7 Mar
2013
7 Mar
'13
12:37 p.m.
I would like to suggest the following perspective:
Asserting a block is not something that should be taken lightly, and if
options exist to obtain the same or an equivalent or better result without
a block, they should be used instead of a block.
In the case of the amendment last night, there was a period of several
weeks during which the concern about the fairness clause could have been
smoothly addressed on the mailing list, in person, on the wiki, or
face-to-face. Adding the fairness clause back in during the meeting as a
friendly change was also an option. Since it was adding back in something
unintentionally omitted from the Articles by the changes and not anything
new, this should have been uncontroversial and insisting that it be
reviewed broadly and deeply didn't make sense. In the worst case, the
fairness clause could simply have been added back in a brief, simple,
uncontroversial subsequent amendment.
Moreover, assuming hypothetically that the fairness bit couldn't easily be
added back in and weighing giving up the fairness amendment temporarily vs.
continuing under a clearly broken conflict resolution process reveals that
it would be better to fix the big problem first and clean up the details
later, especially since there is a lot of other prominent language about
fairness, impartiality, mutual respect, etc. elsewhere in the Articles.
Let's not block for the sake of it. There is usually a better way. Let's
keep context in mind and weigh risks and rewards soberly when deciding
whether to block. The responsibility that goes with the decision to block
lies with each of us and so therefore must the good judgment about when to
do it. History can inform us here:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto
And so should our current experiences, reflected upon.
Very reasonable assessment IMHO. I did try to communicate, I was
specifically uncomfortable about removing fairness from the conflict
resolution process and have sense posted my suggested changes for
discussion.
I think errors of omission are important to note, just as errors of fact or
logic might be.
// Matt
----- Reply message -----
From: "Max Klein" <isalix(a)gmail.com>
To: <sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org>
Subject: [sudo-discuss] Last night: conflict resolution proposal (Eddan)
Date: Thu, Mar 7, 2013 9:55 AM
I'm responding to what Eddan has said, with my perspective from faciliator
last night.
1. The Articles say that amendments require consensus.
2. From my perspective as Facilitator last night, consensus on the
Constable changes were almost reached, because
3, A straw poll of those wanting to vote, gave a unanimous yes,
4, and then a straw poll for accepting constable changes was almost
unanimous, except that,
5. A member blocked the consensus process, which
6. Is an allowable and natural part of the consensus process.
Up to here, I think that the process and content ran properly and validly -
albeit tiring and onerous (to be expected).
7. The next step in the Consensus process, is to address the blocking
concern (I may not have faciltated this portion correctly).
8. The reason given, as I saw it, from the blocking member was that they
wanted more time to personally comb and edit the Constable policy.
9. Group must consider if there is valid reason to extend blocking member
additional time, beyond the prescribed proposal process.
En sum,
I think that as facilitator I should have extended the discussion past 6 to
7,8, and 9.
That's my lesson from last night.
notconfusing
From: Eddan <eddan(a)clear.net>
To: sudo-discuss
<sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org>
Cc:
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 02:43:28 -0800
Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] conflict resolution proposal
Dear Sudo folk -
As now ought to be assumed amongst the illustrious Sudo Room body,
dedicated as we are to a deliberative process, a point of contention arose
around the process itself. The honest disagreement and confusion, as far
as I understand it, is fundamentally about how we agree to approve the
establishment of a position deputized to make sure the process is followed
and make sure that conflicts move towards fair and efficient resolution.
If the previous sentence makes some sense but also makes your head hurt,
as
it does mine, you won't be surprised to find out
there was some confusion
in this evening's meeting over what exactly we're supposed to do.
The vote on adding the role of constable came up as was announced last
week, and it was agreed that Anthony has followed meticulous process as we
have it laid out so far, giving everyone plentiful opportunity to discuss
and object and to make available in-person and on-line opportunities to
improve on the proposal. Discussion over the need for such a role has
persistently come up that represented various points of view on several
specific aspects of the proposal. Debate was halted at regular intervals
to give the less aggressive and talkative folks (in addition to me) around
an opportunity to interject; and everyone was reminded of the option for
anonymous commenting on the etherpad and for direct editing on the wiki.
This took place over a period of about 6 weeks and more, in as formal a
method as we've made up along the way so far.
The reasonable difference in interpretation to put it simply, is how to
add a position to the Articles of Association by: (1) 2/3 vote; or must be
done (2) by consensus. There are many other issues implied by this for
sure, some of which have been brought up already and other conditionals
still to be worked out. I also think re-hashing the play-by-play events
of
tonight would be unproductive and that considerations
on the merits of the
constable role be limited to high-level comments and would be best served
without delving into too many details about the role. In other words, I'm
suggesting we separate out the process by which we (a) find consensus on
language amending the articles of association; and (b) decide on whether
we
need to add a Constable (or related functionary)
role.
So this is the part where it gets kind of tricky. Here are some questions
it seems to me need to be clarified in order to move forward:
What does the Amendments section of the Articles (
http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Article_4._Amendments)
say about the process by which we approve adding a functionary position?
What does the Functionaries section (
http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Section_2.2_Sudo_Functiona…
)
say about how to amend the Articles to create another
position?
Do the decision procedures categorized in the dispute resolution process (
http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Section_3.4_Enforcement)
give us guidance on the process that should be followed in creating a new
functionary role?
If so, what process (
http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Sub-Section_3.40_Process)
for approving the addition of a Constable (or equivalent) role be
followed?
What part of the agenda structure (
http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Sub-Section_3.0.1_Agenda)
is the most appropriate category for adding a functionary role?
How do we go about advancing our values (
http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Values) in making these
decisions?
I won't represent anyone else's position on their behalf, but will say
that I think consensus is not the right process by which the Constable
role
be approved. This being said, I do think that
whatever language is
drafted
to amend the Articles to include this new role be done
by consensus.
Having a common understanding of how this ought to be done in detail is
crucial, in my opinion, to avoid further misunderstandings and wide
divergence of interpretation. I propose as I did at the meeting tonight
that these two parts of the decision need to be disentangled for any
progress to be made. Upon reflection, I would have presented that
proposal
differently and with more specific reference to the
Articles. Suffice it
to say that we're figuring out how to do this stuff in some ways we're not
used to, and that we all have a lot to learn from each other.
In sum, I propose that there be a vote next week on adding a Constable (or
equivalent) to the functionaries in the Articles, and that the vote
require
2/3 approval, our highest threshold thus far. Since
there are so many
ancillary issues, I'd rather hear other Sudo folks' perspective before
making too much of a case for this way of moving forward. Seems to me
that
the complications of getting to this vote make the
greatest case for the
need for such a role, to keep things moving in a productive direction.
The
constable (or ombudsperson as I had proposed), is not
an ultimate judge of
conflicts in my understanding. In fact, rotating ombudspeople and/or a
jury of peers is more along the lines of what I've heard proposed.
Rather,
I think we need someone like a Constable to make sure
we get unstuck when
trying to resolve disputes and decide on things.
May God Bless Sudo Room.
sent from eddan.com
----
On Feb 22, 2013 11:17 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Sudyo,
I have edited in a more advanced draft of my proposal for a rigorous
conflict resolution process and for the role of a Constable to facilitate
the keeping of open and transparent records about conflicts and where
their
resolution stands.
I emailed a bit about this a few weeks ago in response to the long and
unsatisfactory non-process the group had just spent a lot of time in, and
I
presented a much briefer version of this proposal at
last week's meeting.
I
intend to have it up for a vote at the next eligible
meeting.
I have tried to incorporate the feedback I received during the meeting
and to think through a process that would capture the original intent of
the sketchy previous language but flesh it out with comprehensive detail
and precision, and I had firmly in mind the memories of the shortcomings
of
the old process in practice. While I was there
mucking around in the
articles I fixed a few other odd things that were lying around. (It also
still seems to me that the numbering is off.)
The whole draft, with my and other changes, is, as usual, here:
http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association/Draft
Highlights:
Emphasize horizontality in the Functionaries in general and in the
Constable in particular: section 2.2: "Any member of sudoroom may perform
any of the functions of any of the Functionaries, but the Functionaries
are
expected to perform their duties regularly and must
perform them if no one
else can or will." and section 3.4.1 below.
Define role of Constable (section 2.2)
Point person for facilitating the conflict resolution process according to
the Articles, but not necessarily a moderator.
Stewards selection of a moderator and schedules meetings among conflicting
parties and moderator.
Documents all meetings and communications relevant to the conflict
resolution process.
Promotes good-faith participation in the process by conflicting parties on
a basis of mutual respect and growth towards better relationships and a
stronger community.
If conflict resolution goes before the whole group, co-facilitates with
Facilitator, and handles points of information about conflict resolution
with reference to the documentation.
Does not act as Constable in conflicts involving self.
Precise and comprehensive conflict resolution procedure:
Section 3.4 Enforcement
[edit]Sub-Section 3.4.0 Process
The resolution of disputes and disagreements within sudo room is
encouraged through informal process and the spirit of a collaborative
environment. There is a process, however, by which issues that are not
resolved informally and that arise within the scope of these articles of
association:
The party who seeks resolution finds someone to act as Constable in the
matter, and works with this Constable to find a Mediator.
The Mediator is an impartial and uninvolved third party who consents to
assist, and with whom all conflicting parties consent to work with towards
a solution.
The Constable organizes meetings for conflict resolution and maintains
records of all meetings and relevant communications among the conflicting
parties.
The Constable, Mediator, and the conflicting parties arrange to meet to
work out a resolution to the conflict that all conflicting parties consent
to.
If at least one conflicting party does not consent to meet, or if at least
one conflicting party is unavailable to meet in a reasonable time, all
relevant circumstances considered, or if the Constable and Mediator agree
after at least one meeting that further meetings would not be likely to
lead to resolution, the issue is brought before the group in the following
way:
The issue is added to the agenda of the next official meeting scheduled at
least one week in the future, and all relevant documentation is gathered
together by the Constable and made available to the group at least one
week
beforehand, preferably on the wiki, and notice is
broadcast to the group,
preferably on the mailing list, but information that would compromise
anyone's privacy or dignity is not made public. In the description of the
issue, the form of redress sought in by the plaintiff(s) is included. Both
the Constable and Mediator must give their approval of the factual content
of the documentation before it is posted. Both the Constable and Mediator
must expressly affirm that the form of redress sought by the plaintiff(s)
is consistent with sudo room's values.
During each meeting's agenda item on Conflict Resolution, all unresolved
issues on the wiki are brought up for discussion followed by a vote.
First, the Constable presents all relevant documentation about the issue.
Then, a category of severity is established by consensus according to sudo
room's values and the facts of the case. The category determines the
voting
threshold for sustaining a sanction against any party
to the conflict. The
categories are (in order of decreasing severity):
Any matter calling for membership suspension or termination.
Decision Procedure: 2/3 vote
Other serious conflict.
Decision Procedure: 2/3 vote
Conflict where only fiscal issues are involved and only fiscal redress is
sought.
Decision Procedure: 1/2 vote
All other conflicts.
Decision Procedure: Consensus
Positive feedback.
Decision Procedure: Auto-approval
Then, the opportunity to represent perspective is granted to each
conflicting party and to the Mediator, and general discussion may be held
about the issue if any member wishes. The Constable co-facilitates with
the
Facilitator in order to answer questions specific to
the conflict and
provides information about the history of the conflict by referring to the
documentation.
Then, a brief period of deliberation of definite time is held, during
which members are free to consider the issue or discuss it directly with
others.
Then, members may propose alternative remedies to the conflict, which are
added to a list of potential remedies if neither the Constable nor the
Mediator objects. They may be overruled in their objections if a second
member supports the proposal.
Finally, a vote is held on the plaintiff(s)' proposed remedy, and then
alternative remedies are voted upon in the order they were proposed, but
only if at least one member indicates that the one under consideration is
still relevant. After all remedies have been considered in this way, the
matter is considered resolved.
Any conflicting party unsatisfied with the decision may place an appeal on
the agenda in the same way that conflicts are placed on the agenda, except
that a majority of the group must vote to accept the appeal during a
meeting, and the process begins anew. The appeal must propose an
alternative remedy and refer to values that were not served by the
original
decision.
If at the end of any step in the process more than an hour has passed
during the current meeting in considering the conflict, any member may
request that a majority vote be held on whether to table the conflict
until
the next meeting.
[edit]Sub-Section 3.4.1 Principles and Values Specific to Conflicts
The accused are presumed innocent unless and until proven otherwise beyond
reasonable doubt.
Respect for the privacy and dignity of all members is consistently
maintained.
Proportional and effective remedies should be sought.
Restorative remedies are strongly preferred over retributive remedies.
More precise language about functionaries:
Facilitator
Maintains the agenda for meetings, ensures topics are dealt with, and
recognizes speakers in a fair and inclusive way.
Ensures that all group business is handled and all group decisions are
made in the way described in these Articles of Association, by bearing
them
in mind and referring to them whenever needed.
Uses own best judgment to resolve ambiguity in the Articles of Association
about how business is handled in meetings, but may be challenged in this
by
anyone who does not consent, which results in a
majority vote on
sustaining
or overturning the Facilitator's judgment.
Scribe
Takes notes during meetings and collaborates with others to include their
notes in final meeting minutes.
Posts notes publicly after each meeting.
Exchequer
Presents the budget during meetings, as articulated in the budget process
below.
Receives dues and donations and pays expenses on behalf of the group,
using the group's accounts.
Maintains accurate budget documentation and makes it available to the
group.
Constable
Point person for facilitating the conflict resolution process according to
the Articles, but not necessarily a moderator.
Stewards selection of a moderator and schedules meetings among conflicting
parties and moderator.
Documents all meetings and communications relevant to the conflict
resolution process.
Promotes good-faith participation in the process by conflicting parties on
a basis of mutual respect and growth towards better relationships and a
stronger community.
If conflict resolution goes before the whole group, co-facilitates with
Facilitator, and handles points of information about conflict resolution
with reference to the documentation.
Does not act as Constable in conflicts involving self.
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss