Don Armstrong writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"): > On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > But that's my point: Do you want to solve that by adding... Yet > > another contact point? > > Would it be OK if leader@ stayed the contact point, but leader@ had a > pool of individuals who were willing to mediate in such a case? [Perhaps > with secretary@ or the CTTE chair as the backup in case leader@ was > involved?] > > Such individuals would have the ability and knowledge to involve the > existing levers of power (TC, DAM, leader@, anti-harassment etc.) if > escalation was required.
There are several things wrong with this suggestion IMO: 1. It depends on the DPL selecting a suitable delegate for each incoming enquiry. At best, with a standing panel, this is makework and an opportunity for things to get dropped. At worst it is another way for an escalation of bad behaviour to be blocked. 2. You are suggesting mediation. Mediation is certainly *one* part of what is needed, but also *conciliation* and *arbitration*. Generally I am not a fan of mediation because it does not look at the rights and wrongs behind an issue; so it reinforces the existing power structures. 3. Complaintants should not be expected to repeatedly explain/justify their views to a succession of different teams/officeholders/whatever. 4. Your proposed people seem to lack real authority; and also public legitimacy. The lack of authority/legitimacy is a problem because (i) awkard disputants will just say the appointee is wrong (ii) if escalation is required, see (3). 5. Each individual dispute should be dealt with by more than one person. Because otherwise escalation to enforcement action will inevitably have to violate (3), since there are some serious steps which might be necessary for which a single person's recommendation would be clearly insufficient; and even for less serious steps, collective rather than individual judgement is probably better. 6. You mention `anti-harassment' as a `lever of power" but of course anti-harassment have no inherent authority. IMO the antiharassment team's members would be a good starting point for the members of my proposed new structure. But the new structure needs to relate entirely differently to our existing institutions. I wonder if I should propose a GR. That would provide a way of testing whether my ideas (which do seem controversial) are more widely held, and also if the GR passes, give clear legitimacy to the new team. Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.