Session Name: Conflict resolution & clickque-busting
Room & time slot: 11am - F151 (saturday 11am slot 6)
org's name & email: Jane Wells firstname.lastname@example.org
note taker: Leah Koerper email@example.com
Mark - democracylab.org
Alex le Febre OWZ
Thierry Carnez (open stack)
Nicolas Pastorino (2 system)
David Galiel - Games for Change, Elbow fish
why does conflict occur - around issues like:
- best way to do something
- purpose? why are we all here?
- goals? what should we do? how?
map out where agreement breaks down to fcus energy on compromise
personality conflicts can overshadow inter-project conflicts
Jane: disenfranchisement: how are decisions made
helps to let people vent/comment appropriately
even a good decision can be resented if people feel like it is coming from teh top without community input
Diane H's problem
help big transitions/community anger deal with business decisions through communication,
sharing reasons and acknowledging anger/frustration
"we understand, maybe here are some options"
Shane: support is becoming PR when they have to make unfortunate business decisions platable to communities
Nicolas - provieding alternatives for community is key
Jane: try to get groups to undestand / buy in in advance
George D: perception is key - is this just about money? was this forced? give people real, genuine reasons to understnad
Mark - establishing community norms (ex. code of conduct, mission statement, self-policing) to help mediate personaity based issues
Nicoals - fair karma tracking to help identify leaders
Steve: make disagreementok/accepted but forcus on moving forward, forging ahead
David: establish desired culture from beginning
if possible- most important
- use good software, etc so people are overall ahppier
have edits, filters, etc. available so people can take back things said in heat of the moment or easily ignore what they don't want to see
Alex - help epeople become productive through private communication to foster understanding between combatants
through their problems, people can become problem solvers
Jane: going private helps people be less defensive, willing to compromise, willing to back down from strict sides etc
Nicolas: big diffe between private & public
important to discuss fully
find underlying problem
Andrea: voice, in-person, video communication is optimal for expressing difficult things and being an active listener
Jane: find avenues for contribution for "problem" people so people can participate in a useful manner, feel useful, explore their own goals/ideas regarding the project.
Take time to help people feel listened to, understood, etc.
use teaching opportunities
Steve: started mentorship group so people scould learn from experienced, trusted community members & help people enter community with connections and understanding
Thierry: code of conduct to establish rules so you can see/point when line is crossed instead of waiting for people to get pissed & explode
Amy: there's no downside to having a code of conduct
Dave: but it can be difficult & time consuming to establish to everyone's ideal
Jane: people say "we shouldn't need one" but it's better to have than regret later not having
George: dealing with people who all have serious stakes in an issue?
there is not always a win-win
Mark: recognize decision context - can this be a win-win? Is it competition & trade-offs?
Goerge: dig down for real reasons
Amy: everyone wants their investment recognized
Ausin: ultimately it may be necessary to break away in different groups w/divergent ideas
Jane: we want a chance to weigh in, even if ultimately the decision doesn't go your way. Communicate so people know they didn't make the decision to screw with you.
Nicolas: elevate debate to community mission so that individual ideas, disagreements, etc. can be further clarified in terms of that community. focus decisions to overall mission.
Thierry: make sure those making the decisions are representative of those effected.
delegate as much as possible so the leaders aren't making all the decisions. If conflict arises,
question can ?? to higher level of decision making.
David: why does the community exist? one group, project, product, or issue? is the purpose of the commuity the community itself? conflict resolution & individual proble people can be more difficult to deal with here.
Austin: having easily-referenced community guidelines helps. often people self-regulate per guidelines/mission/rules.
Aaron: communities with purpose - articulate that purpose so we can stop, step back, ho can our decisions & actions effect our goal? is this useful? or destructive?
[woman in black]: also figuring out micro purpose within decision
consensus alternative - purpose related decision making
Andrea: if you can't give someone a win, give them a voice"
re: Thierry - for choosing governing badly that invludes factions
how do you choose rep for trouble faction? most valuable or least?
George: choose whoever will make best decision
personal trust in decision-makers
Thierry: most respected, influential person
those who are settling arguments already
provide time for people to discuss/comment/question/express BEFORE decision is made
to provide that time is very important
(name?): you want the leader of the faction to prevent forking, even if another faction member is acting as a rep
Mark: binding decisions made online
for operational business
David: apps for creating governing documents
with voting, editing, writing, etc.