On Thursday, February 20, 2014 04:34:35 Becca Salchak wrote: > I think if anything disputes should be handled by a panel of ports with in > the group either champions board members or a new group created for such > events if we feel that right now none of these groups are properly trained > to handle it then I think we should look out side of the space for people > to train said members .
That is precisely the point of the CWG. It is a new group created for such events with professional outside training paid for by the space. > On Feb 19, 2014 10:43 PM, "Michael Griesacker" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > Does anyone else have a concern about this? > > "CWG has the authority to modify their protocol with > > approval of the Membership." -I have an issue with this, since having > > authority overrides needing approval. If they need approval, they don't > > have authority. I'll assume they don't have authority, and the wording > > just > > needs cleaned up. > > > > "...the CWG would be using to set a precident that defines "approval of > > the > > membership".". - the CWD should not be setting precedence or definitions > > of membership approval. Do we not have a defined process of membership > > approval already? > > > > Regards, > > > > Mike > > > > On Feb 19, 2014 7:48 PM, "Andrew Buczko" <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > >> Can you explain that in english? > >> Are we going to farm-out our disputes to a desktop environment? > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Torrie Fischer < > >> > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >>> I'd like to suggest a modification to our bylaws via amendment. > >>> > >>> The Problem: Nobody is actually trained to handle interpersonal disputes > >>> and > >>> the resolution therof > >>> > >>> The Solution: A Community Working Group that acts as the central point > >>> of > >>> contact for questions about communication between community participants > >>> along > >>> with a respected independent mediator between community participants. > >>> > >>> This is an idea that is currently being worked on at Norton's Imperial > >>> Labs, > >>> with lots patterns taken from KDE: > >>> > >>> http://ev.kde.org/workinggroups/cwg.php > >>> > >>> I would like to see this implemented as: > >>> > >>> * A brief amendment to our bylaws that defines the offices required and > >>> delegates the power of conflict resolution and community management to > >>> them, > >>> with a statement that the CWG has the authority to modify their protocol > >>> with > >>> approval of the Membership. > >>> * A protocol established by the membership in the traditional proposal > >>> process > >>> that the CWG would be using to set a precident that defines "approval of > >>> the > >>> membership". > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Discuss mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Discuss mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
