[sudo-discuss] Banning Xavier
Jehan Tremback
jehan.tremback at gmail.com
Fri Mar 14 11:25:55 PDT 2014
Good job guys, maybe it really was worth coming up with all those rulez a
couple years ago.
-Jehan
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Hol Gaskill <hol at gaskill.com> wrote:
> I would not oppose a temporary ban in conjunction with conflict resolution
> in parallel, it just seemed like what was being proposed was banning
> outright without an attempt at 1 on 1 discussion. did any disinterested
> third party reach out on this individually or did it all go down in the
> meeting? I agree safety of our members is an overriding concern. I got
> the sense that X was willing to participate in the process as he came to
> the meeting and left when Jordan asked, at least the time I saw, so I am
> optimistic that this can be resolved. He did ask me if I wanted to come
> talk about it when he left but I declined, wanting to hear it from Jordan,
> so I get the sense that I might be able to communicate the group's
> expectations effectively and gauge his response. I don't really have
> contact info for X though, so maybe if whoever is at sudo when he comes
> today to recover his possessions can pass my number on to him. Or Xavier
> if you are reading this drop me a line. I propose adding the following
> subsection to the articles:
>
>
> Sub-Section 3.2.2 Maintaining Safe Space During Conflict Resolution
>
> In the event that a conflict stems from one or more members being
> threatened by another member of sudo room or a member of the wider
> community, a temporary ban may be placed that person until the conflict has
> been resolved. Concensus in this case may be obtained at any sudo room
> meeting and must be ratified online over a period of 24 hours in the event
> quorum is not met at the meeting. Should the person being banned fail to
> participate constructively in the conflict resolution process as determined
> by the membership, the ban shall become permanent.
>
>
>
> Someone please improve the description of the fast track consensus process
> or any other parts.
>
>
>
> also this is our public-facing definition of safe space right now;
>
> A *safe space,* which is defined as:
>
> - "A place where anyone can relax and be fully self-expressed, without
> fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe on account
> of biological sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or
> expression, cultural background, age, or physical or mental ability; a
> place where the rules guard each person's self-respect and dignity and
> strongly encourage everyone to respect others."it
>
> It doesn't seem like the unsafe feeling was on account of any of the
> listed parameters so we may want a clearer definition. It's a no brainer
> that safe includes personal safety so anyone with detailed thoughts on the
> definition of safe space may want to touch up this area of the articles to
> reflect our shared concerns.
>
>
>
> I just want to capture all of this in our root document so that we never
> form a habit of routinely break our own rules because we did not make good
> enough rules in the first place. Laws are made under an archaic and in my
> opinion obsolete process (though obviously the gears are still spinning) -
> we have a chance here to stand on the shoulders of generations of giants
> and forge a way of doing things where the expectation is that we govern our
> own behavior, and that those unable to govern their own behavior will not
> have a hand in steering the ship. To me this idea is pretty fucking cool,
> so please forgive me if I seem dogmatic, but unless we write all of this
> down and test it and share it for others to fork, this experiment runs the
> risk of vanishing without a trace, or worse, being co-opted into a system
> just as bad as the one that motivated us to fork it in the first place.
>
>
>
> safely,
>
> hol
>
>
> on Mar 14, 2014, *Marc Juul* <juul at labitat.dk> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f71614be/attachment.html>
More information about the sudo-discuss
mailing list