How about Safe Space Steward?

Just to keep the process moving, not to judge - as i understand Anthony's suggestion. 

Such a person would keep issues from escalating to the whole group, and would bring clarity to when it would be appropriate to move from mediation stage to group conflict resolution due to inability to resolve informally. It was my impression that a big chunk of the controversy last night was whether or not alternative solutions were exhausted. If that transition is made more transparent and effective with a 'buck-stops-here' Safe Space Steward functionary position, I imagine people would feel more confident in the process. This person could also make sure that something is done rather than lingering (intentionally or not) when the group does make a decision.

I also am in favor of figuring out ways to implement the safe space framework embedded in the kernel of our social norms. Maintaining level-headed discussion on the topic, as has been practiced on this list so far from my perspective, also seems worth preserving somehow structurally. Yardena's draft does seem like a great place to start, as was mentioned again at the meeting last night. 


sent from eddan.com

On Jan 24, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Anthony Di Franco <di.franco@gmail.com> wrote:

The reason for this is that I think the process is failing not in its substance but just by being extremely disorganized, which has led to the flaws you sought to correct, such as poor communication, confusion about the facts, speculatively assuming intentions and motivations and consent from indirect evidence, gossiping around key questions rather than seeking clear answers from the relevant parties.
Thus there should be someone on point for organizing the process, just as there are for meetings and finances.

On Jan 24, 2013 4:12 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco@gmail.com> wrote:

I am not suggesting that there be a specialized mediation group or designated mediator, rather that there be someone responsible for gathering all relevant information about the process together and communicating it to the mediator and conflicting parties, and group if needed, and keeping the process on track.

On Jan 24, 2013 4:01 PM, "Andrew" <andrew@roshambomedia.com> wrote:
Jehan: putting the situation with Timon aside, if there is good documentation about the steps that have been taken to reach out to both parties, and diligent information gathering has taken place and is documented, then the group should have enough information to the unfortunate step of making a decision on how to proceed without one of the parties present or participating.

Talking about the situation with Timon in particular, this was not done. Hence the jab at me not being at the last two meetings. I should not have to have been at the last two meetings to meaningfully participate in a conflict resolution that has gotten to the point of needing group intervention. As a specific example I was a singular third party witness to one on the incidents in question, while it is partly my fault for not coming forward with my perspective early in the process, at no time was the conflict well defined enough and the process working enough for me to feel comfortable providing my point of view. I'm also concerned that at no time did either party reach out to me to provide more information.

Anthony: I disagree. every conflict is unique and there is no way that a specialized mediation group can provide a balanced view on all conflicts. However I do think that it's import to establish regular education sessions around deescalation and conflict resolution.

--Andrew


On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Anthony Di Franco <di.franco@gmail.com> wrote:

All of this is excellent and because for the most part these things were are conspicuously lacking, I would like to propose the creation of an additional office to be responsible for doing all these things, including as well stewarding the mediator and conflicting parties through the resolution process, documenting clearly and concisely that this is done and collecting together all relevant communications, and informing relevant parties at the appropriate steps in the process including the whole group when appropriate. Additionally this officeholder would co-facilitate with the facilitator during whole-group conflict resolution, prepare a written background brief for the whole group with all relevant documentation, and answer points of information that come up.
I propose to call this the office of the Judge Advocate General, and were it to be created, I would volunteer for it.

On Jan 24, 2013 2:54 PM, "Andrew" <andrew@roshambomedia.com> wrote:
Hi,

This is kind of a brain dump about our conflict resolution process. The proposal is that the following ideas be placed in to the Articles of Association under conflict resolution or in a addendum that deals specifically with conflicts. Mainly I'd just like to get the meta conversation started with the goal of making the sudo room the conflict resolution process go smoother.

1. All steps that have been taken in resolution to a specific conflict should be documented. Beginning with a full account of complaints (if any). 

2. While we can't guarantee objectivity it is important that discussions during conflict resolution revolve around problems and facts and not people and assumptions.

3. State explicitly that the goal of conflict resolution is to build mutual respect and understanding. Every step in the process is taken with this goal in mind.

I would also propose that while every conflict is unique, the following basic steps are strongly suggested as a framework to resolution whether with a mediator, between individuals, or if the group needs to intervene:

Set The Scene: Establish the goals and values surrounding conflict resolution at Sudo Room.

Gather Information: Gather facts about the situation from both sides and any third parties who have relevant information. Identify the issues. Listen.

Brain Storm Solutions: Both parties are given a chance to come up with possible solutions to the defined problems.

Negotiate Solutions: Come to a win-win solution that takes in to account the interests of both parties. If this is not possible the group must intervene and vote on a possible solution brought up in the brain storming process based on the voting schema already in the Articles of Association.


Thanks for reading,
Andrew


--
-------
Andrew Lowe


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




--
-------
Andrew Lowe

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