Well, IMO it would make more sense to re-examine and re-draft the role in light of the new framing, and see what else changes, rather than simply changing the title. Thought artifacts are real, yo. Let's not encode too many into the Articles. On Mar 9, 2013 10:06 AM, "Anthony Di Franco" &lt;di.franco(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Then, conflict steward <=> constable? > On Mar 9, 2013 2:09 AM, "rachel lyra hospodar" &lt;rachelyra(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > >> I love 'steward'! >> >> To me it sounds welcoming and helpful, and opens up possibilities around >> what else the role could be... for example, maybe someone from the >> community at large who wants to do, say, an unconference, could ask a >> sudo-ite to steward their event, ie, be a point of contact for the space? >> Or as our fundraising structure ramps up, projects could have a funding >> steward (also builds in accountability there!) that keeps an eye on the >> process and helps to clarify it. I know that's a ways down the road but >> honestly I have never seen a funding structure that was unconfusing, so >> I'll just go ahead and predict that ours might be, too. >> >> Also in the case of amendments, if someone has an amendment they'd like >> to make but is confused or intimidated by the process, a steward might be a >> good neutral ally who can help everything along before & during the meeting. >> >> (Am I a consensus nerd if I point out that this kind of evolution of >> ideas is part of the strength of that method?) >> >> :D >> R. >> On Mar 8, 2013 3:00 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" &lt;di.franco(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>>>> > 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" < >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>>