Re: Conflict escalation and discipline
Don Armstrong writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > But that's my point: Do you want to solve that by adding... Yet
> > another contact point?
> Would it be OK if leader@ stayed the contact point, but leader@ had a
> pool of individuals who were willing to mediate in such a case? [Perhaps
> with secretary@ or the CTTE chair as the backup in case leader@ was
> Such individuals would have the ability and knowledge to involve the
> existing levers of power (TC, DAM, leader@, anti-harassment etc.) if
> escalation was required.
There are several things wrong with this suggestion IMO:
1. It depends on the DPL selecting a suitable delegate for each
incoming enquiry. At best, with a standing panel, this is makework
and an opportunity for things to get dropped. At worst it is
another way for an escalation of bad behaviour to be blocked.
2. You are suggesting mediation. Mediation is certainly *one* part of
what is needed, but also *conciliation* and *arbitration*.
Generally I am not a fan of mediation because it does not look at
the rights and wrongs behind an issue; so it reinforces the
existing power structures.
3. Complaintants should not be expected to repeatedly explain/justify
their views to a succession of different
4. Your proposed people seem to lack real authority; and also public
legitimacy. The lack of authority/legitimacy is a problem because
(i) awkard disputants will just say the appointee is wrong
(ii) if escalation is required, see (3).
5. Each individual dispute should be dealt with by more than one
person. Because otherwise escalation to enforcement action will
inevitably have to violate (3), since there are some serious steps
which might be necessary for which a single person's recommendation
would be clearly insufficient; and even for less serious steps,
collective rather than individual judgement is probably better.
6. You mention `anti-harassment' as a `lever of power" but of course
anti-harassment have no inherent authority.
IMO the antiharassment team's members would be a good starting point
for the members of my proposed new structure. But the new structure
needs to relate entirely differently to our existing institutions.
I wonder if I should propose a GR. That would provide a way of
testing whether my ideas (which do seem controversial) are more widely
held, and also if the GR passes, give clear legitimacy to the new
Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.