aspects of the proposal.  Debate was halted at

regular intervals to give the less aggressive and talkative folks (in

addition to me) around an opportunity to interject; and everyone was

reminded of the option for anonymous commenting on the etherpad and for

direct editing on the wiki.  This took place over a period of about 6 weeks

and more, in as formal a method as we've made up along the way so far.

The reasonable difference in interpretation to put it simply, is

how to add a position to the Articles of Association by: (1) 2/3 vote; or

must be done (2) by consensus.  There are many other issues implied by this

for sure, some of which have been brought up already and other conditionals

still to be worked out.  I also think re-hashing the play-by-play events of

tonight would be unproductive and that considerations on the merits of the

constable role be limited to high-level comments and would be best served

without delving into too many details about the role.  In other words, I'm

suggesting we separate out the process by which we (a) find consensus on

language amending the articles of association; and (b) decide on whether we

need to add a Constable (or related functionary) role.

So this is the part where it gets kind of tricky. Here are some

questions it seems to me need to be clarified in order to move forward:

What does the Amendments section of the Articles (

http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Article_4._Amendments)

say about the process by which we approve adding a functionary position?

What does the Functionaries section (

http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Section_2.2_Sudo_Functionaries)

say about how to amend the Articles to create another position?

Do the decision procedures categorized in the dispute resolution

process (

http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Section_3.4_Enforcement)

give us guidance on the process that should be followed in creating a new

functionary role?

If so, what process (

http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Sub-Section_3.40_Process)

for approving the addition of a Constable (or equivalent) role be followed?

What part of the agenda structure (

http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Sub-Section_3.0.1_Agenda)

is the most appropriate category for adding a functionary role?

How do we go about advancing our values (

http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Values) in

making these decisions?

I won't represent anyone else's position on their behalf, but

will say that I think consensus is not the right process by which the

Constable role be approved.  This being said, I do think that whatever

language is drafted to amend the Articles to include this new role be done

by consensus.  Having a common understanding of how this ought to be done

in detail is crucial, in my opinion, to avoid further misunderstandings and

wide divergence of interpretation.  I propose as I did at the meeting

tonight that these two parts of the decision need to be disentangled for

any progress to be made.  Upon reflection, I would have presented that

proposal differently and with more specific reference to the Articles.

Suffice it to say that we're figuring out how to do this stuff in some ways

we're not used to, and that we all have a lot to learn from each other.

In sum, I propose that there be a vote next week on adding a

Constable (or equivalent) to the functionaries in the Articles, and that

the vote require 2/3 approval, our highest threshold thus far.  Since there

are so many ancillary issues, I'd rather hear other Sudo folks' perspective

before making too much of a case for this way of moving forward.  Seems to

me that the complications of getting to this vote make the greatest case

for the need for such a role, to keep things moving in a productive

direction.  The constable (or ombudsperson as I had proposed), is not an

ultimate judge of conflicts in my understanding.  In fact, rotating

ombudspeople and/or a jury of peers is more along the lines of what I've

heard proposed.  Rather, I think we need someone like a Constable to make

sure we get unstuck when trying to resolve disputes and decide on things.

May God Bless Sudo Room.

sent from eddan.com

----

On Feb 22, 2013 11:17 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <

di.franco@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@lists.sudoroom.org

http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

_______________________________________________

sudo-discuss mailing list

sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org

http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

_______________________________________________

sudo-discuss mailing list

sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org

http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

_______________________________________________

sudo-discuss mailing list

sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org

http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

_______________________________________________

sudo-discuss mailing list

sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org

http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

_______________________________________________

sudo-discuss mailing list

sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org

http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130312/6afdbf96/attachment.html>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss


End of sudo-discuss Digest, Vol 5, Issue 26
*******************************************