Re: [sudo-discuss] Banning Xavier

hey ronald and all, i am honestly not up to speed on the details - these are the meeting notes from last week https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2014-03-05 and i see nothing on this topic nor did i see this emailed out as is required for consent agenda items. If i recall, a considerable amount of hivemind time was taken up in establishing conflict resolution standards. If these are not being met by those prosecuting, what does that say about our organization? I don't really have a stake in this other than following through on what we say we do, as outlined in our articles of association (or incorporation): Section 3.2 Conflict Resolution Sub-Section 3.2.0 Process [image: Diagram] <https://sudoroom.org/wiki/File:SudoRoom.png> 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: 1. The party who seeks resolution finds someone to act as *Conflict Steward* in the matter, and works with this *Conflict Steward* to find a *Mediator*. 1. The *Mediator* is an impartial and uninvolved third party who consents to assist, and with whom all conflicting parties consent to work toward a solution. 2. The *Conflict Steward* organizes meetings for conflict resolution and maintains records of all meetings and relevant communications among the conflicting parties. 3. The *Conflict Steward*, *Mediator*, and the conflicting parties arrange to meet to work out a resolution to which all conflicting parties consent. 2. 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 *Conflict Steward* 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: 1. The issue is added to the agenda of the next official meeting scheduled at least one week in the future, and documentation is gathered by the *Conflict Steward* and made available to the group at least one week beforehand (on wiki), and notice is broadcast to the group (on 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 remedy sought by the plaintiff(s) is included. Both the *Conflict Steward* and *Mediator* must give their approval of the factual content of the documentation before it is posted. Both the *Conflict Steward* and *Mediator* must expressly affirm that the form of remedy sought by the plaintiff(s) is consistent with *sudo room's* values<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Values>es>. The request for remedy must include an implementation plan approved by the *Conflict Steward* and the *Mediator* if it is not obvious how to implement it. 2. During each meeting's agenda item on Conflict Resolution, all unresolved issues on the wiki are brought up for discussion followed by a vote. 1. First, the *Conflict Steward* presents all relevant documentation about the issue. 2. Then, a category of severity is established by *consensus* according to *sudo room'*s values<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#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): 1. Conflict calling for membership suspension or termination. - *Decision Procedure:* 2/3 vote 2. Conflict where only material compensation is sought. - *Decision Procedure:* 1/2 vote 3. All other conflicts. - *Decision Procedure:* Consensus 3. 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 *Conflict Steward* 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. 4. 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. 5. Then, members may propose alternative remedies to the conflict, along with any appropriate implementation plans. 6. 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 remedy under consideration is still relevant. After all remedies have been considered in this way, the matter is considered resolved. The *Conflict Steward* then ensures all relevant parties understand the remedy or remedies that passed and any corresponding implementation plans. 7. 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<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Values> that were not served by the original decision. 8. 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. Sub-Section 3.2.1 Principles and Values Specific to Conflicts In the pursuit of fairness, due process in the resolution of conflicts must include: 1. Presumption of innocence. 2. Right to an appeal and a fair process. 3. Respect for the privacy and dignity of all members. 4. Proportional and effective remedies. 1. Restorative <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice> remedies are strongly preferred over retributive<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice> remedies. /textwall I arrived late at the meeting this week and there seemed to be ongoing discussion RE recent events and definition of safe spaces. My idea of mediation in this case is making clear the fact that threats of violence are 100% unacceptable and that only the sudo room standard of safe space is in effect here - take it or leave it. There was some issue of defamation of character vs accurately describing something that happened between a friend of X and a friend of E during which time X exhibited irrational behavior which is unacceptable going forward. My intention is to gauge whether or not the differences are reconcileable and if so help chart the course of reconciliation; should it become clear that any party is unable to meet our standards of safe space and nonviolence, I would report back to the group accordingly. So I guess I am seeking conflict mediator status if both E and X consent and if noone else is already doing this. I am personally not especially risk-averse in terms of my own personal safety, though I abhor those who would unjustly endager others and after sufficient exploration of the issue I would not hesitate to safeguard our members against all such people through all available means. -hol on Mar 13, 2014, *Ronald Cotoni* &lt;setient(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Hol, Did you read the meeting notes from last week? On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:19 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne &lt;g2g-public01(a)att.net&gt; wrote: -- Ronald Cotoni Systems Engineer