This page in a nutshell: Reconciliation is intended to be a DR process intended for conduct disputes. It is, by design, entirely informal. |
feel free to add to this page. Just make it clear who is saying what, thanks.
While I (Xav) have no idea what the end results of this process will be if it were created, I want to look large and propose not ground rules but general ideas to get the pump flowing. The general idea comes from Seddon. I will be using "users" instead of "editors" as vernacular to stress the conduct nature of this approach, as opposed to the content nature of mediation.
So, anyway, whatever, here's how I think it should go were I doing it. We'll say user R, A, and Z. R is the reconciler; A and Z are the parties.
We need to get a bunch of things out of the way, first. The preamble needs to make clear that R is the moderator. R needs to introduce A and Z. The intent of the preamble is to create detachment at first, and so the tone is as if the conversation were intended for someone else.
R - This is an attempt at reconciliation between A and Z. Both parties have agreed to avoid outright personal attacks, and they have agreed to have this conversation recorded.(?) Both parties have complaints against the other. The content of these complaints have been overseen by me, R, but the content of the complaints is beyond my remit; I do not speak for anyone in this dispute, and am only moderating the discussion. Both parties were asked whether they wanted me or themselves to read their complaints. In this case, it was decided that the parties would read them off to each other.
End preamble. Start greeting.
R - Hello! [How is everybody?] (etc)
Unmute both parties. Allow for simple smalltalk for just a bit? I suppose
it depends...
Anyway, when all that's done, R should allow A and Z to issue their complaints. Probably one at a time, alternating between them. This muddles things just a bit--just by being equitable--and also allows R to control structure. It is noted that there should be no crosstalk as parties bring up their issues.
Obviously, discussion will be varied, so there's no point in writing a script. However, if party A and party Z share similar complaints against each other, go with those ones first. Discussion should be open-ended; the reconciler should be an authority, but not authoritative.
This page in a nutshell: Reconciliation is intended to be a DR process intended for conduct disputes. It is, by design, entirely informal. |
feel free to add to this page. Just make it clear who is saying what, thanks.
While I (Xav) have no idea what the end results of this process will be if it were created, I want to look large and propose not ground rules but general ideas to get the pump flowing. The general idea comes from Seddon. I will be using "users" instead of "editors" as vernacular to stress the conduct nature of this approach, as opposed to the content nature of mediation.
So, anyway, whatever, here's how I think it should go were I doing it. We'll say user R, A, and Z. R is the reconciler; A and Z are the parties.
We need to get a bunch of things out of the way, first. The preamble needs to make clear that R is the moderator. R needs to introduce A and Z. The intent of the preamble is to create detachment at first, and so the tone is as if the conversation were intended for someone else.
R - This is an attempt at reconciliation between A and Z. Both parties have agreed to avoid outright personal attacks, and they have agreed to have this conversation recorded.(?) Both parties have complaints against the other. The content of these complaints have been overseen by me, R, but the content of the complaints is beyond my remit; I do not speak for anyone in this dispute, and am only moderating the discussion. Both parties were asked whether they wanted me or themselves to read their complaints. In this case, it was decided that the parties would read them off to each other.
End preamble. Start greeting.
R - Hello! [How is everybody?] (etc)
Unmute both parties. Allow for simple smalltalk for just a bit? I suppose
it depends...
Anyway, when all that's done, R should allow A and Z to issue their complaints. Probably one at a time, alternating between them. This muddles things just a bit--just by being equitable--and also allows R to control structure. It is noted that there should be no crosstalk as parties bring up their issues.
Obviously, discussion will be varied, so there's no point in writing a script. However, if party A and party Z share similar complaints against each other, go with those ones first. Discussion should be open-ended; the reconciler should be an authority, but not authoritative.