i am going to use two instances of my own experience attending osm 2018 and 2019 to respond to this paragraph:
“The IGDORE Global Board has begun the work with developing a behavioral policy specifying what expectations we have on our researchers and staff members with regard to pro-social behaviors.”
at the 2018 osm, i remember explicitly in one of the sessions, conversations halted to a stop when jon requested that others (beside him and i) chime in so as to prevent the discussion from being dominated by the most vocal people in the convo (e.g: jon and i).
i think that is a ‘systemic’ problem. some people are naturally not ‘vocal’ in face-to-face discussion sessions, but they are very vocal otherwise. a solution i can think of is using tools such as sli.do (https://www.sli.do/) during the discussion, with the help of the moderator.
i’ve seen sli.do and similar being used to a very good effect in many other events i attended, including those with hundreds of participants.
an innovation i wish i could explicitly see in something like sli.do is having the question asked through it being answered later, not necessarily real-time, among any of the event attendees.
also, i wish the written interaction is preserved, which can be made public or private depending on circumstances, especially for the benefit of non-participants.
for the 2019 osm, i and my wife experienced somewhat of a clique during the refreshment breaks. we actually sit around the clique for about 10 minutes, trying to join the informal conversation, but felt unwelcome and hence decide to skip the rest of the event.
i myself feel that this is natural occurrence. some people clicked, some people don’t. if you don’t like a clique, vote with your feet. but i wonder how does the rest of igdore people feel about this? should this even be considered as part of a ‘behavioral policy’?