136
edits
Difference between revisions of "Meeting Notes 2024-01-10"
m
→vote on ed contract
m Tag: Reverted |
Tag: Reverted |
||
| Line 255: | Line 255: | ||
* yar - our current safe space policy is anyone can ban other people. if threat of physical violence. people to not have to call the police. need to be able to shove people out of the building. i would hope jamal would still be able to do that. just want to say we all have ability to ban unilaterally | * yar - our current safe space policy is anyone can ban other people. if threat of physical violence. people to not have to call the police. need to be able to shove people out of the building. i would hope jamal would still be able to do that. just want to say we all have ability to ban unilaterally | ||
'''Vote:''' no ban power: resolve that sudoroom will not ratify any contract with any executive officer that confers ability to unilaterally ban people | |||
* anwar - does it count if the banned person has the ability to appeal to the board | * anwar - does it count if the banned person has the ability to appeal to the board | ||
| Line 263: | Line 263: | ||
* arthur - can reach in who can | * arthur - can reach in who can | ||
* ally - from my limited understanding, jamal was the one who reversed the ban on jake. so seems it was not in his immediate interest | * ally - from my limited understanding, jamal was the one who reversed the ban on jake. so seems it was not in his immediate interest | ||
thomas - i feel that the process should be, you have to go to the group first, if someone is giving a problem and they're in that group, then you have to go to that group and ask them they have to take care of that person | * thomas - i feel that the process should be, you have to go to the group first, if someone is giving a problem and they're in that group, then you have to go to that group and ask them they have to take care of that person | ||
* paige - the omni commons has a conflict approval process, in order to ban ... delegates have power to ban | * paige - the omni commons has a conflict approval process, in order to ban ... delegates have power to ban them: requires 2/3 approval of the delegates. conflict stewards need to present at the meeting. there is a process already. we can't limit ban discussions to sudo, sometimes conflicts are not isolated inside of one collective. | ||
* anwar - i disagree | * anwar - i disagree the.. | ||
* paige - conflict resolution policy as is does | * paige - conflict resolution policy as is does benefit the person who is a accused. the person accused gets to stick around in the space and the people accusing have to go through this long drawn out process. find conflict steward and mediator, omni has facilitated that, no structure in place. a lot of conflict sessions. no group to collect all of these | ||
* ally - people don't come to meetings because there | * ally - people don't come to meetings because there if there is no mediation. not comfortable having these one on one meetings, nobody who is a mediator, stressful role, have to be trusted by both people, not some rando either, then 3-4 hour public meetings, time both peopel feel somewhat safe and seen. | ||
* | * sequoia - i was going to say, this experience means we need a clear process for conflict resolution. i want to say we've been here 3 plus hours. we can say ed cant have unilateral ban power. clearly delineated and approved plan for conflict resolution that could result in ban after process in completed. agree no unilateral ban power. should we resolve that we will in the future develop a better ban process in the future?. ask to be done with the meeting | ||
* vote no on this resolution?: 2 | * vote no on this resolution?: 2 | ||
* yar: vote no but not blocking. need to trust jamal to do what he needs to do. board by law would have authority to | * yar: vote no but not blocking. need to trust jamal to do what he needs to do. board by law would have authority to override. no contract you can sign to take away delegate's right to do that. | ||
* another no | * another no | ||
* anwar - voting on a hypothetical, better to vote on a proposal ahead of us. | * anwar - voting on a hypothetical, better to vote on a proposal ahead of us. | ||
* thomas - we are voting on guidance | * thomas - we are voting on guidance for the delegate | ||
* if you're going to say that anyone can | * if you're going to say that anyone can unilateral ban anyone then that applied to jamal. | ||
* ally - i think its important, very basic things are lacking. what is the default? majority voting not even clear in sudo room. two urgent issues happening tomorrow, i think it would it would be possible to have quicker response. then afterwards people who want to stay can stay to discuss the minutia. no structure like that established. imminent urgent voting. | * ally - i think its important, very basic things are lacking. what is the default? majority voting not even clear in sudo room. two urgent issues happening tomorrow, i think it would it would be possible to have quicker response. then afterwards people who want to stay can stay to discuss the minutia. no structure like that established. imminent urgent voting. | ||
* alex - well jamal was here for earlier part of meeting | * alex - well jamal was here for earlier part of meeting | ||
* yar - if you are | * yar - if you are going to block a facilitator, you should have someone ready to come in | ||
* jems - i have facilitated before and kept us on time. i got help, we have long topics. i should have been facilitator after majority vote. | * jems - i have facilitated before and kept us on time. i got help, we have long topics. i should have been facilitator after majority vote. | ||
* peter - every day we dawdle, options close in. i asked for status update on the finances. there is a finance meeting that you can come to. we need | * peter - every day we dawdle, options close in. i asked for status update on the finances. there is a finance meeting that you can come to. we need everyone's A game about how we figure out how to save this building | ||
* jake - apologize to jems for them being harmed by my objection to them being facilitator. still stand by my decision. sorry you were harmed. | * jake - apologize to jems for them being harmed by my objection to them being facilitator. still stand by my decision. sorry you were harmed. | ||
* yar - what are you apologizing for | * yar - what are you apologizing for | ||
| Line 293: | Line 292: | ||
* ally - this is spiraling. this should mediating. we should end meeting but people who want to stay should stay. | * ally - this is spiraling. this should mediating. we should end meeting but people who want to stay should stay. | ||
=== discontinuity, below notes are from much earlier === | |||
paige - explained pov | paige - explained pov | ||
* jake - nobody can know what happened in that saturday meeting because dont know from notes | * jake - nobody can know what happened in that saturday meeting because dont know from notes | ||
* jake - also jemma shouldnt be facilitator because she accused me of racism, transphobia and misogyny since jake didn't want them to be facilitator | * jake - also jemma shouldnt be facilitator because she accused me of racism, transphobia and misogyny since jake didn't want them to be facilitator | ||