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" <rachelyra(a)gmail.com> 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" <marina.kukso(a)gmail.com> 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 <marina.kukso(a)gmail.com>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 >>> > 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" <eddan(a)clear.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks, Marina, In-line replies below. >>>>> >>>>> sent from eddan.com >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 7, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Marina Kukso <marina.kukso(a)gmail.com> >>>>> 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 <eddan(a)clear.net> 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" <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 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 > >