[sudo-discuss] Banning Xavier
Marc Juul
juul at labitat.dk
Fri Mar 14 01:26:27 PDT 2014
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Hol Gaskill <hol at gaskill.com> wrote:
> hey ronald and all,
>
> i am honestly not up to speed on the details - these are the meeting notes
> from last week https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2014-03-05 and i
> see nothing on this topic nor did i see this emailed out as is required for
> consent agenda items. If i recall, a considerable amount of hivemind time
> was taken up in establishing conflict resolution standards. If these are
> not being met by those prosecuting, what does that say about our
> organization? I don't really have a stake in this other than following
> through on what we say we do, as outlined in our articles of association
> (or incorporation)
>
I agree that conflict resolution should take place, but I also think it is
not acceptable for Xavier to be allowed in the space until the mediation
has completed successfully or he has been banned. This is obviously not an
isolated incident, but at least two incidents with threats of violence and
multiple witnesses. This goes beyond a personal conflict. If we allow
Xavier into our space until this has been resolved, then we are not abiding
by our commitment to safe space.
We should work to modify our articles such that we can immediately deal
with incidents where there is violence or threats of violence.
I think it is important that our values can overrule our procedures, which
then can lead to changed procedures. Matt proposed something similar for
the articles recently, to the effect of "our rules cannot be used against
us".
It is not ok that not having quorum can prevent the temporary exclusion of
an individual threatening violence.
> Section 3.2 Conflict Resolution Sub-Section 3.2.0 Process
> [image: Diagram] <https://sudoroom.org/wiki/File:SudoRoom.png>
>
> 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:
>
> 1. The party who seeks resolution finds someone to act as *Conflict
> Steward* in the matter, and works with this *Conflict Steward* to find
> a *Mediator*.
> 1. The *Mediator* is an impartial and uninvolved third party who
> consents to assist, and with whom all conflicting parties consent to work
> toward a solution.
> 2. The *Conflict Steward* organizes meetings for conflict
> resolution and maintains records of all meetings and relevant
> communications among the conflicting parties.
> 3. The *Conflict Steward*, *Mediator*, and the conflicting parties
> arrange to meet to work out a resolution to which all conflicting parties
> consent.
> 2. 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 *Conflict Steward*
> 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:
> 1. The issue is added to the agenda of the next official meeting
> scheduled at least one week in the future, and documentation is gathered by
> the *Conflict Steward* and made available to the group at least one
> week beforehand (on wiki), and notice is broadcast to the group (on 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 remedy sought
> by the plaintiff(s) is included. Both the *Conflict Steward* and
> *Mediator* must give their approval of the factual content of the
> documentation before it is posted. Both the *Conflict Steward* and
> *Mediator* must expressly affirm that the form of remedy sought by
> the plaintiff(s) is consistent with *sudo room's* values<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Values>.
> The request for remedy must include an implementation plan approved by the *Conflict
> Steward* and the *Mediator* if it is not obvious how to implement
> it.
> 2. During each meeting's agenda item on Conflict Resolution, all
> unresolved issues on the wiki are brought up for discussion followed by a
> vote.
> 1. First, the *Conflict Steward* presents all relevant
> documentation about the issue.
> 2. Then, a category of severity is established by *consensus* according
> to *sudo room'*s values<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#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):
> 1. Conflict calling for membership suspension or termination.
> - *Decision Procedure:* 2/3 vote
> 2. Conflict where only material compensation is sought.
> - *Decision Procedure:* 1/2 vote
> 3. All other conflicts.
> - *Decision Procedure:* Consensus
> 3. 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 *Conflict
> Steward* 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.
> 4. 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.
> 5. Then, members may propose alternative remedies to the
> conflict, along with any appropriate implementation plans.
> 6. 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 remedy under
> consideration is still relevant. After all remedies have been considered in
> this way, the matter is considered resolved. The *Conflict
> Steward* then ensures all relevant parties understand the remedy
> or remedies that passed and any corresponding implementation plans.
> 7. 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<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Values> that
> were not served by the original decision.
> 8. 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.
>
> Sub-Section 3.2.1 Principles and Values Specific to Conflicts
>
> In the pursuit of fairness, due process in the resolution of conflicts
> must include:
>
> 1. Presumption of innocence.
> 2. Right to an appeal and a fair process.
> 3. Respect for the privacy and dignity of all members.
> 4. Proportional and effective remedies.
> 1. Restorative <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice> remedies
> are strongly preferred over retributive<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice>
> remedies.
>
> /textwall
>
> I arrived late at the meeting this week and there seemed to be ongoing
> discussion RE recent events and definition of safe spaces. My idea of
> mediation in this case is making clear the fact that threats of violence
> are 100% unacceptable and that only the sudo room standard of safe space is
> in effect here - take it or leave it. There was some issue of defamation
> of character vs accurately describing something that happened between a
> friend of X and a friend of E during which time X exhibited irrational
> behavior which is unacceptable going forward.
>
> My intention is to gauge whether or not the differences are reconcileable
> and if so help chart the course of reconciliation; should it become clear
> that any party is unable to meet our standards of safe space and
> nonviolence, I would report back to the group accordingly.
>
> So I guess I am seeking conflict mediator status if both E and X consent
> and if noone else is already doing this. I am personally not especially
> risk-averse in terms of my own personal safety, though I abhor those who
> would unjustly endager others and after sufficient exploration of the issue
> I would not hesitate to safeguard our members against all such people
> through all available means.
>
> -hol
>
> on Mar 13, 2014, *Ronald Cotoni* <setient at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hol, Did you read the meeting notes from last week?
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:19 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01 at att.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Threats of violence and zealous defense of violence, add up to a high
>> risk of acts of violence. To my mind that is a cutoff point, and
>> attempting to mediate only prolongs a high-risk situation and potentially
>> makes it more emotionally charged (thus increases the risk).
>>
>> This is all the more so if the threats he made, and the acts he zealously
>> defended, referred to any kind of weapon, other than in self-defense
>> against an immediate threat to one's own life or the lives of innocent
>> others. IMHO the best way to handle this is in a cool and unemotional way:
>> "nothing personal, rules is rules."
>>
>> Any reasonable definition of "safe space" includes that people don't have
>> to worry about encountering someone who may threaten them with violence.
>>
>> Lastly, if you ban him, change any locks or passwords he may have had
>> access to. Even a key that says "do not duplicate" is not a deterrent to
>> someone making a copy themselves or having a corrupt person make one for
>> them.
>>
>> -G.
>>
>>
>> =====
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14-03-13-Thu 5:08 PM, Hol Gaskill wrote:
>>
>> i'm willing to act as a mediator pursuant to our conflict resolution
>> policy
>> on Mar 13, 2014, *Yardena Cohen* <yardenack at gmail.com><yardenack at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>> At this point there have been several informal calls for Xavier to be
>> banned. After last night's events I reluctantly agree that he should
>> not be welcome at Sudo until he's accountable for his behavior:
>>
>> * he made threats of violence towards somebody at Sudo
>> * he did something similar at Rock Paper Scissors
>> * he zealously defended other acts of violence committed by a friend of
>> his
>>
>> I'm willing to act as a mediator, but I'm not confident that the
>> problem can be resolved.
>>
>> So I formally propose that he be banned from our space for an
>> indefinite period. Are there any objections?
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing listsudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.orghttps://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ronald Cotoni
> Systems Engineer
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20140314/bf96af6f/attachment.html>
More information about the sudo-discuss
mailing list