Pretty much. I also added more of a structure for a face to face meeting as well.
-Xander On May 9, 2014 9:02 PM, "a l" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
