Session Name: Conflict resolution & clickque-busting

Room & time slot: 11am - F151 (saturday 11am slot 6)

org's name & email: Jane Wells jane@automattic.com

note taker: Leah Koerper leahkoerper@gmail.com

RAW NOTES

Mark - democracylab.org

Jason Harris

aaron Hockley

Amy

Stephanie

Alex le Febre OWZ

Austin Smith

blond woman

Thierry Carnez (open stack)

George Dunlap

Paul Mitchell

Ruth Suehle

Diane

Steve Holden

Nicolas Pastorino (2 system)

Jacob Greier

Leah Koerper

Andre Middleton

Jane Wells

David Galiel - Games for Change, Elbow fish

[page 2]

Mark:

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

Thierry:

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

[page 3]

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

[page 4]

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

be persistent

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

[page 5]

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?

little factions

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.

[page 6]

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

community owned

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

[page 7]

(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.