Steward? (See union steward, stewardship, etymology: house ward) On Mar 8, 2013 2:21 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" &lt;di.franco(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > I tried to avoid "enforcement" specifically and its presence if and where > it remains is a bug. I would not mind it being summarily expunged from the > draft wherever you find it. I generally went with "implementation" as a > neutral term and made clear elsewhere that restorative remedies are > strongly preferred. > "Constable" I have found to have a range of nuanced meanings, many of > which seem to fit our situation well, from the very thorough wikipedia page > about it. It is the best word I know of so far, but I too would like one > that requires less up-front study of wikipedia to appreciate. > On Mar 8, 2013 2:12 PM, "rachel lyra hospodar" &lt;rachelyra(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > >> I'd be interested in the structured editing time suggested here by >> marina! >> -I am interested in examining ways to transmute the Constable >> suggestion, with its problematic Enforcement language, into an >> Ombudspersonish solution, perhaps creating a sudo functionary role that is >> more flexible and applicable to a greater range of situations. >> -I am also very interested in seeking ways and places we can streamline >> the articles, since overall to me they seem kind of opaque due to >> complexity & language. >> -I am interested in seeking ways to create some clarity around the >> differences between unanimity, consensus, and voting, and which is used >> when. This could also include reaching clarity on how to get to the point >> where we are in consensus. >> >> I also do want to explicitly state once again that I have concerns about >> the denotations (ie, some of the stuff it actually says in the dictionary >> WRT the word) of 'constable' and 'enforcement' and am hoping we can come up >> with words less evocative of archaic and violent forms of social >> engineering. >> >> R. >> On Mar 7, 2013 1:18 PM, "Marina Kukso" &lt;marina.kukso(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> also, i'd like to add that i'd be interested in having a structured >>> articles of association workshop sometime after this friday. we've tried >>> these before and they were not super productive. i think that where we >>> faltered before was in not having a very good list of "target areas" >>> identified ahead of time. here's an example of a possible "target area": >>> >>> "The process to amend these articles of association entails: >>> >>> [MISSING INFO: how to get a strong amendment that has buy in from the >>> sudo community] >>> >>> 1. Announcing the proposed amendment, posted: [MISSING INFO: who >>> does this?] >>> - On the official *sudo room* wiki. >>> - On the *sudo room* *discussion* email list >>> - At least 1 week before the meeting at which a vote on the >>> amendment will be held >>> 2. Recieving feedback and commentary posted: [MISSING INFO: for how >>> long? >>> - On the official *sudo room* wiki. >>> - On the official *sudo room* anonymous etherpad: >>> https://pad.riseup.net/p/sudoroom >>> - On any *sudo room* email list. >>> 3. Adding an agenda item to an official meeting's agenda. >>> - The agenda item includes time to review the feedback, recieve >>> in-person feedback, and discuss. >>> - *Decision procedure:* Consensus [MISSING INFO: unresolved >>> question of digital, in person, both, etc. also it seems like we're missing >>> a step between receiving in person feedback, discussion etc,. and then >>> having time to incorporate that feedback into a new text. in fact, maybe >>> this was the source of the confusion yesterday?]" >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Marina Kukso &lt;marina.kukso(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: >>> >>>> hi everyone, >>>> >>>> according to the articles, we only have a few decisions that we make: >>>> >>>> - conflict resolution >>>> - amendments >>>> - budget >>>> - endorsements >>>> >>>> voting procedures for all of these (in terms of 2/3, consensus, etc.) >>>> are clearly spelled out. it looks like what eddan is proposing below is the >>>> flowerings of an amendment to create a new thing to vote on - the creation >>>> of new roles. >>>> >>>> (also, i believe that in places where eddan uses "unanimity" below it >>>> would actually be accurate to instead say "consensus.") >>>> >>>> - marina >>>> >>>> ps - on a related note, i think the articles have done a good job >>>> clearly laying out how we vote on things once we have something solid in >>>> place. from my perspective, we've been running into murky areas when trying >>>> to get to a solid decision that can be voted on (in the past, we've run >>>> into problems getting a single budget to vote on (this should be much >>>> resolved with our new budget sheet), getting a single conflict resolution >>>> decision to vote on (we're in the process of addressing this now), and >>>> getting a single amendment text to vote on). "reaching consensus" would be >>>> the catch-all way that we "get to a single decision to vote on" (i mean, >>>> what "consensus" really does is move away from the idea of having a single >>>> thing to vote up or down on), but i wonder if what we need is a little bit >>>> more defined structure on the process of reaching consensus, ie, working >>>> with others to draft amendments, etc.? we have some of that, but maybe we >>>> need more? maybe not even anything formal, but sort of "best >>>> practice"...what do others think? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Anthony Di Franco < >>>> di.franco(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>>> Your logic here suggests to me that decision procedures when in >>>>> conflict resolution should be considered separately from general decision >>>>> procedures, and the old decision procedures should be moved out to a >>>>> general decision-making scope, perhaps with sensible modifications, and the >>>>> ones in my amendment specific to conflict resolution should apply within >>>>> conflict resolution. >>>>> What we have now seems to be simply a conflation of the two and an >>>>> oversight in the original draft. >>>>> On Mar 7, 2013 9:59 AM, "Eddan Katz" &lt;eddan(a)clear.net&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, Marina, In-line replies below. >>>>>> >>>>>> sent from eddan.com >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 7, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Marina Kukso &lt;marina.kukso(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> hi eddan, >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks for laying out the situation and providing links to the >>>>>> relevant parts of the articles. >>>>>> >>>>>> i have a couple questions - >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) i'm not sure what section of the articles your suggestion to >>>>>> approve the constable role by a 2/3 vote is based on (maybe this is a brand >>>>>> new suggestion?). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In a strict sense, there is no language defining how to add a new >>>>>> role. I laid out the questions below because I do think guidance on this >>>>>> falls in between the cracks somewhat and those questions are intended to >>>>>> get us to a conventionally understood agreement on it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do remember this being brought up the first time around we put the >>>>>> Articles together, but that we were convinced to remain silent on it in >>>>>> order to ensure that the number of official roles be kept to the minimum >>>>>> necessary. I also remembering that something about being silent on it >>>>>> didn't seem right at the time, but I hadn't been able to put my finger on >>>>>> it at the time. >>>>>> >>>>>> So here's the rub: if we are to rely on the process by which we make >>>>>> amendments solely as guide, we must still figure out how to move forward >>>>>> when we hit a dead end or doesn't come out the way we had intended. There >>>>>> is some additional confusion caused by the the fact that this very section >>>>>> calls for a vote on the amendment, which is a different method than >>>>>> consensus. >>>>>> >>>>>> What kind of threshold would then be necessary to approve this by >>>>>> vote? There are only 3 options - majority, super-majority (2/3), or >>>>>> unanimity. We intentionally did not include any voting requiring unanimity >>>>>> because of the problems introduced by single-person veto obstruction of >>>>>> what the group as a whole wants (while protecting minority opinion). >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words, if one person among us, whoever it is, doesn't think >>>>>> we should have any more additional roles - then the decision to never have >>>>>> any more roles fulfilling any functions is imposed on the group as a whole. >>>>>> This is a problem when a need for a particular role is identified and >>>>>> clearly agreed upon. But this is also a structural dynamic that would >>>>>> persist with any amendment on any issue introduced in the future. While the >>>>>> language-drafting process is more clear and offers practicable solutions, >>>>>> the approval of such an amendment is defaulting to being a unanimous vote >>>>>> for all future amendments. >>>>>> >>>>>> It was this kind of result that moved us to vote on the initial >>>>>> articles under the threshold of a compact, which is a minimum number (i.e., >>>>>> "coalition of the willing") rather than a percentage of the whole. Having >>>>>> watched some of the Republican house filibuster on C-SPAN last night, I >>>>>> shudder at the prospect of our entire initiative being held up at gun point >>>>>> by some zealot trying to manipulate the process for purposes other than >>>>>> solving the task at hand. >>>>>> >>>>>> To answer your question, I do not think that 2/3 vote on the >>>>>> constable role is a new suggestion. Having reached a dead end on approval >>>>>> (see above), I think that the kind of decision it is (dispute, fiscal >>>>>> solvency, membership, etc.) should guide the threshold by which the vote is >>>>>> decided. Reading the Amendment section in isolation without reference to >>>>>> any other part of the document leaves us highly vulnerable to being >>>>>> paralyzed (See current Republican-led Congress); and in my view can't >>>>>> really make sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> The reason I think the addition of a Constable role should be 2/3 is >>>>>> because this whole suggestion and the process we've embarked upon started >>>>>> with a pretty much universally shared distaste for how the conflict >>>>>> resolution process was turning out. The conversation focused around safe >>>>>> space initially and then was expanded some, but still closely connected to >>>>>> safe space. >>>>>> >>>>>> Basically, making sure we have an equitable process where everyone >>>>>> feels free and encouraged to contribute, and where the system is set up >>>>>> specifically not to allow the loudest voices to drown out minority opinion >>>>>> and dissent. While the process moved us into the amendment drafting and >>>>>> approval section, I would argue that this situation and relevant >>>>>> considerations still most consistently falls under the notion of safe >>>>>> space, at least in my mind. >>>>>> >>>>>> So even though the Conflict Resolution section in which the >>>>>> different categories of issues are laid out can be interpreted to only be >>>>>> relevant to anything taking place in dispute resolution, I do not think >>>>>> that this interpretation allows us any guidance on how to make any other >>>>>> decision other than resolving disputes. In order to get something done, we >>>>>> would then be steering people to the dispute resolution process to work it >>>>>> out. All I can say to that is Oy Vey! >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that the guidance of how to approve things (except for >>>>>> language-drafting) should stay within the categories set out. At least >>>>>> that's what I thought we were doing when we forked it out that way. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the reasons above, I think the appointment of a Constable >>>>>> position be approved by a 2/3 vote and the language defining that role be >>>>>> drafted with a consensus process. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) regarding the suggestion that we have two separate voting plans >>>>>> for the creation of a new role and for making all other amendments to the >>>>>> articles. are you suggesting that this is how we do it this time around, or >>>>>> that this is something we should address in future amendments? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I actually do think there is some merit to splitting apart the >>>>>> decision about something in a more general sense for a vote, and working >>>>>> through the drafting process separately. I am not suggesting that though, >>>>>> because I think we'd be best served by making as narrow a decision as >>>>>> possible given that we haven't thought through other scenarios. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would support making this kind of split for all decisions that >>>>>> involve officially adding functionary roles, but am not even advocating for >>>>>> that here. It seems to me like the best thing to do is recognize that it >>>>>> is definitely relevant for making a constable role, if not others as well. >>>>>> Our experience has shown that sometimes deliberative discussion veers off >>>>>> a productive process when there is no one assigned to pointing us to where >>>>>> we should go next. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the unique situation of making a foundationary role for someone >>>>>> that makes sure we move forward in the process, I propose a 2/3 vote, under >>>>>> the Safe Space designated threshold. I still think we should call it an >>>>>> ombudsperson instead, but know that it is completely beside the point. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - marina >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eddan &lt;eddan(a)clear.net&gt; wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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" &lt;di.franco(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list >>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org >>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list >>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org >>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list >>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org >>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sudo-discuss mailing list >>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org >>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> sudo-discuss mailing list >> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org >> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss >> >>