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>
290 lines
7.9 KiB
Markdown
290 lines
7.9 KiB
Markdown
# Chosen Facilitator Dispute Resolution
|
|
|
|
*A process where participants mutually select a facilitator to help guide their dispute resolution*
|
|
|
|
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 mutual respect
|
|
- Collaborative problem-solving
|
|
- Neutral facilitation chosen by parties
|
|
- Participant empowerment
|
|
- Confidential process
|
|
|
|
**Community Standards**
|
|
- Guidelines available on community website
|
|
- Physical materials at community center
|
|
- Regular updates and review
|
|
- Bot maintains current documentation
|
|
|
|
### Section 2: Community Relations Committee
|
|
|
|
**Committee Structure**
|
|
The Community Relations Committee:
|
|
- Receives dispute forms
|
|
- Coordinates facilitation process
|
|
- Maintains facilitator pool
|
|
- Tracks outcomes and patterns
|
|
- Reports to governance body
|
|
|
|
**Committee Responsibilities**
|
|
- Acknowledge dispute forms within 24 hours
|
|
- Contact all parties within 48 hours
|
|
- Provide copies and process information
|
|
- Support facilitator selection
|
|
- Monitor case progress
|
|
|
|
### Section 3: Initiating the Process
|
|
|
|
**Submitting a Dispute**
|
|
Members submit dispute forms including:
|
|
- Parties involved
|
|
- Nature of the dispute
|
|
- What has been tried so far
|
|
- Desired outcomes
|
|
- Submit via @govbot or physical form
|
|
|
|
**Committee Response**
|
|
Within 48 hours, committee provides:
|
|
- Acknowledgment of receipt
|
|
- Process overview
|
|
- Copy to all parties
|
|
- Facilitator selection information
|
|
- Timeline expectations
|
|
|
|
**Voluntary But Encouraged**
|
|
- Participation is voluntary
|
|
- Community members commit to good faith engagement
|
|
- Refusal may trigger individual outreach
|
|
- Alternative options available if needed
|
|
|
|
### Section 4: Selecting a Facilitator
|
|
|
|
**The Facilitator Pool**
|
|
Community maintains trained volunteers:
|
|
- Completed facilitation training
|
|
- Understand community values
|
|
- Diverse backgrounds and perspectives
|
|
- Committed to neutrality
|
|
- Bot maintains current roster
|
|
|
|
**Joint Selection Process**
|
|
Parties work together to select facilitator:
|
|
1. Committee provides list of available facilitators
|
|
2. Parties review facilitator backgrounds
|
|
3. Parties jointly agree on selection
|
|
4. If no agreement, committee suggests options
|
|
5. Ultimately parties must both accept facilitator
|
|
|
|
**Facilitator Role**
|
|
The facilitator:
|
|
- Helps guide the conversation
|
|
- Ensures all voices are heard
|
|
- Maintains focus on resolution
|
|
- Remains neutral throughout
|
|
- Supports productive dialogue
|
|
- Does not impose solutions
|
|
|
|
### Section 5: Meeting Logistics
|
|
|
|
**Neutral Spaces**
|
|
Meetings occur in:
|
|
- Community spaces accessible to all
|
|
- Neutral locations (not either party's space)
|
|
- Private settings ensuring confidentiality
|
|
- Comfortable environments for difficult conversations
|
|
- Virtual options available if needed
|
|
|
|
**Meeting Schedule**
|
|
Typical timeline:
|
|
- First meeting within 1-2 weeks of facilitator selection
|
|
- 90-120 minute sessions
|
|
- Typically 1-3 sessions
|
|
- Spaced weekly to allow reflection
|
|
- Flexible based on participant needs
|
|
|
|
**Support Persons**
|
|
- Support persons may attend with permission
|
|
- Must be agreed to by all parties
|
|
- Observe only, do not participate
|
|
- Provide emotional support
|
|
- Maintain confidentiality
|
|
|
|
### Section 6: Ground Rules and Process
|
|
|
|
**Established Practices**
|
|
All participants agree to:
|
|
- One speaker at a time
|
|
- Focus on issues, not personal attacks
|
|
- Use respectful language
|
|
- Practice active listening
|
|
- Take breaks as needed
|
|
- Maintain confidentiality
|
|
|
|
**Process Flow**
|
|
Typical session structure:
|
|
1. Facilitator opens and reviews ground rules
|
|
2. Each party shares their perspective
|
|
3. Facilitator helps clarify and reframe
|
|
4. Identify points of agreement and disagreement
|
|
5. Explore possible resolutions
|
|
6. Build toward agreements
|
|
7. Document outcomes
|
|
|
|
### Section 7: Dispute Assessment
|
|
|
|
**Developing Shared Understanding**
|
|
Facilitator helps parties:
|
|
- Share perspectives without interruption
|
|
- Identify areas of agreement and disagreement
|
|
- Clarify facts versus interpretations
|
|
- Understand each other's concerns
|
|
- Define what resolution looks like
|
|
- Identify obstacles to resolution
|
|
|
|
**Scope and Jurisdiction**
|
|
This process handles:
|
|
- Interpersonal conflicts
|
|
- Communication breakdowns
|
|
- Disagreements about behavior
|
|
- Community standard violations
|
|
- Relationship repair
|
|
|
|
**Escalation Determination**
|
|
Facilitators recommend escalation for:
|
|
- Serious safety concerns
|
|
- Legal violations requiring reporting
|
|
- Complex issues beyond scope
|
|
- Situations requiring specialized expertise
|
|
- Power imbalances preventing fair process
|
|
|
|
### Section 8: Deliberation and Resolution
|
|
|
|
**Building Understanding**
|
|
Through facilitated discussions:
|
|
- Each person's needs and concerns heard
|
|
- Underlying interests explored
|
|
- Creative options generated
|
|
- Impacts and consequences considered
|
|
- Common ground identified
|
|
|
|
**Working Toward Resolution**
|
|
Facilitator supports parties to:
|
|
- Generate multiple options
|
|
- Evaluate feasibility of solutions
|
|
- Build on areas of agreement
|
|
- Address remaining concerns
|
|
- Find mutually acceptable outcomes
|
|
|
|
**Decision-Making**
|
|
Resolutions require participant consensus:
|
|
- Both parties must agree
|
|
- Facilitator cannot impose outcomes
|
|
- Partial agreements acceptable
|
|
- Revisiting and revising allowed
|
|
- May need multiple sessions
|
|
|
|
### Section 9: Resolution Outcomes
|
|
|
|
**Types of Outcomes**
|
|
Common resolutions include:
|
|
- Mutual understanding of perspectives
|
|
- Agreements about future behavior
|
|
- Commitments to specific actions
|
|
- Changes to procedures or policies
|
|
- Plans for relationship-building
|
|
- Agreed boundaries or separation
|
|
|
|
**Documenting Agreements**
|
|
- Facilitator documents agreed outcomes
|
|
- All parties review and approve
|
|
- Submitted to @govbot for records
|
|
- Include follow-up mechanisms
|
|
- Specify accountability measures
|
|
|
|
**Implementation Support**
|
|
- Committee tracks agreement implementation
|
|
- Follow-up check-ins scheduled
|
|
- Resources provided as needed
|
|
- Modifications allowed if needed
|
|
|
|
### Section 10: Appeals and Follow-Up
|
|
|
|
**When to Appeal**
|
|
Appeal available when:
|
|
- New information emerges
|
|
- Circumstances change significantly
|
|
- Implementation fails or is problematic
|
|
- Process fairness questioned
|
|
- Agreements prove unworkable
|
|
|
|
**Appeal Process**
|
|
1. Party submits appeal to committee
|
|
2. Committee reviews grounds for appeal
|
|
3. New facilitator assigned (not original)
|
|
4. Fresh review of situation
|
|
5. New sessions held as needed
|
|
6. Decision on modification or new resolution
|
|
|
|
**Follow-Up Sessions**
|
|
Available for:
|
|
- Checking on agreement implementation
|
|
- Addressing new concerns
|
|
- Adjusting agreements as needed
|
|
- Continued relationship building
|
|
- Either party can request
|
|
|
|
### Section 11: Information and Privacy
|
|
|
|
**Need-to-Know Basis**
|
|
Information sharing:
|
|
- Full details only to direct parties
|
|
- Facilitators have access to case documentation
|
|
- Committee tracks process, not details
|
|
- Community receives anonymized statistics
|
|
- Annual reports on trends and patterns
|
|
|
|
**Confidentiality Commitment**
|
|
All participants agree:
|
|
- Not to share details outside process
|
|
- To protect each other's privacy
|
|
- To allow anonymized learning
|
|
- To respect sensitive information
|
|
- Exceptions only for safety concerns
|
|
|
|
**Record Keeping**
|
|
Bot maintains:
|
|
- Case timeline and status
|
|
- Facilitator assignments
|
|
- Agreements and outcomes
|
|
- Follow-up schedules
|
|
- Anonymized statistics
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Implementation Notes for Bot
|
|
|
|
When facilitating chosen facilitator process:
|
|
|
|
1. **Coordinate smoothly** - Handle logistics efficiently
|
|
2. **Support selection** - Make choosing facilitator easy
|
|
3. **Provide resources** - Share guidelines and templates
|
|
4. **Track progress** - Monitor timeline and follow-ups
|
|
5. **Respect roles** - Facilitator guides, parties decide
|
|
6. **Ensure privacy** - Protect confidential information
|
|
7. **Enable learning** - Collect anonymized data for improvement
|
|
|
|
This process works well when:
|
|
- Parties want structured support but maintain control
|
|
- Mutual facilitator selection builds trust
|
|
- Trained volunteers available
|
|
- Community values facilitated dialogue
|
|
- Clear escalation paths exist
|