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: tdfisc...@hackerbots.net To: discuss@synhak.org 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 <tdfisc...@hackerbots.net>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 > > > > <tdfisc...@hackerbots.net>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 > > > > Discuss@synhak.org > > > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@synhak.org > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
