I apologize if I'm over simplifying or missing the point, but you would essentially keep the original wording of the proposal and add in a section explicitly stating that CWG proceedings are closed door as well as some sort of proviso to address frequent unexcellent behavior. Correct?
regards, Andrew L On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Alexander Golightley <[email protected]>wrote: > This is how I would ideally see the CWG > > 1.) A member addresses a personal issue with another member. They feel > more comfortable to discuss this with moderation or they feel their > previous attempts to resolve the issue themselves failed. This is when they > ask one of the maintainers of the CWG to schedule a meeting with the > involved parties. > > 2.) A meeting is schedule with the involved parties. I would prefer that > *only* the involved parties and the mediator are present at this meeting. > This makes it easier to resolve personal issues. > > 3.) The member who approached the maintainer of the CWG gets to lay out > their grievances first in a concise manner. The mediator is to make sure > that they a) stay on topic, b) stay respectful, and c) make sure they get > to say their full say without interruption. If these grievances can be > written down before the meeting that would be excellent. That makes it > easier to address all the issues. > > 4.) The other party will then discuss their point of view on the > grievances. Once again, the moderator is there to make sure they get to say > their full say and to make sure things remain respectful. > > 5.) A solution brainstorming session should happen. Hopefully, a solution > will be found that makes both parties content with the situation. > > 6.) This is where I would really like some input. I think a failure in > finding a solution should either be discussed in a meeting, discussed with > the champions, or discussed with the board. I feel the champions would be > the best idea. There would be a rare amount of occurrences of this > happening if and only if members use the CWG early and often before any > damage happens. I don't feel a discussion with the entire membership should > happen unless the solution involves the need for a proposal or the like. I > just think it's a good idea for these personal issues to involve as little > people as humanly possible. > > If someone is constantly being called (not for calling the meeting. This > is just for those who have had complaints about them) to have meetings with > the CWG (like perhaps 3 of them in a 6 month period) then the CWG should > call a meeting with just the CWG maintainer(s). This meeting would just let > the member know that they seem to have a track record of unexcellent > behavior. I think they should be warned that if their unexcellent behavior > continues then it will have to be a meeting discussion where the membership > will decide the appropriate further action. > > If the offending party continues the behavior then the CWG maintainer > should bring this up for discussion at a meeting. The CWG maintainer will > then briefly and unbiasly discuss the meetings that have been held to > resolve the issues at hand. It is then up to the membership to decide the > appropriate action. Although they cannot vote to get rid of a member or to > temporarily suspend a member, they can still have on the record that they > would like board action. > > The board can then vote to remove or temporarily suspend said member. > > If the issue is with the CWG maintainer(s) themselves then a champion will > have to step in as mediator. > > How's that sound? I think we should assign maintainers and encourage our > members to use the CWG asap. I think this plan will make those that feel > too insecure to bring up issues at the meeting feel better about voicing > their concerns with other members. I think this also keeps small personal > issues from turning into a spacewide problem > > -Xander > On May 4, 2014 11:29 PM, "a l" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Torrie: I wasn't saying we couldn't have a separate meeting for forming >> the CWG, my point was why wait until the scheduled meeting to discuss >> shortcomings or oversights? We have a whole mailing list labeled discuss we >> should use it so meetings and sub meetings don't last 3 hours. You can read >> a discussion at your leisure, think about it, and reply whenever you want. >> To postpone all discussion of an idea until a formal meeting seems like an >> equal waste of time. >> >> If we don't have everyone pick and peck at the idea how can we expect >> people to consent to it? >> >> Steve & Torrie: People who show a repeated pattern of minor infractions >> should be addressed to determine if they simply don't understand the mores >> of our society. The degree and nature of that discussion could be something >> the CWG could address, though I think gently pointing out their faux pas >> would correct most people . >> Again the CWG is not intended to dispense punitive measures. >> >> regards, >> Andrew L >> >> >> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Steve Radonich IV >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> So just so I understand this correctly. Are you saying we should ignore >>> when people hack things that are labeled do not hack? I mean I don't think >>> we need to blow it out of proportion but if even the small rules aren't >>> enforced how do you expect people to follow the bigger ones. >>> >>> -Steve >>> >>> From: [email protected] >>> To: [email protected] >>> Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 14:28:09 -0400 >>> Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal: Community Working Group >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, May 04, 2014 11:56:09 a l wrote: >>> > Perhaps there is a misunderstanding on my part? I thought the CWG was >>> > supposed to have a broad scope of action so it would apply to the vast >>> >>> >>> > majority of problems people might encounter in their collaborations? As it >>> > >>> > is written: >>> > >In addition to facilitating communications, the CWG will ensure the >>> > >>> > SynHak, Inc. Bylaws and Code of Conduct, and Mission are upheld. >>> >>> >>> > >>> > the CWG is designed to help overcome one of those three catogories of >>> > dispute. Each dispute will be different and coming up with an action tree >>> > for every scenario will be laborious as well as likely tend towards people >>> >>> >>> > wanting to institute punitive measures, which the CWG(as written) has no >>> > authority to enforce. If there are flaws in the logic of the proposal, or >>> > oversights I don't see why we can't talk about them here and at a meeting >>> >>> >>> > solely with the intent of polishing the idea. >>> >>> Consider this: >>> >>> Lots of people come to the Tuesday Meeting. >>> >>> Only some of those people are actually interested in resolving conflicts. >>> >>> Even fewer of our entire membership cares about building a mechanism for >>> >>> >>> resolving conflicts. A number would rather instead inflict punishments for >>> minor infractions: >>> >>> https://synhak.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-March/007790.html >>> >>> >>> >>> Therefore, the Tuesday meeting is not the best place to find folks who care >>> about building mechanisms to resolve conflicts. Have a meeting where you'll >>> have people with valuable insight instead of a general meeting where the >>> idea >>> >>> >>> can get pecked at picked at by everyone and slow down the process. >>> >>> Consensus is for decision making, not planning and fleshing out ideas. Does >>> anyone really want a three hour Tuesday meeting again? >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> > regards, >>> > Andrew L >>> > >>> > On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Torrie Fischer >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> > > On Saturday, May 03, 2014 11:40:12 a l wrote: >>> >>> >>> > > > Has anyone else got any input? It would be helpful if we got some >>> > > >>> > > feedback >>> > > >>> > > > before the meeting so we can polish out any oversights and get this >>> >>> > > > implemented on the 13th. >>> >>> > > >>> > > Suggestion: Meeting outside of the Tuesday meeting to flesh this out >>> > > with >>> > > brainstorming of what problems we need to solve and how to best solve >>> > > them. >>> > > >>> > > > regards, >>> >>> >>> > > > Andrew L >>> > > > >>> > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Torrie Fischer >>> > > >>> > > <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>> >>> > > > > Seconded, for whatever membership at SYNHAK is worth anymore. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On Thursday, May 01, 2014 01:21:35 a l wrote: >>> > > > > > A community working group had been brought up a few months back, >>> > > > > > and >>> >>> >>> > > >>> > > a >>> > > >>> > > > > > general feeling of approval was in the air. A variety of events >>> > > > > > took >>> > > > > >>> > > > > place >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > and it got bumped aside. I would like to renew the discussion on >>> >>> >>> > > > > > this >>> > > > > >>> > > > > topic >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > and bring forth the following proposal. I request that all >>> > > > > > responses >>> > > > > >>> >>> >>> > > > > remain >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > constructive to the creation of a community working group and >>> > > > > > above >>> > > >>> > > all: >>> > > > > Be >>> > > > > >>> >>> >>> > > > > > Excellent to Each Other. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > ====Begin Proposal ==== >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > In order to assure SynHak is a low stress, friendly, environment >>> >>> >>> > > > > > The Community Working Group has been established to resolve >>> > > > > > interpersonal >>> > > > > > disputes. The first step in any interpersonal dispute is >>> > > > > > confronting >>> >>> >>> > > >>> > > the >>> > > >>> > > > > > offending party. It is always preferable for the parties to >>> > > > > > mediate >>> > > > > > their >>> > > > > > own disputes. On occasion it may become necessary for an >>> > > > > > additional >>> >>> >>> > > > > > party >>> > > > > > to intervene and facilitate calm discourse. This role is filled by >>> > > >>> > > the >>> > > >>> > > > > > Community Working Group(CWG). In addition to facilitating >>> >>> >>> > > > > > communications, >>> > > > > > the CWG will ensure the SynHak, Inc. Bylaws and Code of Conduct, >>> > > > > > and >>> > > > > > Mission are upheld. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Initiation of involvement: >>> >>> >>> > > >>> > > > > > The CWG cannot get involved in interpersonal affairs except >>> > > > > > through: >>> > > the >>> > > >>> > > > > > direct petition from one or more of the parties involved, direct >>> >>> >>> > > >>> > > request >>> > > >>> > > > > > from a quorum of the Board of Directors, or as a result of a >>> > > >>> > > proposal by >>> > > >>> > > > > > the membership. Here after reffered to as "concerned parties" >>> >>> >>> > > > > > To request involvement by the CWG one of the concerned parties >>> > > > > > must >>> > > > > >>> > > > > submit >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > a written request to the CWG mailing list. This written request >>> > > > > > MUST >>> >>> >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > include information regarding: >>> > > > > > - the parties involved, >>> > > > > > - Concise explanation of the dispute >>> > > > > > - actions already taken to resolve the dispute >>> >>> >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > - if no action has been taken, justification for inaction >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > - desired method of resolution >>> > > > > > - preferred method of contact >>> >>> >>> > > > > > - schedule of availability >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Duties: >>> > > > > > After being petitioned the CWG will contact all parties involved >>> > > >>> >>> >>> > > within >>> > > >>> > > > > 14 >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > business days via e-mail. This email will contain a summary of the >>> > > > > > complaint as well as suggested courses of action. For complex >>> > > > > > issues >>> >>> >>> > > > > > mediation will be arranged using a medium agreeable by both >>> > > > > > parties. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Resolution: >>> > > > > > Depending on the nature of the issue the following actions may be >>> >>> >>> > > >>> > > taken >>> > > >>> > > > > to >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > return to an inviting atmosphere. >>> > > > > > 1) The parties involved discuss their differences on their own. >>> >>> >>> > > > > > 2) The parties involved request a CWG representative to serve as >>> > > > > >>> > > > > moderator >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > to ensure civil discourse and document resolution. >>> >>> >>> > > > > > 3) The parties involved request one or more CWG representatives to >>> > > >>> > > serve >>> > > >>> > > > > as >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > mediators and provide active guidance and actively aid in >>> > > > > > resolution >>> >>> >>> > > > > > 4) The parties involved agree to non-binding arbitration wherein >>> > > > > > each >>> > > > > >>> > > > > party >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > is given a chance to voice their concerns and the arbiter(s) >>> > > > > > suggest >>> >>> >>> > > >>> > > a >>> > > >>> > > > > > course of action to the parties involved >>> > > > > > 5) The membership requests intervention on the behalf of one or >>> > > > > > more >>> > > > > > parties. CWG representatives establish context for the conflict >>> > > > > > and >>> >>> >>> > > >>> > > make >>> > > >>> > > > > > suggestions to the Board of Directors and/or membership whom make >>> > > > > > a >>> > > > > > final >>> > > > > > binding ruling on the conflict. >>> >>> >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > The CWG will make reccommendations for courses of action to the >>> > > >>> > > parties >>> > > >>> > > > > > involved, the Board of directors, or the Membership of SynHak, as >>> >>> >>> > > > > > the >>> > > > > > situation merits. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > - The CWG cannot be used to exercise punative measures. This >>> > > > > > power >>> > > >>> > > lies >>> >>> >>> > > >>> > > > > > with the Board of Directors and the Membership. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > - It is not the role of the CWG to initiate contact with law >>> > > > > > enforcement >>> >>> >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > officials based on petitions brought to the CWG. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > - CWG volunteers reserve the right to decline their services on >>> > > > > > the >>> >>> >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > grounds of conflict of interest or if they believe their >>> > > > > > involvement >>> > > > > >>> > > > > would >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > expose them to risk. >>> >>> >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > - Proxies may not be established for any of the parties involved. >>> > > > > > If >>> > > > > > the >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > dispute is to the point where the parties are not comfortable >>> > > > > > being >>> >>> >>> > > >>> > > in >>> > > >>> > > > > the >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > same room. The dispute is likely outside the scope of the CWG's >>> > > > > >>> > > > > abilities. >>> >>> >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > Staffing: >>> > > > > > Any resident of the Greater Akron Area is eligable to participate >>> > > > > > in >>> > > >>> > > the >>> > > >>> > > > > > Community Working Group. A minimum of three volunteers will be >>> >>> >>> > > >>> > > approved, >>> > > >>> > > > > > there is no maximum. Positions will be filled at the time of >>> > > > > > annual >>> > > > > > elections, additional volunteers may be approved on an as-needed >>> >>> >>> > > >>> > > basis. >>> > > >>> > > > > > Approval is achieved by a Quorum of the Board of Directors, >>> > > >>> > > consensus by >>> > > >>> > > > > > the Membership, or consensus by the disputing parties. >>> >>> >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Records & Privacy: >>> > > > > > The CWG will make every effort to keep details of disagreements >>> > > >>> > > private. >>> > > >>> >>> >>> > > > > > Records will be furnished to law enforcement at the behest of one >>> > > > > > or >>> > > > > > both >>> > > > > > parties, in the event no consent has been given records will only >>> > > > > > be >>> >>> >>> > > > > > furnished by court order. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > After resolution a brief summary composed of: the parties >>> > > > > > involved, >>> > > > > > vague >>> > > > > > nature of the conflict as well as suggested actions will be filed >>> > > > > > at >>> >>> >>> > > >>> > > the >>> > > >>> > > > > > principle office of SynHak, viewable on request by members in good >>> > > > > > standing. If SynHak Code of Conduct or Bylaws have been breached, >>> >>> >>> > > >>> > > those >>> > > >>> > > > > > breached shall be noted. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > ====End proposal==== >>> > > >>> > > > > > Inspiration and additional resources: >>> >>> >>> > > https://drupal.org/governance/community-working-group/incident-report >>> > > >>> > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group >>> >>> >>> > > > > > http://ev.kde.org/workinggroups/cwg.php >>> > > > > > https://www.acrnet.org/ >>> >>> >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > I have not had time to provide an example of the resolution >>> > > > > > summary >>> > > >>> > > but >>> > > >>> > > > > it >>> > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > should be intentionally vague so as to protect sensitive topics. >>> >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Please give constructive feedback. It is painfully obvious that we >>> > > >>> > > need >>> > > >>> > > > > > some agreeable way to help people communicate their concerns to >>> > > > > > each >>> >>> >>> > > > > >>> > > > > other. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > in excellence, >>> > > > > > Andrew L >>> > > > > >>> > > > > _______________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> > > > > 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 >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
