dispute-protocol/builder-prototype
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 6 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Improvements in template handling and loading

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Nathan Schneider
2025-07-22 12:17:25 -06:00
parent 3ef15444fe
commit 847b603734
59 changed files with 1070 additions and 2153 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

44
data/templates/chosen-facilitator.yaml Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
id: "chosen-facilitator"
title: "Chosen Facilitator"
description: "A process where participants mutually select a facilitator to help guide their dispute resolution"
data:
stages:
basics:
community_rules:
communityRulesText: "Community rules and the dispute resolution protocol are available on the community website and in a physical binder kept in the community center. New members receive an orientation to these guidelines when they join."
shared_values:
sharedValuesText: "Our community values open dialogue, mutual respect, and collaborative problem-solving. We believe that most conflicts can be resolved through good faith communication with appropriate support. We prioritize repairing relationships and finding solutions that address underlying needs rather than simply ending disputes."
information_access:
informationAccessText: "Information is shared on a need-to-know basis. The Community Relations Committee keeps records of disputes, and the parties involved have access to all documentation related to their case. Annual anonymous statistics about disputes are shared with the community."
process:
process_start:
processStartText: "The process begins when a community member submits a dispute form to the Community Relations Committee. The form includes details about the issue, parties involved, and previous attempts at resolution. The committee acknowledges receipt within 24 hours. Within 48 hours of receiving a dispute form, the committee contacts all named parties and provides them with a copy of the form and information about the process."
facilitation:
facilitationText: "The process is guided by a facilitator chosen jointly by all participants from a list of community members who have expressed willingness to serve in this role. The facilitator has basic training in conflict resolution but is not a professional mediator. They help guide the conversation, ensure all voices are heard, and maintain focus on resolution. Meetings take place in a neutral community space, typically a designated meeting room in the community center."
ground_rules:
groundRulesText: "The facilitator establishes ground rules at the beginning of the first session, such as: 1) One person speaks at a time, 2) Focus on issues rather than personal attacks, 3) Use respectful language, 4) Actively listen to understand, 5) Take breaks when needed, and 6) Maintain confidentiality. Participants commit to: engaging honestly and respectfully, selecting a mutually acceptable facilitator, attending all scheduled sessions, respecting confidentiality, working toward resolution in good faith, and abiding by any agreements reached."
assessment:
dispute_assessment:
disputeAssessmentText: "In the first session, the facilitator helps participants create a shared understanding of the situation by: 1) Having each person share their perspective without interruption, 2) Identifying areas of agreement and disagreement, 3) Clarifying facts versus interpretations, and 4) Establishing what resolution would look like. The facilitator helps assess whether the conflict is: a misunderstanding that can be clarified, a disagreement about resources or procedures, a values-based conflict, or a relationship conflict with a history of tension."
jurisdiction:
jurisdictionText: "The facilitator helps determine if the chosen facilitator process is appropriate for the dispute. If the issue involves serious safety concerns, legal violations, or requires specialized expertise, the facilitator will recommend delegation to a more appropriate resource."
non_participation:
nonParticipationText: "Participation is voluntary, though all community members have agreed as part of their membership that they will make a good faith effort to resolve conflicts through the community process before pursuing outside remedies. If someone refuses to participate, the committee may arrange for a mediator to speak with them individually to address concerns and encourage engagement."
deliberation:
deliberation_process:
deliberationProcessText: "Deliberation typically involves 1-3 sessions of 90-120 minutes each, scheduled about a week apart. This provides time for reflection between sessions. The facilitator sets a clear agenda for each session and manages time to ensure productive discussion. After initial perspectives are shared, the facilitator identifies information gaps and helps participants determine what additional information might be needed."
additional_voices:
additionalVoicesText: "The primary participants and the facilitator attend all sessions. With agreement from all parties, participants may bring one support person to sessions. Support people may speak when invited but primarily provide emotional support and perspective between sessions."
deliberation_conclusion:
deliberationConclusionText: "The facilitator leads a structured brainstorming session where all possible solutions are recorded without criticism. After brainstorming, the facilitator helps participants evaluate options based on previously identified needs and interests. They guide the discussion to focus on finding solutions that address the core concerns of all parties rather than positional bargaining. Deliberation concludes when participants have explored all viable solutions and are ready to make decisions."
resolution:
resolution_process:
resolutionProcessText: "Decisions are made by consensus of the participants, with the facilitator helping to test whether proposed solutions are acceptable to everyone. The facilitator may use techniques like fist-to-five voting to gauge levels of support for proposals. Typical outcomes include: mutual understanding and clarified expectations, specific action agreements with timelines, changes to procedures or resources, commitments to specific communication practices, relationship-rebuilding activities, or agreements about future conflict resolution."
resolution_failure:
resolutionFailureText: "If resolution cannot be reached through the facilitated process, the facilitator documents what has been attempted and areas of continuing disagreement. Delegation to a different process is appropriate when: 1) The facilitated process has been attempted without success, 2) The issue requires specialized expertise, 3) There are significant power imbalances that can't be addressed by a peer facilitator, 4) Safety concerns exist, or 5) The dispute has community-wide implications."
appeal:
appeal_criteria:
appealCriteriaText: "Appeals may be initiated if: 1) New information emerges that could significantly affect the agreement, 2) Circumstances change making the agreement unworkable, 3) There are persistent challenges implementing the agreement, or 4) One or more participants feel the process was unfair."
appeal_process:
appealProcessText: "To appeal, a participant submits a written request to the Community Relations Committee explaining why they believe the agreement needs reconsideration. The committee reviews the request and contacts all original participants to determine next steps. If an appeal proceeds, a new facilitator is selected from the community to provide fresh perspective. This facilitator reviews documentation from the original process and conducts a new series of facilitated sessions focusing on the specific issues raised in the appeal."

44
data/templates/facilitation-council.yaml Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
id: "facilitation-council"
title: "Facilitation Council"
description: "A structured process with a trained council of facilitators who manage the dispute resolution process"
data:
stages:
basics:
community_rules:
communityRulesText: "Community rules, bylaws, and the detailed dispute resolution protocol are maintained in a searchable online database with version history. Physical copies are available in the community center library. The Facilitation Council conducts quarterly workshops to educate community members about the rules and processes."
shared_values:
sharedValuesText: "Our community dispute resolution process is guided by values of equity, transparency, and restorative justice. We believe in the wisdom of collective decision-making, the importance of diverse perspectives, and the healing potential of structured dialogue. We prioritize relationships while maintaining accountability and upholding community standards."
information_access:
informationAccessText: "Information access follows a tiered model: 1) The involved parties and council members have full access to case documentation, 2) Council administrators track anonymized case data for process improvement, 3) Quarterly reports with statistical information and lessons learned (without identifying details) are shared with the community."
process:
process_start:
processStartText: "The dispute resolution process begins when an individual submits a formal request using the council's intake form. This form is available online and in hard copy at the community office. The form requires details about the nature of the dispute, parties involved, and previous resolution attempts. A member of the Facilitation Council acknowledges receipt within 24 hours and assigns an intake coordinator. The intake coordinator contacts all named parties within 48 hours via email and phone."
facilitation:
facilitationText: "Disputes are facilitated by a panel of 2-3 council members who have completed a comprehensive training program in conflict resolution, mediation, and restorative practices. The panel always includes diversity of perspectives and backgrounds. One member serves as the lead facilitator, while others may focus on documentation, process management, or emotional support. The council operates according to established procedures with flexibility to adapt to specific needs of each case."
ground_rules:
groundRulesText: "The council establishes and enforces clear communication protocols: 1) A talking piece indicates who has the floor, 2) Structured speaking order ensures equal voice, 3) Time limits for presentations may be used, 4) Direct communication between parties is facilitated when productive, 5) Council members summarize and reframe statements to ensure understanding, 6) Caucus sessions (private meetings) are available when needed, and 7) Written communication supplements verbal discussion for complex topics. Participants commit to providing complete and truthful information, respecting confidentiality, attending all scheduled meetings, engaging respectfully, and implementing agreed-upon resolutions."
assessment:
dispute_assessment:
disputeAssessmentText: "The council conducts a structured assessment through: 1) Individual interviews with each party, 2) Review of written statements and evidence, 3) Consultation with relevant witnesses, 4) Consideration of applicable community agreements or policies, and 5) Discussion with the full council to identify the nature and scope of the dispute. The council uses a formal assessment framework to determine the history and duration of the conflict, the level of emotion and polarization between parties, whether communication between parties is still functional, and the underlying causes of the dispute."
jurisdiction:
jurisdictionText: "The council follows a jurisdictional assessment checklist to determine if the case is appropriate for their process. Cases involving serious legal violations, safety threats, or requiring specialized expertise beyond the council's capacity are referred to appropriate authorities. For complex cases, the council may establish jurisdiction over certain aspects while referring others. The assessment considers legal requirements, community capacity, and the nature of the dispute."
non_participation:
nonParticipationText: "Participation in the facilitation council process is required for active community members as specified in the community membership agreement. For non-members or in cases where mandatory participation would be inappropriate, the council works with willing participants and documents non-participation of others. If a party refuses to participate, the council may proceed with a modified process, making note of the limitations this creates."
deliberation:
deliberation_process:
deliberationProcessText: "The council uses a structured information gathering process: 1) Initial statements from all parties, 2) Clarifying questions from council members, 3) Testimony from relevant witnesses, 4) Review of documentary evidence, 5) Expert input if needed for technical matters, and 6) Community standard review when applicable. Information gathering follows a predetermined schedule with deadlines for submissions and specific session agendas."
additional_voices:
additionalVoicesText: "The process includes: 1) Primary parties to the dispute, 2) Council panel members, 3) Witnesses invited by either party or the council (for specific sessions only), 4) Support persons (one per participant, non-speaking unless invited), and 5) In cases affecting community standards, a community representative. For disputes involving allegations of harm, the council uses practices that prevent re-traumatization while ensuring fair process."
deliberation_conclusion:
deliberationConclusionText: "Discussion follows a structured format: 1) Review of brainstormed options, 2) Evaluation against previously identified needs and community values, 3) Consideration of implementation feasibility, 4) Discussion of modifications to promising options, 5) Council-facilitated negotiations on specific details, and 6) Caucus sessions when needed for private discussion. The council maintains focus on interests rather than positions and ensures balanced participation. The council uses a multi-stage deliberation format with most cases involving 3-5 sessions of 2-3 hours each over a 2-4 week period."
resolution:
resolution_process:
resolutionProcessText: "The council uses a tiered decision-making approach: 1) Facilitated consensus among parties is the preferred method, with the council helping parties reach mutually acceptable agreements, 2) If consensus cannot be reached on all issues after good faith efforts, parties may authorize the council to make recommendations on specific points, 3) In cases involving community standards or policies, the council may make binding decisions following established criteria. Resolution outcomes may include written agreements between parties with specific commitments, action plans with timelines, restorative agreements to address harm, resource allocation decisions, and clarification of policies or expectations."
resolution_failure:
resolutionFailureText: "If resolution is not achieved through the council process, several options are considered: 1) Referral to a specialized mediator or arbitrator with expertise in the specific dispute area, 2) Escalation to the community's governance body for policy-level resolution, 3) In cases involving legal dimensions, referral to appropriate legal resources, 4) Recommendation for separate processes to address different aspects of complex disputes, or 5) Implementation of interim measures to stabilize the situation while longer-term solutions are developed."
appeal:
appeal_criteria:
appealCriteriaText: "Appeals may be filed when: 1) New, significant evidence emerges that was not available during the original process, 2) There was a substantial procedural error that may have affected the outcome, 3) The agreement has proven unworkable despite good faith implementation efforts, or 4) There has been a significant change in circumstances that renders the agreement ineffective. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of discovering the grounds for appeal."
appeal_process:
appealProcessText: "The appeal process includes: 1) Submission of a formal appeal request specifying grounds for appeal and desired outcome, 2) Review by council members not involved in the original case to determine if appeal criteria are met, 3) Notification to all original parties, 4) If accepted, assignment of a new council panel, 5) Structured review of original documentation and new evidence, 6) Limited-scope hearings focused on appeal issues, 7) Decision rendered within 30 days of appeal acceptance."

44
data/templates/jury-protocol.yaml Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
id: "jury-protocol"
title: "Community Jury"
description: "A process where a randomly selected jury of community members hears evidence and makes decisions on disputes"
data:
stages:
basics:
community_rules:
communityRulesText: "Community standards and jury procedures are publicly available through multiple channels: 1) A comprehensive online handbook with searchable content, 2) Print copies in the community center, 3) Audio recordings for accessibility, and 4) Regular community education sessions. New residents receive an orientation to these standards during their welcome process. The Jury Administrator is available to answer questions about procedures."
shared_values:
sharedValuesText: "Our community jury system is grounded in these core values: 1) Procedural fairness - ensuring consistent, transparent processes, 2) Collective wisdom - trusting in the reasoned judgment of peers, 3) Community ownership - placing decision-making authority within the community, 4) Balanced perspective - bringing diverse viewpoints to each case, 5) Reasoned judgment - basing decisions on evidence and community standards, and 6) Restorative outcomes - seeking decisions that repair harm and rebuild relationships."
information_access:
informationAccessText: "Information about specific cases follows tiered access protocols: 1) Case parties receive all documentation relevant to their case, 2) Jury members receive case materials with sensitive personal information redacted, 3) The wider community receives notification of cases accepted and decisions made without identifying details, 4) Case summaries with key learnings are published annually for community education. Records are maintained securely by the Jury Administrator."
process:
process_start:
processStartText: "The community jury process begins when a community member submits a case request form. This form includes details about the issue, parties involved, attempts at resolution so far, and desired outcome. The Jury Administrator reviews all submissions within 3 business days to determine if the case meets basic criteria for the jury process. If accepted, the case is assigned a number and scheduled for an initial hearing date."
facilitation:
facilitationText: "The dispute process is facilitated through a structured jury format: 1) A trained process facilitator guides the proceedings but does not participate in decision-making, 2) The process follows clear phases: opening statements, evidence presentation, questions, deliberation, and decision, 3) All parties have equal time to present their perspectives and evidence, 4) Jurors may ask clarifying questions through the facilitator, 5) The facilitator ensures adherence to community standards and procedural fairness, 6) Deliberations are conducted by jurors alone, with the facilitator available for procedural questions."
ground_rules:
groundRulesText: "Communication during jury proceedings follows formal protocols: 1) Opening and closing statements are uninterrupted and time-limited, 2) Evidence presentation follows a structured format with visual aids as needed, 3) Questions from jurors are submitted to the facilitator, who may rephrase for clarity, 4) Cross-examination is limited and focused on fact clarification rather than confrontation, 5) The facilitator moderates all exchanges to maintain respectful discourse, 6) Emotional expression is allowed but must remain appropriate to the setting. All participants in the jury process commit to: providing truthful information and evidence, adhering to scheduled deadlines and hearing dates, treating all participants with respect, and accepting the jury's decision as binding within community governance."
assessment:
dispute_assessment:
disputeAssessmentText: "The jury assesses each case through a structured framework: 1) Establishing agreed-upon facts versus disputed elements, 2) Identifying relevant community standards or agreements that apply, 3) Evaluating the credibility and completeness of evidence presented, 4) Considering context and mitigating circumstances, 5) Assessing impacts on individuals and the community, and 6) Determining responsibility based on the preponderance of evidence. The jury considers the stage and history of the conflict, including whether this is a first-time issue or recurring pattern, previous attempts at resolution, and the current relationship between the parties."
jurisdiction:
jurisdictionText: "The community jury has jurisdiction over: 1) Disputes between community members regarding shared resources or spaces, 2) Alleged violations of community agreements or standards, 3) Conflicts affecting community function or wellbeing, 4) Requests for clarification of policies or practices, and 5) Appeals of decisions made by community committees. The jury does not have jurisdiction over legal matters requiring formal court proceedings, situations presenting immediate safety risks, or disputes that have been explicitly excluded in the community charter."
non_participation:
nonParticipationText: "For community members, participation in the jury process is required as specified in the community agreement signed upon joining. For non-members or external entities, participation is voluntary. If a respondent declines to participate, the jury may still hear the case and reach a decision based on available information, but will note the limited nature of the proceedings. When a case is accepted, all named parties receive formal notification through both email and paper letter with a response form to be returned within 10 days."
deliberation:
deliberation_process:
deliberationProcessText: "Jury information gathering continues during deliberation: 1) Jurors identify information gaps that emerged during the hearing, 2) They may request clarification from parties through written questions, 3) They review all submitted evidence methodically, creating an evidence summary, 4) They consult community standards and precedents from previous similar cases, 5) If needed, they may request additional expert input on technical matters, and 6) They document key findings of fact that will form the basis for their decision."
additional_voices:
additionalVoicesText: "Jury proceedings involve the following participants: 1) The 5-7 community members selected as jurors through a structured random process, 2) The case parties (initiator and respondent), 3) A trained facilitator who guides the process, 4) Witnesses called by either party or the jury itself, 5) The Jury Administrator who manages logistics and record-keeping, and 6) Community observers who may attend open portions of the hearings. Expert testimony may be sought when specialized knowledge is required."
deliberation_conclusion:
deliberationConclusionText: "Jury deliberation discussions follow a structured format: 1) The jury first clarifies the key questions that must be answered, 2) They review evidence related to each question, 3) Each juror shares their perspective on how the evidence answers these questions, 4) Areas of agreement and disagreement are explicitly identified, 5) For disagreements, jurors explore underlying reasoning and concerns, 6) The facilitator helps maintain focus and ensures all voices are heard, and 7) The jury works toward finding areas of consensus before moving to formal decision-making."
resolution:
resolution_process:
resolutionProcessText: "Decisions are made through a structured jury voting process: 1) After thorough deliberation, the jury votes on proposed resolutions, 2) A 2/3 majority is required for decisions to be adopted, 3) If the first vote doesn't reach the threshold, further discussion occurs, 4) Up to three voting rounds may take place to reach the required majority, 5) If consensus cannot be reached after three rounds, the most supported option with at least 60% support is adopted, 6) The jury provides written rationale for their decision based on community standards, 7) Jury decisions are binding within the scope of community governance."
resolution_failure:
resolutionFailureText: "If the jury process fails to resolve the dispute effectively, several options are available: 1) Referral to professional mediation or arbitration, 2) Escalation to formal legal proceedings when appropriate, 3) Revision of community policies or procedures if the case reveals structural issues, 4) Implementation of additional support mechanisms for the affected parties, or 5) In rare cases where resolution seems impossible, the community may recommend separation of the parties through reassignment of roles or spaces."
appeal:
appeal_criteria:
appealCriteriaText: "Appeals of jury decisions may be filed based on specific criteria: 1) Significant new evidence that wasn't available during the original hearing, 2) Procedural errors that materially affected the outcome, 3) Clear misapplication of community standards by the jury, 4) Jury bias or misconduct that affected the decision, or 5) Implementation difficulties that make the decision unworkable. Appeals must be filed within 14 days of the decision and must specifically identify which criteria apply."
appeal_process:
appealProcessText: "The appeal process follows these steps: 1) The appellant submits a written appeal stating the grounds and desired outcome, 2) The Appeal Committee (three community members not involved in the original case) reviews the appeal to determine if it meets criteria, 3) If accepted, a new jury is selected, larger than the original, 4) The new jury reviews all original materials plus the appeal documentation, 5) A limited appeal hearing is held focusing only on the specific grounds for appeal, 6) The appeal jury deliberates and issues a new decision that either confirms, modifies, or overturns the original decision."

27
data/templates/peer-to-peer.yaml Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
id: "peer-to-peer"
title: "Peer-to-Peer Resolution"
description: "A direct negotiation process between disputants with minimal third-party intervention, emphasizing self-determination"
data:
stages:
basics:
community_rules:
communityRulesText: "Peer-to-peer resolution operates under community agreements that support direct communication and mutual problem-solving. Guidelines emphasize respect, honesty, and good faith engagement. Resources and support are available but participation in formal processes remains voluntary."
shared_values:
sharedValuesText: "We value individual autonomy, direct communication, and the capacity of community members to resolve their own conflicts. This approach builds on trust in people's ability to find mutually acceptable solutions when given appropriate support and frameworks."
information_access:
informationAccessText: "Information sharing is controlled by the participants themselves. Community support persons may assist with communication but do not keep formal records. Outcomes are shared only as participants choose, with community learning happening through voluntary sharing of insights and experiences."
process:
process_start:
processStartText: "Either party may initiate peer-to-peer resolution by approaching the other party directly or requesting community assistance in making contact. The process begins only when both parties agree to participate. Initial focus is on establishing ground rules and communication methods that work for both parties."
facilitation:
facilitationText: "Parties meet directly with minimal outside intervention. Community members may provide support such as helping to arrange meetings, offering neutral meeting spaces, or serving as witnesses if requested. The focus remains on the parties' own problem-solving abilities and preferences."
ground_rules:
groundRulesText: "Participants commit to: engaging in good faith; treating each other with respect; focusing on specific behaviors and impacts rather than character; listening to understand; taking breaks when needed; maintaining confidentiality as agreed; and seeking community support when helpful."
outcome:
documentation:
documentationText: "Agreements are documented according to participants' preferences, ranging from informal verbal agreements to detailed written contracts. The level of formality and external oversight depends entirely on what the parties believe will best support their agreement."
monitoring:
monitoringText: "Follow-up occurs as agreed by the parties, which may include self-monitoring, mutual check-ins, or involvement of chosen community members. The emphasis is on voluntary accountability and ongoing communication rather than external enforcement."

44
data/templates/referee-protocol.yaml Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
id: "referee-protocol"
title: "Community Referee"
description: "A streamlined process where a single trained referee facilitates and decides on dispute resolution"
data:
stages:
basics:
community_rules:
communityRulesText: "Community standards and the referee process guidelines are made accessible through: 1) A comprehensive digital handbook available on the community website, 2) Print copies in the community office, 3) Periodic community workshops explaining the process, and 4) A quick-reference guide that summarizes key points. New community members receive orientation to these materials when they join. The Dispute Coordinator is available to answer questions about the process."
shared_values:
sharedValuesText: "The referee process embodies these essential values: 1) Efficiency - streamlining resolution to minimize time and resources, 2) Fairness - ensuring balanced consideration and equal opportunity to be heard, 3) Expertise - bringing relevant knowledge and skills to complex situations, 4) Practicality - focusing on workable solutions that can be implemented, 5) Consistency - applying community standards evenly across similar cases, and 6) Respect - maintaining dignity for all participants throughout the process."
information_access:
informationAccessText: "Information management follows clear confidentiality protocols: 1) Case information is shared only with the assigned referee and parties directly involved, 2) Documentation is stored securely in both digital and physical formats, 3) Anonymized statistical information is compiled quarterly for process improvements, 4) Final determinations may be used as precedent for future cases with identifying details removed, and 5) Parties may agree to share specific outcomes with the wider community when relevant to community functioning."
process:
process_start:
processStartText: "The referee process begins when a community member submits a dispute resolution request form. This form includes a description of the issue, parties involved, desired outcome, and relevant documentation. Within 2 business days, the Dispute Coordinator reviews the form and determines if the referee process is appropriate. If so, the referee selection process begins immediately, with a goal of assigning a referee within 5 days of the initial submission."
facilitation:
facilitationText: "The dispute process is led by a single referee who: 1) Reviews all submitted materials before the first meeting, 2) Conducts individual intake interviews with each party, 3) Structures a joint session with clear speaking times and guidelines, 4) Asks clarifying questions to develop a complete understanding, 5) May request additional information or witnesses as needed, 6) Maintains control of the process while ensuring all voices are heard, and 7) Provides guidance on realistic options based on community standards."
ground_rules:
groundRulesText: "Communication in referee sessions follows structured guidelines: 1) The referee establishes clear speaking protocols at the start, 2) Each party has equal opportunity to present their perspective without interruption, 3) Questions are directed through the referee to maintain order, 4) Time limits ensure balanced participation, 5) The referee may caucus with parties separately when needed, 6) Communication focuses on facts and interests rather than accusations, and 7) The referee summarizes key points to ensure shared understanding. Parties commit to providing accurate information, responding to referee requests within specified timeframes, participating in scheduled meetings prepared and on time, and implementing required actions within established deadlines."
assessment:
dispute_assessment:
disputeAssessmentText: "The referee conducts a thorough situation assessment: 1) Identifying agreed-upon facts versus disputed facts, 2) Clarifying which community standards or agreements apply to the situation, 3) Determining the chronology of relevant events, 4) Assessing the impact on involved parties and the community, 5) Evaluating the credibility of conflicting accounts when necessary, and 6) Distinguishing between primary issues that require resolution and secondary factors. The referee also evaluates the stage and dynamics of the conflict including whether this is a new issue or part of an ongoing pattern and previous attempts at resolution."
jurisdiction:
jurisdictionText: "The referee process has jurisdiction over: 1) Interpretation and application of community agreements and policies, 2) Allocation of shared resources and spaces, 3) Interpersonal conflicts affecting community functioning, 4) Minor property disputes between community members, and 5) Compliance with previous community decisions. The process does not have jurisdiction over legal matters outside community governance, criminal activities, or disputes explicitly excluded in the community charter. Complex cases may be referred to specialized authorities when appropriate."
non_participation:
nonParticipationText: "Participation in the referee process is a condition of community membership as outlined in our community agreement. Members are expected to engage in good faith when named in a dispute. However, the process may proceed even if a party declines to participate actively. In such cases, the referee will consider available information and note the limited participation in their determination. When a case is accepted, the Dispute Coordinator contacts all identified parties via email and phone within 48 hours with information about the process."
deliberation:
deliberation_process:
deliberationProcessText: "The referee gathers information through a structured approach: 1) Initial submissions from all parties, 2) Clarification questions to fill information gaps, 3) Targeted witness statements on specific disputed facts, 4) Review of community standards and precedents, 5) Site visits or physical inspections when relevant, and 6) Expert consultation on technical matters if needed. The process is designed to be thorough but efficient, gathering essential information without unnecessary delay."
additional_voices:
additionalVoicesText: "Participation typically includes: 1) The primary parties directly involved in the dispute, 2) The referee who facilitates and ultimately decides the case, 3) One support person per party (non-speaking unless invited), 4) Witnesses with relevant information (for specific portions only), 5) The Dispute Coordinator who handles logistics and record-keeping, and 6) Occasional observers for training purposes (with party consent)."
deliberation_conclusion:
deliberationConclusionText: "Discussion in referee sessions is highly structured: 1) The referee identifies specific topics for focused conversation, 2) Each party has equal opportunity to address each topic, 3) Direct questions between parties are moderated by the referee, 4) The referee summarizes points of agreement and disagreement, 5) When positions differ, the referee explores underlying interests and concerns, and 6) The discussion concludes with a summary of key findings and possible resolution paths. The referee's deliberation typically includes a structured review of all gathered information with analysis of which community standards apply."
resolution:
resolution_process:
resolutionProcessText: "Decisions are made through a referee determination process: 1) The referee first encourages participants to reach their own agreement, 2) If parties cannot agree, the referee considers all presented information, 3) The decision is based on community standards, precedent, and fairness, 4) The referee provides a written determination with clear reasoning, 5) Parties may ask clarifying questions about the decision, 6) The referee has authority to make binding decisions within community governance, 7) Decisions are delivered within one week of the final session."
resolution_failure:
resolutionFailureText: "When resolution through the referee process is not achieved effectively, several options are available: 1) Escalation to a three-referee panel for complex cases, 2) Referral to professional mediation or arbitration services, 3) Consultation with subject matter experts on technical disputes, 4) Engagement of community leadership for policy-level issues, or 5) As a last resort, referral to appropriate legal authorities for matters beyond community governance. The Dispute Coordinator helps parties navigate these alternatives when necessary."
appeal:
appeal_criteria:
appealCriteriaText: "Appeals of referee determinations may be filed based on limited criteria: 1) Significant new information that wasn't available during the original process, 2) Clear misapplication of community standards, 3) Procedural errors that materially affected the outcome, 4) Bias or conflict of interest that wasn't previously disclosed, or 5) Implementation impossibility due to factors outside the party's control. Appeals must be filed within 10 days of the determination and must specifically identify which criterion applies and provide supporting evidence."
appeal_process:
appealProcessText: "The appeal process follows these steps: 1) The appealing party submits a written appeal form with supporting documentation, 2) The Appeals Committee (consisting of three experienced referees not involved in the original case) reviews the appeal to determine if it meets criteria, 3) If accepted, a senior referee not involved in the original case is assigned, 4) The senior referee reviews all materials from the original case plus the appeal documentation, 5) A limited appeal hearing may be held to address specific issues, and 6) The senior referee issues a final determination that confirms, modifies, or replaces the original decision."

44
data/templates/restorative-justice.yaml Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
id: "restorative-justice"
title: "Restorative Justice"
description: "A collaborative process that focuses on healing relationships and repairing harm rather than punitive measures"
data:
stages:
basics:
community_rules:
communityRulesText: "Our community principles and restorative process guidelines are publicly available in multiple formats: a printed handbook in common spaces, an accessible online document, and visual displays in community gathering areas. New members receive an orientation to these principles when they join the community."
shared_values:
sharedValuesText: "Our restorative justice process is grounded in values of healing, accountability, and community wholeness. We believe that harm creates wounds in relationships that need healing rather than punishment. We value honest communication, deep listening, personal responsibility, and the wisdom that emerges from bringing affected people together in structured dialogue."
information_access:
informationAccessText: "Information about specific restorative processes is shared only with those directly involved. Statistical information about types of harm addressed (without identifying details) is shared annually to help the community learn and grow. The circle keeper maintains confidential records that are accessible only to them and the participants in each case."
process:
process_start:
processStartText: "The restorative justice process begins when anyone in the community submits a request form indicating harm that needs to be addressed. This form asks for a brief description of what happened, who was involved, and what the person hopes might come from the process. A restorative justice coordinator acknowledges receipt within 24 hours and begins initial conversations with the person who submitted the request. Other participants are brought into the process through thoughtful invitation rather than formal notification."
facilitation:
facilitationText: "The dispute process uses a restorative circle approach: 1) A trained circle keeper facilitates but does not control the process, 2) All participants sit in a circle with no tables or barriers between them, 3) A talking piece is passed around the circle to ensure each person can speak without interruption, 4) Multiple rounds allow for deepening the conversation and moving toward resolution, 5) The circle process follows indigenous wisdom traditions adapted for contemporary contexts, 6) The circle keeper prepares participants individually before the full circle gathering."
ground_rules:
groundRulesText: "Communication in restorative circles follows these guidelines: 1) Speak from the heart about your own experience, 2) Listen from the heart without planning your response, 3) Speak with respect and without blame, 4) Share what's true for you in the moment, 5) Be mindful of time so everyone can share, 6) Honor the talking piece - only the person holding it may speak, 7) Respect the confidentiality of what is shared. Participants commit to: speaking honestly from their own experience, listening deeply to others without interruption, maintaining confidentiality, working toward understanding, and following through on agreements they make."
assessment:
dispute_assessment:
disputeAssessmentText: "The situation is assessed through a harm and needs framework: 1) Each participant describes what happened from their perspective, 2) Participants identify how they have been affected or harmed, 3) Underlying needs that weren't met are identified, 4) The impact on relationships and the wider community is explored, 5) The assessment focuses on understanding rather than blame. The circle keeper assesses the readiness of all parties for a restorative process, considering whether those who caused harm acknowledge their responsibility, the emotional state and safety needs of those who experienced harm, and the willingness of all parties to work toward repair."
jurisdiction:
jurisdictionText: "Our restorative justice process is appropriate for most interpersonal harms and conflicts within our community. For situations involving ongoing safety risks, legal violations that require reporting, or when participants are unwilling to acknowledge basic responsibility for harm, the process may be adapted or alternative resources recommended."
non_participation:
nonParticipationText: "Participation in restorative justice processes is entirely voluntary. We believe that genuine healing and transformation can only come from willing engagement. If someone chooses not to participate, we respect that decision and explore other paths forward with the person who initiated the request. The process may continue in modified form with those willing to participate, or may need to be redirected to other community resources."
deliberation:
deliberation_process:
deliberationProcessText: "Information emerges organically through circle sharing. The process begins with establishing relationships and context before directly addressing the harm. Multiple rounds of the talking piece allow deeper layers of the situation to surface. As understanding develops, the circle considers what needs to happen to make things right. The circle keeper guides the process with thoughtful questions while allowing space for all voices."
additional_voices:
additionalVoicesText: "A restorative circle typically includes: 1) The person who experienced harm, 2) The person who caused harm, 3) Community members or loved ones who support each primary participant, 4) Community members affected by the situation, and 5) The circle keeper. Everyone participates as an equal in the circle, though the needs of those most affected guide the process."
deliberation_conclusion:
deliberationConclusionText: "The circle discusses potential solutions through a structured process: 1) Each idea is considered in terms of how it addresses identified harms and needs, 2) Those most affected by the situation speak to what would help them move forward, 3) The group refines ideas based on what's practical and meaningful, 4) The keeper helps the group move toward consensus on actions for repair and healing. Deliberation happens within the circle format, and concludes when the group reaches shared agreements about how to move forward."
resolution:
resolution_process:
resolutionProcessText: "Decisions in restorative processes are made by consensus of all participants. The circle keeper helps test potential agreements to ensure everyone can support them. If perfect agreement isn't possible, the keeper helps craft a solution that addresses core needs while respecting individual boundaries about what people are willing to do. Restorative outcomes typically include: acknowledgment of the harm that occurred, specific actions to repair damage or address impacts, commitments to changed behavior in the future, healing rituals or symbolic acts, plans for rebuilding trust and relationships over time, and community support mechanisms to help implement agreements."
resolution_failure:
resolutionFailureText: "If the restorative process does not result in resolution, several options may be considered: 1) Taking a break and reconvening the circle at a later date when parties have had time to reflect, 2) Modifying the process to address barriers to resolution, 3) Bringing in additional circle keepers or community resources, 4) Referring to other conflict resolution processes like mediation, 5) In cases involving safety concerns or serious harm, connecting with appropriate professional or legal resources while maintaining support for all involved."
appeal:
appeal_criteria:
appealCriteriaText: "Restorative processes can be reopened if: 1) Agreements aren't being fulfilled despite good faith efforts, 2) New information emerges that significantly changes understanding of the situation, 3) Additional harms occur related to the original situation, or 4) The process was completed but healing remains incomplete."
appeal_process:
appealProcessText: "To revisit a completed process, any participant can contact the circle keeper to request a follow-up circle. The keeper reaches out to all original participants to check willingness to reconvene. If everyone agrees, a new circle is scheduled focusing specifically on the issues that need further attention. The reconvened circle follows the same structured format as the original process but with focused attention on the specific concerns that led to reopening the case."

27
data/templates/shalish-mediation.yaml Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
id: "shalish-mediation"
title: "Shalish Mediation"
description: "A process based on the traditional shalish process for village-level mediation in Bangladesh, with modernizing improvements"
data:
stages:
basics:
community_rules:
communityRulesText: "The rules and procedures for the Shalish mediation process are documented in a community handbook that explains the cultural tradition and modern adaptations made by the Madaripur Legal Aid Association. This handbook is translated into local languages and made available through community centers, government offices, and through trained mediators."
shared_values:
sharedValuesText: "Shalish mediation centers on values of community harmony, restorative justice, and cultural respect. Mediators emphasize the importance of restoring relationships, fairness to all parties, and finding solutions that strengthen the community. Decisions are guided by local cultural norms and expectations alongside consideration of basic principles of justice and human dignity."
information_access:
informationAccessText: "Information about specific cases is kept confidential among the participating parties and mediators. Statistical information about types of cases addressed (without identifying details) is collected for program evaluation and improvement. Participants receive copies of any agreements they reach during the process."
process:
process_start:
processStartText: "One or more disputant parties ask a third-party intervenor to assist in the dispute resolution process. If only one of the parties initiates the process, the other party/parties may or may not choose to participate. In the case of the latter, the mediator may require conflicting parties to submit to the mediation process. The mediator may need to educate one or more parties about the benefits of mediation for conflict resolution. Upon the agreement of all parties to participate, the mediator schedules a meeting time agreeable to all."
facilitation:
facilitationText: "Upon the decision to enter the mediation process from the disputant parties, the mediator decides whether to mediate alone or co-mediate. In the case of co-mediation, the mediators determine each others' responsibilities for the different aspects of the mediation process, safety valves in case of problems between mediators, time schedules, a mediation site, the management of case records, and similar housekeeping aspects. Each party is allowed to make an initial statement. The mediators take notes throughout the entire mediation process. Mediators may choose to meet privately with one or all of the disputant parties. In the end, the mediators help the disputants write an agreement."
ground_rules:
groundRulesText: "Communication in the mediation follows established ground rules: 1) Speak only for yourself and in the first person, 2) Use language that does not blame or find fault with others, 3) Do not interrupt while another is speaking, 4) Use non-inflammatory words, 5) If stating a complaint, raise it as your own concern and follow it with a constructive suggestion as to how it might be resolved, 6) Attack the problems and concerns at hand; do not attack the other person, 7) Make statements about your interests and needs instead of stating your position, 8) Be respectful to others, 9) Listen to understand what each person is saying without being judgmental about the person or the message."
outcome:
documentation:
documentationText: "All agreements reached through the shalish mediation process are documented in writing and signed by all parties. The agreement includes specific commitments made by each party, timelines for implementation, and consequences for non-compliance. Both parties receive copies of the signed agreement. A summary (without identifying information) is kept for program evaluation purposes."
monitoring:
monitoringText: "Following the mediation, there is a follow-up period of 30-60 days during which the mediator checks with parties to ensure the agreement is being implemented. If problems arise, parties can return for additional mediation sessions. The community maintains records of successful resolutions to help improve the mediation process over time."

44
data/templates/transformative-justice.yaml Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
id: "transformative-justice"
title: "Transformative Justice"
description: "A process that addresses immediate harm while working to transform the conditions that allowed harm to occur"
data:
stages:
basics:
community_rules:
communityRulesText: "Our community agreements, values, and transformative justice framework are documented in accessible formats including a community handbook (print and digital), visual materials, audio resources, and multilingual versions. These resources clearly distinguish between aspirational values and concrete practices. All members participate in regular workshops to review and update these materials."
shared_values:
sharedValuesText: "Our transformative justice work is rooted in these core values: 1) Liberation - working toward freedom from all forms of oppression, 2) Accountability without punishment, 3) Collective responsibility for community well-being, 4) Radical honesty about impacts and conditions, 5) Compassion for all involved, including those who have caused harm, 6) Faith in people's capacity to transform, 7) Commitment to sustainable, long-term change."
information_access:
informationAccessText: "Information is shared based on a consent-based model. Those directly involved determine what information is shared beyond the immediate process. The transformative justice collective maintains secure records that include agreements made and lessons learned, but not sensitive personal details. Pattern-level information about types of harm addressed informs community education while protecting confidentiality."
process:
process_start:
processStartText: "The transformative justice process begins when a community member reaches out to the transformative justice collective with a concern about harm. This initial contact can be through a secure online form, a phone line, or direct conversation with a collective member. Within 48 hours, two collective members are assigned to do an initial assessment and begin conversations with the person who raised the concern. People are brought into the process through intentional outreach by the facilitators, who explain the transformative approach and how it differs from punitive models."
facilitation:
facilitationText: "The dispute process uses a community accountability approach: 1) A facilitation team of 2-3 trained community members guides the process, 2) Both the person harmed and the person who caused harm have support teams, 3) The wider community is represented by stakeholders affected by the issues, 4) The process begins with individual preparation sessions before group meetings, 5) Facilitation focuses on transforming harmful patterns, not just individual incidents, 6) Multiple sessions allow for deep exploration of systemic factors, 7) The process builds community capacity to address similar issues in the future."
ground_rules:
groundRulesText: "Communication follows these agreements: 1) Speak from personal experience using 'I' statements, 2) Acknowledge the difference between intent and impact, 3) Use language that recognizes both individual and systemic dimensions, 4) Name patterns and power dynamics when relevant, 5) Practice active listening, 6) Honor silence and processing time, 7) Express needs directly rather than through criticism. Participants commit to engaging honestly in examining harm and its impacts, considering both individual and collective dimensions of accountability, respecting confidentiality boundaries, working to understand systemic factors beyond individual actions, contributing to implementation of agreements, and participating in follow-up."
assessment:
dispute_assessment:
disputeAssessmentText: "The situation is assessed through a systemic analysis framework: 1) Individual experiences and harms are documented, 2) Patterns of behavior and power dynamics are identified, 3) Structural factors that contributed to the harm are analyzed, 4) Community norms and cultural assumptions are examined, 5) The assessment connects individual incidents to broader social contexts. The facilitation team assesses the history and timeline of the harm, whether this is an isolated incident or part of a pattern, the presence of immediate safety concerns, and the current capacity of all involved to engage in the process."
jurisdiction:
jurisdictionText: "Transformative justice processes are most appropriate for situations where: 1) The harm is connected to broader social patterns, 2) Community-based intervention is possible and desired, 3) There is willingness to address both immediate harm and root causes, and 4) Public systems (legal, etc.) would likely cause additional harm. The process may be adapted based on safety needs and legal requirements."
non_participation:
nonParticipationText: "Participation is voluntary but strongly encouraged as part of our community commitments. We recognize that meaningful accountability cannot be forced. However, if someone chooses not to participate directly, the process may continue with those who are willing, focusing on community support for those harmed and addressing systemic factors that contributed to the harm."
deliberation:
deliberation_process:
deliberationProcessText: "Information is gathered through a trauma-informed approach that centers those most impacted. Multiple sessions allow time for reflection and integration. The facilitation team helps contextualize individual experiences within systemic patterns, gathering information about both the specific harm and the conditions that enabled it. The deliberation process includes multiple formats including structured dialogue sessions, caucus meetings with specific stakeholder groups, one-on-one conversations for sensitive topics, and community forums for systemic issues."
additional_voices:
additionalVoicesText: "The process includes a constellation of participants depending on the situation: 1) Core participants directly involved in the harm, 2) Support people chosen by core participants, 3) Facilitators from the transformative justice collective, 4) Community stakeholders who represent affected groups or have relevant expertise, 5) Witnesses who help document and hold the process. Each participant has a specific role with clear responsibilities."
deliberation_conclusion:
deliberationConclusionText: "Facilitated discussions focus on building shared understanding of how change can happen at multiple levels. Participants examine proposed solutions in terms of how they address immediate needs, build accountability, heal relationships, transform conditions, and prevent future harm. Special attention is paid to sustainability and community capacity. Solution-building happens through structured brainstorming processes that include small group work to generate ideas addressing different levels of change, research into approaches used by other communities, and consultation with relevant experts or elders."
resolution:
resolution_process:
resolutionProcessText: "Decisions are made through a consensus process that prioritizes the needs of those most impacted while engaging everyone in finding solutions. The facilitation team helps test proposals against transformative justice principles. When full consensus isn't possible, the group identifies which elements have universal support and which need further development. Outcomes address multiple dimensions: survivor-centered responses to address immediate harm, accountability processes for those who caused harm, community support mechanisms, education initiatives to build awareness, policy or structural changes to transform conditions, and community capacity-building to sustain changes over time."
resolution_failure:
resolutionFailureText: "If the transformative justice process does not achieve its goals, several approaches may be considered: 1) Extending the timeline to allow for deeper work, 2) Bringing in additional resources or facilitators with specialized expertise, 3) Narrowing the focus to address the most critical aspects first, 4) Dividing the work into parallel processes addressing different levels (individual healing, accountability, systemic change), or 5) When necessary, connecting participants with alternative resources while maintaining community support. The goal remains transformation rather than punishment, even when the initial process requires adaptation."
appeal:
appeal_criteria:
appealCriteriaText: "The process can be revisited if: 1) Agreements aren't being implemented as planned, 2) Implementation reveals unforeseen challenges, 3) New information emerges about the situation, 4) The harm continues or recurs, 5) Systemic changes aren't effectively addressing root causes, or 6) Additional affected parties come forward."
appeal_process:
appealProcessText: "Any participant can request reassessment by contacting the transformative justice collective. Two members review the request and consult with key stakeholders to determine next steps. This may lead to reconvening the original group, forming a new group, or taking targeted action on specific unaddressed issues. Reassessment follows a structured format with review of original agreements and implementation status, identification of gaps or new issues, and analysis of why certain aspects haven't been effective."