Event:2015/02/08 CDC Meeting - Revision history

Yar: revert

2015-11-05T03:03:52Z

revert

← Older revision	Revision as of 03:03, 5 November 2015
Line 1:	Line 1:
		==feb 8 2015==
		AGENDA
		Present: sarah p, DK, niki, mary, phoneyar, kevin, jen (copenhagen), amgo
		*Jen
		**jen's specific conflict history with members
		**personal accountability
		**burnout
		**implementing preemptive
		**working tension out of system
		**copenhagen collective modelled on omni
		*What's up with qwic/mary?
		*CDC's role in conflict resolution
		**building our own skills
		**who in our comunity is equipped to do this work?
		**what can we do meanwhile to avoid further harm
		*communications--how to
		**tone policing v constructive comunication


		=== supporting jen ===
		* jen is talking
		** DK worried can't address our own let alone outside community stuff
		** marc juul - "duy to rescue"
		** now in conflict with juul worried about
		** yar's opinion on releasing a statement as the omni: tbh the content is a no-brainer but the process by which omni community agrees on symbolic statements and communicates them to the outside world is pretty unformed. we've barely said anything formally as a community, not even "black lives matter". great opportunity for us to fix this. also great opportunity to have patience with us.
		** mary:what kind of outcome are you looking for?
		** can we get them to sit and talk and heal together in a safe way?
		** she is in touch with mediators
		** jen: this problem is not just jen's - this is problem all over spaces like this/hacker space
		* DK: is seems ike you recognize structures aren't yet actually in place
		** DK: we have a history of addressing outside conflict banning some one and it was problematic--in order to act in solidarity with ather group we need to really be involved with and understand this group and we aren't yet involved at all really with this hacker space
		** yar: we excise people from our community ALL THE TIME, directly and indirectly. we're totally there right now.
		** sarah: has very little experience with hacker worlds and most ppl here don't have necessary social conext--however a lot of the conflict arising is specific to hacker culture. we want to be proactive and would like to come out with a strong statement against this sort of oppression + but we don't have a lot of structures in place to mediate this conflict +feels committed to working on this--individuals involved are key folks
		** yar: just want to say that when i wrote sudoroom's statement i got nothing from support from marc, jenny and matt. they were happy that i was doing it and they agree with it. https://sudoroom.org/hacking-inclusivity/
		*** direct quotes: "thank you so much for doing that. you know you don't have to spend all that time right? but thank you!"
		** have you brought it to sudo? they have good conflict resolution strategy=ies
		** jen thinks it's not sudo-specific it's omniwide
		** mary: the reason to do that is it is a first line, then it gets larger if it can't be dealt with at omni
		** niki: things need to be worked on first in collectives and omniwide stuff can be addressed minimally
		** sarah: we hear you we need to get our shit together we are working on it
		**jen: community accountability project was built to with termination in mind + oppression of nondom ppl is important esp to work on in nondom spaces
		** yar: this issue is competing for time with OTHER issues of basic human rights. we are constantly overwhelmed by basic human rights issues. it's not just "other organizational stuff".
		** DK wants CDC to state things that vulnerable ppl can turn to. wants to propose to have the ability to ban ppl same as collectives--ppl getting abused are "part of a diaspora of abuse"
		** Mary: there needs to be a safe space for both individuals not discuss list - SO ppl should report to CDC instead of uncontained on disuss list
		** DK: maybe bring it to small community first then CDC
		** mary: timeliness is key, can't be anonymous, must concent to mediation brfore going forward
		** niki; agrees about anonymity but it's really hard ot call some one out not anonymously--agree like anon group accused zach and then dissolved--but there needs ot be helpful proxies to help put power behind concern
		** accountability of accuser?
		** if anon and violent needs to be done by outside group
		** yar: starting to look like the "abuse squad" which is in the geek feminism code of conduct. when we based our safe space policy on their CoC, we originally edited that part out.
		*** http://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/
		*** http://geekfeminism.org/about/report-abuse/
		*** Looking it up now - don't recall the conversation around editing this part out
		**we are gonna talk about this at next delegate meeting
		**DK we should affirn the ability of cdc
		* adompt thinng noemie wrote about this
		* ask that three ppl be banned pending conflict resolution
		* mary: should be brought up at delegate meeting by some one not related to conflict parties
		* convo ensues about determining an appropriate facilitator for conflict res
		* kwic - needs aprop mediator
		* steve bloom - no one has told him he's banned
		* stop mysogynist behavior
		* niki: frustrated folks that brought htis (steve, kwic) up aren't here to talk about it; niki and noemie have both tried to have mediation--intersecting oppressions we are working with--doesn't want to confuse ppl that are to be banned
		** don't come ot the space until you recognize and say you are willing ot try to stop speaking abusively to ppl
		** important not to personalize - it's about behaviors not personalities
		** DK can CDC agree to adopt the statement made two weeks ago preliminarily?

		[copied and pasted fom niki's email]
		Statement Against all Forms of Abuse and Oppression in our Communities

		Realizing that conflicts and oppressive patterns of behavior will emerge over the course of this project and that we will encounter difficulties in resolving them, we feel it is important to reaffirm our commitment to making the Omni a safer space.

		We acknowledge that we live in a culture of intersecting forms of oppression and that these intersections complicate our ability to connect with one another and to confront the various power dynamics and privileges at play in our relationships.

		We are committed to continuing to engage in the work of dismantling systems of oppression both inside and outside of ourselves in order to build stronger relationships and a more resilient community. This will require us to acknowledge and engage in conflict and to take seriously the process of conflict resolution.

		Acts of violence, abuse, intimidation and other forms of oppression can not be tolerated within this community. In the event that a member or members of our community feel that they are the victim of violence, abuse, intimidation or other forms of oppression, we expect all involved to pursue conflict resolution in good faith.

		We are all complicit in the perpetration of acts of violence in our communities and can all take responsibility for building the culture we would like to see here at the Omni. We should feel empowered to hold both ourselves and one other accountable. Every one of us has room to learn, to grow and to heal.

		We don’t believe in using pressure and threats to force rushing to reach resolution. We entreat the community to have patience with the healing process and to recognize that confronting systems of oppression and engaging in the unavoidable conflicts that will arise as a result is the real work of this project.

		** niki isn't done wiht the statement--just a first draft
		* most important is to ID specific behaviors not
		** kevin - implement a "men's feminist task force"
		** DK - acknowledge it's all always provisional, can we adopt it now?
		** PROPOSAL : all at CDC agree to provisionally adopt this statementpending necessary edits YES
		** PROPOSAL TO DELEGATE MEETING : community tthat facilitates conflict resolution inter and intra omni (CDC) has the ability to ban pending mediation BRING TO DELEGATE MEETING -
		*

		**Proposal: (to be worked on today).
		*** the goal of this proposal is to: allow the CDC to call for temporary bans of individuals pending conflict mediation WHEN no one already-recognized member group is able to do so. For example, individuals in our community who are collectiveluy suffering across many different groups, and/or individuals in our community who are suffering who are not part of any one member group, but is a member of Working Group(s). This can represent redress and resolution for an ad-hoc community of folks within Omni that are not otherwise constituted as a member group.

Yar: Yar moved page Event:2014/02/08 CDC Meeting to Event:2015/02/08 CDC Meeting without leaving a redirect: wrong date

2015-11-05T03:01:12Z

Yar moved page Event:2014/02/08 CDC Meeting to Event:2015/02/08 CDC Meeting without leaving a redirect: wrong date

← Older revision	Revision as of 03:01, 5 November 2015
(No difference)

Niki: /* feb 8 2015 */

2015-02-12T04:06:22Z

feb 8 2015

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:06, 12 February 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~==feb 8 2015==~~
	~~AGENDA~~
	~~Present: sarah p, DK, niki, mary, phoneyar, kevin, jen (copenhagen), amgo~~
	*Jen
	**jen's specific conflict history with members
	**personal accountability
	**burnout
	**implementing preemptive
	**working tension out of system
	**copenhagen collective modelled on omni
	*What's up with qwic/mary?
	*CDC's role in conflict resolution
	**building our own skills
	**who in our comunity is equipped to do this work?
	**what can we do meanwhile to avoid further harm
	*communications--how to
	**tone policing v constructive comunication


	~~=== supporting jen ===~~
	* jen is talking
	** DK worried can't address our own let alone outside community stuff
	** marc juul - "duy to rescue"
	** now in conflict with juul worried about
	** yar's opinion on releasing a statement as the omni: tbh the content is a no-brainer but the process by which omni community agrees on symbolic statements and communicates them to the outside world is pretty unformed. we've barely said anything formally as a community, not even "black lives matter". great opportunity for us to fix this. also great opportunity to have patience with us.
	** mary:what kind of outcome are you looking for?
	** can we get them to sit and talk and heal together in a safe way?
	** she is in touch with mediators
	** jen: this problem is not just jen's - this is problem all over spaces like this/hacker space
	* DK: is seems ike you recognize structures aren't yet actually in place
	** DK: we have a history of addressing outside conflict banning some one and it was problematic--in order to act in solidarity with ather group we need to really be involved with and understand this group and we aren't yet involved at all really with this hacker space
	** yar: we excise people from our community ALL THE TIME, directly and indirectly. we're totally there right now.
	** sarah: has very little experience with hacker worlds and most ppl here don't have necessary social conext--however a lot of the conflict arising is specific to hacker culture. we want to be proactive and would like to come out with a strong statement against this sort of oppression + but we don't have a lot of structures in place to mediate this conflict +feels committed to working on this--individuals involved are key folks
	** yar: just want to say that when i wrote sudoroom's statement i got nothing from support from marc, jenny and matt. they were happy that i was doing it and they agree with it. https://sudoroom.org/hacking-inclusivity/
	*** direct quotes: "thank you so much for doing that. you know you don't have to spend all that time right? but thank you!"
	** have you brought it to sudo? they have good conflict resolution strategy=ies
	** jen thinks it's not sudo-specific it's omniwide
	** mary: the reason to do that is it is a first line, then it gets larger if it can't be dealt with at omni
	** niki: things need to be worked on first in collectives and omniwide stuff can be addressed minimally
	** sarah: we hear you we need to get our shit together we are working on it
	**jen: community accountability project was built to with termination in mind + oppression of nondom ppl is important esp to work on in nondom spaces
	** yar: this issue is competing for time with OTHER issues of basic human rights. we are constantly overwhelmed by basic human rights issues. it's not just "other organizational stuff".
	** DK wants CDC to state things that vulnerable ppl can turn to. wants to propose to have the ability to ban ppl same as collectives--ppl getting abused are "part of a diaspora of abuse"
	** Mary: there needs to be a safe space for both individuals not discuss list - SO ppl should report to CDC instead of uncontained on disuss list
	** DK: maybe bring it to small community first then CDC
	** mary: timeliness is key, can't be anonymous, must concent to mediation brfore going forward
	** niki; agrees about anonymity but it's really hard ot call some one out not anonymously--agree like anon group accused zach and then dissolved--but there needs ot be helpful proxies to help put power behind concern
	** accountability of accuser?
	** if anon and violent needs to be done by outside group
	** yar: starting to look like the "abuse squad" which is in the geek feminism code of conduct. when we based our safe space policy on their CoC, we originally edited that part out.
	*** http://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/
	*** http://geekfeminism.org/about/report-abuse/
	*** Looking it up now - don't recall the conversation around editing this part out
	**we are gonna talk about this at next delegate meeting
	**DK we should affirn the ability of cdc
	* adompt thinng noemie wrote about this
	* ask that three ppl be banned pending conflict resolution
	* mary: should be brought up at delegate meeting by some one not related to conflict parties
	* convo ensues about determining an appropriate facilitator for conflict res
	* kwic - needs aprop mediator
	* steve bloom - no one has told him he's banned
	* stop mysogynist behavior
	* niki: frustrated folks that brought htis (steve, kwic) up aren't here to talk about it; niki and noemie have both tried to have mediation--intersecting oppressions we are working with--doesn't want to confuse ppl that are to be banned
	** don't come ot the space until you recognize and say you are willing ot try to stop speaking abusively to ppl
	** important not to personalize - it's about behaviors not personalities
	** DK can CDC agree to adopt the statement made two weeks ago preliminarily?

	~~[copied and pasted fom niki's email]~~
	~~Statement Against all Forms of Abuse and Oppression in our Communities~~

	Realizing that conflicts and oppressive patterns of behavior will emerge over the course of this project and that we will encounter difficulties in resolving them, we feel it is important to reaffirm our commitment to making the Omni a safer space.

	We acknowledge that we live in a culture of intersecting forms of oppression and that these intersections complicate our ability to connect with one another and to confront the various power dynamics and privileges at play in our relationships.

	We are committed to continuing to engage in the work of dismantling systems of oppression both inside and outside of ourselves in order to build stronger relationships and a more resilient community. This will require us to acknowledge and engage in conflict and to take seriously the process of conflict resolution.

	Acts of violence, abuse, intimidation and other forms of oppression can not be tolerated within this community. In the event that a member or members of our community feel that they are the victim of violence, abuse, intimidation or other forms of oppression, we expect all involved to pursue conflict resolution in good faith.

	We are all complicit in the perpetration of acts of violence in our communities and can all take responsibility for building the culture we would like to see here at the Omni. We should feel empowered to hold both ourselves and one other accountable. Every one of us has room to learn, to grow and to heal.

	We don’t believe in using pressure and threats to force rushing to reach resolution. We entreat the community to have patience with the healing process and to recognize that confronting systems of oppression and engaging in the unavoidable conflicts that will arise as a result is the real work of this project.

	** niki isn't done wiht the statement--just a first draft
	* most important is to ID specific behaviors not
	** kevin - implement a "men's feminist task force"
	** DK - acknowledge it's all always provisional, can we adopt it now?
	** PROPOSAL : all at CDC agree to provisionally adopt this statementpending necessary edits YES
	** PROPOSAL TO DELEGATE MEETING : community tthat facilitates conflict resolution inter and intra omni (CDC) has the ability to ban pending mediation BRING TO DELEGATE MEETING -
	*

	**Proposal: (to be worked on today).
	*** the goal of this proposal is to: allow the CDC to call for temporary bans of individuals pending conflict mediation WHEN no one already-recognized member group is able to do so. For example, individuals in our community who are collectiveluy suffering across many different groups, and/or individuals in our community who are suffering who are not part of any one member group, but is a member of Working Group(s). This can represent redress and resolution for an ad-hoc community of folks within Omni that are not otherwise constituted as a member group.

Niki: Created page with "==feb 8 2015== AGENDA Present: sarah p, DK, niki, mary, phoneyar, kevin, jen (copenhagen), amgo Jen jen's specific conflict history with members personal accountability ..."

2015-02-12T04:05:54Z

Created page with "==feb 8 2015== AGENDA Present: sarah p, DK, niki, mary, phoneyar, kevin, jen (copenhagen), amgo *Jen **jen's specific conflict history with members **personal accountability *..."

← Older revision	Revision as of 04:05, 12 February 2015
(No difference)

Niki: Created page with "==feb 8 2015== AGENDA Present: sarah p, DK, niki, mary, phoneyar, kevin, jen (copenhagen), amgo Jen jen's specific conflict history with members personal accountability ..."

2015-02-12T03:35:30Z

Created page with "==feb 8 2015== AGENDA Present: sarah p, DK, niki, mary, phoneyar, kevin, jen (copenhagen), amgo *Jen **jen's specific conflict history with members **personal accountability *..."

New page

==feb 8 2015==
AGENDA
Present: sarah p, DK, niki, mary, phoneyar, kevin, jen (copenhagen), amgo
*Jen
**jen's specific conflict history with members
**personal accountability
**burnout
**implementing preemptive
**working tension out of system
**copenhagen collective modelled on omni
*What's up with qwic/mary?
*CDC's role in conflict resolution
**building our own skills
**who in our comunity is equipped to do this work?
**what can we do meanwhile to avoid further harm
*communications--how to
**tone policing v constructive comunication

=== supporting jen ===
* jen is talking
** DK worried can't address our own let alone outside community stuff
** marc juul - "duy to rescue"
** now in conflict with juul worried about
** yar's opinion on releasing a statement as the omni: tbh the content is a no-brainer but the process by which omni community agrees on symbolic statements and communicates them to the outside world is pretty unformed. we've barely said anything formally as a community, not even "black lives matter". great opportunity for us to fix this. also great opportunity to have patience with us.
** mary:what kind of outcome are you looking for?
** can we get them to sit and talk and heal together in a safe way?
** she is in touch with mediators
** jen: this problem is not just jen's - this is problem all over spaces like this/hacker space
* DK: is seems ike you recognize structures aren't yet actually in place
** DK: we have a history of addressing outside conflict banning some one and it was problematic--in order to act in solidarity with ather group we need to really be involved with and understand this group and we aren't yet involved at all really with this hacker space
** yar: we excise people from our community ALL THE TIME, directly and indirectly. we're totally there right now.
** sarah: has very little experience with hacker worlds and most ppl here don't have necessary social conext--however a lot of the conflict arising is specific to hacker culture. we want to be proactive and would like to come out with a strong statement against this sort of oppression + but we don't have a lot of structures in place to mediate this conflict +feels committed to working on this--individuals involved are key folks
** yar: just want to say that when i wrote sudoroom's statement i got nothing from support from marc, jenny and matt. they were happy that i was doing it and they agree with it. https://sudoroom.org/hacking-inclusivity/
*** direct quotes: "thank you so much for doing that. you know you don't have to spend all that time right? but thank you!"
** have you brought it to sudo? they have good conflict resolution strategy=ies
** jen thinks it's not sudo-specific it's omniwide
** mary: the reason to do that is it is a first line, then it gets larger if it can't be dealt with at omni
** niki: things need to be worked on first in collectives and omniwide stuff can be addressed minimally
** sarah: we hear you we need to get our shit together we are working on it
**jen: community accountability project was built to with termination in mind + oppression of nondom ppl is important esp to work on in nondom spaces
** yar: this issue is competing for time with OTHER issues of basic human rights. we are constantly overwhelmed by basic human rights issues. it's not just "other organizational stuff".
** DK wants CDC to state things that vulnerable ppl can turn to. wants to propose to have the ability to ban ppl same as collectives--ppl getting abused are "part of a diaspora of abuse"
** Mary: there needs to be a safe space for both individuals not discuss list - SO ppl should report to CDC instead of uncontained on disuss list
** DK: maybe bring it to small community first then CDC
** mary: timeliness is key, can't be anonymous, must concent to mediation brfore going forward
** niki; agrees about anonymity but it's really hard ot call some one out not anonymously--agree like anon group accused zach and then dissolved--but there needs ot be helpful proxies to help put power behind concern
** accountability of accuser?
** if anon and violent needs to be done by outside group
** yar: starting to look like the "abuse squad" which is in the geek feminism code of conduct. when we based our safe space policy on their CoC, we originally edited that part out.
*** http://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/
*** http://geekfeminism.org/about/report-abuse/
*** Looking it up now - don't recall the conversation around editing this part out
**we are gonna talk about this at next delegate meeting
**DK we should affirn the ability of cdc
* adompt thinng noemie wrote about this
* ask that three ppl be banned pending conflict resolution
* mary: should be brought up at delegate meeting by some one not related to conflict parties
* convo ensues about determining an appropriate facilitator for conflict res
* kwic - needs aprop mediator
* steve bloom - no one has told him he's banned
* stop mysogynist behavior
* niki: frustrated folks that brought htis (steve, kwic) up aren't here to talk about it; niki and noemie have both tried to have mediation--intersecting oppressions we are working with--doesn't want to confuse ppl that are to be banned
** don't come ot the space until you recognize and say you are willing ot try to stop speaking abusively to ppl
** important not to personalize - it's about behaviors not personalities
** DK can CDC agree to adopt the statement made two weeks ago preliminarily?

[copied and pasted fom niki's email]
Statement Against all Forms of Abuse and Oppression in our Communities

Realizing that conflicts and oppressive patterns of behavior will emerge over the course of this project and that we will encounter difficulties in resolving them, we feel it is important to reaffirm our commitment to making the Omni a safer space.

We acknowledge that we live in a culture of intersecting forms of oppression and that these intersections complicate our ability to connect with one another and to confront the various power dynamics and privileges at play in our relationships.

We are committed to continuing to engage in the work of dismantling systems of oppression both inside and outside of ourselves in order to build stronger relationships and a more resilient community. This will require us to acknowledge and engage in conflict and to take seriously the process of conflict resolution.

Acts of violence, abuse, intimidation and other forms of oppression can not be tolerated within this community. In the event that a member or members of our community feel that they are the victim of violence, abuse, intimidation or other forms of oppression, we expect all involved to pursue conflict resolution in good faith.

We are all complicit in the perpetration of acts of violence in our communities and can all take responsibility for building the culture we would like to see here at the Omni. We should feel empowered to hold both ourselves and one other accountable. Every one of us has room to learn, to grow and to heal.

We don’t believe in using pressure and threats to force rushing to reach resolution. We entreat the community to have patience with the healing process and to recognize that confronting systems of oppression and engaging in the unavoidable conflicts that will arise as a result is the real work of this project.

** niki isn't done wiht the statement--just a first draft
* most important is to ID specific behaviors not
** kevin - implement a "men's feminist task force"
** DK - acknowledge it's all always provisional, can we adopt it now?
** PROPOSAL : all at CDC agree to provisionally adopt this statementpending necessary edits YES
** PROPOSAL TO DELEGATE MEETING : community tthat facilitates conflict resolution inter and intra omni (CDC) has the ability to ban *pending mediation* BRING TO DELEGATE MEETING -
*

**Proposal: (to be worked on today).
*** the goal of this proposal is to: allow the CDC to call for temporary bans of individuals pending conflict mediation WHEN no one already-recognized member group is able to do so. For example, individuals in our community who are collectiveluy suffering across many different groups, and/or individuals in our community who are suffering who are not part of any one member group, but is a member of Working Group(s). This can represent redress and resolution for an ad-hoc community of folks within Omni that are not otherwise constituted as a member group.

Event:2015/02/08 CDC Meeting - Revision history

Yar: revert

Yar: Yar moved page Event:2014/02/08 CDC Meeting to Event:2015/02/08 CDC Meeting without leaving a redirect: wrong date

Niki: /* feb 8 2015 */

Niki: Created page with "==feb 8 2015== AGENDA Present: sarah p, DK, niki, mary, phoneyar, kevin, jen (copenhagen), amgo *Jen **jen's specific conflict history with members **personal accountability *..."

Niki: Created page with "==feb 8 2015== AGENDA Present: sarah p, DK, niki, mary, phoneyar, kevin, jen (copenhagen), amgo *Jen **jen's specific conflict history with members **personal accountability *..."

Niki: Created page with "==feb 8 2015== AGENDA Present: sarah p, DK, niki, mary, phoneyar, kevin, jen (copenhagen), amgo Jen jen's specific conflict history with members personal accountability ..."

Niki: Created page with "==feb 8 2015== AGENDA Present: sarah p, DK, niki, mary, phoneyar, kevin, jen (copenhagen), amgo Jen jen's specific conflict history with members personal accountability ..."