Rechenschaftsprotokoll

Was hineingehört

• Which conditions start an accountability check — for example a long gap in contributions, a broken Membership Agreement obligation, or acting against one of our founding commitments?
• For each trigger: how can anyone check that it has happened, from our records or a direct referral?
• Who may start the process, and how — and can a case be referred on from the Conflict Resolution Ladder?
• What is not a trigger — how do we stop the process being started because someone is disliked?

Beispiele

An accountability check starts only when one of these is on record: a member has made no recorded contribution for four consecutive months; a member has missed a Membership Agreement obligation and not put it right within 30 days of a reminder; a member has acted against one of our founding commitments; or a case is referred from step 3 or higher of the Conflict Resolution Ladder. Any member may make the referral, in writing, to the Accountability Coordinator. Disapproval of someone is not a trigger.

Beispiele, keine Empfehlungen. Eure Antworten werden eure eigenen sein.

Was hineingehört

• Which pathways do we use — soft (such as inactivity), medium (a broken obligation) and serious (a breach of our founding commitments or a safety concern) — and what puts a case in each?
• For each pathway: who makes contact or opens the review, and how long does each stage take?
• For each pathway: what are the possible outcomes, and where does the case go if it is not resolved?
• Who may not look into a case — for example someone involved, or close to either side — and who steps in instead?
• How is what was found written down before anyone decides what follows? (Which consequences can follow is its own question.)

Beispiele

Soft: if a member's contributions lapse, someone from the care team checks in within two weeks. Medium: a broken Membership Agreement obligation gets a written notice from the Accountability Coordinator; if it is not resolved within 30 days, it goes to a review panel of three members. Serious: a breach of a founding commitment or a credible safety concern goes straight to step 5 of the Conflict Resolution Ladder. Nobody involved in the matter, or sharing a household with either side, may sit on the panel.

Beispiele, keine Empfehlungen. Eure Antworten werden eure eigenen sein.

Was hineingehört

• How and when is someone told, in writing, what the concern is — before any review or consequence begins?
• What is the shortest time they will have to respond, and can they ask for more?
• May they see what the concern is based on, bring a support person, and choose to answer in writing or in person?
• Where can any decision be appealed — and can the people who made it also hear the appeal?

Beispiele

Before any review begins, the member receives a written notice stating the concern and the records it rests on. They have at least 30 days to respond, in writing or at a meeting, and may bring a support person of their choice. Any decision may be appealed to the Full Members within 14 days and is settled by a Strategic vote; nobody who made the original decision may chair the appeal.

Beispiele, keine Empfehlungen. Eure Antworten werden eure eigenen sein.

Was hineingehört

• Who is protected — someone who raises a concern, asks for mediation, gives information or evidence, or takes part in a review or appeal?
• What counts as retaliation — including quiet forms such as losing a role, being given worse work, or being left out socially?
• What happens when someone retaliates — does it start an accountability check of its own?
• How long does the protection last after the process has closed?

Beispiele

Nobody may be treated worse for raising a concern, asking for mediation, giving information or evidence, or taking part in a review or appeal. Treated worse includes being removed from a role, losing access to shared resources, or being left out of community events. Retaliation is itself an accountability trigger, and this protection lasts for two years after the process closes.

Beispiele, keine Empfehlungen. Eure Antworten werden eure eigenen sein.

Was hineingehört

• Which consequences can follow a breach — and which repair steps come before any punishment?
• For each consequence: what has to be shown first, and what evidence is enough?
• For each consequence: who may apply it, how long does it last, and how is it appealed?
• How do we make sure nobody is punished informally — by exclusion, silence or social pressure?

Beispiele

Our first response is always repair: a conversation, an apology or making good the damage, agreed with the people affected. If that fails, the accountability panel may give a written warning, then restrict access to a shared space or role for up to three months; only the full members may decide a forced exit. Each step needs a written finding, can be appealed within 14 days, and ends on a stated date. Nobody is shut out informally. Only an immediate safety risk lets us skip straight to a restriction.

Beispiele, keine Empfehlungen. Eure Antworten werden eure eigenen sein.

Was hineingehört

• For each kind of sanction: what is the path back to full rights, and who confirms it has been completed?
• After a temporary restriction: what has to be shown, and how soon are rights restored once it has been?
• After someone left of their own accord: can they come back, and through which process?
• After a forced exit: how long must someone wait before applying again, and which admission process applies then?
• Once the conditions are met, how do we stop someone being kept out informally?

Beispiele

After a temporary restriction, rights return in full once the Accountability Coordinator confirms the agreed repair steps are done; the Coordinator must check within 14 days of the member asking. Someone who left voluntarily may re-apply at any time through the Onboarding Protocol, with no automatic return. After a forced exit, they may re-apply after two years, and the normal admission process applies.

Beispiele, keine Empfehlungen. Eure Antworten werden eure eigenen sein.

Was hineingehört

• When an accountability process ends in someone being removed, do we follow the Exit & Separation Protocol — with no separate way out here?
• Is a temporary suspension or access restriction an exit? If not, what does it leave untouched?
• Which due-process steps must be complete before anyone is suspended or removed, apart from immediate safety measures?
• How do the two processes share one record, so an exit is never written down twice or in different ways? (How a forced exit is decided is the exit protocol's question.)

Beispiele

Every forced exit and every temporary access restriction follows the Exit & Separation Protocol; this protocol creates no separate way out. A temporary restriction is not an exit: the member keeps their membership and is not subject to the re-application block unless the Full Members later vote for a forced exit. Apart from immediate safety measures, no one is suspended or removed until they have had written notice, the full response window and the chance to appeal.

Beispiele, keine Empfehlungen. Eure Antworten werden eure eigenen sein.