Re: [SH-Discuss] Bylaws discussion: Community Working Group
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" > > 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" > > > > 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 < > >> > >> tdfisc...@hackerbots.net> 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 > >>> 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
Re: [SH-Discuss] Bylaws discussion: Community Working Group
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 22:43:29 Michael Griesacker 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. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. * The CWG would create a protocol for handling the duties given to them * This protocol would need membership approval before it can be used It doesn't say anything about the membership approval process. > > "...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? Yes, and this doesn't change anything. > > Regards, > > Mike > > On Feb 19, 2014 7:48 PM, "Andrew Buczko" 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 > > > > 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 > >> 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
Re: [SH-Discuss] Bylaws discussion: Community Working Group
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 . On Feb 19, 2014 10:43 PM, "Michael Griesacker" 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" > 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 < >> tdfisc...@hackerbots.net> 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 >>> 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
Re: [SH-Discuss] Bylaws discussion: Community Working Group
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" 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 > 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 >> 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
Re: [SH-Discuss] Bylaws discussion: Community Working Group
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 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 > Discuss@synhak.org > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[SH-Discuss] Bylaws discussion: Community Working Group
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 Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
