agentic-govbot/templates/dispute-resolution/community-jury.md

Community Jury Dispute Resolution

A process where randomly selected community members evaluate evidence and resolve disputes through structured deliberation

This dispute resolution protocol can be integrated into any governance constitution as an article on conflict resolution.

---

Article: Dispute Resolution

Section 1: Principles and Values

Core Values This community upholds six principles:

1. Procedural fairness - Transparent, consistent process
2. Collective wisdom - Random selection accesses diverse perspectives
3. Community ownership - Members resolve their own disputes
4. Balanced perspective - Multiple jurors prevent bias
5. Reasoned judgment - Evidence-based decisions
6. Restorative outcomes - Focus on repair and community health

The Jury Approach Rather than single decision-makers:

• Random selection ensures fairness
• Multiple perspectives considered
• Community standards applied
• Decisions made by peers
• Accountability to community

Documentation

• Comprehensive online handbook with searchable content
• Print copies available
• Audio recordings for accessibility
• Bot maintains current version
• Regular updates and clarifications

Section 2: Scope and Jurisdiction

What Juries Decide Community juries have authority over:

• Inter-member disputes
• Violations of community agreements
• Conflicts affecting community function
• Policy interpretation and clarification
• Appeals from committee decisions

Eligibility for Jury Process Cases must:

• Involve community members or community matters
• Fall within community jurisdiction
• Not require emergency response
• Be suitable for peer judgment
• Bot validates eligibility

When Not Appropriate Some matters require alternative processes:

• Criminal violations (refer to authorities)
• Immediate safety threats (emergency response first)
• Professional disputes (specialized arbitration)
• External party disputes (unless they opt in)

Section 3: Initiating Jury Process

Submitting a Case Request submitted via @govbot including:

• Parties involved
• Nature of dispute
• Relevant evidence
• Specific questions for jury
• What resolution is sought

Initial Review Dispute coordinator reviews within 3 business days:

• Confirms eligibility for jury process
• Requests additional information if needed
• Estimates timeline
• Explains process to all parties
• Begins jury selection

Non-Participation

• Members expected to participate
• Voluntary for non-members
• Proceedings may continue without respondent
• Limited scope if party declines
• Noted in decision

Section 4: Jury Selection

Random Selection (Sortition) Jurors selected randomly from eligible pool:

• All members eligible unless excluded
• 5-7 jurors selected per case
• Random selection ensures fairness
• Bot conducts transparent lottery
• Selection recorded for accountability

Jury Size Determined by case complexity:

• Routine disputes: 5 jurors
• Moderate complexity: 6 jurors
• Complex cases: 7 jurors
• Constitutional matters: 7 jurors

Eligibility Requirements Members eligible for jury service if:

• Active community member (60+ days)
• Not party to the dispute
• No conflict of interest
• Available for full process
• Agreed to code of conduct

Declining Jury Service Jurors may decline if:

• Conflict of interest exists
• Unable to be impartial
• Personal relationship with parties
• Unavailable for process timeline
• Other legitimate reason

Section 5: Jury Process Structure

Process Timeline Typical jury process:

1. Jury selection (3-5 days)
2. Materials distribution (immediate)
3. Opening statements (Day 1)
4. Evidence presentation (Day 1-2)
5. Questions and clarification (Day 2)
6. Deliberation (Day 3-4)
7. Decision (Day 5)

Facilitation Trained facilitator:

• Guides proceedings
• Ensures fair process
• Manages time and order
• Clarifies procedures
• Does not influence decision
• Bot assists with coordination

Ground Rules All participants agree to:

• Time-limited statements
• Structured evidence presentation
• Questions submitted through facilitator
• Respectful engagement
• Truthful participation
• Confidentiality of deliberations

Section 6: Information and Evidence

Three-Tier Access Information shared based on role:

• Parties: Full access to all case documentation
• Jurors: Redacted materials protecting sensitive information
• Community: Anonymized summaries of decisions

Evidence Presentation Structured process:

• Opening statements by each party (10 minutes)
• Presentation of evidence with explanation
• Witness testimony if relevant
• Documents and records
• Community standards reference
• Closing statements (5 minutes)

Juror Questions Jurors may ask:

• Clarifying questions about evidence
• Questions about facts presented
• Submitted through facilitator
• Asked after presentations complete
• Focused on understanding, not arguing

Section 7: Dispute Assessment Framework

Assessment Questions Jury evaluates using framework:

• What facts are agreed upon by parties?
• What are the points of disagreement?
• What community standards apply?
• How credible is the evidence?
• What context is relevant?
• What are the impacts on community?
• Who bears responsibility and to what degree?

Consulting Standards Jury references:

• Community constitution
• Code of conduct
• Established policies
• Past jury precedents
• Community values
• Bot provides relevant documents

Identifying Information Gaps Jury can:

• Request additional evidence
• Pose clarifying questions
• Ask for witness testimony
• Review relevant records
• Pause for information gathering

Section 8: Deliberation Process

Private Deliberation Jury deliberates privately:

• Only jurors present
• Facilitator available for procedural questions
• No parties or observers
• Candid discussion encouraged
• Process typically 2-4 hours

Deliberation Structure Structured dialogue:

1. Initial impressions (each juror speaks)
2. Clarify key questions needing decision
3. Review evidence systematically
4. Share perspectives and reasoning
5. Identify points of agreement and disagreement
6. Discuss implications of different outcomes
7. Build toward consensus or vote

Participants Only jurors deliberate:

• Parties do not participate
• Facilitator not present (unless requested for procedure)
• Administrator available for documents
• Community observers not permitted

Section 9: Decision-Making

Voting Process Jury decides by vote:

• 2/3 majority required for decisions (4 of 6, 5 of 7)
• Up to three rounds of voting
• Discussion between rounds
• If no 2/3 majority after three rounds, 60% minimum applies
• Encourages but doesn't require consensus

Written Decision Jury provides:

• Clear verdict or determination
• Reasoning and rationale
• Application of community standards
• Consideration of evidence
• Any dissenting opinions
• Implementation guidance
• Bot records and publishes decision

Types of Outcomes Jury may decide:

• Finding of fact
• Interpretation of policy
• Responsibility determination
• Remedies or consequences
• Behavioral requirements
• Restitution or repair
• Community actions needed

Section 10: Resolution Outcomes and Implementation

When Jury Resolves Decision is implemented:

• Binding on parties
• Bot executes authorized actions
• Parties notified immediately
• Implementation timeline specified
• Follow-up scheduled

Implementation Tracking

• Coordinator monitors compliance
• Reports to community if needed
• Support provided for implementation
• Modifications if circumstances change

Resolution Failure Options If jury cannot resolve:

• Refer to mediation
• Escalate to governance body
• Refer to legal processes
• Recommend policy revision
• Provide support for separation
• Suggest alternative approaches

Section 11: Appeals Process

Grounds for Appeal Appeals accepted for:

• New evidence not available during trial
• Procedural errors affecting fairness
• Misapplication of community standards
• Juror bias or misconduct
• Implementation proving impossible

Appeal Timeline

• Must file within 14 days of decision
• Submit to Appeal Committee via @govbot
• Committee determines merit quickly
• New jury convened if accepted

Appeal Review Appeal Committee:

• 3 experienced members
• Review appeal criteria
• Decide if grounds sufficient
• Can dismiss or accept appeal
• Decision within 7 days

New Jury for Appeals If appeal accepted:

• Larger jury selected (7-9 members)
• Reviews all original materials
• Considers new evidence if any
• Limited hearing held
• Can confirm, modify, or overturn original decision
• Appeal decision is final

Section 12: Participants and Observers

Who Participates Full participants:

• Jurors: Make decision
• Parties: Present case and evidence
• Witnesses: Provide testimony if called
• Facilitator: Manages process
• Administrator: Handles logistics

Community Observation Process is transparent:

• Community members may observe
• Observers cannot participate
• Must respect process rules
• Leave before deliberation
• No disruption permitted

Support Persons Parties may have:

• Support person present
• For emotional support only
• Cannot speak or participate
• Must be approved by facilitator

Section 13: Information and Records

Record Keeping Bot maintains complete records:

• Case submissions and evidence
• Jury selection process
• Proceedings transcripts
• Jury decisions and reasoning
• Implementation status
• Appeals and outcomes

Public Access Community can access:

• Anonymized decision summaries
• Precedents and patterns
• Process statistics
• Redacted case outcomes
• Policy clarifications

Confidentiality Protected information:

• Jury deliberations (never shared)
• Sensitive personal information
• Evidence marked confidential
• Juror identities (may be disclosed or anonymous as community decides)

---

Implementation Notes for Bot

When facilitating community jury process:

1. Fair selection - Conduct transparent, truly random selection
2. Process management - Track timeline and ensure structure followed
3. Information access - Provide appropriate materials to each role
4. Decision recording - Accurately capture and publish decisions
5. Precedent tracking - Build searchable database of past decisions
6. Implementation support - Execute authorized actions and monitor compliance
7. Appeals coordination - Manage appeal review efficiently

This process works best when:

• Community trusts random selection
• Members willing to serve as jurors
• Cases suited to peer judgment
• Structured process followed consistently
• Decisions create useful precedents
• Community supports implementation