Layer 4 · Conflict

2 Accountability Protocol

Layer: 4 — Conflict, Repair & Accountability
Status: Stub — not yet adopted
RCOS reference: §6.4, §6.5

Triggers

RCOS definition6.4.1, 6.5.4

6.4.1 The community MUST define an explicit sanctions and repair framework.
6.5.4 The Accountability Protocol MUST define, at minimum:

Read 6.4 Sanctions, Repair, and Separation in the RCOS spec ↗

Why enumerate what starts an accountability check?

If accountability checks only happen when someone feels strongly enough to push, they become political. Naming the exact triggers — inactivity, breach, invariant violation, referral — means the process starts from a condition anyone can verify, not from a judgement about a person.

<Conditions that initiate an accountability check — to be defined.>

Investigation and Review

RCOS definition6.4.2, 6.4.3, 6.4.6, 6.5.4

6.4.2 Sanctions and repair actions MUST be:
6.4.3 The framework MUST define, at minimum:
6.4.6 Repair-oriented actions MUST be prioritized over punitive actions except in safety-critical cases.
6.5.4 The Accountability Protocol MUST define, at minimum:

Read 6.4 Sanctions, Repair, and Separation in the RCOS spec ↗

Why graduate the response by severity?

Treating a missed contribution the same as an invariant violation either crushes minor cases with heavy process or lets serious ones slip through a private chat. Graduated pathways — soft check-in, medium written notice, direct escalation for serious breaches — match response weight to breach weight and keep repair the default where repair is still possible.

<Graduated response pathways by breach severity — to be defined.>

Due Process Guarantees

RCOS definition6.4.2, 6.4.4, 6.5.4

6.4.2 Sanctions and repair actions MUST be:
6.4.4 Separation, suspension, or removal actions MUST follow due process and MUST align with exit and separation rules defined in Layer 1.
6.5.4 The Accountability Protocol MUST define, at minimum:

Read 6.4 Sanctions, Repair, and Separation in the RCOS spec ↗

Why spell out notice, response, and appeal rights?

Accountability without due process is just punishment with paperwork. A member facing a sanction needs to know the concern, have real time to respond, and have somewhere to appeal to — otherwise the Facilitator’s word is final by default, which concentrates power exactly where it should not concentrate.

<Right to notice, prior warning, response time, appeal, and presence rules — to be defined.>

Anti-Retaliation Protections

RCOS definition6.3.2

6.3.2 Safeguards MUST include protections against retaliation for:

Read 6.3 Safeguards in the RCOS spec ↗

Why protect participants explicitly?

If raising a concern or giving information can cost a member standing, relationships, or access, people will stay silent and the accountability system collapses in practice. Naming retaliation as itself a trigger makes the cost of suppression higher than the cost of reporting.

Any member who raises an accountability concern, participates in a review, or provides information in good faith is protected from retaliation. Retaliation against a member for participating in any part of this process is itself an accountability trigger.

Sanction and Repair Options

RCOS definition6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.4.3, 6.4.5, 6.4.6, 6.5.4

6.4.1 The community MUST define an explicit sanctions and repair framework.
6.4.2 Sanctions and repair actions MUST be:
6.4.3 The framework MUST define, at minimum:
6.4.5 Sanctions MUST NOT be applied through informal exclusion, social pressure, silence, or implicit withdrawal of rights.
6.4.6 Repair-oriented actions MUST be prioritized over punitive actions except in safety-critical cases.
6.5.4 The Accountability Protocol MUST define, at minimum:

Read 6.4 Sanctions, Repair, and Separation in the RCOS spec ↗

Why pre-define the menu of sanctions?

Ad-hoc sanctions invented mid-process reflect whoever is loudest in the room, not what the breach warrants. A fixed menu — with preconditions, authorized body, and appeal path for each — keeps responses proportional, prevents informal exclusion from becoming the default punishment, and makes it obvious when a sanction is out of scope for the body applying it.

Repair-oriented responses are preferred over punitive ones except in safety-critical cases.
Sanctions must be proportional, time-bounded where applicable, documented, and never applied through informal exclusion or social pressure.

Type	Preconditions	Authorized body	Appealable?

Conditions for Restoring Rights

RCOS definition6.4.4

6.4.4 Separation, suspension, or removal actions MUST follow due process and MUST align with exit and separation rules defined in Layer 1.

Read 6.4 Sanctions, Repair, and Separation in the RCOS spec ↗

Why make restoration conditions explicit?

If there is no defined path back, every sanction becomes effectively permanent and every exit becomes a life sentence. Explicit restoration conditions signal that accountability is about repair where repair is possible, and they prevent post-hoc gatekeeping about whether someone is “really” welcome back.

<Conditions for rights restoration after voluntary exit, forced exit, and temporary access restriction — to be defined.>

Coordination with Layer 1

RCOS definition6.4.4

6.4.4 Separation, suspension, or removal actions MUST follow due process and MUST align with exit and separation rules defined in Layer 1.

Read 6.4 Sanctions, Repair, and Separation in the RCOS spec ↗

Why tie this to the Exit & Separation Protocol?

Exit rules live in Layer 1 for a reason — they govern who is and is not a member. If accountability actions created their own parallel exit path, there would be two sets of rules, two sets of records, and a loophole for skipping due process. One canonical exit protocol closes that gap.

All forced exits and temporary access restrictions must follow the Exit & Separation Protocol (Layer 1).

Ratification Record

Adopted:
Decision type: Strategic
Version:
Decision record:

← Back to Conflict