Conflict Resolution

Introduction

We are entering the FeF community with a deep respect for one another and we take conflict resolution seriously. When a conflict arises, the two parties involved are required to either work it out directly, by mediation or by arbitration. Both parties reserve the right to closure. If either party does not gain sufficient closure, then that party has to the right to pursue such closure. Here are the steps by which this occurs:

• Right to closure. If two people have a disagreement, the two parties involved are required to work it out between themselves. 'Working it out' means coming to terms where a healthy and positive working/living relationship can be had between the people. If they are incapable of working it out between themselves - as determined by either of the parties or by any other community member - they are required to undergo mediation. Aaron Makaruk will serve as the mediator to resolve the situation, unless Aaron is involved in the conflict, in which case Marcin will be appointed as mediator. The mediator is required to seek resolution without triangulating any party involved (ie, talking one-on-one with one side without involving the other person in the discussion). The mediator is required to keep the matter confidential. Both parties are expected to act in good faith.

• Right to direct resolution. The two parties have the right to solve the issue between themselves and the rest of the community shall not participate in the mediation session because the intent is to let the two parties work it out directly.

• The mediation sessions shall continue until both parties are satisfied. Closure may not be attained under these circumstances:
  • Case 1: One party refuses to undergo further mediation. In this case, the other party determines the steps to be taken to achieve resolution.
  • Case 2: both parties still disagree after all reasonable efforts. In this case the matter will be taken to the Board of Elders for resolution.

• It can be a good practice for the first meeting to establish general guidelines and boundaries to support the two people. The meetings can be conducted using a menu of conflict resolution tools such as Process Dialoguing, Nonviolent Communication, or other models.

FeF Conflict Resolution Process

Suggested process for attaining closure:

1. Best route is personal resolution of conflict involving the relevant parties.
2. If a satisfactory solution is not obtained, if it is avoided, or is otherwise not practical, then each of the parties has a right to request binding mediation. Binding mediation means that upon request, the other party is required to undergo mediation.
3. To engage in mediation, the requesting party must submit a written notice of grievance to both the other party and to the mediator. The grievance must contain a brief summary of the issue with key relevant facts, and it should also include a condition of satisfaction for resolution (ex., for me to have a resolution, I need x). The second party is encouraged to write a written response of key issues with relevant facts from their own perspective. The intent of the written notice and response is to tame enflamed emotions - and to have both parties come to the meeting after having done some thinking and clarification on the issues involved. If the dispute is mild, then the written notice may be waived. It is required that both parties come to the mediation session with open minds - for example - such that the conditions of satisfaction are not set in stone and alternative solutions may be pursued upon mutual agreement. It is required that each party respect each other's right to a process and right to closure. Right to closure is that each party must feel satisfied that all possible steps were taken, and that each party is at rest. Each party reserves a right to call a mediation meeting within 24 hours of the point of submitting their notice - for the purpose of rapid resolution of sensitive, timely issues. The right of each party to pursue closure is deemed as a non-negotiable right - and engaging the conflict resolution process shall be prioritized over other activities at FeF until satisfactory closure is obtained by both parties. The reason for this is that relations on site need to be positive and healthy for the community - otherwise morale, productivity, and creativity are compromised in the community. This is especially important because of the close-knit nature of the community where people live and work together.

• If mediation doesn't work, binding arbitration is used. The Arbitration Board is a group of trusted protectors of the project. These are third parties (not currently members of Factor e Farm) with a more neutral viewpoint, who are professionals in human resources, startups, and enterprise development. The role of these individuals is to provide an objective suggestion in the conflict resolution process with the intent of doing the best for the project as a whole.
• The Arbitration Board is presented with a written 1-2 page brief on the situation presented to them by the grieving party. They are requested to ask any questions for clarification, and are required to make an assessment of the situation in the form of a written suggestion as to a desirable course of action within 48 hours of receiving the grievance. The second party in the conflict also has a right to submit their point of view in a 1-2 page brief within 24 hours of being requested to do so by the grieving party.
  • The number of the Arbitration Board shall be 5, with at least 3 of the 5 members constituting quorum.
  • Suggested members include:
    • Karien Bezuidenhuit, COO of Shuttleworth Foundation
    • Scott Blessing, business coach, Inspired Leadership,
    • Stephanie Rosol, SupporTED coach, human resources professional
    • Claire Davis, Director of People and Culture, Canonical
    • Jose Gil-Duarte, Essentia
    • Cameron Colby Thomson, OSE Board Member

Balance of Power

If a conflict escalates beyond personal resolution and mediation to the binding arbitration as mentioned above - the Founding Director shall have the final decision making power on the resolution based on the feedback provided by the Board of Elders, except in the case where Founding Director is involved in the grievance, in which case Aaron Makaruk will be the final say. In order to provide a balance of power, this process will be carried on with radical transparency:

• The grieving party's brief, the second party's brief, and the Board of Elders' assessments shall be published with full disclosure of names and comments on the wiki.
• The Founding Director's decision, with rationale for making that decision, shall also be published transparently for any observer to see.

The intent of the transparency is to provide a balance of power to the prevent flame wars and to avoid negative publicity coming from those who are interested in the outcome but who may otherwise not have sufficient information to make an honest assessment of the situation -thereby relegating that decision to seasoned professionals as opposed to the general audience. It is the aim that due process and a logical approach can be utilized to provide peaceful resolution to touchy issues - under extenuating circumstances where no simple solution were to be found.

• Note also: This entire process, while it may not provide a hands-down clear and uncontroversial solution - is intended simply to provide some additional insights or pacification under extreme conditions. It should be noted that such a process might defuse the situation sufficiently - that the affected parties may become willing to enter into further successful negotiation as a result - as nothing is set in stone and other options are always available. The main point of this process is to produce summary resolution, and some level of closure - which is deemed better than not having this process at all. The due process is intended to facilitate more rational discussion - with the understanding that people enter into participation at Factor e Farm under that condition.