Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal: Community Working Group
eetings 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 >>> 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: 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 >>>> wrote: >>>> > > On Saturday, May 03, 2014 11:40:12 a l wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>
Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal: Community Working Group
d 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 >> 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: 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 >>> 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 >>> > > >>> > > wrote: >>> >>> >>> > > > > Seconded, for whatever membership at SYNHAK is worth anymore. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On Thursday, May 01, 2014 01:21:35 a l wrote: &
Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal: Community Working Group
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" 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 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
Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal: Community Working Group
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 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: 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 > 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 > > > > > > 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
Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal: Community Working Group
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 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 > > > > 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, > >
Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal: Community Working Group
I agree with Torrie with some of the other proposals (family membership for one.) There was discuss thread after thread discussions at Tuesday meetings (countless) but we weren't able to fine tune the proposal until 6 or 7 of us sat down and said we aren't leaving until we finalize a proposal for next meeting On May 4, 2014 2:28 PM, "Torrie Fischer" wrote: > 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 > 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 > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > >
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 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 > > > > 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 > > > > with
Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal: Community Working Group
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. regards, Andrew L On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Torrie Fischer 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 > 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 rep
Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal: Community Working Group
I agree with Torrie with bigger proposals like this where there is a lot of info to work out it is best hashed out with a few people in person On May 3, 2014 1:26 PM, "Torrie Fischer" 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 > 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 volunte
Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal: Community Working Group
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 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
Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal: Community Working Group
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. regards, Andrew L On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Torrie Fischer 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 f
Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal: Community Working Group
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 bee
[SH-Discuss] Proposal: Community Working Group
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
