The Berkeley REACH is seeking nominations for members of a panel to help resolve interpersonal issues that arise in or around REACH or the communities it was created to serve. See the REACH Panel Mandate document for more details about the panel.
Please submit one nomination per qualified candidate!
Nominations are open until September 7th, 2018.
It seems plausible that a panel seems like the correct choice to me, but I will highlight that 10 people seems like about a factor of 3 too many people to me, and I would be much more excited about a panel of 3-4 people. My models of panels of 10 is that it's very hard to reach any kind of common knowledge, and that any decisions will be primarily determined by the framing of the question, and not the evidence at hand.
To clarify (my current understanding of the panel, based on having attended a meeting about it) – the panel is not something where all 10 people are supposed to reach agreement about anything. Individual cases will have 3-4 people assigned to them (most likely with the people involved in the dispute each picking a panel-member they trust).
The reason there are 10 is because it's quite likely that serving as a panel member will seriously burn people out, and it seemed better to start with an excess of people who were interested in putting in the work for a time.
That seems more reasonable, and I think the mechanism of each person involved picking a panel member might work.
a panel to help resolve interpersonal issues that arise in or around REACH or the communities it was created to serve.
It's unfortunate, if not very surprising. that those have arisen. I hope whoever ends up on the panel has some training in Active Listening, if not a practicing therapist. This is especially important in groups where logical and formal thinking is prized, and emotional thinking is discouraged. This can lead to suppressed emotions that are eventually channeled through other means, usually subconsciously motivated cognition. One common pattern is "Subconscious: this guy gets on my nerves", "Semi-conscious: I am getting agitated, this is irrational, I need to stay calm", "Subconscious: He is saying something and I feel irritated", "Conscious: it's must be what he is saying", "He is not worth listening to and should not get as much time to talk". The original reason for this conclusion is long gone by that point, and it takes some effort to tease it out and to figure out what can be done about it.
It seems plausible that a panel seems like the correct choice to me, but I will highlight that 10 people seems like about a factor of 3 too many people to me, and I would be much more excited about a panel of 3-4 people. My models of panels of 10 is that it's very hard to reach any kind of common knowledge, and that any decisions will be primarily determined by the framing of the question, and not the evidence at hand.
That seems more reasonable, and I think the mechanism of each person involved picking a panel member might work.