23 Oct
2023
23 Oct
'23
10:01 p.m.
ok Eric I guess you may have been right, but we weren't ready to hear it at
the time.
-jake
On Fri, 6 May 2022, Eric O'Connor via sudo-discuss wrote:
What structure
do you think would make more sense? I don't understand
how this is overly bureaucratic
The alternative is what we have now — the board of omni delegates handles safe space
issues as per our https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Safer_Space_Policy and
https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Conflict_Resolution_Policy . I also think it would be
perfectly reasonable to ask for transparency in the handling of reported safe space
issues.
Does that not seem significantly simpler? Really — what problems is this proposal trying
to solve other than acquiring power? Many orgs work just fine with a well written
code of conduct and a board that reviews issues, so it’s hard to believe there is an
actual problem being addressed here.
What is a "struggle session"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denunciation_rally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism_(Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism)
Sorry, I'm trying to have good faith and
figure out how you get from points A to B here
I’m responding to the document that was proposed, not the events of last week, nor the
race or gender of the authors.
You are quoting a sentence from the introduction
which says,
No, I’m talking about the part where they create a system of writing and distributing
self-critiques for offenses to be determined by the whims of this group. They create a
bunch of investigative powers, but don’t tell us up front what are the policies or
community norms they will be investigating. Have they even read the Safe space policy that
currently exists? Why is this proposal not a (minimal) edit to that existing system?
They give this new organization a block vote at the delegate level. Why do that if this
is not about power?
They are creating an organization of cops, that will also be the judge, jury, and
legislature for all perceived offenses.
If you're really that quick to judge people
for trying to make Omni
more just and equitable, and represent the actual demographics of our
city
I think you can fix a demographics problem without “adding more cops”. The safe space
process already works — unless you or someone else can identify a clear problem with that
process, this seems like its just a fairly transparent power grab.
I’m not sure this email will convince you, but please don’t pretend this is me objecting
to fixing the very real demographics issue we have. That’s not what I’m writing.
Eric
On May 6, 2022, at 01:08, Yardena Cohen
<yardenack(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 10:51 PM Eric O'Connor via sudo-discuss
<sudo-discuss(a)sudoroom.org> wrote:
Because for the people who wrote the proposal, something like this is
necessary for them to participate. If it's not passed, they will stop
volunteering. Omni cannot survive without our volunteers, especially
at this critical time.
It is not
an option to simply reject the proposal
Why is that not an option? This ultimatum is insane — not only is this the most over the top
bureaucratic structure I can imagine,
What structure do you think would make more sense? I don't understand
how this is overly bureaucratic - a congress which elects a committee
seems pretty straightforward to me. In my experience, trying to
achieve direct democracy among dozens to hundreds of people would lead
to more complexity than a simple group of 5 people with 6-month terms
and a few limited powers.
they actually document the format of the upcoming
struggle sessions, er, “self critiques”
What is a "struggle session"? Are you talking about the proposed
election process, where people elect a committee? Why would you call
that a "struggle session"?
I think you may have misread the proposal. You are quoting a sentence
from the introduction which says, "While we believe that growth and
the ability to self-critique and apologize should be extended to all
but the gravest offenses, we have to reimagine the way spaces are kept
safe for BIPOC/Non-Men". In context, the phrase "self-critique" is a
general statement of principle - that we can forgive people who make
mistakes and own up to them, while also trying to have an
accountability process for dealing with it. What's wrong with that?
And I thought they claimed to not be literal
tankies?
What does one have to do with the other? What does adding a BIPOC rep
to our board have to do with the Soviet invasion of Hungary? This
conflation sounds bizarrely similar to the dovetailing of racist and
anticommunist attitudes of the 1950s, stuff like J Edgar Hoover's
obsession with all civil rights protesters being controlled by secret
Russian agents or whatever. Sorry, I'm trying to have good faith and
figure out how you get from points A to B here, but I really can't
think of any other framework which fits this line of thinking.
Good luck with all that, I will be recommending
that people stay far away from the Omni, and taking my own advice, too.
If you're really that quick to judge people for trying to make Omni
more just and equitable, and represent the actual demographics of our
city, then ok, I guess it's your loss.