>Korl and Liz are very interested in preventing blind solidarity (which seemed likely to occur unless someone spoke up), especially without having both sides of the story, and as much information as possible. We are also keen on working to help set a fair precident for situations like this; that both sides of a story/ incedent are sought out by an objective party, before Any decisions are made, to prevent social bias and blind solidarity.

thanks y'all for being willing to take this on.  we definitely have a precedent of looking into all claims, which has resulted out of necessity from alot of meeting bandwidth being absorbed by conflicts early on, and alot of people showing up to meetings for the first time vising the space being scared off.  for everyone's reference, here is the section on conflict resolution from our articles - check it out and propose any revisions y'all see fit.  i've done mediation for 2 conflicts, one resulting in a 6-month ban that seems to have become permanent by the banned individual not having attempted to return, and the other resulting in lapsing of the temporary ban while both sides were heard and with consent of the person bringing the issue.  amendments to the articles of association follow a pattern of proposing changes 2 weeks in advance, yadda yadda process process...good stuff.

Section 3.2 Conflict Resolution

Sub-Section 3.2.0 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:

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. 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 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 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 remedies are strongly preferred over retributive remedies.

Sub-Section 3.2.2 Maintaining Safe Space During Conflict Resolution

In the event that a conflict stems from one or more members being threatened by another member of sudo room or a member of the wider community, this person may have access revoked (or otherwise denied) to sudo room assets (including physical spaces) until the conflict has been resolved. Consensus in this case may be obtained at any sudo room meeting and must be ratified online over a period of 24 hours in the event quorum is not fulfilled at any time. If the person in question fails to participate constructively in the conflict resolution process as determined by the membership, the access revoked (or otherwise denied) shall become permanent.

-END TRANSMISSION-

On 2014-10-30 10:55, Jenny Ryan wrote:

Announcements:

* New Board nominations begin in 20 days

* Marc Juul is our new treasurer

* We are cleaning and organizing sudo RIGHT NOW - come and help!

* Film night tonight!

* What we want and don't want: https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Donations

 

New Members

* For extended pondering: Claire - wants to run zine workshops! drawing, crafts!

* For extended pondering: Trisha - also zines, excited about the sewing machines :)

* Alex has been pondered, is now a member!

 

Money

* ~ $3700 in the bank, November rent and October shared expenses paid ($2340.86)

* Now making $570/week on Gratipay! New goal is $1K/week

 

Second Internet Line

* Jenny checking with Sonic.net about a second line

 

Backspace Proposal

Consensus on the backspace proposal:

• As long as this is a 3 month trial period we agree to the proposal, with the following amendments:
  • backspace does not take the downstairs room and pays $750 per month instead.
  • backspace has no special privilege over any other member collective in accessing or regulating access to common space.
• In addition: sudo room feels that backspace, being a for-profit renting private space, should be a tenant and not a member collective but we can discuss this over the next three months.

 

Conflict Resolution

• Update on conflict with ban of person that Pigeon asked us to ban. Referred to as J.
  • Korl and Liz are finishing up an interview with one more person and they are leaning toward proposing a lift of the provisional ban of J we passed at a meeting earlier this month.
  • Korl and Liz are very interested in preventing blind solidarity (which seemed likely to occur unless someone spoke up), especially without having both sides of the story, and as much information as possible. We are also keen on working to help set a fair precident for situations like this; that both sides of a story/ incedent are sought out by an objective party, before Any decisions are made, to prevent social bias and blind solidarity.
  • Important aspects: None of the people involved in the conflict are members of the Omni, and the conflict happened three years ago. This issue was brought up by a person who is not part of the Omni and has been known to act untrustworthily and dishonestly, within the greater community.

• Juul proposes a 1 month ban of person who was using a knife to attempt to open the omni door and when confronted was super rude, calling one of our members a bitch. Person was drunk. Juul and others kicked this person out yesterday and told him that him he was banned until it could be brought up at todays meeting where he could show up. He looked disheveled and was holding a can of beer but seemed otherwise reasonable and attempted to defend his attempt at opening the door as trying to demonstrate a security problem and said he wished to apologize to the person he was rude to.
  • Remote-Jenny votes yes on ban.
  • One abstention, rest approve. Passes.
  • Need to take a picture.

• Proposal: Temporary Ban of Chris B (unspecified duration) for being in "bad standing" with regard to sudo room's values, specifically in disregarding the needs of the sudo room and omni communities with his use of the space above the stage (aka "crow's nest" aka "man cave"), as well as often attempting to sleep in the space, despite warnings, confrontations, and a clear expectation of it not being permitted.
  • During the BACH Unconference, Mitch Altman found Chris B sleeping under a sign in the basement that read "No Sleeping".
  • Amendment and consensus: Any further sleeping by ChrisB at Omni will result in an immediate temporary ban.

 

Notes recorded for posterity at: https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2014-10-29

Jenny
http://jennyryan.net
http://thepyre.org
http://thevirtualcampfire.org
http://technomadic.tumblr.com

`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`

"Technology is the campfire around which we tell our stories."
-Laurie Anderson

"Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it."
 -Hannah Arendt

"To define is to kill. To suggest is to create."
-Stéphane Mallarmé
~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`

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