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 > >