Files
agentic-govbot/templates/dispute-resolution/peer-to-peer.md
Nathan Schneider bda868cb45 Implement LLM-driven governance architecture with structured memory
This commit completes the transition to a pure LLM-driven agentic
governance system with no hard-coded governance logic.

Core Architecture Changes:
- Add structured memory system (memory.py) for tracking governance processes
- Add LLM tools (tools.py) for deterministic operations (math, dates, random)
- Add audit trail system (audit.py) for human-readable decision explanations
- Add LLM-driven agent (agent_refactored.py) that interprets constitution

Documentation:
- Add ARCHITECTURE.md describing process-centric design
- Add ARCHITECTURE_EXAMPLE.md with complete workflow walkthrough
- Update README.md to reflect current LLM-driven architecture
- Simplify constitution.md to benevolent dictator model for testing

Templates:
- Add 8 governance templates (petition, consensus, do-ocracy, jury, etc.)
- Add 8 dispute resolution templates
- All templates work with generic process-based architecture

Key Design Principles:
- "Process" is central abstraction (not "proposal")
- No hard-coded process types or thresholds
- LLM interprets constitution to understand governance rules
- Tools ensure correctness for calculations
- Complete auditability with reasoning and citations

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-02-08 14:24:23 -07:00

214 lines
6.8 KiB
Markdown

# Peer-to-Peer Dispute Resolution
*A self-facilitated process where participants work together directly to resolve disputes*
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 emphasizes:
- Open dialogue and direct communication
- Mutual respect between all parties
- Collaborative problem-solving
- Focus on solutions rather than blame
- Voluntary participation with encouragement
**Community Standards**
- Standards maintained in shared digital and physical formats
- Reviewed annually by the community
- Accessible to all members
- Bot maintains current version
### Section 2: Initiating Dispute Resolution
**When to Use**
Members should initiate dispute resolution for:
- Interpersonal conflicts between members
- Disagreements about community practices
- Misunderstandings requiring clarification
- Relationship repair needs
**How to Initiate**
1. Submit incident report to @govbot
2. Document: parties involved, events, evidence, desired outcomes
3. Available in electronic or paper format
4. Bot notifies all parties and provides process guidance
**Voluntary Participation**
- Participation is voluntary but strongly encouraged as first step
- Treated as good faith effort to resolve conflicts
- If party declines, coordinator reaches out to understand concerns
- Alternative paths available if unsuitable
### Section 3: The Peer-to-Peer Process
**Self-Facilitation**
Participants manage the process themselves:
- No third-party facilitator required
- Bot provides guidance on communication techniques
- Participants choose meeting location
- Scheduling arranged mutually
**Ground Rules**
All participants agree to:
- Take turns speaking without interruption
- Use "I" statements about personal experience
- Ask clarifying questions to understand better
- Summarize understanding to confirm accuracy
- Focus on solutions rather than dwelling on problems
- Respect confidentiality of the process
**Meeting Structure**
Typical process (60-90 minutes):
1. Each person shares their perspective
2. Ask clarifying questions
3. Identify common ground and differences
4. Joint brainstorming of potential solutions
5. Agree on specific actions or outcomes
### Section 4: Assessing the Dispute
**Joint Assessment**
Participants work together to identify:
- Specific issues that need addressing
- How each person has been impacted
- Relevant community values at stake
- What resolution would look like
- Requirements for moving forward
**Scope and Jurisdiction**
This process is suitable for:
- Most interpersonal conflicts between members
- Communication breakdowns
- Disagreements about behavior or actions
- Relationship tensions
**Escalation Criteria**
Must escalate to higher level if dispute involves:
- Illegal activity
- Safety risks to individuals or community
- Harassment or serious code of conduct violations
- Power imbalances requiring facilitation support
### Section 5: Deliberation and Problem-Solving
**Discussion Process**
- Open conversation about the situation
- Each person's needs and concerns heard
- Clarifying questions encouraged
- Joint exploration of options
- Creative brainstorming of solutions
**Adding Support**
- Initially involves direct parties only
- If deadlocked, may invite one mutually trusted person
- Support person helps facilitate, doesn't decide
- Keeps process peer-to-peer focused
**Reaching Conclusion**
Process concludes when:
- Participants feel issues thoroughly explored
- Ready to make decisions about resolution
- Clear about agreements and next steps
- Or agree to escalate to facilitated process
### Section 6: Resolution Outcomes
**Types of Resolution**
Successful peer-to-peer process may result in:
- Clarifications clearing up misunderstandings
- Apologies for harm caused
- Behavioral agreements for future interactions
- Restoration of harm (returning items, making amends)
- Agreed boundaries for future relationship
- Recognition of different perspectives
**Documenting Agreements**
- Parties can document agreements if desired
- Submit to @govbot for record-keeping
- Not required but recommended for accountability
- Bot sends reminders if follow-up scheduled
**Mutual Agreement Required**
- Both parties must agree to any resolution
- No imposed outcomes in peer-to-peer process
- Partial agreements acceptable
- Can agree to disagree on some points
### Section 7: When Resolution Doesn't Work
**Escalation Path**
If peer-to-peer doesn't resolve the issue:
1. Acknowledge that escalation is needed
2. Refer to trained mediator pool via @govbot
3. Mediators trained in more formal processes
4. Professional referral connections available if needed
**No Penalty for Escalation**
- Escalation is normal, not a failure
- Shows good faith effort was made
- Some disputes need more structured support
- Community values trying direct resolution first
### Section 8: Follow-Up and Accountability
**Checking Agreement**
Follow-up available when:
- Agreement isn't working as expected
- Circumstances have changed significantly
- One party requests check-in
- Scheduled follow-up time arrives
**Requesting Follow-Up**
1. Either party submits written request to @govbot
2. Request focuses on specific agreement issues
3. Initiates new conversation
4. May adjust agreements as needed
**Learning and Improvement**
- Bot tracks anonymized patterns (not individual details)
- Quarterly summaries help community learn
- Information limited to involved parties
- Success patterns shared to help others
### Section 9: Information and Privacy
**Confidentiality**
- Details limited to parties directly involved
- Not shared publicly without consent
- Bot maintains secure records
- Anonymized data only for community learning
**Access to Information**
- Parties have access to their own case documentation
- Quarterly anonymized summaries shared with community
- Statistics help improve process
- Individual privacy protected
**Record Retention**
- Bot maintains dispute resolution records
- Available to parties for reference
- Supports accountability to agreements
- Helps track patterns needing community attention
---
## Implementation Notes for Bot
When facilitating peer-to-peer dispute resolution:
1. **Make process accessible** - Provide clear, simple guidance
2. **Support self-facilitation** - Offer communication tips without taking over
3. **Respect autonomy** - Let parties control their process
4. **Track agreements** - Help with follow-up and accountability
5. **Enable escalation** - Make it easy to get more support when needed
6. **Protect privacy** - Keep details confidential
7. **Learn from patterns** - Use anonymized data to improve community
This process works best when community culture supports direct communication, members feel empowered to handle conflicts, and higher-level support is available when needed.