Event:2015/02/11 CDC Meeting

From Omni Commons
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

feb 11 2015

AGENDA: Present: DK, Niki, Jenny, Kevin, Dreadful Ryan, Shorter Ryan, Amgo (remote), Sarah P.

Jenny: CDC could empower itself to declare omniers in 'bad standing' - for things like taking over space, causing a lot of conflict in the omni, and be the resource to point people towards conflict stewards etc Sudo Ryan: Anyone can ask anyone to leave around safe space issue, so its not a power issue with the CDC Ryan Rising: issue of membership, Jenny: is it 'too formal' - could this role be exploited?

  • note im stopping typing so Amgo can hear

don't stop! notes better than me hearing! ok

  • Ryan: would taking over space for example be a safe space issue? would that be Commons or Delegates meeting?
  • Discussion of last Commons meeting

..

  • Idea that people that come to meetings the first time should probably be silent the first time or two
    • problem of people saying how we need to compartamentalize commonspace etc


  • How does a group that's not affiliated with a particular collective bring forth a request for a ban? How do we protect the identities of people who are being antagonized by individuals?
    • Could the CDC bring forth bans on behalf of groups of diverse individuals (that aren't already all in one group)
    • Neither Kwic nor Steve were members of any collective. What do we do about asking non members to leave?
    • If someone is a systematic problem throughout the building
    • New member proposal at Sudo allows for a member to block someone anonymously. The idea is that there is way to verify that a person is a member while protecting them from retaliation.
    • Omni related email lists should also be considered Omni space


  • Ryan: what do we do about non-members needing to be asked to leave, not part of any group, so there is no group to deal with them/ban them etc
    • "David can you format your notes so its not a mishmash?"
      • Yes
  • amgo: can we create omni membership?oh
  • DK: I'll ask, amgo - in a sec - ok asked.. -
    • Want to define what constitutes a member collective vs. a tenant vs. an unaffiliated Omni member
    • Need to articulate the difference between a Public Space and a Commons
    • Ryan would like people to read the safe space policy before being in the space
    • Thinks there is too much (random) signage, communication needs to be more clear. agreed
    • Sarah thinks it would be great to find a specific space for community announcements as well as a curated space for Omni communications
    • Assumed that we'd been talking about the proposal from Sunday:
      • 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.
    • DK: As I understand, if you have a conflict, you can try to resolve it on your own however you like but if that's not possible, then it is put in the hands of "The Community"
    • Can the CDC be the place where resolution of conflicts that are turned over to the community are initiated
    • Is it consensus, do you have to have standing with the group, who is the the CDC and what happens when the people in that group shift? What is the structure.
      • amgo agree this is a lot of work and it doesn't seem like we have enough infrastructure to promise we would be able to do this.
    • also i know it's just semantics but can we differentiate between "ban" and "restriction" or whatever?
    • There is a differentiation: https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Asked_to_Leave Ah thanks. I say we try to use taht terminology. it makes a difference
    • As mediators, we are not decision makers. If people want to ban other people, those requests need to be brought to a delegates meeting
    • The conflict steward and the conflict mediator would be asked to offer their thoughts on the ban in that case
    • If someone from the CDC agrees to take on the voice of a group of people asking someone to leave, they don't need consensus
    • We're discussing bans distinct from Safe Space bans
    • It feels like there are two things: One is the proposal that was drafted on Sunday re: CDC's ability to propose bans. Seems like there are some things to hash out. The other is who, if it's not the CDC, is responsible for finding mediators and documenting the process
    • ryan: I think we need to clarify whether or not we're talking about Safe Space bans.
      • Is this "asked to leave"? - it's both. "Asked to Leave" would be the first step, a ban is something more solid, consensed on by the community? Trying to determine who has the authority to actually ban someone in the space if the request for a ban doesn't come from an existing member collective.yes
    • Who should people go to whey they have a conflict? Maybe it *shouldn't* be the CDC. If the CDC becomes the defacto group for dealing with conflicts, no one will ever try to resolve their own conflicts
    • We need to clarify that you need to first try to work your conflicts out personally before bringing your conflict to another body for resolution.
      • seems like that is a good reason ppl need to be involved in a collective the collective is the go-to. or the working group
    • So we only protect the saftey of members of collectives? What if people from multiple different collectives are involved in the conflict?
    • Ryan: I was only able to ask another community member to ask someone to help in asking someone to leave because I am established here.
    • Perhaps the Conflict Resolution Policy is the place where these revisions are made
    • Concern about saying the CDC is going to take on responsibility for conflict at the Omni. There are alot of other things that the CDC is tasked with that need to be addressed. Can we clarify the process without tasking one body w/being responsible for conflict resolution. If people need help navigating the process or with identifying people who are willing to act as stewards or mediators.
    • This doesn't solve the problem of what the process is if a non member is being abused or if the person you're having the conflict with is on the mediation mailing list.
    • I don't know if meaningful conflict resolution can happen if only one person is choosing the mediator
    • You can say no to the mediator chosen
    • Maybe it's another radical space that we can trade mediation with
    • Perhaps one way to help address this issue is that there's a list of Omni mediators that's known. There may be situations in which the Omni is willing to pay to enlist an outside group that is trained in mediation
    • let's bracket the issue of payment. let's have a process that clear and that let's people know how to engage in conflict resolution. it's vague how you're supposed to solve things on your own.
    • that's human, if you can't solve it on your own you seek support from your community
    • would rather have people try to solve conflicts on their own rather than engage in the official Conflic Resolution Policy. Maybe better articulate ways that people could seek resolution on their own
    • It's not hypothetical that people don't know who to go to / who to ask.
    • Let's also be realistic about what kind of energy and time this takes and how much it iwill be needed judging by how much we've needed it already. What can we do in the interim while we don't have these resources?
      • Maybe we should be talking about how to "deal' with the fact that there will be personality clashes always
  • "the person having the conflict would choose from a list of "conflict stewards"
  • DK: I think we need to revise and expand really the conflict resolution policy and bring that as a proposal basically - that revision
    • kevin?ryan?: If some one "made some one cry" that's a concerning dynamic--theproblem of some one's response vs some one's behavior
      • is there a diff between "unsafe behavior" and some one feeling unsafe?
    • the difference betwen people and their behavior
    • talking about qwic: no one thinks he is just a mysogynist or can be reduced to that. it's an issue of him not seeming to make efforts to connect what he wants to do with omni vision
    • It really seems like the first thing we need is a way to talk to people exhibiting this particular behavior characterized by power manipulation mysogyny...A practice of communicating that a person is being abusive--usually they just don't KNOW
    • maybe it is it our job ot teach people to change those behaviors? or is it only for folks that already know how to act all the time?
    • Niki where are the old cdc notes? I dont see them on the wiki.. they arent in the calendar event or something..hang on
      • they where here ten minutes ago
  *** 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.
    • Ryan would really like there to be a process for people who aren't affiliated w/a collective to get keys to the building
  • Sarah P.: Chomp, chomp (burrito)
    • deilann: so jelly
      • pours salsa over delicious rice and beans..
  • Niki: Re: 'omni members' - Has come up before - what are our obligations to such folks, how do we deal with bans,
  • Jenny: distinction between 'public' and 'commons' - that needs to be elucidated further - something ppl read and agree to in order to participate in the space
  • Ryan: How about people that are not here for a specific event, should be forced to read the safe space policy?
  • Kevin: Do we have to use the term 'forced'? Maybe not the best way..
    • David, can you format your notes? Also, we are both typing the same things.
  • Its just like, I can write a script to easily prepend every newline with '* ' would save me a lot of work
  • I'll stop..


  • Break: Random Ideas:
    • Difficult to know whether or not you want to get involved in the conflict w/out knowing all of the details
    • Maybe we need to focus on behaviors not on reactions or personas. When it's patterns of behavior, they should be documented. The concrete behaviors need to be identified.
    • Do we just send people on to perpetuate the same behaviors in other communities?
    • Yes, but that person need to want to reach resolution, it can't be all on us
    • Any kind of restorative work with someone who has done harm requires a huge commitment from that person. we have to trust that those processes will either work of not but we should not reduce people to the harm that they have caused.
    • Reconciliation should be pursued w/good faith. Asking for someone to be banned from the space should not foreclose the possibility of reconciliation
    • How do we get people into a mode of good faith? What steps do we provide? It would be great to have timelines
    • When people have animosity towards one another, airing the conflict to the larger community could make more sense
    • When you're talking privately, you can embellish, that's harder to do when airing a conflict publicly
    • I know this is a lil off topic but i'm really scared that we are creating this negative system that just feel really bad
    • If we only boiled it down to "rational" statements, people won't take it seriously.
    • If someone doesn't see that someone is visibly hurt, then they don't take it seriously?
    • There is something to say about being emotional when someone uses "taking the high ground" to manipulate others. It's damaging to people who can't put things in a rational way. It's shaming.
    • Describing a conflict informally and relaying what happened as a conflict steward/mediator are two different things
    • When people are removed from communities, it can be painful for the community. A community in which people are banished w/out possibility for reconciliation w/good faith is scary.
    • There's no way for a victim in the space to come forward in a way that's safe. If it had been someone who was respected in the community I might not have said anything.
    • We're not trained as therapists, as batter intervention specialists. I do want to offer those resources to people who want them. But not to say that survivors are forced to participate in any process that they don't want to. Perhaps is as simple as, if Perry ever shows up here again, saying he's banned permanently and if he does want to work on himself providing himself with resources.
    • It can't be left ambiguous, it needs to be very explicitly stated that some people cannot engage in conflict resolution.
    • Perhaps it needs to be taken on a case by case situation.
    • It's incredibly rare for people to falsly claim sexual assault
    • What do we do about retaliatory bans?
    • The same process can't apply in every situation
    • Problem is both w/ the Conflict Resolution Policy as well as with the culture which does not reinforce our values
    • "Too busy putting out fires to do the longitudinal work"
    • Do we want to bring the proposal forward?
    • No, people should find a member of a collective to ask someone to leave
    • In the short term, that may be okay but think it's good to have a group who can advocate on behalf of a non member
    • Difficult for people who go to church / wake up after noon
    • What if people request a meeting w/the CDC? Less likely to be bombed
    • What if decision making members were required to have attended x number of meetings
    • This is a larger problem with other working groups / omni community that expectations for commitment aren't clearly articulated
    • CDC Hotline? "Let's make an app for that"
    • :P
Retrieved from "https://omnicommons.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Event:2015/02/11_CDC_Meeting&oldid=2981"