Maria Kozińska

#ConflictResolution anti-pattern and an extremly harmful practice in #Karrot project:

§4 End of Membership

There are two ways to stop being part of the Karrot team:
a) either by resignation
b) by all other members consenting on a proposal to stop someone’s membership (the latter in case of conflict unresolved by other means).

https://community.karrot.world/t/membership-policy/1377

@karrot please consider better conflict resolution and separation strategies. This is violence nobody deserves!

#FOSS #implicitPowerStructures

Membership policy

Membership policy §1 Karrot Team Karrot is an open-source digital tool developed to support communities, initiatives and grassroots projects in their organising and daily activities. On Karrot we describe such communities as Karrot groups since to use Karrot they have to create a digital group. The Karrot team is responsible for the digital tool Karrot and consists of its members. The Karrot team is responsible for stewarding the development of Karrot, coordinating, conducting and delegating ...

Karrot Community
Nov 26, 2023 at 10:22amWeb
Show threadNik | Klampfradler 🎸🚲Nov 26, 2023
@mariha @karrot What is bad about using 100% consent as last resort after all else failed?
Show threadMaria KozińskaNov 26, 2023

@nik @karrot if there is an implicit power structure, which usually is the case even in supposed-to-be-egalitarian groups, it's way too easy to default to power abuse and there are no other means left for the powerless.

The emotional impact of a whole group rejecting someone based on unclear criteria, without them doing anything wrong in the spaces of the project, results in what is called social death.

The consequances are invisible to the perpetrators, so there is no mechanism to stop that.

Show threadNik | Klampfradler 🎸🚲Nov 26, 2023

@mariha @karrot In our organisation, the decision to expell someone is delegated to a dedicated group made of:

1. our board
2. a group selected by the defendant of the same size as our board, including the defendant themselves

(All of these people have equal voting rights)

If the ruling coming out of that is not accepted by the defendant, it is then referred to the general assembly.

What flaws do you see in this?

Show threadMaria KozińskaNov 28, 2023

I am not an expert of this except that one scenario...

@nik from what you write I infer that your group is big enough to decentralise power beyond individuals.

I don't know what is the relation between board and general assembly. If GA is elected for a fix period of time by the whole community (trusted and accountable to them) you are probably fairly good.

I am writing 'fairly good' because I question if 'expelling someone' unless they broke some clearly stated rule is ever a good idea.

tbc

Show threadNik | Klampfradler 🎸🚲Nov 28, 2023
@mariha "Expelling" is by far not our only "penalty". I just picked that one because it was set previously in the thread.
Show threadMaria KozińskaNov 28, 2023

@nik that's good. I believe people usually break rules unintentionally or when they don't understand breaking them as harmful in any way - and sometimes the rules are not good (any more).

I should probably write "unless not meeting the criteria of membership any more". It seems to me that membership should not be a subject of penalty (ever!) because it threatens belonging that is one of most fundamental human needs. Otherwise (every)one have to be at the top of the power hierarchy to feel safe.

Show threadMars Robertson 🐇Jan 4, 2024

@mariha @karrot

"please consider better conflict resolution and separation strategies" - what do you suggest?

"This is violence nobody deserves!" - not really... "all other members consenting" is extremely high threshold, I would not call it a violence, I would call it self-defence.

Show threadMaria KozińskaJan 13, 2024

@marsxr @karrot

Forcing someone out is violent for them. When done by a group, it is a group violence - and has an impact of a group violence on an individual.

Over the internet people don't see the impact of their actions, and there is no stop condition.

---

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/bully-wise/202007/the-pain-of-ostracization-the-bullys-silent-weapon

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/bully-wise/202309/workplace-bullying-as-a-form-of-institutional-betrayal

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/bully-wise/202212/the-myth-of-closure-navigating-through-workplace-abuse

The Pain of Ostracization: The Bully’s Silent Weapon

Top five things you need to know about being excluded at work.

Psychology Today
Show threadMaria KozińskaJan 13, 2024

@marsxr @karrot

> I would call it a self-defence

To put it differently, you don't KILL someone as a means of self-defence. Especially if they didn't mean to hurt you.

The effect that group dynamics has on an individual is called "social death", for a reason.

Consent is 'no objection', it takes no action from a [careless] group, and one person putting a proposal to execute the procedure. Nobody "is" responsible.

It can happen to anyone at any time. As if we evolved maladapted to the rules.

Show threadMars Robertson 🐇Jan 13, 2024

@mariha @karrot "I would call it self-defence" to remove bad apples from the group.

"by all other members consenting" - high threshold

Alternative option: 80% explicit yes, but then voter turnout is an issue, assuming quorum needs to be reached.

Ostracism (bannition) used to be pretty bad in the past - humans relied of tribe to survive.

"Forcing someone out is violent for them." - of course, but what if it needs to happen?

Please suggest a better way...

Show threadMaria KozińskaJan 13, 2024

@marsxr @karrot

> Please suggest a better way...

If two people are in a conflict that makes it hard for the group to sustain and the group lacks any other means then expultion, both of them could be expelled - as a last resort group's self-protective response.

It is not non-violent but at least distributes the responsibility of the situation equally on both people involved.

Show threadMars Robertson 🐇Jan 13, 2024

@mariha @karrot your scenario assumes 1-1 conflict. That's a different use case.

Expelling a member from a group is never easy. I don't think a perfect solution exist. With such limitations, the "least wrong" is "good enough".

I like "all other members consenting' - pretty high threshold.

That also assumes that many steps were taken before putting forward a formal proposal.

Show threadMaria KozińskaJan 13, 2024

@marsxr @karrot that was a use case I experienced and nobody bothered to even have a chat with me on a call.

We did exchange some messages, I offered a few solutions so we both could participate and others from the outside offered to mediate. I also stated from the very begining when I was asked to limit my participation that it's unfair and later requested them to stop.