- key: identity-constraints-register.active-identity-constraints artifact: identity-constraints-register order: 0 clauseRefs: - 2.4.1 - 2.4.2 - 2.4.3 - 2.4.4 i18n: en: title: Active Identity Constraints whyItMatters: >- Every community has implicit rules — "we don't do that here." Implicit rules become tools of arbitrary enforcement: whoever has social power decides what they mean. Writing identity constraints down, and requiring them to be testable through defined processes, is what turns an informal norm into something a member can actually rely on or contest. whatToDefine: >- Each constraint must be testable and enforceable through a defined process — not vague aspirations. Common categories from RCOS §2.4.2: ethical/behavioural boundaries, participation prerequisites, non-negotiable cultural or ecological constraints. Reference Layer 4 for enforcement, Layer 1 for participation consequences. placeholders: - >- Constraint 1, e.g. Members must not act in ways that concentrate power, extract value, or cause harm to people, land, or governance integrity. - >- Constraint 2, e.g. The community may not be used as a vehicle for speculative financial gain — internal economic mechanisms exist to recognize contribution, not generate profit. - >- Constraint 3, e.g. No member or role may claim authority that is not explicitly granted through the governance system. - >- Constraint 4, e.g. The community must not cause sustained net harm to local ecosystems, land, or biodiversity. - >- Constraint 5, e.g. Ecological impact must be considered in all significant resource, land, and infrastructure decisions. - >- Constraint 6, e.g. The structural layer of the community must remain non-ideological and non-normative — it provides scaffolding, not a prescribed way of living. - >- Constraint 7, e.g. No specific belief system, spirituality, culture, or political ideology may be required as a condition of membership or participation. - >- Constraint 8, e.g. Diversity of approaches to regenerative living is a feature, not a problem. question: >- Which non-negotiable rules follow from who we are as a community — about behaviour, joining, culture or land? prompts: - Which rules hold for everyone taking part, whatever a majority wants on a given day? - 'For each one: who does it apply to?' - >- What does it mean for them in practice — what may they not do, or what must be true before they can join? - Why is it needed — what would go wrong here without it? examples: - Only people aged 18 or over can become members. - No belief system, religion or political view may be required to join or take part. - >- Nothing the community does may cause lasting harm to the land it stewards; every land and building decision says how it was checked. de: title: Aktive Identitätsbeschränkungen whyItMatters: >- Jede Gemeinschaft hat implizite Regeln — „das machen wir hier nicht." Implizite Regeln werden zu Werkzeugen willkürlicher Durchsetzung: Wer soziale Macht hat, bestimmt, was sie bedeuten. Identitätsbeschränkungen aufzuschreiben und zu verlangen, dass sie durch definierte Prozesse überprüfbar sind, macht aus einer informellen Norm etwas, auf das sich ein Mitglied tatsächlich verlassen oder das es anfechten kann. whatToDefine: >- Jede Beschränkung muss durch einen definierten Prozess überprüfbar und durchsetzbar sein — keine vagen Bestrebungen. Gängige Kategorien aus RCOS §2.4.2: ethische/verhaltensbezogene Grenzen, Teilnahmevoraussetzungen, nicht verhandelbare kulturelle oder ökologische Beschränkungen. Verweise auf Schicht 4 für die Durchsetzung, Schicht 1 für Teilnahmekonsequenzen. placeholders: - >- Beschränkung 1, z. B. Mitglieder dürfen nicht in einer Weise handeln, die Macht konzentriert, Wert abschöpft oder Menschen, Land oder die Integrität der Governance schädigt. - >- Beschränkung 2, z. B. Die Gemeinschaft darf nicht als Vehikel für spekulativen finanziellen Gewinn genutzt werden — interne Wirtschaftsmechanismen dienen der Anerkennung von Beiträgen, nicht der Profiterzielung. - >- Beschränkung 3, z. B. Kein Mitglied und keine Rolle darf Autorität beanspruchen, die nicht ausdrücklich durch das Governance-System erteilt wurde. - >- Beschränkung 4, z. B. Die Gemeinschaft darf lokalen Ökosystemen, dem Land oder der Biodiversität keinen anhaltenden Nettoschaden zufügen. - >- Beschränkung 5, z. B. Ökologische Auswirkungen müssen bei allen wesentlichen Entscheidungen zu Ressourcen, Land und Infrastruktur berücksichtigt werden. - >- Beschränkung 6, z. B. Die strukturelle Ebene der Gemeinschaft muss nicht-ideologisch und nicht-normativ bleiben — sie bietet ein Gerüst, keine vorgeschriebene Lebensweise. - >- Beschränkung 7, z. B. Kein bestimmtes Glaubenssystem, keine Spiritualität, Kultur oder politische Ideologie darf als Voraussetzung für Mitgliedschaft oder Teilnahme verlangt werden. - >- Beschränkung 8, z. B. Die Vielfalt der Ansätze für regeneratives Leben ist ein Merkmal, kein Problem. es: title: Restricciones de Identidad Activas whyItMatters: >- Toda comunidad tiene reglas implícitas — "eso aquí no se hace." Las reglas implícitas se convierten en herramientas de aplicación arbitraria: quien tiene poder social decide lo que significan. Escribir las restricciones de identidad y exigir que sean verificables a través de procesos definidos es lo que convierte una norma informal en algo en lo que un miembro puede confiar o que puede cuestionar. whatToDefine: >- Cada restricción debe ser verificable y aplicable mediante un proceso definido — no aspiraciones vagas. Categorías comunes de RCOS §2.4.2: límites éticos/conductuales, prerrequisitos de participación, restricciones culturales o ecológicas no negociables. Consultar la Capa 4 para la aplicación, la Capa 1 para las consecuencias de participación. placeholders: - >- Restricción 1, p. ej. Los miembros no deben actuar de formas que concentren poder, extraigan valor o causen daño a personas, territorio o integridad de la gobernanza. - >- Restricción 2, p. ej. La comunidad no puede ser utilizada como vehículo para la ganancia financiera especulativa — los mecanismos económicos internos existen para reconocer la contribución, no para generar beneficio. - >- Restricción 3, p. ej. Ningún miembro o rol puede reclamar autoridad que no haya sido explícitamente otorgada a través del sistema de gobernanza. - >- Restricción 4, p. ej. La comunidad no debe causar daño neto sostenido a los ecosistemas locales, el territorio o la biodiversidad. - >- Restricción 5, p. ej. El impacto ecológico debe ser considerado en todas las decisiones significativas sobre recursos, territorio e infraestructura. - >- Restricción 6, p. ej. La capa estructural de la comunidad debe permanecer no ideológica y no normativa — proporciona andamiaje, no una forma de vida prescrita. - >- Restricción 7, p. ej. Ningún sistema de creencias, espiritualidad, cultura o ideología política específica puede ser requerido como condición de membresía o participación. - >- Restricción 8, p. ej. La diversidad de enfoques hacia la vida regenerativa es una característica, no un problema. fr: title: Contraintes d'identité actives whyItMatters: >- Toute communauté a des règles implicites — « on ne fait pas ça ici ». Les règles implicites deviennent des outils d'application arbitraire : c'est la personne qui détient le pouvoir social qui décide de leur signification. Mettre les contraintes d'identité par écrit, et exiger qu'elles soient vérifiables à travers des processus définis, c'est ce qui transforme une norme informelle en quelque chose sur lequel un membre peut réellement s'appuyer ou qu'il peut contester. whatToDefine: >- Chaque contrainte doit être vérifiable et applicable à travers un processus défini — pas de vagues aspirations. Catégories courantes issues de RCOS §2.4.2 : limites éthiques/comportementales, prérequis de participation, contraintes culturelles ou écologiques non négociables. Référence à la Couche 4 pour l'application, à la Couche 1 pour les conséquences sur la participation. placeholders: - >- Contrainte 1, p. ex. Les membres NE DOIVENT PAS agir de manière à concentrer le pouvoir, extraire de la valeur ou causer du tort aux personnes, à la terre ou à l'intégrité de la gouvernance. - >- Contrainte 2, p. ex. La communauté NE PEUT PAS être utilisée comme véhicule de gain financier spéculatif — les mécanismes économiques internes existent pour reconnaître la contribution, pas pour générer du profit. - >- Contrainte 3, p. ex. Aucun membre ou rôle NE PEUT revendiquer une autorité qui n'est pas explicitement accordée par le système de gouvernance. - >- Contrainte 4, p. ex. La communauté NE DOIT PAS causer de dommage net durable aux écosystèmes locaux, à la terre ou à la biodiversité. - >- Contrainte 5, p. ex. L'impact écologique DOIT être pris en compte dans toutes les décisions significatives concernant les ressources, la terre et les infrastructures. - >- Contrainte 6, p. ex. La couche structurelle de la communauté DOIT rester non idéologique et non normative — elle fournit un cadre, pas un mode de vie prescrit. - >- Contrainte 7, p. ex. Aucun système de croyance, spiritualité, culture ou idéologie politique spécifique NE PEUT être exigé comme condition d'adhésion ou de participation. - >- Contrainte 8, p. ex. La diversité des approches de la vie régénérative est une caractéristique, pas un problème. pt-br: title: Restrições de Identidade Ativas whyItMatters: >- Toda comunidade tem regras implícitas — "isso aqui a gente não faz". Regras implícitas se tornam ferramentas de aplicação arbitrária: quem tem poder social decide o que elas significam. Escrever as restrições de identidade, e exigir que sejam testáveis através de processos definidos, é o que transforma uma norma informal em algo no qual um membro pode realmente confiar ou contestar. whatToDefine: >- Cada restrição deve ser testável e aplicável através de um processo definido — não aspirações vagas. Categorias comuns do RCOS §2.4.2: limites éticos/comportamentais, pré-requisitos de participação, restrições culturais ou ecológicas inegociáveis. Consulte a Camada 4 para aplicação, a Camada 1 para consequências de participação. placeholders: - >- Restrição 1, ex.: Membros não devem agir de formas que concentrem poder, extraiam valor ou causem dano a pessoas, à terra ou à integridade da governança. - >- Restrição 2, ex.: A comunidade não pode ser usada como veículo para ganho financeiro especulativo — os mecanismos econômicos internos existem para reconhecer contribuição, não para gerar lucro. - >- Restrição 3, ex.: Nenhum membro ou papel pode reivindicar autoridade que não tenha sido explicitamente concedida pelo sistema de governança. - >- Restrição 4, ex.: A comunidade não deve causar dano líquido sustentado aos ecossistemas locais, à terra ou à biodiversidade. - >- Restrição 5, ex.: O impacto ecológico deve ser considerado em todas as decisões significativas sobre recursos, terra e infraestrutura. - >- Restrição 6, ex.: A camada estrutural da comunidade deve permanecer não-ideológica e não-normativa — ela fornece o andaime, não uma forma prescrita de viver. - >- Restrição 7, ex.: Nenhum sistema específico de crença, espiritualidade, cultura ou ideologia política pode ser exigido como condição para a filiação ou participação. - >- Restrição 8, ex.: A diversidade de abordagens à vida regenerativa é uma qualidade, não um problema. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 2.4.1 - 2.4.2 - key: identity-constraints-register.enforcement-and-testability artifact: identity-constraints-register order: 1 clauseRefs: - 2.4.3 - 2.4.4 i18n: en: title: Enforcement and Testability whyItMatters: >- A constraint that cannot be tested is a constraint that gets enforced by whoever has the most social capital in the room. Defining how each constraint is detected, who raises it, and through which process it is resolved is what prevents identity rules from becoming tools of arbitrary exclusion. whatToDefine: >- For each constraint above (or as a general policy), describe how a violation is identified and addressed. Reference the Conflict Resolution Ladder (Layer 4) and any role responsible for monitoring (Layer 5). placeholders: - How violations are detected and reported. - Which Layer 4 process handles violations of which class of constraint. - Which roles or bodies are responsible for monitoring and review. question: How would anyone check whether a constraint is being met — and what happens if it is not? prompts: - 'For each rule: how would anyone notice that it is not being kept?' - Which written process handles a breach, so it is not left to whoever objects loudest? - Who keeps an eye on it, and how often is that looked at again? examples: - >- Each constraint names how a breach would show up and who keeps an eye on it: the land group checks the ecological constraints on its quarterly walk, and anyone may report a breach of a behavioural constraint to the accountability coordinator. Every reported breach goes through our accountability process — never a private warning or quiet exclusion. We review the whole register at the yearly reflection meeting. de: title: Durchsetzung und Überprüfbarkeit whyItMatters: >- Eine Beschränkung, die nicht überprüft werden kann, ist eine Beschränkung, die von demjenigen durchgesetzt wird, der das meiste soziale Kapital im Raum hat. Zu definieren, wie jede Beschränkung erkannt wird, wer sie anspricht und durch welchen Prozess sie gelöst wird, verhindert, dass Identitätsregeln zu Werkzeugen willkürlichen Ausschlusses werden. whatToDefine: >- Beschreibe für jede oben genannte Beschränkung (oder als allgemeine Richtlinie), wie ein Verstoß erkannt und behandelt wird. Verweise auf die Konfliktlösungsleiter (Schicht 4) und alle für die Überwachung zuständigen Rollen (Schicht 5). placeholders: - Wie Verstöße erkannt und gemeldet werden. - Welcher Ebene-4-Prozess Verstöße welcher Beschränkungsklasse behandelt. - Welche Rollen oder Gremien für Überwachung und Überprüfung zuständig sind. es: title: Aplicación y Verificabilidad whyItMatters: >- Una restricción que no puede ser verificada es una restricción que será aplicada por quien tenga más capital social en la sala. Definir cómo se detecta cada restricción, quién la plantea y a través de qué proceso se resuelve es lo que impide que las reglas de identidad se conviertan en herramientas de exclusión arbitraria. whatToDefine: >- Para cada restricción anterior (o como política general), describe cómo se identifica y aborda una violación. Consultar la Escalera de Resolución de Conflictos (Capa 4) y cualquier rol responsable de la supervisión (Capa 5). placeholders: - Cómo se detectan y reportan las violaciones. - Qué proceso de la Capa 4 gestiona las violaciones de cada clase de restricción. - Qué roles u órganos son responsables de la supervisión y revisión. fr: title: Application et vérifiabilité whyItMatters: >- Une contrainte qui ne peut pas être vérifiée est une contrainte appliquée par la personne disposant du plus grand capital social dans la pièce. Définir comment chaque contrainte est détectée, qui la signale et par quel processus elle est résolue, c'est ce qui empêche les règles d'identité de devenir des outils d'exclusion arbitraire. whatToDefine: >- Pour chaque contrainte ci-dessus (ou en tant que politique générale), décris comment une violation est identifiée et traitée. Réfère-toi à l'Échelle de résolution des conflits (Couche 4) et à tout rôle responsable du suivi (Couche 5). placeholders: - Comment les violations sont détectées et signalées. - Quel processus de Couche 4 traite les violations de quelle classe de contrainte. - Quels rôles ou organes sont responsables du suivi et de la révision. pt-br: title: Aplicação e Testabilidade whyItMatters: >- Uma restrição que não pode ser testada é uma restrição aplicada por quem tem o maior capital social na sala. Definir como cada restrição é detectada, quem a aciona e através de qual processo é resolvida é o que impede que regras de identidade se tornem ferramentas de exclusão arbitrária. whatToDefine: >- Para cada restrição acima (ou como política geral), descreva como uma violação é identificada e tratada. Consulte a Escada de Resolução de Conflitos (Camada 4) e qualquer papel responsável por monitoramento (Camada 5). placeholders: - Como as violações são detectadas e reportadas. - Qual processo da Camada 4 trata violações de qual classe de restrição. - Quais papéis ou instâncias são responsáveis por monitorar e revisar. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 2.4.3 - 2.4.4 - key: identity-constraints-register.conditions-for-change artifact: identity-constraints-register order: 2 clauseRefs: - 2.4.1 - 2.5.2 i18n: en: title: Conditions for Change whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: >- Identity constraints are constitutional — describe the decision type, threshold, and ratification process required to add, remove, or amend a constraint. placeholders: - threshold - duration question: How are our non-negotiables added, changed or removed — and who has to agree? prompts: - >- What kind of decision does it take to add, change or remove one of our non-negotiables — an ordinary one, or one of our highest-level (constitutional) decisions? - >- How many people have to agree, and who counts — everyone, full members only, or those present? - >- How long do we wait between agreeing a change and it taking effect, so anyone affected can raise concerns or prepare? - Does removing a non-negotiable need the same bar as adding or changing one? examples: - >- Adding, changing or removing an identity constraint is a constitutional decision. The proposal must be shared with all full members at least 21 days before the meeting that decides it, and it passes only if at least three quarters of all full members vote in favour. The change takes effect 30 days after the decision, and both the old and new wording stay in the register's history. de: title: Bedingungen für Änderungen whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: >- Identitätsbeschränkungen sind verfassungsrechtlicher Natur — beschreibe den Entscheidungstyp, die Schwelle und das Ratifizierungsverfahren, die erforderlich sind, um eine Beschränkung hinzuzufügen, zu entfernen oder zu ändern. placeholders: - Schwellenwert - Dauer es: title: Condiciones para el Cambio whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: >- Las restricciones de identidad son constitucionales — describe el tipo de decisión, el umbral y el proceso de ratificación necesarios para añadir, eliminar o modificar una restricción. placeholders: - umbral - duración fr: title: Conditions de modification whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: >- Les contraintes d'identité sont de nature constitutionnelle — décris le type de décision, le seuil et le processus de ratification requis pour ajouter, supprimer ou modifier une contrainte. placeholders: - seuil - durée pt-br: title: Condições para Mudança whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: >- Restrições de identidade são constitucionais — descreva o tipo de decisão, o quórum e o processo de ratificação exigidos para adicionar, remover ou alterar uma restrição. placeholders: - quórum - duração disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: identity-constraints-register.ratification-record artifact: identity-constraints-register order: 3 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Ratification Record whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] question: Who adopted these constraints, when, and how was it decided? de: title: Ratifizierungsprotokoll whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: Registro de Ratificación whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: Procès-verbal de ratification whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Registro de Ratificação whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: filled_from_decision dispositionNote: >- Written from the decision that adopted this artifact: reference, date, mechanism, tally and attendance as recorded at freeze time. ownsClauses: [] - key: invariants-register.active-invariants artifact: invariants-register order: 0 clauseRefs: - 2.3.1 - 2.3.2 - 2.3.3 - 2.3.4 - 2.3.5 - 2.3.6 i18n: en: title: Active Invariants whyItMatters: >- Invariants are the hard floor of the system — the things that must hold true even under pressure, emergency, or a popular vote. If any decision, role, or crisis measure could override them, they would stop being constraints and become preferences. Listing them explicitly and binding them across every layer is what makes the governance system trustworthy under stress, not just on calm days. whatToDefine: >- Each invariant is a hard constraint. Keep them few, specific, and absolute — phrased so that any violation is unambiguously identifiable. Common categories: purpose protection, authority traceability, exit rights, ideological neutrality, non-extraction, safety primacy. placeholders: - >- Invariant statement, e.g. The primary purpose may never be overridden by any operational or strategic decision, role, or emergency measure. - >- Invariant statement, e.g. Authority must always be explicit and traceable to the governance system — no person or role may hold or exercise undeclared authority. - >- Invariant statement, e.g. Exit from the community must always be possible and must never be blocked, penalised, or made conditional beyond what is defined in Layer 1. - Invariant statement. - Invariant statement. - >- Invariant statement, e.g. Physical, psychological, and child safety always override participation rights, role continuity, and reputational concerns. question: What must never happen here, whatever the circumstances or the majority? prompts: - >- What must never happen here, even in an emergency or after a popular vote? Write each as one clear sentence. - 'For each one: how would anyone know, without argument, that it has been broken?' - >- Does each one hold everywhere — in membership, money, roles, safety and how we decide — or have we worded it so it only covers one area? - >- When a decision, a role or any other rule clashes with one of these, do we say plainly that the invariant wins and the other gives way? - >- Is the list short enough that each one is truly absolute — and is anything on it really just a strong preference? - >- Do we agree these can only be changed through our highest-level (constitutional) change process, never by an ordinary decision? examples: - >- No one may be prevented from leaving the community, or punished for leaving. No person or role may use authority that is not written into our governance documents. The physical safety of any person, and above all of a child, comes before anyone's role, reputation or participation. These hold for every rule, role, decision and emergency measure we have; where anything conflicts with them, they prevail, and they change only through our constitutional change process. de: title: Aktive Invarianten whyItMatters: >- Invarianten sind der harte Boden des Systems — Dinge, die auch unter Druck, in Notfällen oder bei einer Mehrheitsentscheidung gelten müssen. Wenn eine Entscheidung, eine Rolle oder eine Krisenmaßnahme sie außer Kraft setzen könnte, wären sie keine Rahmenbedingungen mehr, sondern nur noch Präferenzen. Sie explizit aufzulisten und auf allen Schichten zu verankern macht das Governance-System auch unter Stress verlässlich — nicht nur an ruhigen Tagen. whatToDefine: >- Jede Invariante ist eine harte Rahmenbedingung. Halte sie wenige, spezifisch und absolut — so formuliert, dass jede Verletzung eindeutig erkennbar ist. Häufige Kategorien: Zweckschutz, Rückverfolgbarkeit von Autorität, Austrittsrechte, ideologische Neutralität, Nicht-Extraktion, Sicherheitsvorrang. placeholders: - >- Invariantenaussage, z. B. Der primäre Zweck darf durch keine operative oder strategische Entscheidung, Rolle oder Notfallmaßnahme außer Kraft gesetzt werden. - >- Invariantenaussage, z. B. Autorität muss stets explizit und auf das Governance-System zurückführbar sein — keine Person und keine Rolle darf nicht deklarierte Autorität innehaben oder ausüben. - >- Invariantenaussage, z. B. Der Austritt aus der Gemeinschaft muss stets möglich sein und darf niemals blockiert, bestraft oder über das in Schicht 1 Festgelegte hinaus an Bedingungen geknüpft werden. - Invariantenaussage. - Invariantenaussage. - >- Invariantenaussage, z. B. Körperliche, psychische und Kindersicherheit haben stets Vorrang vor Teilnahmerechten, Rollenkontinuität und Reputationsbelangen. es: title: Invariantes Activas whyItMatters: >- Las invariantes son el piso firme del sistema — aquello que debe mantenerse verdadero incluso bajo presión, emergencia o votación popular. Si cualquier decisión, rol o medida de crisis pudiera anularlas, dejarían de ser restricciones y se convertirían en preferencias. Enumerarlas explícitamente y vincularlas a todas las capas es lo que hace que el sistema de gobernanza sea confiable bajo estrés, no solo en días tranquilos. whatToDefine: >- Cada invariante es una restricción firme. Mantenlas pocas, específicas y absolutas — formuladas de modo que cualquier violación sea inequívocamente identificable. Categorías comunes: protección del propósito, trazabilidad de la autoridad, derechos de salida, neutralidad ideológica, no-extracción, primacía de la seguridad. placeholders: - >- Declaración de invariante, p. ej. El propósito principal nunca puede ser anulado por ninguna decisión operativa o estratégica, rol o medida de emergencia. - >- Declaración de invariante, p. ej. La autoridad siempre debe ser explícita y trazable al sistema de gobernanza — ninguna persona o rol puede poseer o ejercer autoridad no declarada. - >- Declaración de invariante, p. ej. La salida de la comunidad siempre debe ser posible y nunca puede ser bloqueada, penalizada ni condicionada más allá de lo definido en la Capa 1. - Declaración de invariante. - Declaración de invariante. - >- Declaración de invariante, p. ej. La seguridad física, psicológica e infantil siempre prevalece sobre los derechos de participación, la continuidad de roles y las preocupaciones reputacionales. fr: title: Invariants actifs whyItMatters: >- Les invariants constituent le socle dur du système — les éléments qui doivent rester vrais même sous pression, en situation d'urgence ou lors d'un vote populaire. Si une décision, un rôle ou une mesure de crise pouvait les outrepasser, ils cesseraient d'être des contraintes pour devenir de simples préférences. Les lister explicitement et les rendre contraignants à travers toutes les couches est ce qui rend le système de gouvernance fiable sous stress, pas seulement les jours de calme. whatToDefine: >- Chaque invariant est une contrainte dure. Garde-les peu nombreux, spécifiques et absolus — formulés de sorte que toute violation soit identifiable sans ambiguïté. Catégories courantes : protection de la raison d'être, traçabilité de l'autorité, droits de sortie, neutralité idéologique, non-extraction, primauté de la sécurité. placeholders: - >- Énoncé de l'invariant, p. ex. La raison d'être principale ne peut jamais être outrepassée par une décision opérationnelle ou stratégique, un rôle ou une mesure d'urgence. - >- Énoncé de l'invariant, p. ex. L'autorité doit toujours être explicite et traçable jusqu'au système de gouvernance — aucune personne ni aucun rôle ne peut détenir ou exercer une autorité non déclarée. - >- Énoncé de l'invariant, p. ex. La sortie de la communauté doit toujours être possible et ne doit jamais être bloquée, pénalisée ou conditionnée au-delà de ce qui est défini dans la Couche 1. - Énoncé de l'invariant. - Énoncé de l'invariant. - >- Énoncé de l'invariant, p. ex. La sécurité physique, psychologique et celle des enfants prévaut toujours sur les droits de participation, la continuité des rôles et les préoccupations de réputation. pt-br: title: Invariantes Ativos whyItMatters: >- Os invariantes são o piso rígido do sistema — as coisas que precisam continuar verdadeiras mesmo sob pressão, emergência ou votação popular. Se qualquer decisão, papel ou medida de crise pudesse sobrepô-los, eles deixariam de ser restrições e se tornariam preferências. Listá-los explicitamente e vinculá-los a todas as camadas é o que torna o sistema de governança confiável sob estresse, não apenas em dias tranquilos. whatToDefine: >- Cada invariante é uma restrição rígida. Mantenha-os poucos, específicos e absolutos — formulados de modo que qualquer violação seja inequivocamente identificável. Categorias comuns: proteção do propósito, rastreabilidade da autoridade, direitos de saída, neutralidade ideológica, não extração, primazia da segurança. placeholders: - >- Declaração do invariante, ex.: O propósito primário nunca pode ser sobreposto por qualquer decisão operacional ou estratégica, papel ou medida emergencial. - >- Declaração do invariante, ex.: A autoridade deve ser sempre explícita e rastreável até o sistema de governança — nenhuma pessoa ou papel pode deter ou exercer autoridade não declarada. - >- Declaração do invariante, ex.: A saída da comunidade deve ser sempre possível e nunca deve ser bloqueada, penalizada ou condicionada além do que está definido na Camada 1. - Declaração do invariante. - Declaração do invariante. - >- Declaração do invariante, ex.: A segurança física, psicológica e infantil sempre tem precedência sobre direitos de participação, continuidade de papéis e preocupações reputacionais. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 2.3.1 - 2.3.2 - 2.3.3 - 2.3.4 - 2.3.5 - 2.3.6 - key: invariants-register.ratification-record artifact: invariants-register order: 1 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Ratification Record whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] question: Who adopted these invariants, when, and how was it decided? de: title: Ratifizierungsprotokoll whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: Registro de Ratificación whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: Registre de ratification whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Registro de Ratificação whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: filled_from_decision dispositionNote: >- Written from the decision that adopted this artifact: reference, date, mechanism, tally and attendance as recorded at freeze time. ownsClauses: [] - key: purpose-charter.primary-purpose artifact: purpose-charter order: 0 clauseRefs: - 2.1.1 - 2.1.2 - 2.1.5 i18n: en: title: Primary Purpose whyItMatters: >- Every decision, role, and allocation of resources downstream has to stay consistent with one thing — the community's primary purpose. If it drifts, shifts with trends, or gets rewritten to justify the latest project, there is nothing left to anchor governance to. A single, stable primary purpose is the constitutional north star: strategies change, the purpose does not. whatToDefine: >- State exactly one primary purpose. It must describe the enduring reason your community exists — not a project, strategy, or short-term goal. One or two sentences. placeholders: - Your community's primary purpose, in one or two sentences. question: Why does this community exist — in one sentence that will still be true in ten years? prompts: - If we could keep only one reason for existing, what would it be? - Would it still be true in ten years, after our current projects are finished or dropped? - Is it a lasting reason — not a project, a strategy or a goal we could one day tick off? - >- Is it clear enough that we could tell when a decision, or a way of spending our time or money, goes against it? examples: - >- We exist so that the people who live here can share land, homes and daily work in a way that leaves the soil, the water and our neighbours better off than we found them. de: title: Primärer Zweck whyItMatters: >- Jede Entscheidung, jede Rolle und jede Ressourcenzuteilung muss mit einer Sache im Einklang bleiben — dem primären Zweck der Gemeinschaft. Wenn er abdriftet, sich Trends anpasst oder umgeschrieben wird, um das neueste Projekt zu rechtfertigen, gibt es nichts mehr, woran sich die Governance verankern lässt. Ein einzelner, stabiler primärer Zweck ist der konstitutionelle Nordstern: Strategien ändern sich, der Zweck nicht. whatToDefine: >- Formuliert genau einen primären Zweck. Er muss den dauerhaften Grund beschreiben, warum eure Gemeinschaft existiert — kein Projekt, keine Strategie und kein kurzfristiges Ziel. Ein bis zwei Sätze. placeholders: - Der primäre Zweck eurer Gemeinschaft, in ein bis zwei Sätzen. es: title: Propósito Principal whyItMatters: >- Cada decisión, rol y asignación de recursos en niveles posteriores tiene que mantenerse consistente con una sola cosa: el propósito principal de la comunidad. Si se desvía, cambia con las tendencias o se reescribe para justificar el último proyecto, no queda nada a lo que anclar la gobernanza. Un propósito principal único y estable es la estrella polar constitucional: las estrategias cambian, el propósito no. whatToDefine: >- Indica exactamente un propósito principal. DEBE describir la razón perdurable por la que tu comunidad existe — no un proyecto, estrategia u objetivo a corto plazo. Una o dos oraciones. placeholders: - El propósito principal de tu comunidad, en una o dos oraciones. fr: title: Raison d'être principale whyItMatters: >- Chaque décision, rôle et allocation de ressources en aval doit rester cohérent avec une seule chose — la raison d'être principale de la communauté. Si elle dérive, suit les tendances ou est réécrite pour justifier le dernier projet en date, il ne reste plus rien pour ancrer la gouvernance. Une raison d'être principale unique et stable est l'étoile polaire constitutionnelle : les stratégies changent, la raison d'être non. whatToDefine: >- Énonce exactement une raison d'être principale. Elle DOIT décrire la raison pérenne pour laquelle ta communauté existe — pas un projet, une stratégie ou un objectif à court terme. Une ou deux phrases. placeholders: - La raison d'être principale de ta communauté, en une ou deux phrases. pt-br: title: Propósito Primário whyItMatters: >- Toda decisão, papel e alocação de recursos a jusante precisa permanecer consistente com uma única coisa — o propósito primário da comunidade. Se ele deriva, muda com as tendências ou é reescrito para justificar o projeto mais recente, não sobra nada para ancorar a governança. Um propósito primário único e estável é a estrela polar constitucional: as estratégias mudam, o propósito não. whatToDefine: >- Declare exatamente um propósito primário. Ele deve descrever a razão duradoura pela qual sua comunidade existe — não um projeto, estratégia ou meta de curto prazo. Uma ou duas frases. placeholders: - O propósito primário da sua comunidade, em uma ou duas frases. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 2.1.1 - 2.1.2 - 2.1.5 - key: purpose-charter.secondary-purposes artifact: purpose-charter order: 1 clauseRefs: - 2.1.4 i18n: en: title: Secondary Purposes whyItMatters: >- A community rarely does only one thing. Secondary purposes make space for the other concrete outcomes the community pursues — but they are subordinate. If a secondary purpose ever conflicts with the primary, the primary wins. Declaring them explicitly prevents scope creep from masquerading as core work. whatToDefine: >- List concrete secondary outcomes the community pursues. They must not conflict with or override the primary purpose. Remove the section entirely if you have none. placeholders: - Secondary purpose 1. - Secondary purpose 2. - Secondary purpose 3. question: What secondary purposes do we pursue — without competing with why we exist? prompts: - Besides our primary purpose, what other concrete outcomes do we work towards — if any? - >- For each one: could it ever pull time, money or people away from our primary purpose — and if it could, is it really secondary? - >- Do we say plainly that when a secondary purpose clashes with our primary purpose, the primary purpose wins? examples: - >- Alongside our primary purpose we pursue three secondary purposes: keeping homes affordable for members on modest incomes, running an open tool library for the neighbourhood, and sharing what we learn about living cooperatively at two open days a year. None of these may override our primary purpose; if one conflicts with it, the primary purpose takes precedence and the secondary purpose is scaled back or dropped. de: title: Sekundäre Zwecke whyItMatters: >- Eine Gemeinschaft tut selten nur eine Sache. Sekundäre Zwecke schaffen Raum für die anderen konkreten Ergebnisse, die die Gemeinschaft verfolgt — aber sie sind nachrangig. Wenn ein sekundärer Zweck jemals mit dem primären in Konflikt gerät, hat der primäre Vorrang. Indem ihr sie explizit benennt, verhindert ihr, dass schleichende Ausweitung sich als Kernarbeit tarnt. whatToDefine: >- Listet konkrete sekundäre Ergebnisse auf, die die Gemeinschaft verfolgt. Sie dürfen nicht im Widerspruch zum primären Zweck stehen oder diesen überlagern. Entfernt diesen Abschnitt vollständig, wenn ihr keine habt. placeholders: - Sekundärer Zweck 1. - Sekundärer Zweck 2. - Sekundärer Zweck 3. es: title: Propósitos Secundarios whyItMatters: >- Una comunidad rara vez hace solo una cosa. Los propósitos secundarios dan espacio para los otros resultados concretos que la comunidad persigue — pero están subordinados. Si un propósito secundario alguna vez entra en conflicto con el principal, el principal prevalece. Declararlos explícitamente evita que la expansión del alcance se disfrace de trabajo esencial. whatToDefine: >- Enumera los resultados secundarios concretos que la comunidad persigue. NO DEBEN entrar en conflicto con ni anular el propósito principal. Elimina esta sección por completo si no tienes ninguno. placeholders: - Propósito secundario 1. - Propósito secundario 2. - Propósito secundario 3. fr: title: Raisons d'être secondaires whyItMatters: >- Une communauté fait rarement une seule chose. Les raisons d'être secondaires laissent de la place aux autres résultats concrets que la communauté poursuit — mais elles sont subordonnées. Si une raison d'être secondaire entre un jour en conflit avec la principale, la principale l'emporte. Les déclarer explicitement empêche la dérive de périmètre de se faire passer pour du travail fondamental. whatToDefine: >- Liste les résultats secondaires concrets que la communauté poursuit. Ils NE DOIVENT PAS entrer en conflit avec ou supplanter la raison d'être principale. Supprime entièrement cette section si tu n'en as aucun. placeholders: - Raison d'être secondaire 1. - Raison d'être secondaire 2. - Raison d'être secondaire 3. pt-br: title: Propósitos Secundários whyItMatters: >- Uma comunidade raramente faz apenas uma coisa. Os propósitos secundários abrem espaço para os outros resultados concretos que a comunidade persegue — mas são subordinados. Se um propósito secundário entrar em conflito com o primário, o primário vence. Declará-los explicitamente impede que a expansão de escopo se disfarce de trabalho central. whatToDefine: >- Liste resultados secundários concretos que a comunidade persegue. Eles não devem conflitar com nem sobrepor-se ao propósito primário. Remova a seção inteira se você não tiver nenhum. placeholders: - Propósito secundário 1. - Propósito secundário 2. - Propósito secundário 3. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 2.1.4 - key: purpose-charter.non-goals-and-exclusions artifact: purpose-charter order: 2 clauseRefs: - 2.1.5 i18n: en: title: Non-Goals and Exclusions whyItMatters: >- Communities drift by accretion — one uncontested assumption at a time. Naming what the community is explicitly *not* makes boundary violations visible early, and gives anyone a clear basis to object before an activity becomes normalized. Silence here gets read as consent. whatToDefine: >- Name the things your community is explicitly NOT, especially identities or roles others might assume by default (political party, investment vehicle, religious group, etc.). placeholders: - Non-goal 1. - Non-goal 2. - Non-goal 3. question: What are we deliberately not, however tempting it becomes? prompts: - >- What might outsiders or new members assume we are, that we are not — a political party, a business, a religious group, a charity? - >- Which tempting directions have come up before, or are likely to, that we want to rule out now? - >- For each one: is it worded clearly enough that anyone could point to an activity and say it crosses the line? examples: - >- We are not a political party, and we do not endorse candidates or campaigns as a community. We are not an investment vehicle: no one joins to earn a return, and shared assets are never managed to make a profit for members. We are not a religious or spiritual group, and no belief or practice is expected of anyone who takes part. de: title: Nicht-Ziele und Ausschlüsse whyItMatters: >- Gemeinschaften driften durch Anhäufung ab — eine unwidersprochen gebliebene Annahme nach der anderen. Zu benennen, was die Gemeinschaft ausdrücklich *nicht* ist, macht Grenzüberschreitungen frühzeitig sichtbar und gibt allen eine klare Grundlage, Einspruch zu erheben, bevor eine Aktivität zur Normalität wird. Schweigen wird hier als Zustimmung gelesen. whatToDefine: >- Benennt die Dinge, die eure Gemeinschaft ausdrücklich NICHT ist, insbesondere Identitäten oder Rollen, die andere möglicherweise standardmäßig annehmen könnten (politische Partei, Investmentvehikel, religiöse Gruppe usw.). placeholders: - Nicht-Ziel 1. - Nicht-Ziel 2. - Nicht-Ziel 3. es: title: No-Objetivos y Exclusiones whyItMatters: >- Las comunidades derivan por acumulación — una suposición no cuestionada a la vez. Nombrar lo que la comunidad explícitamente *no es* hace visibles las violaciones de límites desde el principio, y da a cualquiera una base clara para objetar antes de que una actividad se normalice. El silencio aquí se interpreta como consentimiento. whatToDefine: >- Nombra las cosas que tu comunidad explícitamente NO es, especialmente identidades o roles que otros podrían asumir por defecto (partido político, vehículo de inversión, grupo religioso, etc.). placeholders: - No-objetivo 1. - No-objetivo 2. - No-objetivo 3. fr: title: Non-objectifs et exclusions whyItMatters: >- Les communautés dérivent par accumulation — une hypothèse non contestée à la fois. Nommer ce que la communauté n'est explicitement *pas* rend les violations de périmètre visibles tôt, et donne à quiconque une base claire pour s'opposer avant qu'une activité ne devienne normalisée. Le silence ici est interprété comme un consentement. whatToDefine: >- Nomme les choses que ta communauté n'est explicitement PAS, en particulier les identités ou rôles que d'autres pourraient supposer par défaut (parti politique, véhicule d'investissement, groupe religieux, etc.). placeholders: - Non-objectif 1. - Non-objectif 2. - Non-objectif 3. pt-br: title: Não-Objetivos e Exclusões whyItMatters: >- Comunidades derivam por acréscimo — uma suposição não contestada de cada vez. Nomear o que a comunidade explicitamente *não é* torna as violações de fronteira visíveis cedo e dá a qualquer pessoa uma base clara para objetar antes que uma atividade se normalize. O silêncio aqui é lido como consentimento. whatToDefine: >- Nomeie as coisas que sua comunidade explicitamente NÃO é, especialmente identidades ou papéis que outros possam presumir por padrão (partido político, veículo de investimento, grupo religioso, etc.). placeholders: - Não-objetivo 1. - Não-objetivo 2. - Não-objetivo 3. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: purpose-charter.conditions-for-purpose-change artifact: purpose-charter order: 3 clauseRefs: - 2.1.3 i18n: en: title: Conditions for Purpose Change whyItMatters: >- Purpose is the one thing everything else depends on. If it were easy to change, nothing above it in the stack — membership, governance, invariants — could be trusted to mean the same thing from one year to the next. Constitutional-level thresholds and a ratification delay force a deliberate, visible act, not a quiet drift. whatToDefine: >- Describe the change procedure. At minimum: the decision type required for the primary purpose (Constitutional, per Layer 2), the threshold, the ratification delay, and where the change is recorded (Layer 6 version history). Secondary purposes typically need a lower bar. placeholders: - threshold, e.g. supermajority of Full Members ≥⅔ of votes cast - duration, e.g. 30 days question: What would it take to change why we exist — and who would have to agree? prompts: - >- Do we treat changing our primary purpose as one of our highest-level (constitutional) decisions, rather than an ordinary one? - >- How many people have to agree, and who counts — all members, full members only, or those who vote? - How long must we wait between the decision and the change taking effect? - Where is the change recorded, so that the old and the new wording both stay visible? - Do our secondary purposes need the same bar to change, or a lower one? examples: - >- Changing the primary purpose is a constitutional decision. The proposal must be shared 30 days before the vote, and it passes only with at least two thirds of the votes cast by full members, with at least half of all full members voting. The change takes effect after a further 30 days and is recorded, together with the previous wording, in our version history. Secondary purposes can be changed by an ordinary community decision. de: title: Bedingungen für eine Zweckänderung whyItMatters: >- Der Zweck ist das eine Element, von dem alles andere abhängt. Wäre er leicht zu ändern, könnte nichts, was darauf aufbaut — Mitgliedschaft, Governance, Invarianten — darauf vertrauen, von einem Jahr zum nächsten dasselbe zu bedeuten. Konstitutionelle Schwellenwerte und eine Ratifizierungsfrist erzwingen einen bewussten, sichtbaren Akt statt eines stillen Abdriftens. whatToDefine: >- Beschreibt das Änderungsverfahren. Mindestens: den erforderlichen Entscheidungstyp für den primären Zweck (Konstitutionell, gemäß Schicht 2), den Schwellenwert, die Ratifizierungsfrist und wo die Änderung festgehalten wird (Versionshistorie in Schicht 6). Sekundäre Zwecke erfordern typischerweise eine niedrigere Hürde. placeholders: - Schwellenwert, z. B. qualifizierte Mehrheit der Vollmitglieder ≥⅔ der abgegebenen Stimmen - Dauer, z. B. 30 Tagen es: title: Condiciones para Cambiar el Propósito whyItMatters: >- El propósito es lo único de lo que depende todo lo demás. Si fuera fácil de cambiar, nada por encima en la pila — membresía, gobernanza, invariantes — podría confiarse en que significa lo mismo de un año al siguiente. Los umbrales de nivel constitucional y un periodo de ratificación obligan a un acto deliberado y visible, no a una deriva silenciosa. whatToDefine: >- Describe el procedimiento de cambio. Como mínimo: el tipo de decisión requerido para el propósito principal (Constitucional, según la Capa 2), el umbral, el periodo de ratificación y dónde se registra el cambio (historial de versiones de la Capa 6). Los propósitos secundarios típicamente necesitan un umbral menor. placeholders: - umbral, p. ej. supermayoría de Miembros Plenos ≥⅔ de los votos emitidos - duración, p. ej. 30 días fr: title: Conditions de modification de la raison d'être whyItMatters: >- La raison d'être est la seule chose dont tout le reste dépend. Si elle était facile à modifier, rien au-dessus dans la pile — adhésion, gouvernance, invariants — ne pourrait être considéré comme ayant le même sens d'une année à l'autre. Des seuils de niveau constitutionnel et un délai de ratification imposent un acte délibéré et visible, pas une dérive silencieuse. whatToDefine: >- Décris la procédure de modification. Au minimum : le type de décision requis pour la raison d'être principale (Constitutionnelle, selon la Couche 2), le seuil, le délai de ratification, et où la modification est enregistrée (historique des versions, Couche 6). Les raisons d'être secondaires nécessitent typiquement un seuil plus bas. placeholders: - seuil, par ex. supermajorité des Membres titulaires ≥⅔ des votes exprimés - durée, par ex. 30 jours pt-br: title: Condições para Mudança de Propósito whyItMatters: >- O propósito é a única coisa da qual todo o resto depende. Se fosse fácil de mudar, nada acima dele na pilha — associação, governança, invariantes — poderia ser confiado a significar a mesma coisa de um ano para o outro. Limiares de nível constitucional e um prazo de ratificação forçam um ato deliberado e visível, não uma deriva silenciosa. whatToDefine: >- Descreva o procedimento de mudança. No mínimo: o tipo de decisão exigido para o propósito primário (Constitucional, conforme a Camada 2), o limiar, o prazo de ratificação e onde a mudança é registrada (histórico de versões da Camada 6). Propósitos secundários normalmente precisam de um patamar mais baixo. placeholders: - 'limiar, ex.: supermaioria de Membros Plenos ≥⅔ dos votos emitidos' - 'duração, ex.: 30 dias' disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 2.1.3 - key: purpose-charter.ratification-record artifact: purpose-charter order: 4 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Ratification Record whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] question: Who adopted this charter, when, and how was it decided? de: title: Ratifizierungsprotokoll whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: Registro de Ratificación whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: Registre de ratification whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Registro de Ratificação whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: filled_from_decision dispositionNote: >- Written from the decision that adopted this artifact: reference, date, mechanism, tally and attendance as recorded at freeze time. ownsClauses: [] - key: scope-declaration.in-scope-assets artifact: scope-declaration order: 0 clauseRefs: - 2.2.1 - 2.2.2 - 2.2.4 i18n: en: title: In-Scope Assets whyItMatters: >- If the community has not explicitly named an asset as in-scope, it isn't — full stop. Listing assets by name closes the gap where informal claims of authority grow over undeclared resources, and gives members a concrete checklist to verify what the community actually controls. whatToDefine: >- List every asset the community collectively governs: shared funds, treasuries, land, real estate, software, websites, social accounts, brand, intellectual property, physical infrastructure, etc. Be specific — name accounts, wallets, domains. placeholders: - Asset 1, e.g. the shared treasury held in a specific multi-sig wallet. - Asset 2, e.g. the community website and its domain. - Asset 3, e.g. shared physical infrastructure or land. - Asset 4. question: What does the community own or steward together? prompts: - >- What do we own, hold or look after together — money, land, buildings, equipment, software, websites, accounts, our name and logo? - >- For each one: what exactly is it — which account, which plot, which domain — so no one can argue about what is meant? - >- What do individuals hold on the community's behalf, such as an account or a domain in a member's name — and do we count it as ours? - >- Is anything shared in practice that we have never named? (Which decisions and which work are collective are their own questions.) examples: - >- The collective governs: the shared treasury held in our two-of-three multi-signature wallet; the project website and its domain; the code repositories under the collective's organisation account; our chat server and social media accounts; and the collective's name, logo and published guides. Any account a member registers on the collective's behalf belongs to the collective. de: title: Erfasste Vermögenswerte whyItMatters: >- Wenn die Gemeinschaft einen Vermögenswert nicht ausdrücklich als erfasst benannt hat, ist er es nicht — Punkt. Vermögenswerte namentlich aufzulisten schließt die Lücke, in der informelle Autoritätsansprüche über nicht deklarierte Ressourcen wachsen, und gibt Mitgliedern eine konkrete Checkliste, um zu überprüfen, was die Gemeinschaft tatsächlich kontrolliert. whatToDefine: >- Liste jeden Vermögenswert auf, den die Gemeinschaft gemeinsam verwaltet: gemeinsame Kassen, Treasuries, Land, Immobilien, Software, Websites, Social-Media-Konten, Marke, geistiges Eigentum, physische Infrastruktur usw. Sei konkret — benenne Konten, Wallets, Domains. placeholders: - Vermögenswert 1, z. B. die gemeinsame Kasse in einer bestimmten Multi-Sig-Wallet. - Vermögenswert 2, z. B. die Gemeinschaftswebsite und ihre Domain. - Vermögenswert 3, z. B. gemeinsame physische Infrastruktur oder Land. - Vermögenswert 4. es: title: Activos Dentro del Alcance whyItMatters: >- Si la comunidad no ha nombrado explícitamente un activo como dentro del alcance, no lo está — punto final. Listar los activos por nombre cierra la brecha donde reclamos informales de autoridad crecen sobre recursos no declarados, y da a los miembros una lista de verificación concreta para comprobar qué controla realmente la comunidad. whatToDefine: >- Lista cada activo que la comunidad gobierna colectivamente: fondos compartidos, tesorerías, terrenos, bienes raíces, software, sitios web, cuentas en redes sociales, marca, propiedad intelectual, infraestructura física, etc. Sé específico/a — nombra cuentas, billeteras, dominios. placeholders: - Activo 1, p. ej. la tesorería compartida en una billetera multi-firma específica. - Activo 2, p. ej. el sitio web de la comunidad y su dominio. - Activo 3, p. ej. infraestructura física compartida o terrenos. - Activo 4. fr: title: Actifs dans le périmètre whyItMatters: >- Si la communauté n'a pas explicitement désigné un actif comme étant dans le périmètre, il ne l'est pas — point final. Lister les actifs par leur nom comble le vide dans lequel des revendications informelles d'autorité se développent sur des ressources non déclarées, et donne aux membres une liste de vérification concrète de ce que la communauté contrôle réellement. whatToDefine: >- Liste tous les actifs que la communauté gouverne collectivement : fonds partagés, trésoreries, terrains, biens immobiliers, logiciels, sites web, comptes sur les réseaux sociaux, marque, propriété intellectuelle, infrastructure physique, etc. Sois précis·e — nomme les comptes, portefeuilles, domaines. placeholders: - >- Actif 1, p. ex. la trésorerie commune détenue dans un portefeuille multi-signature spécifique. - Actif 2, p. ex. le site web de la communauté et son nom de domaine. - Actif 3, p. ex. l'infrastructure physique partagée ou le terrain. - Actif 4. pt-br: title: Ativos Dentro do Escopo whyItMatters: >- Se a comunidade não nomeou explicitamente um ativo como dentro do escopo, ele não está — ponto final. Listar os ativos pelo nome fecha a brecha onde reivindicações informais de autoridade crescem sobre recursos não declarados, e oferece aos membros uma lista concreta para verificar o que a comunidade de fato controla. whatToDefine: >- Liste todos os ativos que a comunidade governa coletivamente: fundos compartilhados, tesourarias, terras, imóveis, software, sites, contas em redes sociais, marca, propriedade intelectual, infraestrutura física, etc. Seja específico — nomeie contas, carteiras, domínios. placeholders: - 'Ativo 1, ex.: a tesouraria compartilhada mantida em uma carteira multi-sig específica.' - 'Ativo 2, ex.: o site da comunidade e seu domínio.' - 'Ativo 3, ex.: infraestrutura física ou terras compartilhadas.' - Ativo 4. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 2.2.1 - 2.2.2 - key: scope-declaration.in-scope-decision-domains artifact: scope-declaration order: 1 clauseRefs: - 2.2.1 - 2.2.2 i18n: en: title: In-Scope Decision Domains whyItMatters: >- Scope isn't only about stuff — it's about which kinds of questions the community gets to answer collectively. Naming decision domains makes it unambiguous where collective authority applies and where an individual or external party still decides, preventing quiet capture of decision territory. whatToDefine: >- List the categories of decisions the community has authority over. These map to later layers (governance, membership, treasury, etc.) — name them at a level that makes it clear what kinds of questions the community decides together. placeholders: - Decision domain 1, e.g. governance rules and decision processes (Layer 2). - Decision domain 2, e.g. membership rules and admission (Layer 1). - Decision domain 3, e.g. treasury and shared resource allocation (Layer 3). - Decision domain 4. question: Which decisions belong to the group rather than to individuals? prompts: - >- What kinds of questions do we decide together — for example how we decide, who can join, how shared money is spent, how shared spaces are used? - >- For each one: where does it stop — what stays with an individual, a household or an outside party? - >- Are any decisions taken by one person today out of habit that we want to name as the group's — or say plainly are not? (How each kind of decision is made is its own question.) examples: - >- We decide together on: our governance rules and how decisions are made; who may join, and on what terms; how the shared budget and reserves are spent; the use and upkeep of the shared house, garden and guest rooms; and any agreement made in the community's name with an outside party. Decisions about each household's own flat stay with that household. de: title: Erfasste Entscheidungsbereiche whyItMatters: >- Beim Geltungsbereich geht es nicht nur um Dinge — es geht darum, welche Arten von Fragen die Gemeinschaft gemeinsam beantworten darf. Entscheidungsbereiche zu benennen macht unmissverständlich, wo kollektive Autorität gilt und wo eine Einzelperson oder eine externe Partei weiterhin entscheidet, und verhindert die stille Übernahme von Entscheidungsgebieten. whatToDefine: >- Liste die Kategorien von Entscheidungen auf, über die die Gemeinschaft Autorität hat. Diese entsprechen späteren Layern (Governance, Mitgliedschaft, Kasse usw.) — benenne sie auf einem Niveau, das klarmacht, welche Arten von Fragen die Gemeinschaft gemeinsam entscheidet. placeholders: - Entscheidungsbereich 1, z. B. Governance-Regeln und Entscheidungsprozesse (Schicht 2). - Entscheidungsbereich 2, z. B. Mitgliedschaftsregeln und Aufnahme (Schicht 1). - Entscheidungsbereich 3, z. B. Kasse und Verteilung gemeinsamer Ressourcen (Schicht 3). - Entscheidungsbereich 4. es: title: Dominios de Decisión Dentro del Alcance whyItMatters: >- El alcance no se trata solo de cosas — se trata de qué tipos de preguntas la comunidad puede responder colectivamente. Nombrar los dominios de decisión deja claro sin ambigüedad dónde se aplica la autoridad colectiva y dónde un individuo o una parte externa aún decide, previniendo la captura silenciosa de territorio de decisión. whatToDefine: >- Lista las categorías de decisiones sobre las que la comunidad tiene autoridad. Estas se corresponden con capas posteriores (gobernanza, membresía, tesorería, etc.) — nómbralas a un nivel que deje claro qué tipos de preguntas la comunidad decide en conjunto. placeholders: - Dominio de decisión 1, p. ej. reglas de gobernanza y procesos de decisión (Capa 2). - Dominio de decisión 2, p. ej. reglas de membresía y admisión (Capa 1). - Dominio de decisión 3, p. ej. tesorería y asignación de recursos compartidos (Capa 3). - Dominio de decisión 4. fr: title: Domaines de décision dans le périmètre whyItMatters: >- Le périmètre ne concerne pas uniquement les biens — il s'agit aussi de savoir quels types de questions la communauté peut trancher collectivement. Nommer les domaines de décision rend explicite où s'applique l'autorité collective et où c'est un individu ou une partie externe qui décide, empêchant ainsi la capture silencieuse de territoires décisionnels. whatToDefine: >- Liste les catégories de décisions sur lesquelles la communauté a autorité. Elles correspondent aux couches ultérieures (gouvernance, adhésion, trésorerie, etc.) — nomme-les à un niveau qui rende clair quels types de questions la communauté décide ensemble. placeholders: - Domaine de décision 1, p. ex. règles de gouvernance et processus décisionnels (Couche 2). - Domaine de décision 2, p. ex. règles d'adhésion et admission (Couche 1). - >- Domaine de décision 3, p. ex. trésorerie et allocation des ressources partagées (Couche 3). - Domaine de décision 4. pt-br: title: Domínios de Decisão Dentro do Escopo whyItMatters: >- Escopo não é só sobre coisas — é sobre quais tipos de perguntas a comunidade tem direito de responder coletivamente. Nomear os domínios de decisão deixa inequívoco onde a autoridade coletiva se aplica e onde um indivíduo ou parte externa ainda decide, evitando a captura silenciosa de território decisório. whatToDefine: >- Liste as categorias de decisões sobre as quais a comunidade tem autoridade. Estas se conectam às camadas posteriores (governança, associação, tesouraria, etc.) — nomeie-as em um nível que deixe claro quais tipos de perguntas a comunidade decide em conjunto. placeholders: - 'Domínio de decisão 1, ex.: regras de governança e processos de decisão (Camada 2).' - 'Domínio de decisão 2, ex.: regras de associação e admissão (Camada 1).' - 'Domínio de decisão 3, ex.: tesouraria e alocação de recursos compartilhados (Camada 3).' - Domínio de decisão 4. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: scope-declaration.in-scope-activities-and-responsibilities artifact: scope-declaration order: 2 clauseRefs: - 2.2.1 - 2.2.2 i18n: en: title: In-Scope Activities and Responsibilities whyItMatters: >- Authority without owned responsibility produces paralysis; responsibility without declared authority produces burnout and blame. Listing the activities the community collectively governs makes the work visible, assignable, and accountable — and makes it obvious when something important has no owner. whatToDefine: >- List the ongoing activities the community is responsible for: maintaining shared infrastructure, admitting members, reporting on resources, stewarding the brand, etc. These are the things that need an owner via Layer 5. placeholders: - Activity 1. - Activity 2. - Activity 3. - Activity 4. question: Which work and responsibilities are collective? prompts: - >- What ongoing work are we responsible for as a community — upkeep, welcoming new members, keeping accounts, looking after our name, hosting visitors? - >- For each one: is it done regularly or only when needed, and what goes wrong if no one does it? - >- Is anyone doing work today that nobody formally took on — and should it be collective, or should we say it is not? (Who does each piece of work is decided when roles are assigned.) examples: - >- As a community we are responsible for: maintaining the shared water supply, paths and solar system; running the vegetable garden and orchard; admitting and welcoming new members; keeping the accounts and reporting on them twice a year; and hosting visitors and volunteers. Work on private dwellings and personal gardens is not a collective responsibility. de: title: Erfasste Aktivitäten und Verantwortlichkeiten whyItMatters: >- Autorität ohne übernommene Verantwortung erzeugt Stillstand; Verantwortung ohne erklärte Autorität erzeugt Burnout und Schuldzuweisungen. Die Aktivitäten aufzulisten, die die Gemeinschaft gemeinsam steuert, macht die Arbeit sichtbar, zuweisbar und rechenschaftspflichtig — und macht offensichtlich, wenn etwas Wichtiges keinen Verantwortlichen hat. whatToDefine: >- Liste die laufenden Aktivitäten auf, für die die Gemeinschaft verantwortlich ist: Pflege gemeinsamer Infrastruktur, Aufnahme von Mitgliedern, Berichterstattung über Ressourcen, Pflege der Marke usw. Das sind die Dinge, die über Schicht 5 einen Verantwortlichen brauchen. placeholders: - Aktivität 1. - Aktivität 2. - Aktivität 3. - Aktivität 4. es: title: Actividades y Responsabilidades Dentro del Alcance whyItMatters: >- Autoridad sin responsabilidad asumida produce parálisis; responsabilidad sin autoridad declarada produce agotamiento y culpa. Listar las actividades que la comunidad gobierna colectivamente hace el trabajo visible, asignable y con rendición de cuentas — y hace obvio cuándo algo importante no tiene responsable. whatToDefine: >- Lista las actividades continuas de las que la comunidad es responsable: mantener infraestructura compartida, admitir miembros, reportar sobre recursos, custodiar la marca, etc. Estas son las cosas que necesitan un responsable a través de la Capa 5. placeholders: - Actividad 1. - Actividad 2. - Actividad 3. - Actividad 4. fr: title: Activités et responsabilités dans le périmètre whyItMatters: >- L'autorité sans responsabilité assumée produit la paralysie ; la responsabilité sans autorité déclarée produit l'épuisement et les reproches. Lister les activités que la communauté gouverne collectivement rend le travail visible, assignable et imputable — et met en évidence quand quelque chose d'important n'a pas de responsable. whatToDefine: >- Liste les activités permanentes dont la communauté est responsable : entretien de l'infrastructure partagée, admission des membres, rapports sur les ressources, gestion de la marque, etc. Ce sont les choses qui ont besoin d'un·e responsable via la Couche 5. placeholders: - Activité 1. - Activité 2. - Activité 3. - Activité 4. pt-br: title: Atividades e Responsabilidades Dentro do Escopo whyItMatters: >- Autoridade sem responsabilidade assumida produz paralisia; responsabilidade sem autoridade declarada produz esgotamento e culpabilização. Listar as atividades que a comunidade governa coletivamente torna o trabalho visível, atribuível e responsabilizável — e deixa óbvio quando algo importante não tem dono. whatToDefine: >- Liste as atividades contínuas pelas quais a comunidade é responsável: manter a infraestrutura compartilhada, admitir membros, prestar contas sobre recursos, cuidar da marca, etc. Estas são as coisas que precisam de um dono via Camada 5. placeholders: - Atividade 1. - Atividade 2. - Atividade 3. - Atividade 4. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: scope-declaration.explicitly-out-of-scope artifact: scope-declaration order: 3 clauseRefs: - 2.2.3 - 2.2.4 - 2.2.5 i18n: en: title: Explicitly Out of Scope whyItMatters: >- An unstated boundary is no boundary at all. Explicit out-of-scope items protect members from the community reaching into their private lives and finances, and protect external parties from the community presuming authority over their affairs. If it isn't named here, the default rule of "not in-scope means out of scope" still applies — but naming the big ones removes any room for argument. whatToDefine: >- List the most important boundaries: things people might assume are in scope but aren't. Personal finances, private relationships, third-party infrastructure, external projects, etc. placeholders: - Out-of-scope item 1, e.g. personal income and private finances of members. - >- Out-of-scope item 2, e.g. private relationships and personal living arrangements (except where Layer 4 safety-critical conditions apply). - >- Out-of-scope item 3, e.g. underlying server infrastructure and third-party service contracts. - Out-of-scope item 4. question: What is none of the community's business — and stays that way? prompts: - >- What might people assume the community has a say in, that it does not — members' money, relationships, jobs, beliefs, or other projects they belong to? - >- Which outside organisations, services or neighbours do we work with but have no authority over? - >- Do we say plainly that anything not named as in scope is out of scope, even if this list does not mention it? - >- What happens to a decision that reaches into something on this list — does it simply have no effect? examples: - >- The following are out of scope: members' personal income, savings and private finances; their private relationships and how they arrange their own homes; their paid work and projects outside the community; and the hosting companies and software services we use, whose terms we accept but do not govern. Anything not declared in scope is out of scope, and a community decision that reaches into these areas has no effect. de: title: Ausdrücklich nicht erfasst whyItMatters: >- Eine unausgesprochene Grenze ist überhaupt keine Grenze. Explizit nicht erfasste Punkte schützen Mitglieder davor, dass die Gemeinschaft in ihr Privatleben und ihre Finanzen eingreift, und schützen externe Parteien davor, dass die Gemeinschaft Autorität über ihre Angelegenheiten beansprucht. Wenn etwas hier nicht benannt ist, gilt die Standardregel „nicht erfasst bedeutet außerhalb des Geltungsbereichs" weiterhin — aber die großen Punkte zu benennen, beseitigt jeden Raum für Diskussionen. whatToDefine: >- Liste die wichtigsten Grenzen auf: Dinge, von denen Leute annehmen könnten, dass sie erfasst sind, es aber nicht sind. Persönliche Finanzen, private Beziehungen, Infrastruktur Dritter, externe Projekte usw. placeholders: - Nicht erfasster Punkt 1, z. B. persönliches Einkommen und private Finanzen der Mitglieder. - >- Nicht erfasster Punkt 2, z. B. private Beziehungen und persönliche Wohnsituationen (außer wenn sicherheitskritische Bedingungen aus Schicht 4 gelten). - >- Nicht erfasster Punkt 3, z. B. zugrundeliegende Serverinfrastruktur und Verträge mit Drittanbietern. - Nicht erfasster Punkt 4. es: title: Explícitamente Fuera del Alcance whyItMatters: >- Un límite no declarado no es ningún límite. Los elementos explícitamente fuera del alcance protegen a los miembros de que la comunidad se entrometa en sus vidas privadas y finanzas, y protegen a partes externas de que la comunidad presuma autoridad sobre sus asuntos. Si no está nombrado aquí, la regla por defecto de "no está dentro del alcance significa fuera del alcance" sigue aplicando — pero nombrar los más importantes elimina cualquier margen de discusión. whatToDefine: >- Lista los límites más importantes: cosas que la gente podría asumir que están dentro del alcance pero no lo están. Finanzas personales, relaciones privadas, infraestructura de terceros, proyectos externos, etc. placeholders: - >- Elemento fuera del alcance 1, p. ej. ingresos personales y finanzas privadas de los miembros. - >- Elemento fuera del alcance 2, p. ej. relaciones privadas y arreglos de vivienda personales (excepto donde apliquen condiciones críticas de seguridad de la Capa 4). - >- Elemento fuera del alcance 3, p. ej. infraestructura de servidores subyacente y contratos con servicios de terceros. - Elemento fuera del alcance 4. fr: title: Explicitement hors périmètre whyItMatters: >- Une limite non énoncée n'est pas une limite. Les éléments explicitement hors périmètre protègent les membres contre l'intrusion de la communauté dans leur vie privée et leurs finances, et protègent les parties externes contre toute présomption d'autorité de la communauté sur leurs affaires. Si un élément n'est pas nommé ici, la règle par défaut « ce qui n'est pas dans le périmètre est hors périmètre » s'applique toujours — mais nommer les éléments importants ne laisse aucune place à la contestation. whatToDefine: >- Liste les limites les plus importantes : les choses que les gens pourraient supposer être dans le périmètre mais qui ne le sont pas. Finances personnelles, relations privées, infrastructure de tiers, projets externes, etc. placeholders: - Élément hors périmètre 1, p. ex. revenus personnels et finances privées des membres. - >- Élément hors périmètre 2, p. ex. relations privées et arrangements de vie personnels (sauf lorsque les conditions critiques de sécurité de la Couche 4 s'appliquent). - >- Élément hors périmètre 3, p. ex. infrastructure serveur sous-jacente et contrats de services tiers. - Élément hors périmètre 4. pt-br: title: Explicitamente Fora do Escopo whyItMatters: >- Um limite não declarado não é limite nenhum. Itens explicitamente fora do escopo protegem os membros de a comunidade invadir suas vidas privadas e finanças, e protegem partes externas de a comunidade presumir autoridade sobre seus assuntos. Se algo não é nomeado aqui, a regra padrão de "não estar dentro do escopo significa estar fora do escopo" continua valendo — mas nomear os mais importantes elimina qualquer margem para discussão. whatToDefine: >- Liste os limites mais importantes: coisas que as pessoas podem supor estar dentro do escopo mas não estão. Finanças pessoais, relacionamentos privados, infraestrutura de terceiros, projetos externos, etc. placeholders: - 'Item fora do escopo 1, ex.: renda pessoal e finanças privadas dos membros.' - >- Item fora do escopo 2, ex.: relacionamentos privados e arranjos pessoais de moradia (exceto quando se aplicam condições críticas de segurança da Camada 4). - >- Item fora do escopo 3, ex.: infraestrutura de servidor subjacente e contratos de serviços de terceiros. - Item fora do escopo 4. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 2.2.3 - 2.2.4 - 2.2.5 - key: scope-declaration.ratification-record artifact: scope-declaration order: 4 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Ratification Record whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] question: Who adopted this scope, when, and how was it decided? de: title: Ratifizierungsprotokoll whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: Registro de Ratificación whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: Registre de ratification whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Registro de Ratificação whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: filled_from_decision dispositionNote: >- Written from the decision that adopted this artifact: reference, date, mechanism, tally and attendance as recorded at freeze time. ownsClauses: [] - key: exit-protocol.voluntary-exit artifact: exit-protocol order: 0 clauseRefs: - 3.6.1 - 3.6.2 - 3.6.4 i18n: en: title: Voluntary Exit whyItMatters: >- A community that is hard to leave is not a community — it is a trap. Voluntary exit must be available at all times, without interrogation, notice periods, or punishment, because the right to withdraw consent is what makes every other act of consent real. Retaining contribution history separately ensures that leaving does not erase the work the person did. whatToDefine: >- Describe the channel for submitting exit, time-to-revocation of access, what records are retained, and the resulting state transition. placeholders: - How a member submits a voluntary exit; reasons optional. - Notice period or handover expectation, if any. - Time-to-revocation of access (e.g. within 24 hours of confirmation). - What is retained — contribution history, recognition records — and what is removed. - Resulting state transition (e.g. to Exited Member). - Where and how the exit is recorded with timestamp. question: >- How can someone leave whenever they choose — without being punished for it, or losing more than their membership? prompts: - How does someone tell us they are leaving — and do they owe anyone a reason or a vote? - When does their access end, and where is the exit recorded? - >- Which rights end with membership, and which do they keep because they never depended on it? examples: - >- Any member can leave the community at any time by informing the community in writing. They do not need permission or a vote to leave. The community records the exit date and follows the agreed process for returning personal belongings, settling outstanding payments, and ending membership-related responsibilities. Leaving means giving up rights that exist only because of membership, such as access to shared facilities or participation in governance. It does not remove any rights the person has independently of membership, such as ownership of their personal belongings or money the community owes them. de: title: Freiwilliger Austritt whyItMatters: >- Eine Gemeinschaft, die schwer zu verlassen ist, ist keine Gemeinschaft — sie ist eine Falle. Freiwilliger Austritt muss jederzeit möglich sein, ohne Verhör, Kündigungsfristen oder Bestrafung, denn das Recht, Zustimmung zurückzuziehen, ist das, was jede andere Zustimmung erst real macht. Die separate Aufbewahrung der Beitragshistorie stellt sicher, dass ein Austritt die geleistete Arbeit nicht auslöscht. whatToDefine: >- Beschreibe den Kanal für die Einreichung des Austritts, die Frist bis zum Entzug des Zugangs, welche Aufzeichnungen aufbewahrt werden und den resultierenden Statusübergang. placeholders: - Wie ein Mitglied einen freiwilligen Austritt einreicht; Gründe optional. - Kündigungsfrist oder Übergabeerwartung, falls vorhanden. - Frist bis zum Entzug des Zugangs (z. B. innerhalb von 24 Stunden nach Bestätigung). - Was aufbewahrt wird — Beitragshistorie, Anerkennungsnachweise — und was entfernt wird. - Resultierender Statusübergang (z. B. zu „Ausgetretenes Mitglied"). - Wo und wie der Austritt mit Zeitstempel erfasst wird. es: title: Salida Voluntaria whyItMatters: >- Una comunidad de la que es difícil salir no es una comunidad — es una trampa. La salida voluntaria DEBE estar disponible en todo momento, sin interrogatorios, períodos de preaviso ni castigos, porque el derecho a retirar el consentimiento es lo que hace real cada otro acto de consentimiento. Conservar el historial de contribuciones por separado garantiza que irse no borre el trabajo que la persona realizó. whatToDefine: >- Describe el canal para solicitar la salida, el tiempo hasta la revocación de acceso, qué registros se conservan y la transición de estado resultante. placeholders: - Cómo un miembro solicita una salida voluntaria; motivos opcionales. - Período de preaviso o expectativa de traspaso, si corresponde. - >- Tiempo hasta la revocación de acceso (p. ej., dentro de las 24 horas posteriores a la confirmación). - >- Qué se conserva — historial de contribuciones, registros de reconocimiento — y qué se elimina. - Transición de estado resultante (p. ej., a Miembro Salido). - Dónde y cómo se registra la salida con marca temporal. fr: title: Sortie volontaire whyItMatters: >- Une communauté qu'il est difficile de quitter n'est pas une communauté — c'est un piège. La sortie volontaire DOIT être disponible à tout moment, sans interrogatoire, délai de préavis ou sanction, car le droit de retirer son consentement est ce qui rend tout autre acte de consentement réel. Conserver l'historique des contributions séparément garantit que partir n'efface pas le travail accompli par la personne. whatToDefine: >- Décris le canal de soumission de la sortie, le délai de révocation des accès, les données conservées et la transition d'état résultante. placeholders: - Comment un membre soumet une sortie volontaire ; les raisons sont facultatives. - Délai de préavis ou attente de passation, le cas échéant. - Délai de révocation des accès (par ex. dans les 24 heures suivant la confirmation). - >- Ce qui est conservé — historique des contributions, registres de reconnaissance — et ce qui est supprimé. - Transition d'état résultante (par ex. vers Membre sorti·e). - Où et comment la sortie est enregistrée avec horodatage. pt-br: title: Saída Voluntária whyItMatters: >- Uma comunidade da qual é difícil sair não é uma comunidade — é uma armadilha. A saída voluntária deve estar disponível a qualquer momento, sem interrogatórios, períodos de aviso prévio ou punições, porque o direito de retirar o consentimento é o que torna real cada outro ato de consentimento. Reter o histórico de contribuições separadamente garante que sair não apague o trabalho que a pessoa realizou. whatToDefine: >- Descreva o canal para submeter a saída, o tempo até a revogação de acesso, quais registros são retidos e a transição de estado resultante. placeholders: - Como um membro submete uma saída voluntária; motivos opcionais. - Período de aviso prévio ou expectativa de transferência de responsabilidades, se houver. - Tempo até a revogação do acesso (por exemplo, dentro de 24 horas após a confirmação). - >- O que é retido — histórico de contribuições, registros de reconhecimento — e o que é removido. - Transição de estado resultante (por exemplo, para Membro Saído). - Onde e como a saída é registrada com data e hora. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 3.6.1 - 3.6.2 - 3.6.4 - key: exit-protocol.forced-exit artifact: exit-protocol order: 1 clauseRefs: - 3.6.3 - 3.6.4 i18n: en: title: Forced Exit whyItMatters: >- Removal is the sharpest power the community holds over a person. If it can be exercised by anyone with enough social pull, membership is worthless. Requiring a concluded Layer 4 accountability decision — with written reasons, a notification, and a minimum re-application window — turns removal from an act of power into an act of governance that can be reviewed and contested. whatToDefine: >- State that forced exit can only follow a concluded Layer 4 accountability process. Define notification, access revocation, retained records, re-application block, and decision-record privacy. placeholders: - >- Forced exit may only result from a concluded Layer 4 accountability process with a documented decision. - >- Affected member must be notified in writing with reason and decision-record reference before access is revoked. - Time-to-revocation of access (e.g. within 24 hours of decision). - What is retained, what is removed. - >- Re-application block (minimum duration, set by accountability decision; reference Layer 4). - Privacy of the decision record (reference Conflict Resolution Ladder privacy rules). question: What has to be true before the community can ask someone to leave? prompts: - >- What must have happened before anyone can be removed — which accountability process must have concluded, and what written decision must it have produced? - >- How is the person told — in writing, with the reasons and the decision reference — and how long after that does their access end? - What do we keep about the removal, and what do we delete? - How long must someone wait before they may apply again, and who sets that wait? - Who may read the decision record, and what stays private? examples: - >- Nobody can be removed except as the outcome of a concluded accountability process under our Conflict Resolution Ladder, ending in a written decision. The person receives that decision in writing, with the reasons and its reference, at least 48 hours before their access ends. We keep the decision record and remove them from member lists and channels. The decision sets a re-application block of at least 12 months. Only the parties and the stewards who handled the case may read the record. de: title: Erzwungener Austritt whyItMatters: >- Der Ausschluss ist die schärfste Macht, die eine Gemeinschaft über eine Person hat. Wenn sie von jedem ausgeübt werden kann, der genug sozialen Einfluss hat, ist die Mitgliedschaft wertlos. Die Voraussetzung eines abgeschlossenen Rechenschaftsverfahrens der Schicht 4 — mit schriftlicher Begründung, einer Benachrichtigung und einer Mindest-Wartefrist für erneute Bewerbung — verwandelt den Ausschluss von einem Machtakt in einen Akt der Governance, der überprüft und angefochten werden kann. whatToDefine: >- Lege fest, dass ein erzwungener Austritt nur nach einem abgeschlossenen Rechenschaftsverfahren der Schicht 4 erfolgen kann. Definiere Benachrichtigung, Zugangsentzug, aufbewahrte Aufzeichnungen, Sperrfrist für erneute Bewerbung und Datenschutz des Entscheidungsprotokolls. placeholders: - >- Ein erzwungener Austritt darf nur aus einem abgeschlossenen Rechenschaftsverfahren der Schicht 4 mit dokumentierter Entscheidung resultieren. - >- Das betroffene Mitglied muss schriftlich mit Begründung und Verweis auf das Entscheidungsprotokoll benachrichtigt werden, bevor der Zugang entzogen wird. - Frist bis zum Entzug des Zugangs (z. B. innerhalb von 24 Stunden nach Entscheidung). - Was aufbewahrt wird, was entfernt wird. - >- Sperrfrist für erneute Bewerbung (Mindestdauer, festgelegt durch Rechenschaftsentscheidung; Verweis auf Schicht 4). - >- Datenschutz des Entscheidungsprotokolls (Verweis auf die Datenschutzregeln der Konfliktlösungsleiter). es: title: Salida Forzada whyItMatters: >- La expulsión es el poder más severo que la comunidad ejerce sobre una persona. Si puede ser ejercido por cualquiera con suficiente influencia social, la membresía no vale nada. Exigir una decisión concluida de rendición de cuentas en la Capa 4 — con motivos por escrito, una notificación y un período mínimo de bloqueo para re-solicitud — convierte la expulsión de un acto de poder en un acto de gobernanza que puede ser revisado e impugnado. whatToDefine: >- Indica que la salida forzada solo puede seguir a un proceso de rendición de cuentas concluido en la Capa 4. Define la notificación, la revocación de acceso, los registros conservados, el bloqueo de re-solicitud y la privacidad del registro de decisión. placeholders: - >- La salida forzada solo PUEDE resultar de un proceso de rendición de cuentas concluido en la Capa 4 con una decisión documentada. - >- El miembro afectado DEBE ser notificado por escrito con el motivo y la referencia al registro de decisión antes de que se revoque el acceso. - >- Tiempo hasta la revocación de acceso (p. ej., dentro de las 24 horas posteriores a la decisión). - Qué se conserva, qué se elimina. - >- Bloqueo de re-solicitud (duración mínima, establecida por la decisión de rendición de cuentas; referencia a la Capa 4). - >- Privacidad del registro de decisión (referencia a las reglas de privacidad de la Escalera de Resolución de Conflictos). fr: title: Sortie forcée whyItMatters: >- L'exclusion est le pouvoir le plus tranchant que la communauté détient sur une personne. Si elle peut être exercée par quiconque dispose de suffisamment d'influence sociale, l'adhésion ne vaut rien. Exiger une décision de responsabilité conclue en Couche 4 — avec des motifs écrits, une notification et une durée minimale avant nouvelle candidature — transforme l'exclusion d'un acte de pouvoir en un acte de gouvernance qui peut être examiné et contesté. whatToDefine: >- Indique que la sortie forcée ne peut résulter que d'un processus de responsabilité conclu en Couche 4. Définis la notification, la révocation des accès, les données conservées, le blocage de nouvelle candidature et la confidentialité du dossier de décision. placeholders: - >- La sortie forcée ne PEUT résulter que d'un processus de responsabilité conclu en Couche 4 avec une décision documentée. - >- Le membre concerné DOIT être notifié par écrit avec le motif et la référence du dossier de décision avant que les accès ne soient révoqués. - Délai de révocation des accès (par ex. dans les 24 heures suivant la décision). - Ce qui est conservé, ce qui est supprimé. - >- Blocage de nouvelle candidature (durée minimale, fixée par la décision de responsabilité ; référence Couche 4). - >- Confidentialité du dossier de décision (référence aux règles de confidentialité de l'Échelle de résolution des conflits). pt-br: title: Saída Forçada whyItMatters: >- A remoção é o poder mais agudo que a comunidade detém sobre uma pessoa. Se puder ser exercida por qualquer um com influência social suficiente, a membresia não vale nada. Exigir uma decisão concluída de responsabilização na Camada 4 — com motivos por escrito, uma notificação e uma janela mínima de reaplicação — transforma a remoção de um ato de poder em um ato de governança que pode ser revisado e contestado. whatToDefine: >- Declare que a saída forçada só pode seguir um processo de responsabilização concluído na Camada 4. Defina notificação, revogação de acesso, registros retidos, bloqueio de reaplicação e privacidade do registro da decisão. placeholders: - >- A saída forçada só pode resultar de um processo de responsabilização concluído na Camada 4 com uma decisão documentada. - >- O membro afetado DEVE ser notificado por escrito com o motivo e a referência ao registro da decisão antes que o acesso seja revogado. - Tempo até a revogação do acesso (por exemplo, dentro de 24 horas após a decisão). - O que é retido, o que é removido. - >- Bloqueio de reaplicação (duração mínima, definida pela decisão de responsabilização; referenciar Camada 4). - >- Privacidade do registro da decisão (referenciar as regras de privacidade da Escada de Resolução de Conflitos). disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 3.6.3 - key: exit-protocol.suspension artifact: exit-protocol order: 2 clauseRefs: - 3.7.1 - 3.7.2 - 3.7.3 i18n: en: title: Suspension whyItMatters: >- A poorly-designed suspension state is worse than none — it becomes a soft exit with no due process, or an indefinite limbo used to punish without the accountability of a full removal. If the community cannot commit to explicit conditions, time bounds, and review mechanisms, it is safer to have no formal suspension than a loose one. whatToDefine: >- Either define suspension explicitly (entry conditions, time limits, rights during suspension, review mechanism, exit) or state that no formal suspension exists. Do not leave this section ambiguous. placeholders: - >- Either: define suspension state with entry conditions, maximum duration, rights during suspension, mandatory review mechanism, and exit; or: state that formal suspension is not currently defined. question: >- Can someone be paused rather than removed — for how long, reviewed by whom, and never as a punishment in disguise? prompts: - Do we want a formal suspension at all — or do we state plainly that we have none? - If we have one, what exactly can put someone into suspension, and who decides it? - What is the longest a suspension can last, and who reviews it, and when? - What may a suspended member still do, and what is paused? - >- How does a suspension end — and what stops it from becoming a punishment, or a removal by another name? examples: - >- We do not have a formal suspension state. If someone's behaviour is serious enough to restrict their membership, it goes through our accountability process, which ends in a decision and never in an open-ended pause. - >- A member may be suspended only while an accountability process about them is open, by decision of the two stewards handling it, for at most 30 days. During suspension they keep their home, access to community records and the right to respond, but cannot vote or hold roles. The members' circle reviews every suspension on day 14. It ends on day 30 or when the process concludes, whichever comes first, and cannot be renewed for the same matter. de: title: Suspendierung whyItMatters: >- Ein schlecht gestalteter Suspendierungsstatus ist schlimmer als keiner — er wird zu einem weichen Austritt ohne ordentliches Verfahren oder zu einem unbefristeten Schwebezustand, der als Strafe dient, ohne die Rechenschaftspflicht eines vollständigen Ausschlusses. Wenn die Gemeinschaft sich nicht zu expliziten Bedingungen, Zeitgrenzen und Überprüfungsmechanismen verpflichten kann, ist es sicherer, keine formale Suspendierung zu haben als eine unklare. whatToDefine: >- Definiere die Suspendierung entweder explizit (Eintrittsbedingungen, Zeitlimits, Rechte während der Suspendierung, Überprüfungsmechanismus, Ende) oder stelle fest, dass keine formale Suspendierung existiert. Lass diesen Abschnitt nicht mehrdeutig. placeholders: - >- Entweder: Definiere den Suspendierungsstatus mit Eintrittsbedingungen, Höchstdauer, Rechten während der Suspendierung, verpflichtendem Überprüfungsmechanismus und Ende; oder: stelle fest, dass eine formale Suspendierung derzeit nicht definiert ist. es: title: Suspensión whyItMatters: >- Un estado de suspensión mal diseñado es peor que ninguno — se convierte en una salida encubierta sin debido proceso, o en un limbo indefinido utilizado para castigar sin la rendición de cuentas de una expulsión completa. Si la comunidad no puede comprometerse con condiciones explícitas, límites temporales y mecanismos de revisión, es más seguro no tener una suspensión formal que tener una laxa. whatToDefine: >- Define la suspensión explícitamente (condiciones de entrada, límites temporales, derechos durante la suspensión, mecanismo de revisión, salida) o indica que no existe una suspensión formal. No dejes esta sección ambigua. placeholders: - >- O bien: define el estado de suspensión con condiciones de entrada, duración máxima, derechos durante la suspensión, mecanismo de revisión obligatorio y salida; o bien: indica que la suspensión formal no está definida actualmente. fr: title: Suspension whyItMatters: >- Un état de suspension mal conçu est pire que pas de suspension du tout — il devient une sortie douce sans procédure régulière, ou un limbe indéfini utilisé pour punir sans la responsabilité d'une exclusion complète. Si la communauté ne peut pas s'engager sur des conditions explicites, des limites de durée et des mécanismes de révision, il est plus sûr de n'avoir aucune suspension formelle qu'une suspension floue. whatToDefine: >- Soit tu définis explicitement la suspension (conditions d'entrée, limites de durée, droits pendant la suspension, mécanisme de révision, sortie), soit tu indiques qu'aucune suspension formelle n'existe. Ne laisse pas cette section ambiguë. placeholders: - >- Soit : définis l'état de suspension avec les conditions d'entrée, la durée maximale, les droits pendant la suspension, le mécanisme de révision obligatoire et la sortie ; soit : indique que la suspension formelle n'est pas définie actuellement. pt-br: title: Suspensão whyItMatters: >- Um estado de suspensão mal projetado é pior do que nenhum — torna-se uma saída disfarçada sem devido processo, ou um limbo indefinido usado para punir sem a responsabilização de uma remoção completa. Se a comunidade não consegue se comprometer com condições explícitas, limites de tempo e mecanismos de revisão, é mais seguro não ter suspensão formal do que ter uma frouxa. whatToDefine: >- Defina a suspensão explicitamente (condições de entrada, limites de tempo, direitos durante a suspensão, mecanismo de revisão, saída) ou declare que não existe suspensão formal. Não deixe esta seção ambígua. placeholders: - >- Ou: defina o estado de suspensão com condições de entrada, duração máxima, direitos durante a suspensão, mecanismo de revisão obrigatório e saída; ou: declare que a suspensão formal não está atualmente definida. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 3.7.1 - 3.7.2 - 3.7.3 - key: exit-protocol.asset-role-and-responsibility-separation artifact: exit-protocol order: 3 clauseRefs: - 3.6.5 i18n: en: title: Asset, Role, and Responsibility Separation whyItMatters: >- When someone leaves, every unclosed thread — a role nobody vacated, a wallet key still active, a task still assigned — becomes a live attack surface or an operational gap. A checklist forces these threads to be closed deliberately, not discovered months later when something breaks or someone abuses access they no longer should have. whatToDefine: >- Provide a checklist applied to both voluntary and forced exits. Include role vacation, task release, financial-instrument access removal, platform admin revocation, and resolution of outstanding obligations. placeholders: - Roles held must be vacated and documented in the Role Registry. - Ongoing tasks must be released or handed over. - Treasury / wallet / signing access must be removed. - All administrative access to platforms must be revoked. - Outstanding obligations resolved or transferred before exit is finalised where possible. question: >- When someone leaves, what happens to their roles, tasks, access and anything they hold for us — agreed before anyone leaves? prompts: - >- Does one checklist apply to every exit, whether someone leaves by choice or is removed — and who runs it? - >- For each role someone holds: who marks it vacant in the Role Registry, and who covers it until it is filled? - How are their ongoing tasks released or handed over, and to whom? - Who removes their access to money — bank accounts, wallets, signing rights — and by when? - >- Who revokes their admin access to our platforms and shared accounts, and how do we confirm it is done? - >- How are obligations in either direction settled or transferred before the exit is finalised? examples: - >- The same checklist runs for every exit, voluntary or not, led by the membership steward. Within 24 hours the platform admin revokes all admin and shared-account access, and the treasurer removes the person as a signatory on the bank account. Within 7 days their roles are marked vacant in the Role Registry and their open tasks are handed over on the task board. Money owed in either direction is settled, or written into a repayment agreement, before the exit is marked complete. de: title: Trennung von Vermögenswerten, Rollen und Verantwortlichkeiten whyItMatters: >- Wenn jemand geht, wird jeder offene Faden — eine Rolle, die niemand abgegeben hat, ein Wallet-Schlüssel, der noch aktiv ist, eine Aufgabe, die noch zugewiesen ist — zu einer aktiven Angriffsfläche oder einer operativen Lücke. Eine Checkliste erzwingt, dass diese Fäden bewusst geschlossen werden, anstatt Monate später entdeckt zu werden, wenn etwas kaputtgeht oder jemand Zugang missbraucht, den er nicht mehr haben sollte. whatToDefine: >- Erstelle eine Checkliste, die sowohl bei freiwilligem als auch bei erzwungenem Austritt angewendet wird. Berücksichtige Rollenabgabe, Aufgabenfreigabe, Entzug des Zugangs zu Finanzinstrumenten, Entzug von Plattform-Administrationsrechten und Klärung offener Verpflichtungen. placeholders: - Gehaltene Rollen müssen abgegeben und im Rollenregister dokumentiert werden. - Laufende Aufgaben müssen freigegeben oder übergeben werden. - Zugang zu Kasse / Wallet / Signaturrechten muss entzogen werden. - Alle Administrationsrechte auf Plattformen müssen widerrufen werden. - >- Offene Verpflichtungen werden nach Möglichkeit geklärt oder übertragen, bevor der Austritt abgeschlossen wird. es: title: Separación de Activos, Roles y Responsabilidades whyItMatters: >- Cuando alguien se va, cada hilo sin cerrar — un rol que nadie dejó vacante, una clave de billetera aún activa, una tarea aún asignada — se convierte en una superficie de ataque activa o una brecha operativa. Una lista de verificación obliga a cerrar estos hilos deliberadamente, en lugar de descubrirlos meses después cuando algo falla o alguien abusa de un acceso que ya no debería tener. whatToDefine: >- Proporciona una lista de verificación que se aplique tanto a salidas voluntarias como forzadas. Incluye la desocupación de roles, la liberación de tareas, la eliminación de acceso a instrumentos financieros, la revocación de administración de plataformas y la resolución de obligaciones pendientes. placeholders: - Los roles ocupados DEBEN ser desocupados y documentados en el Registro de Roles. - Las tareas en curso DEBEN ser liberadas o traspasadas. - El acceso a tesorería / billetera / firma DEBE ser eliminado. - Todo acceso administrativo a plataformas DEBE ser revocado. - >- Las obligaciones pendientes DEBEN ser resueltas o transferidas antes de que se finalice la salida, cuando sea posible. fr: title: Séparation des actifs, rôles et responsabilités whyItMatters: >- Quand quelqu'un part, chaque fil non clos — un rôle que personne n'a libéré, une clé de portefeuille encore active, une tâche encore assignée — devient une surface d'attaque active ou une faille opérationnelle. Une liste de vérification force la clôture délibérée de ces fils, au lieu de les découvrir des mois plus tard quand quelque chose casse ou que quelqu'un utilise un accès qu'il ne DEVRAIT plus avoir. whatToDefine: >- Fournis une liste de vérification applicable aux sorties volontaires et forcées. Inclus la libération des rôles, le transfert des tâches, la suppression des accès aux instruments financiers, la révocation des droits d'administration des plateformes et la résolution des obligations en cours. placeholders: - Les rôles détenus DOIVENT être libérés et documentés dans le Registre des rôles. - Les tâches en cours DOIVENT être libérées ou transférées. - Les accès à la trésorerie / au portefeuille / à la signature DOIVENT être supprimés. - Tous les accès administratifs aux plateformes DOIVENT être révoqués. - >- Les obligations en cours sont résolues ou transférées avant la finalisation de la sortie dans la mesure du possible. pt-br: title: Separação de Ativos, Papéis e Responsabilidades whyItMatters: >- Quando alguém sai, cada fio solto — um papel que ninguém desocupou, uma chave de carteira ainda ativa, uma tarefa ainda atribuída — torna-se uma superfície de ataque ativa ou uma lacuna operacional. Uma lista de verificação força que esses fios sejam encerrados deliberadamente, e não descobertos meses depois quando algo quebra ou alguém abusa de um acesso que já não deveria mais ter. whatToDefine: >- Forneça uma lista de verificação aplicada tanto às saídas voluntárias quanto às forçadas. Inclua a desocupação de papéis, liberação de tarefas, remoção de acesso a instrumentos financeiros, revogação de administração em plataformas e resolução de obrigações pendentes. placeholders: - Os papéis ocupados DEVEM ser desocupados e documentados no Registro de Papéis. - As tarefas em andamento DEVEM ser liberadas ou transferidas. - O acesso à tesouraria / carteira / assinatura DEVE ser removido. - Todo acesso administrativo às plataformas DEVE ser revogado. - >- Obrigações pendentes resolvidas ou transferidas antes que a saída seja finalizada, sempre que possível. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 3.6.5 - key: exit-protocol.ratification-record artifact: exit-protocol order: 4 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Ratification Record whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] question: Who adopted this exit protocol, when, and how was it decided? de: title: Ratifizierungsprotokoll whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: Registro de Ratificación whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: Registre de ratification whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Registro de Ratificação whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: filled_from_decision dispositionNote: >- Written from the decision that adopted this artifact: reference, date, mechanism, tally and attendance as recorded at freeze time. ownsClauses: [] - key: membership-agreement.membership-state-on-signing artifact: membership-agreement order: 0 clauseRefs: - 3.1.2 - 3.1.4 i18n: en: title: Membership State on Signing whyItMatters: >- Membership is not a single binary. A person joining must know exactly which state they are entering — Trial or Full — because the state determines what they can do and what is expected of them. Naming it at the moment of consent prevents ambiguity later about what they actually signed up for. whatToDefine: >- State which membership state(s) a new member enters at signing (e.g. Trial Member, Full Member, or any custom state defined in your Membership State Registry). placeholders: - >- Membership state assigned at signing — e.g. Trial Member on application approval; Full Member on onboarding completion. question: What is someone agreeing to be, at the moment they sign? prompts: - >- Which membership state does someone hold the moment they sign this agreement — named exactly as in our Membership State Registry? - >- Does everyone sign at the same point, or can signing happen at different stages — and which state does each signing give? - How does the person see, before they sign, which state they are agreeing to enter? examples: - >- Anyone who signs this agreement after their application is approved becomes a Trial Member on the day they sign. They become a Full Member only when their onboarding completion is recorded; signing alone never makes someone a Full Member. de: title: Mitgliedschaftsstatus bei Unterzeichnung whyItMatters: >- Mitgliedschaft ist kein einfaches Ja oder Nein. Eine beitretende Person muss genau wissen, in welchen Status sie eintritt — Probe oder Voll — denn der Status bestimmt, was sie tun kann und was von ihr erwartet wird. Den Status im Moment der Zustimmung zu benennen, verhindert spätere Unklarheiten darüber, wofür sie sich eigentlich angemeldet hat. whatToDefine: >- Gib an, in welchen Mitgliedschaftsstatus ein neues Mitglied bei Unterzeichnung eintritt (z. B. Probemitglied, Vollmitglied oder ein anderer im Mitgliedschaftsstatus-Register definierter Status). placeholders: - >- Mitgliedschaftsstatus bei Unterzeichnung — z. B. Probemitglied nach Genehmigung der Bewerbung; Vollmitglied nach Abschluss des Onboardings. es: title: Estado de Membresía al Firmar whyItMatters: >- La membresía no es un simple binario. Una persona que se incorpora debe saber exactamente en qué estado está entrando — Prueba o Pleno — porque el estado determina lo que puede hacer y lo que se espera de ella. Nombrarlo en el momento del consentimiento evita ambigüedades posteriores sobre lo que realmente aceptó. whatToDefine: >- Indica qué estado(s) de membresía recibe un nuevo miembro al firmar (p. ej., Miembro en Prueba, Miembro Pleno, o cualquier estado personalizado definido en tu Registro de Estados de Membresía). placeholders: - >- Estado de membresía asignado al firmar — p. ej., Miembro en Prueba tras la aprobación de la solicitud; Miembro Pleno tras completar la incorporación. fr: title: État d'adhésion à la signature whyItMatters: >- L'adhésion n'est pas un simple binaire. Une personne qui rejoint la communauté doit savoir exactement dans quel état elle entre — Essai ou Plein — car cet état détermine ce qu'elle peut faire et ce qu'on attend d'elle. Le nommer au moment du consentement évite toute ambiguïté ultérieure sur ce à quoi elle s'est réellement engagée. whatToDefine: >- Indique quel(s) état(s) d'adhésion un nouveau membre obtient à la signature (par ex. Membre à l'essai, Membre à part entière, ou tout état personnalisé défini dans ton Registre des états d'adhésion). placeholders: - >- État d'adhésion attribué à la signature — par ex. Membre à l'essai après approbation de la candidature ; Membre à part entière après achèvement de l'intégration. pt-br: title: Estado de Associação na Assinatura whyItMatters: >- A associação não é um único binário. Uma pessoa que está entrando precisa saber exatamente em qual estado está ingressando — Experimental ou Pleno — porque o estado determina o que ela pode fazer e o que se espera dela. Nomeá-lo no momento do consentimento evita ambiguidade posterior sobre aquilo com que ela realmente concordou. whatToDefine: >- Indique em qual(is) estado(s) de associação um novo membro entra no momento da assinatura (por exemplo, Membro Experimental, Membro Pleno ou qualquer estado personalizado definido no Registro de Estados de Associação). placeholders: - >- Estado de associação atribuído na assinatura — por exemplo, Membro Experimental na aprovação da candidatura; Membro Pleno na conclusão da integração. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: membership-agreement.member-rights artifact: membership-agreement order: 1 clauseRefs: - 3.4.1 - 3.4.3 - 3.4.4 i18n: en: title: Member Rights whyItMatters: >- Rights that are not written down are rights that can be quietly withdrawn. Enumerating them makes the community's commitments legible, enforceable, and symmetrical with the obligations members are asked to carry. Without this list, obligations become open-ended demands with no reciprocal protection. whatToDefine: >- List concrete rights granted to each membership state. Reference the Decision Matrix (Layer 2) for voting rights, the Role Registry (Layer 5) for role eligibility, and Layer 4 for due-process guarantees. placeholders: - Right 1, e.g. the right to vote on all decisions as defined in the Decision Matrix. - Right 2, e.g. the right to access all member-only channels, calls, and community records. - Right 3, e.g. the right to hold roles as defined in the Role Registry. - Right 4, e.g. the right to earn recognition through recognized contributions. - Right 5, e.g. the right to propose changes through the governance process. - >- Right 6, e.g. the right to raise a conflict through the Conflict Resolution Ladder without retaliation. - Right 7, e.g. the right to exit the community voluntarily at any time. - >- Right 8, e.g. the right to due process before any forced exit, suspension, or access restriction. question: What are each member's rights, in proportion to what we ask of them? prompts: - 'For each membership state: which rights does a member in that state hold?' - >- Which rights hold for everyone, in every state — such as raising a concern without retaliation, or leaving at any time? - >- Do the rights of each state match what we ask of that state, so that the more we ask, the more protection and say a member has? - >- Where a right is set in another document — voting in the Decision Matrix, roles in the Role Registry — do we point to it rather than write it twice? examples: - >- Every member, in any state, may raise a conflict through the Conflict Resolution Ladder without retaliation, read the community's governance records, and leave at any time. Trial Members may also join all meetings and propose agenda items. Full Members may additionally vote on decisions as set out in the Decision Matrix, hold roles listed in the Role Registry, and propose changes to any agreement. Full Members carry the work rota and shared costs, so they also hold the vote that Trial Members do not. de: title: Rechte der Mitglieder whyItMatters: >- Rechte, die nicht schriftlich festgehalten sind, können stillschweigend entzogen werden. Sie aufzuzählen macht die Verpflichtungen der Gemeinschaft lesbar, durchsetzbar und symmetrisch zu den Pflichten, die den Mitgliedern auferlegt werden. Ohne diese Liste werden Pflichten zu unbegrenzten Forderungen ohne gegenseitigen Schutz. whatToDefine: >- Liste konkrete Rechte auf, die jedem Mitgliedschaftsstatus gewährt werden. Verweise auf die Entscheidungsmatrix (Schicht 2) für Stimmrechte, das Rollenregister (Schicht 5) für Rollenberechtigung und Schicht 4 für Verfahrensgarantien. placeholders: - >- Recht 1, z. B. das Recht, bei allen Entscheidungen gemäß der Entscheidungsmatrix abzustimmen. - >- Recht 2, z. B. das Recht auf Zugang zu allen mitgliederexklusiven Kanälen, Calls und Gemeinschaftsunterlagen. - Recht 3, z. B. das Recht, Rollen gemäß dem Rollenregister zu übernehmen. - Recht 4, z. B. das Recht, Anerkennung durch anerkannte Beiträge zu erhalten. - Recht 5, z. B. das Recht, Änderungen über den Governance-Prozess vorzuschlagen. - >- Recht 6, z. B. das Recht, einen Konflikt über die Konfliktlösungsstufen ohne Vergeltung anzusprechen. - Recht 7, z. B. das Recht, die Gemeinschaft jederzeit freiwillig zu verlassen. - >- Recht 8, z. B. das Recht auf ein ordentliches Verfahren vor jedem erzwungenen Austritt, jeder Suspendierung oder Zugangsbeschränkung. es: title: Derechos del Miembro whyItMatters: >- Los derechos que no están escritos son derechos que pueden retirarse en silencio. Enumerarlos hace que los compromisos de la comunidad sean legibles, exigibles y simétricos con las obligaciones que se pide a los miembros que asuman. Sin esta lista, las obligaciones se convierten en demandas abiertas sin protección recíproca. whatToDefine: >- Enumera los derechos concretos otorgados a cada estado de membresía. Consulta la Matriz de Decisiones (Capa 2) para los derechos de voto, el Registro de Roles (Capa 5) para la elegibilidad de roles, y la Capa 4 para las garantías de debido proceso. placeholders: - >- Derecho 1, p. ej., el derecho a votar en todas las decisiones según lo definido en la Matriz de Decisiones. - >- Derecho 2, p. ej., el derecho a acceder a todos los canales, llamadas y registros exclusivos para miembros. - Derecho 3, p. ej., el derecho a ocupar roles según lo definido en el Registro de Roles. - >- Derecho 4, p. ej., el derecho a obtener reconocimiento a través de contribuciones reconocidas. - Derecho 5, p. ej., el derecho a proponer cambios a través del proceso de gobernanza. - >- Derecho 6, p. ej., el derecho a plantear un conflicto a través de la Escalera de Resolución de Conflictos sin represalias. - >- Derecho 7, p. ej., el derecho a salir de la comunidad voluntariamente en cualquier momento. - >- Derecho 8, p. ej., el derecho al debido proceso antes de cualquier salida forzada, suspensión o restricción de acceso. fr: title: Droits des membres whyItMatters: >- Les droits qui ne sont pas écrits sont des droits qui peuvent être discrètement retirés. Les énumérer rend les engagements de la communauté lisibles, opposables et symétriques avec les obligations que les membres sont invités à assumer. Sans cette liste, les obligations deviennent des exigences ouvertes sans protection réciproque. whatToDefine: >- Liste les droits concrets accordés à chaque état d'adhésion. Réfère-toi à la Matrice de décision (Couche 2) pour les droits de vote, au Registre des rôles (Couche 5) pour l'éligibilité aux rôles, et à la Couche 4 pour les garanties de procédure régulière. placeholders: - >- Droit 1, par ex. le droit de voter sur toutes les décisions telles que définies dans la Matrice de décision. - >- Droit 2, par ex. le droit d'accéder à tous les canaux, appels et documents réservés aux membres. - Droit 3, par ex. le droit d'occuper des rôles tels que définis dans le Registre des rôles. - Droit 4, par ex. le droit d'obtenir une reconnaissance via des contributions reconnues. - Droit 5, par ex. le droit de proposer des changements via le processus de gouvernance. - >- Droit 6, par ex. le droit de signaler un conflit via l'Échelle de résolution des conflits sans représailles. - Droit 7, par ex. le droit de quitter la communauté volontairement à tout moment. - >- Droit 8, par ex. le droit à une procédure régulière avant toute exclusion forcée, suspension ou restriction d'accès. pt-br: title: Direitos dos Membros whyItMatters: >- Direitos que não estão escritos são direitos que podem ser silenciosamente retirados. Enumerá-los torna os compromissos da comunidade legíveis, exigíveis e simétricos em relação às obrigações que se pede aos membros que carreguem. Sem essa lista, as obrigações se tornam exigências em aberto, sem proteção recíproca. whatToDefine: >- Liste direitos concretos concedidos a cada estado de associação. Faça referência à Matriz de Decisão (Camada 2) para os direitos de voto, ao Registro de Papéis (Camada 5) para a elegibilidade a papéis e à Camada 4 para as garantias de devido processo. placeholders: - >- Direito 1, por exemplo, o direito de votar em todas as decisões definidas na Matriz de Decisão. - >- Direito 2, por exemplo, o direito de acessar todos os canais exclusivos para membros, chamadas e registros da comunidade. - >- Direito 3, por exemplo, o direito de ocupar papéis conforme definido no Registro de Papéis. - >- Direito 4, por exemplo, o direito de obter reconhecimento por meio de contribuições reconhecidas. - Direito 5, por exemplo, o direito de propor mudanças por meio do processo de governança. - >- Direito 6, por exemplo, o direito de apresentar um conflito por meio da Escada de Resolução de Conflitos sem sofrer retaliação. - >- Direito 7, por exemplo, o direito de sair da comunidade voluntariamente a qualquer momento. - >- Direito 8, por exemplo, o direito ao devido processo antes de qualquer saída forçada, suspensão ou restrição de acesso. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 3.4.1 - 3.4.3 - key: membership-agreement.member-obligations artifact: membership-agreement order: 2 clauseRefs: - 3.4.2 - 3.4.4 - 3.4.5 i18n: en: title: Member Obligations whyItMatters: >- Open-ended obligations are how communities slide into exploitation — "contribute more," "be available," "show up" with no defined limit. Listing obligations discretely, and tying each one to a corresponding right, keeps the ask bounded and contestable. A member must always be able to tell whether they are meeting the agreement or being asked for something beyond it. whatToDefine: >- List concrete, bounded obligations. Each obligation must be testable: a member must be able to know whether they are meeting it. Avoid vague duties. placeholders: - Obligation 1, e.g. adhere to all Layer 0 identity constraints and invariants at all times. - >- Obligation 2, e.g. contribute to the community in at least one recognized category per defined period. - >- Obligation 3, e.g. participate in conflict resolution processes when named as a party or requested as a witness. - Obligation 4, e.g. complete onboarding before exercising Full Member rights. - Obligation 5, e.g. notify the community before extended absence. - >- Obligation 6, e.g. not misrepresent the community, its members, or its governance externally. - >- Obligation 7, e.g. not exercise authority beyond what is explicitly assigned through the governance system. question: What does the community expect of each member — and where does that expectation stop? prompts: - >- For each obligation: what exactly is asked, and how would a member know whether they are meeting it? - Where does each obligation stop — how much, how often, for how long? - >- Which documented right does each obligation correspond to? (The rights themselves are their own question.) - Which obligations apply in every membership state, and which only in some? - >- Is there anything we quietly expect of members that is not written down — and should we write it down or drop it? examples: - >- Every member keeps to our identity constraints, takes part in a conflict process when named as a party, does not speak for the community in public without a mandate from the general meeting, and does not use community money or accounts beyond the authority a role gives them. Each obligation is matched by a right in this agreement, such as the right to a fair process and to hold roles. Nothing else may be required of a member unless this list is changed by decision. de: title: Pflichten der Mitglieder whyItMatters: >- Unbegrenzte Pflichten sind der Weg, auf dem Gemeinschaften in Ausbeutung abgleiten — „trag mehr bei", „sei verfügbar", „sei da" ohne definierte Grenze. Pflichten einzeln aufzulisten und jede mit einem entsprechenden Recht zu verknüpfen, hält die Anforderungen begrenzt und anfechtbar. Ein Mitglied muss immer erkennen können, ob es die Vereinbarung erfüllt oder ob etwas verlangt wird, das darüber hinausgeht. whatToDefine: >- Liste konkrete, begrenzte Pflichten auf. Jede Pflicht muss überprüfbar sein: Ein Mitglied muss erkennen können, ob es sie erfüllt. Vermeide vage Anforderungen. placeholders: - >- Pflicht 1, z. B. alle Identitätsvorgaben und Invarianten der Schicht 0 jederzeit einhalten. - >- Pflicht 2, z. B. in mindestens einer anerkannten Kategorie pro definiertem Zeitraum zur Gemeinschaft beitragen. - >- Pflicht 3, z. B. an Konfliktlösungsverfahren teilnehmen, wenn als Partei benannt oder als Zeuge angefragt. - Pflicht 4, z. B. das Onboarding abschließen, bevor Vollmitgliedsrechte ausgeübt werden. - Pflicht 5, z. B. die Gemeinschaft vor längerer Abwesenheit benachrichtigen. - >- Pflicht 6, z. B. die Gemeinschaft, ihre Mitglieder oder ihre Governance nach außen nicht falsch darstellen. - >- Pflicht 7, z. B. keine Befugnisse ausüben, die nicht ausdrücklich durch das Governance-System zugewiesen wurden. es: title: Obligaciones del Miembro whyItMatters: >- Las obligaciones abiertas son la vía por la que las comunidades caen en la explotación — "contribuye más", "estate disponible", "preséntate" sin límite definido. Enumerar las obligaciones de forma discreta, y vincular cada una a un derecho correspondiente, mantiene lo que se pide acotado e impugnable. Un miembro siempre debe poder saber si está cumpliendo el acuerdo o si se le está pidiendo algo que lo excede. whatToDefine: >- Enumera obligaciones concretas y acotadas. Cada obligación debe ser verificable: un miembro debe poder saber si la está cumpliendo. Evita deberes vagos. placeholders: - >- Obligación 1, p. ej., cumplir en todo momento con todas las restricciones de identidad e invariantes de la Capa 0. - >- Obligación 2, p. ej., contribuir a la comunidad en al menos una categoría reconocida por período definido. - >- Obligación 3, p. ej., participar en los procesos de resolución de conflictos cuando sea nombrado como parte o solicitado como testigo. - >- Obligación 4, p. ej., completar la incorporación antes de ejercer los derechos de Miembro Pleno. - Obligación 5, p. ej., notificar a la comunidad antes de una ausencia prolongada. - >- Obligación 6, p. ej., no tergiversar a la comunidad, sus miembros o su gobernanza ante el exterior. - >- Obligación 7, p. ej., no ejercer autoridad más allá de lo explícitamente asignado a través del sistema de gobernanza. fr: title: Obligations des membres whyItMatters: >- Les obligations ouvertes sont le mécanisme par lequel les communautés glissent vers l'exploitation — « contribue plus », « sois disponible », « sois présent·e » sans limite définie. Lister les obligations de manière discrète, et associer chacune à un droit correspondant, maintient la demande bornée et contestable. Un membre doit toujours pouvoir déterminer s'il respecte l'accord ou si on lui demande quelque chose qui va au-delà. whatToDefine: >- Liste des obligations concrètes et bornées. Chaque obligation doit être vérifiable : un membre doit pouvoir savoir s'il la remplit. Évite les devoirs vagues. placeholders: - >- Obligation 1, par ex. respecter en permanence toutes les contraintes d'identité et invariants de la Couche 0. - >- Obligation 2, par ex. contribuer à la communauté dans au moins une catégorie reconnue par période définie. - >- Obligation 3, par ex. participer aux processus de résolution des conflits lorsqu'on est nommé comme partie ou sollicité comme témoin. - >- Obligation 4, par ex. terminer l'intégration avant d'exercer les droits de Membre à part entière. - Obligation 5, par ex. prévenir la communauté avant une absence prolongée. - >- Obligation 6, par ex. ne pas déformer l'image de la communauté, de ses membres ou de sa gouvernance à l'extérieur. - >- Obligation 7, par ex. ne pas exercer d'autorité au-delà de ce qui est explicitement attribué par le système de gouvernance. pt-br: title: Obrigações dos Membros whyItMatters: >- Obrigações em aberto são o caminho pelo qual as comunidades escorregam para a exploração — "contribua mais", "esteja disponível", "apareça" sem nenhum limite definido. Listar as obrigações de forma discreta, e amarrar cada uma a um direito correspondente, mantém o pedido delimitado e contestável. Um membro precisa sempre conseguir distinguir se está cumprindo o acordo ou se está sendo demandado para algo além dele. whatToDefine: >- Liste obrigações concretas e delimitadas. Cada obrigação deve ser verificável: um membro precisa conseguir saber se está cumprindo-a. Evite deveres vagos. placeholders: - >- Obrigação 1, por exemplo, aderir a todas as restrições e invariantes de identidade da Camada 0 em todos os momentos. - >- Obrigação 2, por exemplo, contribuir para a comunidade em pelo menos uma categoria reconhecida por período definido. - >- Obrigação 3, por exemplo, participar dos processos de resolução de conflitos quando nomeado como parte ou solicitado como testemunha. - >- Obrigação 4, por exemplo, concluir a integração antes de exercer os direitos de Membro Pleno. - Obrigação 5, por exemplo, notificar a comunidade antes de uma ausência prolongada. - >- Obrigação 6, por exemplo, não deturpar externamente a comunidade, seus membros ou sua governança. - >- Obrigação 7, por exemplo, não exercer autoridade além daquilo que foi explicitamente atribuído pelo sistema de governança. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 3.4.2 - 3.4.4 - 3.4.5 - key: membership-agreement.participation-and-contribution-expectations artifact: membership-agreement order: 3 clauseRefs: - 3.5.1 - 3.5.2 - 3.5.3 - 3.5.4 i18n: en: title: Participation and Contribution Expectations whyItMatters: >- "Active member" means nothing without a threshold. A defined minimum — in time, category, and cadence — turns participation from a feeling into a fact, so nobody has to guess whether they are in good standing, and nobody can be accused of drifting without evidence. It also makes the line between a genuine absence and quiet abandonment visible early enough to act on. whatToDefine: >- State a measurable minimum (frequency × category), substitution and absence rules, and the trigger that moves a non-participating member into a Layer 4 process. placeholders: - e.g. at least one recognized contribution per 6 months, in any recognized category. - reference the Internal Economy Protocol (Layer 3). - >- e.g. a member may delegate a specific task but remains responsible for meeting overall contribution expectations. - >- e.g. notification required before absences longer than X months; expectations paused for the notified period up to a maximum. - >- e.g. absence of recognized contribution for X consecutive months without prior notice triggers an accountability check (Layer 4). question: >- What counts as participation, how much is enough, may someone send a stand-in — and what happens when someone stops? prompts: - Which forms of contribution do we recognise? - How much is enough — how many contributions, of which kinds, over what period? - >- May someone send a stand-in, or pay someone to do their share — for which tasks, and who stays responsible? - How does someone tell us they will be away, and for how long can expectations be paused? - >- After how long without participation, and without notice, does an accountability process start — and who starts it? (What that process does is set in the Conflict Resolution Ladder.) examples: - >- We recognise four forms of contribution: work-days on the land, cooking for shared meals, facilitating or taking minutes at meetings, and tasks from the maintenance rota. Each member contributes at least 8 hours a month across any of these. A member may swap a task with another member, but may not pay an outsider to do their share. Expectations pause for up to 3 months if the member tells the membership steward in advance. Two consecutive months below the minimum without notice opens an accountability check. de: title: Erwartungen an Teilnahme und Beitrag whyItMatters: >- „Aktives Mitglied" bedeutet nichts ohne einen Schwellenwert. Ein definiertes Minimum — in Zeit, Kategorie und Häufigkeit — macht Teilnahme von einem Gefühl zu einer Tatsache, sodass niemand raten muss, ob er in gutem Ansehen steht, und niemand ohne Beweise beschuldigt werden kann, sich zurückgezogen zu haben. Es macht außerdem die Grenze zwischen einer echten Abwesenheit und stillem Rückzug früh genug sichtbar, um darauf reagieren zu können. whatToDefine: >- Gib ein messbares Minimum an (Häufigkeit × Kategorie), Vertretungs- und Abwesenheitsregeln sowie den Auslöser, der ein nicht teilnehmendes Mitglied in einen Ebene-4-Prozess überführt. placeholders: - >- z. B. mindestens ein anerkannter Beitrag pro 6 Monate, in einer beliebigen anerkannten Kategorie. - Verweis auf das Binnenwirtschaftsprotokoll (Schicht 3). - >- z. B. ein Mitglied kann eine bestimmte Aufgabe delegieren, bleibt aber für die Erfüllung der Gesamtbeitragserwartungen verantwortlich. - >- z. B. Benachrichtigung erforderlich bei Abwesenheiten länger als X Monate; Erwartungen werden für den gemeldeten Zeitraum bis zu einem Maximum pausiert. - >- z. B. Fehlen anerkannter Beiträge über X aufeinanderfolgende Monate ohne vorherige Mitteilung löst eine Rechenschaftsprüfung (Schicht 4) aus. es: title: Expectativas de Participación y Contribución whyItMatters: >- "Miembro activo" no significa nada sin un umbral. Un mínimo definido — en tiempo, categoría y cadencia — convierte la participación de una sensación en un hecho, de modo que nadie tenga que adivinar si está al día y nadie pueda ser acusado de alejarse sin evidencia. También hace visible la línea entre una ausencia genuina y un abandono silencioso lo suficientemente pronto como para actuar. whatToDefine: >- Establece un mínimo medible (frecuencia × categoría), reglas de sustitución y ausencia, y el detonante que mueve a un miembro no participante a un proceso de la Capa 4. placeholders: - >- p. ej., al menos una contribución reconocida cada 6 meses, en cualquier categoría reconocida. - hacer referencia al Protocolo de Economía Interna (Capa 3). - >- p. ej., un miembro puede delegar una tarea específica pero sigue siendo responsable de cumplir las expectativas generales de contribución. - >- p. ej., se requiere notificación antes de ausencias superiores a X meses; las expectativas se pausan durante el período notificado hasta un máximo. - >- p. ej., la ausencia de contribución reconocida durante X meses consecutivos sin aviso previo activa una verificación de rendición de cuentas (Capa 4). fr: title: Attentes en matière de participation et de contribution whyItMatters: >- « Membre actif » ne veut rien dire sans seuil. Un minimum défini — en temps, en catégorie et en cadence — transforme la participation d'un ressenti en un fait, de sorte que personne n'a à deviner s'il est en règle, et personne ne peut être accusé de dérive sans preuves. Cela rend aussi la frontière entre une absence réelle et un abandon silencieux visible assez tôt pour agir. whatToDefine: >- Indique un minimum mesurable (fréquence × catégorie), les règles de substitution et d'absence, et le déclencheur qui oriente un membre non participant vers un processus de Couche 4. placeholders: - >- par ex. au moins une contribution reconnue par période de 6 mois, dans n'importe quelle catégorie reconnue. - référence au Protocole d'économie interne (Couche 3). - >- par ex. un membre peut déléguer une tâche spécifique mais reste responsable du respect des attentes globales de contribution. - >- par ex. notification requise avant toute absence de plus de X mois ; les attentes sont suspendues pour la période notifiée, jusqu'à un maximum. - >- par ex. l'absence de contribution reconnue pendant X mois consécutifs sans préavis déclenche un contrôle de redevabilité (Couche 4). pt-br: title: Expectativas de Participação e Contribuição whyItMatters: >- "Membro ativo" não significa nada sem um limite. Um mínimo definido — em tempo, categoria e cadência — transforma a participação de uma sensação em um fato, de modo que ninguém precisa adivinhar se está em boa situação, e ninguém pode ser acusado de afastamento sem evidências. Isso também torna visível, cedo o suficiente para se agir, a linha entre uma ausência genuína e um abandono silencioso. whatToDefine: >- Indique um mínimo mensurável (frequência × categoria), regras de substituição e ausência, e o gatilho que move um membro não participante para um processo da Camada 4. placeholders: - >- por exemplo, pelo menos uma contribuição reconhecida a cada 6 meses, em qualquer categoria reconhecida. - faça referência ao Protocolo de Economia Interna (Camada 3). - >- por exemplo, um membro pode delegar uma tarefa específica, mas permanece responsável por cumprir as expectativas gerais de contribuição. - >- por exemplo, notificação obrigatória antes de ausências superiores a X meses; expectativas suspensas pelo período notificado até um limite máximo. - >- por exemplo, ausência de contribuição reconhecida por X meses consecutivos sem aviso prévio aciona uma verificação de responsabilização (Camada 4). disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 3.5.1 - 3.5.2 - 3.5.3 - 3.5.4 - key: membership-agreement.due-process-reference artifact: membership-agreement order: 4 clauseRefs: - 3.6.3 i18n: en: title: Due Process Reference whyItMatters: >- The Membership Agreement is the one document every member actually reads and consents to. Naming due process here — not only in Layer 4 — guarantees that no member can be removed or restricted under a rule they were not shown when they joined. It closes the gap between what the community promises and what it can do. whatToDefine: >- Reference the Conflict Resolution Ladder (Layer 4) and the Exit & Separation Protocol so that any member reading the Membership Agreement knows where the procedural protections live. placeholders: [] question: What protects a member when the community turns against them? prompts: - >- Which documents protect a member against removal, suspension or restricted access — and does this agreement name each one? - >- In one or two plain sentences, what do we promise here, so that nobody is removed or restricted under a rule they were never shown? - How does a member reading this agreement find the current version of those documents? examples: - >- No member can be removed, suspended or have their access restricted except through the processes in our Conflict Resolution Ladder and our Exit & Separation Protocol. Both are linked from this agreement. No rule that is not written in one of those two documents can be used against a member. de: title: Verweis auf ordentliches Verfahren whyItMatters: >- Die Mitgliedschaftsvereinbarung ist das eine Dokument, das jedes Mitglied tatsächlich liest und dem es zustimmt. Das ordentliche Verfahren hier zu benennen — nicht nur in Schicht 4 — stellt sicher, dass kein Mitglied nach einer Regel entfernt oder eingeschränkt werden kann, die ihm beim Beitritt nicht gezeigt wurde. Es schließt die Lücke zwischen dem, was die Gemeinschaft verspricht, und dem, was sie tun kann. whatToDefine: >- Verweise auf die Konfliktlösungsstufen (Schicht 4) und das Austritts- und Trennungsprotokoll, damit jedes Mitglied, das die Mitgliedschaftsvereinbarung liest, weiß, wo die Verfahrensgarantien zu finden sind. placeholders: [] es: title: Referencia al Debido Proceso whyItMatters: >- El Acuerdo de Membresía es el único documento que cada miembro realmente lee y al que da su consentimiento. Nombrar el debido proceso aquí — no solo en la Capa 4 — garantiza que ningún miembro pueda ser expulsado o restringido bajo una regla que no le fue mostrada cuando se incorporó. Cierra la brecha entre lo que la comunidad promete y lo que puede hacer. whatToDefine: >- Haz referencia a la Escalera de Resolución de Conflictos (Capa 4) y al Protocolo de Salida y Separación para que cualquier miembro que lea el Acuerdo de Membresía sepa dónde residen las protecciones procedimentales. placeholders: [] fr: title: Référence à la procédure régulière whyItMatters: >- L'Accord d'adhésion est le seul document que chaque membre lit réellement et auquel il consent. Nommer la procédure régulière ici — et pas seulement dans la Couche 4 — garantit qu'aucun membre ne peut être exclu ou restreint en vertu d'une règle qui ne lui a pas été présentée au moment de son adhésion. Cela comble l'écart entre ce que la communauté promet et ce qu'elle peut faire. whatToDefine: >- Fais référence à l'Échelle de résolution des conflits (Couche 4) et au Protocole de sortie et de séparation afin que tout membre lisant l'Accord d'adhésion sache où se trouvent les protections procédurales. placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Referência ao Devido Processo whyItMatters: >- O Acordo de Associação é o único documento que cada membro realmente lê e consente. Nomear o devido processo aqui — e não somente na Camada 4 — garante que nenhum membro possa ser removido ou restringido sob uma regra que não lhe foi mostrada quando entrou. Isso fecha a lacuna entre o que a comunidade promete e o que ela pode fazer. whatToDefine: >- Faça referência à Escada de Resolução de Conflitos (Camada 4) e ao Protocolo de Saída e Separação, para que qualquer membro que leia o Acordo de Associação saiba onde residem as proteções procedimentais. placeholders: [] disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: membership-agreement.consent-acknowledgment artifact: membership-agreement order: 5 clauseRefs: - 3.2.2 i18n: en: title: Consent Acknowledgment whyItMatters: >- Consent that is assumed is consent that can be denied later. Requiring an explicit act — signing, clicking, acknowledging — at a known moment binds the member to the specific artifact versions in force that day, and gives the community a defensible record that the agreement was entered freely and knowingly. whatToDefine: >- Describe the act of consent (signature, in-app acknowledgment, etc.), and what artifact versions the member is consenting to at that moment. placeholders: [] question: How does someone show they have read and agreed to all of this? prompts: - >- What is the act of agreeing — a signature, a confirmation in our tools, or saying so at a meeting and having it minuted? - >- Which documents, and which versions of them, is someone agreeing to at that moment — and how do they see those exact versions? - >- How do we make sure the agreement is given freely and knowingly — for example, time to read and ask questions first? (Where the record is kept is its own question.) examples: - >- A new member agrees by signing the Membership Agreement in our members' app, after a meeting where they could ask questions. The signing screen lists every document they are agreeing to, with its version number and a link to that exact version, and the signature is dated. de: title: Zustimmungserklärung whyItMatters: >- Zustimmung, die angenommen wird, ist Zustimmung, die später bestritten werden kann. Einen ausdrücklichen Akt zu verlangen — Unterschrift, Klick, Bestätigung — zu einem bekannten Zeitpunkt bindet das Mitglied an die an diesem Tag geltenden Artefaktversionen und gibt der Gemeinschaft einen belastbaren Nachweis, dass die Vereinbarung freiwillig und wissentlich eingegangen wurde. whatToDefine: >- Beschreibe den Akt der Zustimmung (Unterschrift, In-App-Bestätigung usw.) und welche Artefaktversionen das Mitglied zu diesem Zeitpunkt anerkennt. placeholders: [] es: title: Reconocimiento de Consentimiento whyItMatters: >- El consentimiento que se asume es consentimiento que puede negarse después. Exigir un acto explícito — firmar, hacer clic, reconocer — en un momento conocido vincula al miembro con las versiones específicas de los artefactos vigentes ese día, y da a la comunidad un registro defendible de que el acuerdo fue celebrado libre y conscientemente. whatToDefine: >- Describe el acto de consentimiento (firma, reconocimiento en la aplicación, etc.) y a qué versiones de los artefactos está consintiendo el miembro en ese momento. placeholders: [] fr: title: Reconnaissance du consentement whyItMatters: >- Un consentement présumé est un consentement qui peut être nié ultérieurement. Exiger un acte explicite — signer, cliquer, reconnaître — à un moment connu lie le membre aux versions spécifiques des artefacts en vigueur ce jour-là, et fournit à la communauté une preuve défendable que l'accord a été conclu librement et en connaissance de cause. whatToDefine: >- Décris l'acte de consentement (signature, reconnaissance dans l'application, etc.), et à quelles versions d'artefacts le membre consent à ce moment-là. placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Reconhecimento de Consentimento whyItMatters: >- Consentimento presumido é consentimento que pode ser negado depois. Exigir um ato explícito — assinar, clicar, reconhecer — em um momento conhecido vincula o membro às versões específicas dos artefatos vigentes naquele dia, e dá à comunidade um registro defensável de que o acordo foi firmado livre e conscientemente. whatToDefine: >- Descreva o ato de consentimento (assinatura, reconhecimento no aplicativo etc.) e a quais versões dos artefatos o membro está consentindo naquele momento. placeholders: [] disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: membership-agreement.ratification-record artifact: membership-agreement order: 6 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Ratification Record whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] question: Who adopted this agreement, when, and how was it decided? de: title: Ratifizierungsprotokoll whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: Registro de Ratificación whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: Registre de ratification whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Registro de Ratificação whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: filled_from_decision dispositionNote: >- Written from the decision that adopted this artifact: reference, date, mechanism, tally and attendance as recorded at freeze time. ownsClauses: [] - key: membership-state-registry.defined-membership-states artifact: membership-state-registry order: 0 clauseRefs: - 3.1.1 - 3.1.2 - 3.1.3 - 3.1.4 - 3.1.5 i18n: en: title: Defined Membership States whyItMatters: >- Rights and obligations scattered across documents drift apart. Collecting every state, its rights, its obligations, and its transitions into one table makes the membership system auditable at a glance — you can see every door into and out of the community, and what each one grants. If two documents ever disagree, this registry is the tiebreaker. whatToDefine: >- Define every membership state your community recognizes (e.g. Applicant, Trial Member, Full Member, Exited Member). For each, list rights, obligations, entry condition, and exit condition. Keep states mutually exclusive — no individual may hold two states simultaneously. placeholders: - State 1, e.g. Applicant - rights - obligations - entry - exit - State 2, e.g. Trial Member - rights - obligations - entry - exit - State 3, e.g. Full Member - rights - obligations - entry - exit - State 4, e.g. Exited Member - rights - obligations - entry - exit question: >- Which membership states do we have — at least applicant, trial, full and exited — and what are their rights, obligations and limitations? prompts: - >- Which membership states do we have — at least applicant, trial, full and exited — and do we need any others? - 'For each state: which rights, obligations and limitations apply?' - 'For each state: what moves someone into it, and what moves them out?' - How do we make sure nobody holds two states at once? - >- How do we make sure nobody claims a right, or is held to an obligation, that their current state does not give? examples: - >- Applicant: may attend open meetings; must give honest information; enters by applying, leaves on the admission decision. Trial Member: may join all meetings and speak, cannot vote or hold roles; follows the work rota; enters on signing, leaves on the trial decision. Full Member: votes and holds roles; contributes monthly and shares costs; enters when onboarding is recorded, leaves on exit. Exited Member: keeps access to their own records, has no obligations; may reapply as an Applicant. Each person holds exactly one state at a time. de: title: Definierte Mitgliedschaftsstatus whyItMatters: >- Rechte und Pflichten, die über verschiedene Dokumente verstreut sind, driften auseinander. Alle Status, ihre Rechte, Pflichten und Übergänge in einer Tabelle zu sammeln, macht das Mitgliedschaftssystem auf einen Blick überprüfbar — ihr seht jede Tür in die und aus der Gemeinschaft und was jede davon gewährt. Falls zwei Dokumente jemals widersprüchlich sind, ist dieses Register der Schiedsrichter. whatToDefine: >- Definiert jeden Mitgliedschaftsstatus, den eure Gemeinschaft anerkennt (z. B. Bewerber·in, Probemitglied, Vollmitglied, Ausgetretenes Mitglied). Listet für jeden Status Rechte, Pflichten, Eintrittsbedingung und Austrittsbedingung auf. Haltet die Status gegenseitig ausschließend — keine Person darf zwei Status gleichzeitig innehaben. placeholders: - Status 1, z. B. Bewerber·in - Rechte - Pflichten - Eintritt - Austritt - Status 2, z. B. Probemitglied - Rechte - Pflichten - Eintritt - Austritt - Status 3, z. B. Vollmitglied - Rechte - Pflichten - Eintritt - Austritt - Status 4, z. B. Ausgetretenes Mitglied - Rechte - Pflichten - Eintritt - Austritt es: title: Estados de Membresía Definidos whyItMatters: >- Los derechos y obligaciones dispersos en distintos documentos terminan divergiendo. Reunir cada estado, sus derechos, sus obligaciones y sus transiciones en una sola tabla hace que el sistema de membresía sea auditable de un vistazo — puedes ver cada puerta de entrada y salida de la comunidad, y lo que cada una otorga. Si dos documentos alguna vez se contradicen, este registro es el que prevalece. whatToDefine: >- Define cada estado de membresía que tu comunidad reconoce (p. ej., Solicitante, Miembro en Prueba, Miembro Pleno, Miembro Saliente). Para cada uno, enumera derechos, obligaciones, condición de entrada y condición de salida. Mantén los estados mutuamente excluyentes — ninguna persona puede tener dos estados simultáneamente. placeholders: - Estado 1, p. ej. Solicitante - derechos - obligaciones - entrada - salida - Estado 2, p. ej. Miembro en Prueba - derechos - obligaciones - entrada - salida - Estado 3, p. ej. Miembro Pleno - derechos - obligaciones - entrada - salida - Estado 4, p. ej. Miembro Saliente - derechos - obligaciones - entrada - salida fr: title: États de membre définis whyItMatters: >- Les droits et obligations dispersés dans plusieurs documents finissent par diverger. Rassembler chaque état, ses droits, ses obligations et ses transitions dans un seul tableau rend le système de membres vérifiable d'un coup d'œil — tu peux voir chaque porte d'entrée et de sortie de la communauté, et ce que chacune accorde. Si deux documents se contredisent, ce registre fait foi. whatToDefine: >- Définis chaque état de membre que ta communauté reconnaît (par ex. Candidat·e, Membre en période d'essai, Membre à part entière, Membre sorti·e). Pour chacun, liste les droits, les obligations, la condition d'entrée et la condition de sortie. Les états doivent être mutuellement exclusifs — aucune personne ne peut détenir deux états simultanément. placeholders: - État 1, par ex. Candidat·e - droits - obligations - entrée - sortie - État 2, par ex. Membre en période d'essai - droits - obligations - entrée - sortie - État 3, par ex. Membre à part entière - droits - obligations - entrée - sortie - État 4, par ex. Membre sorti·e - droits - obligations - entrée - sortie pt-br: title: Estados de Associação Definidos whyItMatters: >- Direitos e obrigações espalhados por vários documentos acabam divergindo. Reunir cada estado, seus direitos, suas obrigações e suas transições em uma única tabela torna o sistema de associação auditável de relance — você consegue ver cada porta de entrada e de saída da comunidade, e o que cada uma concede. Se dois documentos algum dia discordarem, este registro é o desempate. whatToDefine: >- Defina cada estado de associação que sua comunidade reconhece (por exemplo, Candidato, Membro em Período de Experiência, Membro Pleno, Membro Egresso). Para cada um, liste direitos, obrigações, condição de entrada e condição de saída. Mantenha os estados mutuamente exclusivos — nenhuma pessoa pode estar em dois estados ao mesmo tempo. placeholders: - Estado 1, por exemplo, Candidato - direitos - obrigações - entrada - saída - Estado 2, por exemplo, Membro em Período de Experiência - direitos - obrigações - entrada - saída - Estado 3, por exemplo, Membro Pleno - direitos - obrigações - entrada - saída - Estado 4, por exemplo, Membro Egresso - direitos - obrigações - entrada - saída disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 3.1.1 - 3.1.2 - 3.1.3 - 3.1.4 - 3.1.5 - key: membership-state-registry.ratification-record artifact: membership-state-registry order: 1 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Ratification Record whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] question: Who adopted the membership states, when, and how was it decided? de: title: Ratifizierungsprotokoll whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: Registro de Ratificación whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: Procès-verbal de ratification whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Registro de Ratificação whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: filled_from_decision dispositionNote: >- Written from the decision that adopted this artifact: reference, date, mechanism, tally and attendance as recorded at freeze time. ownsClauses: [] - key: onboarding-protocol.admission-criteria artifact: onboarding-protocol order: 0 clauseRefs: - 3.2.3 - 3.2.4 i18n: en: title: Admission Criteria whyItMatters: >- Admission is the moment a stranger becomes bound by — and protected by — the community's rules. If the criteria are informal, the decision collapses into whoever happens to like the applicant. Written criteria make admission a governance act, not a social favor, and make rejection defensible on grounds the community can point to. whatToDefine: >- State the explicit conditions under which an applicant may be admitted. Each criterion should be testable from the application itself or from an external check. placeholders: - Criterion 1, e.g. alignment with the primary purpose and Layer 0 identity constraints. - Criterion 2, e.g. willingness to actively contribute in at least one recognized category. - Criterion 3, e.g. no prior forced exit or rejection within the last X months. - Criterion 4, e.g. completion of the application form in good faith — no misrepresentation. question: >- Who can join, on which written criteria, and who decides — so nobody becomes a member just by being around? prompts: - Which criteria must an applicant meet, written so anyone could check them? - >- Who decides an application? (Name the body the Decision Matrix gives admissions to, rather than a second rule.) - How do we make sure nobody becomes a member informally, or after the fact? de: title: Aufnahmekriterien whyItMatters: >- Die Aufnahme ist der Moment, in dem eine fremde Person an die Regeln der Gemeinschaft gebunden — und durch sie geschützt — wird. Wenn die Kriterien informell sind, hängt die Entscheidung davon ab, wer die bewerbende Person zufällig sympathisch findet. Schriftliche Kriterien machen die Aufnahme zu einem Governance-Akt statt zu einem sozialen Gefallen und machen eine Ablehnung mit Gründen vertretbar, auf die die Gemeinschaft verweisen kann. whatToDefine: >- Formuliere die expliziten Bedingungen, unter denen eine bewerbende Person aufgenommen werden kann. Jedes Kriterium sollte anhand der Bewerbung selbst oder einer externen Prüfung überprüfbar sein. placeholders: - >- Kriterium 1, z. B. Übereinstimmung mit dem Hauptzweck und den Identitätsbeschränkungen aus Schicht 0. - >- Kriterium 2, z. B. Bereitschaft, in mindestens einer anerkannten Kategorie aktiv beizutragen. - >- Kriterium 3, z. B. kein erzwungener Austritt oder Ablehnung innerhalb der letzten X Monate. - Kriterium 4, z. B. Bewerbungsformular in gutem Glauben ausgefüllt — keine Falschangaben. es: title: Criterios de Admisión whyItMatters: >- La admisión es el momento en que una persona desconocida queda vinculada por — y protegida por — las reglas de la comunidad. Si los criterios son informales, la decisión se reduce a quién le cae bien al solicitante en ese momento. Los criterios escritos hacen de la admisión un acto de gobernanza, no un favor social, y hacen que un rechazo sea defendible con fundamentos que la comunidad puede señalar. whatToDefine: >- Indica las condiciones explícitas bajo las cuales un solicitante puede ser admitido. Cada criterio debería ser verificable a partir de la propia solicitud o mediante una comprobación externa. placeholders: - >- Criterio 1, p. ej. alineación con el propósito principal y las restricciones de identidad de la Capa 0. - >- Criterio 2, p. ej. disposición a contribuir activamente en al menos una categoría reconocida. - Criterio 3, p. ej. sin expulsión forzosa ni rechazo previo en los últimos X meses. - Criterio 4, p. ej. formulario de solicitud completado de buena fe — sin tergiversación. fr: title: Critères d'admission whyItMatters: >- L'admission est le moment où un inconnu devient lié par — et protégé par — les règles de la communauté. Si les critères sont informels, la décision se réduit à savoir si les présents apprécient le candidat. Des critères écrits font de l'admission un acte de gouvernance, pas une faveur sociale, et rendent un refus défendable sur des bases que la communauté peut invoquer. whatToDefine: >- Énonce les conditions explicites sous lesquelles un candidat peut être admis. Chaque critère doit être vérifiable à partir de la candidature elle-même ou d'une vérification externe. placeholders: - >- Critère 1, p. ex. alignement avec l'objectif principal et les contraintes d'identité de la Couche 0. - Critère 2, p. ex. volonté de contribuer activement dans au moins une catégorie reconnue. - Critère 3, p. ex. aucune sortie forcée ou rejet au cours des X derniers mois. - >- Critère 4, p. ex. formulaire de candidature rempli de bonne foi — pas de déclaration trompeuse. pt-br: title: Critérios de Admissão whyItMatters: >- A admissão é o momento em que uma pessoa estranha passa a estar vinculada — e protegida — pelas regras da comunidade. Se os critérios forem informais, a decisão se reduz a quem por acaso simpatiza com a pessoa candidata. Critérios escritos tornam a admissão um ato de governança, não um favor social, e permitem que uma recusa seja defensável com base em fundamentos que a comunidade pode apontar. whatToDefine: >- Declare as condições explícitas sob as quais uma pessoa candidata pode ser admitida. Cada critério deve ser verificável a partir da própria candidatura ou de uma checagem externa. placeholders: - >- Critério 1, ex. alinhamento com o propósito principal e com as restrições de identidade da Camada 0. - >- Critério 2, ex. disposição para contribuir ativamente em pelo menos uma categoria reconhecida. - Critério 3, ex. nenhuma saída forçada ou rejeição prévia nos últimos X meses. - >- Critério 4, ex. preenchimento do formulário de candidatura em boa-fé — sem informações falsas. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 3.2.3 - 3.2.4 - key: onboarding-protocol.onboarding-steps artifact: onboarding-protocol order: 1 clauseRefs: - 3.2.1 - 3.2.2 i18n: en: title: Onboarding Steps whyItMatters: >- Consent to governance only means something if the member has actually seen the governance. A fixed sequence — review, consent, technical setup — ensures every Full Member crossed the same threshold in the same order, so nobody slips into full rights without having encountered the constraints that come with them. whatToDefine: >- List the ordered steps every new member must complete to move from applicant to Full Member. Include explicit consent steps and any tooling/access provisioning required. placeholders: - Step 1, e.g. review all Layer 0–6 artifacts and this onboarding protocol. - >- Step 2, e.g. explicitly consent to the Membership Agreement and Layer 0 identity constraints. - Step 3, e.g. set up required tooling (wallet, accounts, identity). - Step 4, e.g. join member-only communication channels. - Step 5, e.g. be granted any required permissions for governance participation. - Step 6, e.g. onboarding completion recorded — membership state transitions to Full Member. question: What actually happens between "I'd like to join" and "I'm in"? prompts: - What are the steps, in order, from an approved application to full membership? - >- At which step does someone read all our governance documents, and how do we know they have? - >- At which step do they explicitly agree to our identity constraints and our membership rules — and how? - >- At which step is their starting membership state declared, and by whom? (What that state allows is its own question.) - Which accounts, tools and channels are set up, by whom, and at which step? examples: - >- 1. The applicant reads all our governance documents with a buddy, who answers their questions. 2. They confirm in writing that they consent to our identity constraints and the Membership Agreement, and the membership steward declares them a Trial Member. 3. The admin sets up their member account and adds them to the members' chat. 4. When their trial ends with a positive decision, completion is recorded and they become a Full Member. de: title: Onboarding-Schritte whyItMatters: >- Zustimmung zu Governance bedeutet nur dann etwas, wenn das Mitglied die Governance tatsächlich gesehen hat. Eine feste Abfolge — Prüfung, Zustimmung, technisches Setup — stellt sicher, dass jedes Vollmitglied die gleiche Schwelle in der gleichen Reihenfolge überschritten hat, sodass niemand volle Rechte erhält, ohne die damit verbundenen Einschränkungen kennengelernt zu haben. whatToDefine: >- Liste die geordneten Schritte auf, die jedes neue Mitglied durchlaufen muss, um von der bewerbenden zur vollwertigen Person zu werden. Füge explizite Zustimmungsschritte und alle erforderlichen Werkzeug-/Zugangsbereitstellungen hinzu. placeholders: - >- Schritt 1, z. B. alle Artefakte der Schichten 0–6 und dieses Onboarding-Protokoll durchsehen. - >- Schritt 2, z. B. der Mitgliedschaftsvereinbarung und den Identitätsbeschränkungen aus Schicht 0 ausdrücklich zustimmen. - Schritt 3, z. B. erforderliche Werkzeuge einrichten (Wallet, Konten, Identität). - Schritt 4, z. B. den mitgliederexklusiven Kommunikationskanälen beitreten. - Schritt 5, z. B. erforderliche Berechtigungen für die Governance-Teilnahme erhalten. - >- Schritt 6, z. B. Onboarding-Abschluss dokumentiert — Mitgliedschaftsstatus wechselt zu Vollmitglied. es: title: Pasos de Incorporación whyItMatters: >- El consentimiento a la gobernanza solo tiene sentido si el miembro realmente ha visto la gobernanza. Una secuencia fija — revisión, consentimiento, configuración técnica — garantiza que cada Miembro Pleno cruzó el mismo umbral en el mismo orden, de modo que nadie accede a derechos plenos sin haber conocido las restricciones que los acompañan. whatToDefine: >- Enumera los pasos ordenados que cada nuevo miembro debe completar para pasar de solicitante a Miembro Pleno. Incluye pasos explícitos de consentimiento y cualquier aprovisionamiento de herramientas o acceso requerido. placeholders: - >- Paso 1, p. ej. revisar todos los artefactos de las Capas 0–6 y este protocolo de incorporación. - >- Paso 2, p. ej. consentir explícitamente el Acuerdo de Membresía y las restricciones de identidad de la Capa 0. - Paso 3, p. ej. configurar las herramientas requeridas (billetera, cuentas, identidad). - Paso 4, p. ej. unirse a los canales de comunicación exclusivos para miembros. - Paso 5, p. ej. recibir los permisos necesarios para participar en la gobernanza. - >- Paso 6, p. ej. finalización de la incorporación registrada — el estado de membresía cambia a Miembro Pleno. fr: title: Étapes d'intégration whyItMatters: >- Le consentement à la gouvernance n'a de sens que si le membre a réellement vu la gouvernance. Une séquence fixe — examen, consentement, configuration technique — garantit que chaque Membre à part entière a franchi le même seuil dans le même ordre, de sorte que personne n'accède aux pleins droits sans avoir pris connaissance des contraintes qui les accompagnent. whatToDefine: >- Liste les étapes ordonnées que chaque nouveau membre doit accomplir pour passer de candidat à Membre à part entière. Inclus les étapes de consentement explicite et tout provisionnement d'outils ou d'accès nécessaire. placeholders: - >- Étape 1, p. ex. examiner tous les artefacts des Couches 0 à 6 et ce protocole d'intégration. - >- Étape 2, p. ex. consentir explicitement à l'Accord d'adhésion et aux contraintes d'identité de la Couche 0. - Étape 3, p. ex. configurer les outils requis (portefeuille, comptes, identité). - Étape 4, p. ex. rejoindre les canaux de communication réservés aux membres. - >- Étape 5, p. ex. se voir accorder les permissions nécessaires à la participation à la gouvernance. - >- Étape 6, p. ex. achèvement de l'intégration enregistré — l'état d'adhésion passe à Membre à part entière. pt-br: title: Etapas de Integração whyItMatters: >- O consentimento à governança só significa algo se a pessoa membro de fato conheceu a governança. Uma sequência fixa — revisão, consentimento, configuração técnica — garante que toda Pessoa Membro Plena cruzou o mesmo limiar na mesma ordem, de modo que ninguém entre nos direitos plenos sem ter encontrado as restrições que vêm junto com eles. whatToDefine: >- Liste as etapas ordenadas que toda pessoa nova membro DEVE completar para passar de candidata a Membro Pleno. Inclua etapas explícitas de consentimento e qualquer provisão de ferramentas/acessos necessária. placeholders: - Etapa 1, ex. revisar todos os artefatos das Camadas 0–6 e este protocolo de integração. - >- Etapa 2, ex. consentir explicitamente com o Acordo de Associação e com as restrições de identidade da Camada 0. - Etapa 3, ex. configurar as ferramentas necessárias (carteira, contas, identidade). - Etapa 4, ex. entrar nos canais de comunicação exclusivos para membros. - Etapa 5, ex. receber as permissões necessárias para participar da governança. - >- Etapa 6, ex. conclusão da integração registrada — o estado de associação transita para Membro Pleno. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 3.2.1 - 3.2.2 - key: onboarding-protocol.initial-membership-state artifact: onboarding-protocol order: 2 clauseRefs: - 3.1.2 - 3.1.4 i18n: en: title: Initial Membership State whyItMatters: >- Between "applicant approved" and "fully integrated" there is a real gap — permissions, access, and expectations all change. Declaring the exact state a new member holds at each step removes ambiguity about what they can do right now, and prevents unintentional grants of rights before onboarding is complete. whatToDefine: >- State the membership states a member transitions through during onboarding, and what triggers each transition. Reference the Membership State Registry. placeholders: - e.g. Trial Member. - e.g. Full Member (automatic upon completion). question: What is someone on their first day — and what can they do yet? prompts: - >- Which membership state does someone hold on their first day, named as in our Membership State Registry? - Which states do they pass through during onboarding, and what triggers each move? - >- What can they do yet on their first day, and what has to wait? (The rights of each state are set in the Membership State Registry.) - How do we make sure no access or right is given before the step that unlocks it? examples: - >- When their application is approved, a new person becomes a Trial Member, with the rights the Membership State Registry gives that state. They become a Full Member automatically on the day their onboarding completion is recorded. There is no other route to Full Member, and no Full Member access is given before that day. de: title: Anfänglicher Mitgliedschaftsstatus whyItMatters: >- Zwischen „Bewerbung genehmigt" und „vollständig integriert" gibt es eine echte Lücke — Berechtigungen, Zugang und Erwartungen ändern sich. Wenn du den genauen Status festlegst, den ein neues Mitglied in jedem Schritt innehat, beseitigst du Unklarheiten darüber, was es gerade tun darf, und verhinderst unbeabsichtigte Rechtevergaben, bevor das Onboarding abgeschlossen ist. whatToDefine: >- Gib die Mitgliedschaftsstatus an, die ein Mitglied während des Onboardings durchläuft, und was jeden Übergang auslöst. Verweise auf das Mitgliedschaftsstatus-Register. placeholders: - z. B. Probemitglied. - z. B. Vollmitglied (automatisch bei Abschluss). es: title: Estado Inicial de Membresía whyItMatters: >- Entre "solicitante aprobado" y "totalmente integrado" hay una brecha real — los permisos, el acceso y las expectativas cambian. Declarar el estado exacto que un nuevo miembro tiene en cada paso elimina la ambigüedad sobre lo que puede hacer en ese momento, y evita concesiones involuntarias de derechos antes de que la incorporación esté completa. whatToDefine: >- Indica los estados de membresía por los que transita un miembro durante la incorporación, y qué desencadena cada transición. Consulta el Registro de Estados de Membresía. placeholders: - p. ej. Miembro en Prueba. - p. ej. Miembro Pleno (automático al completar). fr: title: État d'adhésion initial whyItMatters: >- Entre « candidat approuvé » et « pleinement intégré », il y a un vrai décalage — les permissions, les accès et les attentes changent tous. Déclarer l'état exact que détient un nouveau membre à chaque étape supprime toute ambiguïté sur ce qu'il peut faire à l'instant présent, et empêche l'octroi involontaire de droits avant la fin de l'intégration. whatToDefine: >- Indique les états d'adhésion par lesquels un membre transite pendant l'intégration, et ce qui déclenche chaque transition. Réfère-toi au Registre des états d'adhésion. placeholders: - p. ex. Membre en période d'essai. - p. ex. Membre à part entière (automatique à l'achèvement). pt-br: title: Estado Inicial de Associação whyItMatters: >- Entre "candidatura aprovada" e "totalmente integrada" existe uma lacuna real — permissões, acesso e expectativas mudam. Declarar o estado exato que uma pessoa nova membro ocupa em cada etapa elimina a ambiguidade sobre o que ela pode fazer naquele momento, e evita concessões não intencionais de direitos antes que a integração esteja completa. whatToDefine: >- Declare os estados de associação pelos quais uma pessoa membro transita durante a integração e o que dispara cada transição. Faça referência ao Registro de Estados de Associação. placeholders: - ex. Membro em Período de Experiência. - ex. Membro Pleno (automático ao concluir). disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: onboarding-protocol.trial-and-evaluation artifact: onboarding-protocol order: 3 clauseRefs: - 3.3.1 - 3.3.2 - 3.3.3 - 3.3.4 i18n: en: title: Trial and Evaluation whyItMatters: >- An unbounded trial is a second-class membership that never ends — all obligations, fewer rights. Fixing the duration, the criteria, and the failure path forces a decision point: either the new member transitions into full standing or a defined exit runs. It prevents the trial state from becoming a permanent holding pen. whatToDefine: >- Define the duration, evaluation criteria, transition decision, grace period, failure path, and any extension rules. Trial rights are defined in the Membership State Registry. placeholders: - e.g. 30 days from approval. - e.g. all onboarding steps completed and recorded. - e.g. automatic on completion; or vote-based. - e.g. additional X days if onboarding not complete on time. - e.g. exit process triggered automatically after total period elapses. - e.g. one-time X-day extension on request. - reference Membership State Registry. - e.g. members exited due to incomplete onboarding may not reapply for X months. question: >- How long is someone new on trial, what are they judged on, who decides — and what happens if it does not work out? prompts: - How long does the trial last, and from when is it counted? - What is the new member judged on — written so they can check it themselves? - Who makes the decision at the end of the trial, and how? - >- During the trial, which obligations apply, and how does the new member know them? (Which rights are limited is set in the Membership State Registry.) - >- If the trial does not end in full membership, what happens — can it be extended, for how long and how often, and when does exit begin? - After an exit at the end of a trial, how long before someone may apply again? examples: - >- The trial lasts 6 months from the day the person signs, and every member obligation applies in full. They are judged on having completed every onboarding step and met the participation minimum in at least 5 of the 6 months. At the end, the full members decide by consent at a general meeting. If the criteria are not met, the trial can be extended once by up to 3 months; after that, the exit process begins, and the person may reapply after 12 months. de: title: Probezeit und Bewertung whyItMatters: >- Eine unbegrenzte Probezeit ist eine Mitgliedschaft zweiter Klasse, die nie endet — alle Pflichten, weniger Rechte. Dauer, Kriterien und den Pfad bei Nichtbestehen festzulegen erzwingt einen Entscheidungspunkt: Entweder geht das neue Mitglied in den vollen Status über, oder ein definierter Austrittsprozess wird ausgelöst. Das verhindert, dass die Probezeit zu einem dauerhaften Wartezustand wird. whatToDefine: >- Lege Dauer, Bewertungskriterien, Übergangsentscheidung, Nachfrist, Pfad bei Nichtbestehen und etwaige Verlängerungsregeln fest. Proberechte werden im Mitgliedschaftsstatus-Register definiert. placeholders: - z. B. 30 Tage ab Genehmigung. - z. B. alle Onboarding-Schritte abgeschlossen und dokumentiert. - z. B. automatisch bei Abschluss; oder abstimmungsbasiert. - z. B. zusätzliche X Tage, falls Onboarding nicht rechtzeitig abgeschlossen. - z. B. Austrittsprozess wird automatisch nach Ablauf der Gesamtfrist ausgelöst. - z. B. einmalige X-Tage-Verlängerung auf Anfrage. - Verweis auf das Mitgliedschaftsstatus-Register. - >- z. B. Mitglieder, die wegen unvollständigem Onboarding ausgetreten sind, dürfen sich X Monate lang nicht erneut bewerben. es: title: Prueba y Evaluación whyItMatters: >- Un periodo de prueba sin límite es una membresía de segunda clase que nunca termina — todas las obligaciones, menos derechos. Fijar la duración, los criterios y el camino en caso de fallo obliga a un punto de decisión: o el nuevo miembro pasa a pleno derecho o se ejecuta una salida definida. Esto evita que el estado de prueba se convierta en un limbo permanente. whatToDefine: >- Define la duración, los criterios de evaluación, la decisión de transición, el periodo de gracia, el camino en caso de fallo y cualquier regla de extensión. Los derechos durante la prueba se definen en el Registro de Estados de Membresía. placeholders: - p. ej. 30 días desde la aprobación. - p. ej. todos los pasos de incorporación completados y registrados. - p. ej. automática al completar; o por votación. - p. ej. X días adicionales si la incorporación no se completa a tiempo. - p. ej. proceso de salida activado automáticamente tras agotarse el periodo total. - p. ej. extensión única de X días bajo solicitud. - consultar el Registro de Estados de Membresía. - >- p. ej. los miembros que salieron por incorporación incompleta no pueden volver a solicitar durante X meses. fr: title: Période d'essai et évaluation whyItMatters: >- Une période d'essai sans limite est une adhésion de seconde classe qui ne prend jamais fin — toutes les obligations, moins de droits. Fixer la durée, les critères et le parcours en cas d'échec impose un point de décision : soit le nouveau membre accède au statut plein, soit un processus de sortie défini s'exécute. Cela empêche la période d'essai de devenir un sas d'attente permanent. whatToDefine: >- Définis la durée, les critères d'évaluation, la décision de transition, le délai de grâce, le parcours en cas d'échec et les règles de prolongation éventuelles. Les droits pendant la période d'essai sont définis dans le Registre des états d'adhésion. placeholders: - p. ex. 30 jours à compter de l'approbation. - p. ex. toutes les étapes d'intégration accomplies et enregistrées. - p. ex. automatique à l'achèvement ; ou par vote. - p. ex. X jours supplémentaires si l'intégration n'est pas terminée dans les temps. - p. ex. processus de sortie déclenché automatiquement à l'expiration de la période totale. - p. ex. une prolongation unique de X jours sur demande. - référence au Registre des états d'adhésion. - >- p. ex. les membres sortis pour intégration incomplète ne peuvent pas recandidater pendant X mois. pt-br: title: Período de Experiência e Avaliação whyItMatters: >- Um período de experiência sem prazo é uma associação de segunda classe que nunca termina — todas as obrigações, menos direitos. Fixar a duração, os critérios e o caminho de falha força um ponto de decisão: ou a pessoa nova membro transita para o status pleno ou uma saída definida é acionada. Isso impede que o estado de experiência se torne uma sala de espera permanente. whatToDefine: >- Defina a duração, os critérios de avaliação, a decisão de transição, o período de carência, o caminho de falha e quaisquer regras de prorrogação. Os direitos durante o período de experiência são definidos no Registro de Estados de Associação. placeholders: - ex. 30 dias a partir da aprovação. - ex. todas as etapas de integração concluídas e registradas. - ex. automática ao concluir; ou baseada em votação. - ex. mais X dias se a integração não for concluída no prazo. - ex. processo de saída acionado automaticamente após o término do período total. - ex. prorrogação única de X dias mediante solicitação. - faça referência ao Registro de Estados de Associação. - >- ex. pessoas membros excluídas por integração incompleta NÃO PODEM se recandidatar por X meses. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 3.3.1 - 3.3.2 - 3.3.3 - 3.3.4 - key: onboarding-protocol.completion-record artifact: onboarding-protocol order: 4 clauseRefs: - 3.8.2 i18n: en: title: Completion Record whyItMatters: >- The completion record is the evidence that a member consented to a specific version of the rules on a specific date. Losing or editing it would make it impossible to answer, months or years later, "what exactly did they agree to?" — which is the only question that matters when a dispute arrives. whatToDefine: >- State where the completion record is kept, what it captures (timestamp, artifact versions consented to), and the retention rule. placeholders: - >- Description of the onboarding completion record — where it lives, what it captures, and that it is retained permanently after exit. question: How do we record that someone has finished joining, and what does the record keep? prompts: - Where is the completion record kept, and who writes it? - >- What does it capture — at least the date, and the exact version of every document the person agreed to? - How long is it kept, including after the person leaves? examples: - >- The membership steward records completion in the members' register on the day the last onboarding step is done. The entry holds the date, the person's name, their new membership state, and the version number of each document they consented to. Entries are never deleted; after someone leaves, their entry stays, marked with the exit date. de: title: Abschlussnachweis whyItMatters: >- Der Abschlussnachweis ist der Beleg dafür, dass ein Mitglied einer bestimmten Version der Regeln an einem bestimmten Datum zugestimmt hat. Ihn zu verlieren oder zu bearbeiten würde es unmöglich machen, Monate oder Jahre später die Frage zu beantworten: „Was genau hat die Person zugestimmt?" — und das ist die einzige Frage, die zählt, wenn ein Streitfall eintritt. whatToDefine: >- Gib an, wo der Abschlussnachweis aufbewahrt wird, was er erfasst (Zeitstempel, Versionen der zugestimmten Artefakte) und welche Aufbewahrungsregel gilt. placeholders: - >- Beschreibung des Onboarding-Abschlussnachweises — wo er gespeichert ist, was er erfasst und dass er auch nach einem Austritt dauerhaft aufbewahrt wird. es: title: Registro de Finalización whyItMatters: >- El registro de finalización es la evidencia de que un miembro consintió a una versión específica de las reglas en una fecha específica. Perderlo o editarlo haría imposible responder, meses o años después, "¿a qué exactamente accedió?" — que es la única pregunta que importa cuando llega una disputa. whatToDefine: >- Indica dónde se guarda el registro de finalización, qué captura (marca de tiempo, versiones de artefactos consentidos) y la regla de retención. placeholders: - >- Descripción del registro de finalización de la incorporación — dónde se almacena, qué captura y que se retiene permanentemente después de la salida. fr: title: Dossier d'achèvement whyItMatters: >- Le dossier d'achèvement est la preuve qu'un membre a consenti à une version spécifique des règles à une date spécifique. Le perdre ou le modifier rendrait impossible de répondre, des mois ou des années plus tard, à la question « à quoi exactement a-t-il consenti ? » — qui est la seule question qui compte lorsqu'un litige survient. whatToDefine: >- Indique où le dossier d'achèvement est conservé, ce qu'il capture (horodatage, versions des artefacts auxquelles le membre a consenti), et la règle de conservation. placeholders: - >- Description du dossier d'achèvement de l'intégration — où il est stocké, ce qu'il capture, et qu'il est conservé de manière permanente après la sortie. pt-br: title: Registro de Conclusão whyItMatters: >- O registro de conclusão é a evidência de que uma pessoa membro consentiu com uma versão específica das regras em uma data específica. Perdê-lo ou editá-lo tornaria impossível responder, meses ou anos depois, "com o que exatamente ela concordou?" — que é a única pergunta que importa quando surge uma disputa. whatToDefine: >- Declare onde o registro de conclusão é mantido, o que ele captura (carimbo de data/hora, versões dos artefatos consentidos) e a regra de retenção. placeholders: - >- Descrição do registro de conclusão da integração — onde fica, o que captura e que é retido permanentemente após a saída. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: onboarding-protocol.ratification-record artifact: onboarding-protocol order: 5 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Ratification Record whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] question: Who adopted this onboarding process, when, and how was it decided? de: title: Ratifizierungsnachweis whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: Registro de Ratificación whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: Procès-verbal de ratification whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Registro de Ratificação whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: filled_from_decision dispositionNote: >- Written from the decision that adopted this artifact: reference, date, mechanism, tally and attendance as recorded at freeze time. ownsClauses: [] - key: authority-registry.registered-authorities artifact: authority-registry order: 0 clauseRefs: - 4.3.1 - 4.3.2 - 4.3.3 - 4.3.4 - 4.3.5 i18n: en: title: Registered Authorities whyItMatters: >- Authority that is not explicitly registered gets filled in by default — by whoever has been around longest, speaks loudest, or controls the keys. A single registry that names every role, bounds its scope, caps its limits, and ties its basis to a delegation act makes unauthorized action detectable and prevents authority from being derived from charisma, seniority, or ownership. whatToDefine: >- For each role, body, or circle that holds authority, list the scope of authority, hard limits, term/duration, and the basis (membership state, delegation act, etc.). The collective body of Full Members is itself an authority and belongs in this table. placeholders: - e.g. Full Members (collective) - scope - limits — cannot override invariants; cannot act outside Decision Matrix - duration - basis — membership state - e.g. Membership Admin - scope - limits - duration - basis — delegated by Full Members - e.g. Finance Steward - scope - limits — spending cap - duration - basis - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... question: >- Which roles, circles or bodies hold authority here — and what are the scope, limits and term of each? prompts: - >- Which roles, circles or bodies may decide anything? (The full members together are one of them.) - 'For each: what may it decide, and where does that stop?' - 'For each: for how long does it hold that authority, and how is it renewed or ended?' - >- Where does each get its authority from — never seniority, ownership, charisma or being a founder? - >- Which temporary or emergency authority do we allow, how is it time-bounded, and how is it reviewed afterwards? examples: - >- The full members together decide what the Decision Matrix gives them, for as long as they are members. The finance steward pays approved bills and may spend up to €300 per item within the budget, for a two-year term, appointed by vote. The membership admin runs onboarding and exits but cannot admit anyone alone. Nobody holds authority because they founded the community or own land here. In an emergency any two stewards may act for up to 72 hours, and the next general meeting reviews what they did. de: title: Registrierte Autoritäten whyItMatters: >- Autorität, die nicht explizit registriert ist, wird stillschweigend gefüllt — von wem auch immer am längsten dabei ist, am lautesten spricht oder die Schlüssel kontrolliert. Ein einziges Register, das jede Rolle benennt, ihren Geltungsbereich eingrenzt, ihre Grenzen festlegt und ihre Grundlage an einen Delegationsakt knüpft, macht unautorisiertes Handeln erkennbar und verhindert, dass Autorität aus Charisma, Seniorität oder Eigentum abgeleitet wird. whatToDefine: >- Liste für jede Rolle, jedes Gremium oder jeden Kreis, der Autorität besitzt, den Geltungsbereich der Autorität, harte Grenzen, Amtszeit/Dauer und die Grundlage (Mitgliedschaftsstatus, Delegationsakt usw.) auf. Das Kollektivgremium der Vollmitglieder ist selbst eine Autorität und gehört in diese Tabelle. placeholders: - z. B. Vollmitglieder (kollektiv) - Geltungsbereich - >- Grenzen — darf Invarianten nicht außer Kraft setzen; darf nicht außerhalb der Entscheidungsmatrix handeln - Dauer - Grundlage — Mitgliedschaftsstatus - z. B. Mitgliedschaftsverwaltung - Geltungsbereich - Grenzen - Dauer - Grundlage — delegiert durch Vollmitglieder - z. B. Finanz-Steward - Geltungsbereich - Grenzen — Ausgabenobergrenze - Dauer - Grundlage - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... es: title: Autoridades Registradas whyItMatters: >- La autoridad que no se registra explícitamente se llena por defecto — por quien lleva más tiempo, habla más fuerte o controla las llaves. Un registro único que nombre cada rol, delimite su alcance, establezca sus límites y vincule su base a un acto de delegación hace que la acción no autorizada sea detectable e impide que la autoridad se derive del carisma, la antigüedad o la propiedad. whatToDefine: >- Para cada rol, órgano o círculo que posea autoridad, enumera el alcance de autoridad, los límites estrictos, la duración del mandato y la base (estado de membresía, acto de delegación, etc.). El cuerpo colectivo de Miembros Plenos es en sí mismo una autoridad y pertenece a esta tabla. placeholders: - p. ej. Miembros Plenos (colectivo) - alcance - límites — no puede anular invariantes; no puede actuar fuera de la Matriz de Decisiones - duración - base — estado de membresía - p. ej. Administración de Membresía - alcance - límites - duración - base — delegada por los Miembros Plenos - p. ej. Responsable de Finanzas - alcance - límites — tope de gasto - duración - base - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... fr: title: Autorités enregistrées whyItMatters: >- Une autorité qui n'est pas explicitement enregistrée est comblée par défaut — par la personne présente depuis le plus longtemps, qui parle le plus fort ou qui détient les clés. Un registre unique qui nomme chaque rôle, délimite son périmètre, plafonne ses limites et rattache sa base à un acte de délégation rend toute action non autorisée détectable et empêche que l'autorité ne découle du charisme, de l'ancienneté ou de la propriété. whatToDefine: >- Pour chaque rôle, organe ou cercle détenant une autorité, indique le périmètre d'autorité, les limites strictes, la durée du mandat et la base (statut de membre, acte de délégation, etc.). Le corps collectif des membres à part entière est lui-même une autorité et doit figurer dans ce tableau. placeholders: - p. ex. Membres à part entière (collectif) - périmètre - >- limites — ne peut pas outrepasser les invariants ; ne peut pas agir en dehors de la matrice de décision - durée - base — statut de membre - p. ex. Admin des adhésions - périmètre - limites - durée - base — délégué par les membres à part entière - p. ex. Responsable des finances - périmètre - limites — plafond de dépenses - durée - base - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... pt-br: title: Autoridades Registradas whyItMatters: >- A autoridade que não é registrada explicitamente acaba sendo preenchida por padrão — por quem está há mais tempo, fala mais alto ou controla as chaves. Um único registro que nomeia cada papel, delimita seu escopo, define seus limites e vincula sua base a um ato de delegação torna ações não autorizadas detectáveis e impede que a autoridade seja derivada de carisma, antiguidade ou propriedade. whatToDefine: >- Para cada papel, órgão ou círculo que detém autoridade, liste o escopo da autoridade, os limites rígidos, o mandato/duração e a base (estado de associação, ato de delegação, etc.). O conjunto coletivo de Membros Plenos é em si uma autoridade e pertence a esta tabela. placeholders: - 'ex.: Membros Plenos (coletivo)' - escopo - limites — não pode anular invariantes; não pode agir fora da Matriz de Decisão - duração - base — estado de associação - 'ex.: Administrador de Associação' - escopo - limites - duração - base — delegada pelos Membros Plenos - 'ex.: Responsável de Finanças' - escopo - limites — teto de gastos - duração - base - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 4.3.1 - 4.3.2 - 4.3.3 - 4.3.4 - 4.3.5 - key: authority-registry.ratification-record artifact: authority-registry order: 1 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Ratification Record whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] de: title: Ratifizierungsprotokoll whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: Registro de Ratificación whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: Procès-verbal de ratification whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Registro de Ratificação whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: filled_from_decision dispositionNote: >- Written from the decision that adopted this artifact: reference, date, mechanism, tally and attendance as recorded at freeze time. ownsClauses: [] - key: decision-matrix.voting-principles artifact: decision-matrix order: 0 clauseRefs: - 4.2.1 - 4.2.2 - 4.2.3 - 4.2.4 i18n: en: title: Voting Principles whyItMatters: >- A vote without a predefined mechanism, threshold, and deliberation window is an invitation to manufacture outcomes after the fact — whoever counts the votes or sets the clock wins. Declaring these parameters in advance makes every collective decision reproducible and contestable on the same terms, regardless of who is in the room. whatToDefine: >- State the voting platform, the threshold for each decision type, the deliberation period, the tie rule, the re-vote rule, and any delegated-authority spending or scope limit. placeholders: - e.g. Snapshot, Loomio, in-person consensus. - >- e.g. no vote required — delegated to the relevant operational role holder per the Role Registry. - e.g. supermajority (≥⅔); minimum Y-day deliberation; Z-day ratification period. - e.g. proposal fails; status quo maintained. - >- e.g. any Full Member may trigger a re-vote with a written reasoned objection citing a consideration not addressed during deliberation. - >- define what qualifies as a reasoned objection — cite a specific consideration not raised during deliberation; general disagreement does not qualify. - e.g. €0; or define a threshold under which delegated spending is allowed. - Other voting principles your community wants to declare. question: >- For each kind of decision, who gets a say, what counts as agreement, who can block it, and how long does it stay open? prompts: - >- For each kind of decision: which mechanism do we use — consent, majority vote, supermajority, handing it to a role holder, or rotation or lottery? - >- For each mechanism: who is eligible to take part, and what counts as agreement — a share of votes, a quorum, or no remaining objections? - Can anyone block or veto a decision, and on what grounds — or is there no block at all? - >- How long does each decision stay open, and what happens on a tie or when the time runs out without a result? - Where does the deciding happen — in a meeting, on an online tool, or both? - Up to what amount of money or scope may a role holder decide alone, without a vote? examples: - >- Operational decisions are made by the relevant role holder, who may spend up to €300 per item without a vote. Strategic decisions use consent: every full member may take part, and a proposal passes when no reasoned objection remains after a 14-day round. Only an objection showing how the proposal harms our purpose can block. Constitutional decisions use the same consent process with a 30-day round. If an objection is still open when the round closes, the proposal fails and the current rule stands. - >- Strategic decisions are made by majority vote of full members on our voting tool, open for 7 days, with at least half of all full members voting. Constitutional decisions need two thirds of all full members, voting open for 14 days. Nobody holds a veto. A tie, or too few votes, means the proposal fails and nothing changes. Coordinators may spend up to €500 within their area without a vote. de: title: Abstimmungsgrundsätze whyItMatters: >- Eine Abstimmung ohne vordefinierten Mechanismus, Schwelle und Beratungszeitraum ist eine Einladung, Ergebnisse im Nachhinein zu manipulieren — wer die Stimmen zählt oder die Uhr stellt, gewinnt. Diese Parameter im Voraus festzulegen macht jede kollektive Entscheidung reproduzierbar und unter denselben Bedingungen anfechtbar, unabhängig davon, wer gerade im Raum ist. whatToDefine: >- Lege die Abstimmungsplattform, die Schwelle für jeden Entscheidungstyp, den Beratungszeitraum, die Patt-Regel, die Regel für erneute Abstimmungen sowie etwaige delegierte Ausgabenlimits oder Zuständigkeitsgrenzen fest. placeholders: - z. B. Snapshot, Loomio, Konsens in Präsenz. - >- z. B. keine Abstimmung erforderlich — delegiert an die zuständige operative Rolleninhaberin laut Rollenregister. - z. B. Supermehrheit (≥⅔); mindestens Y Tage Beratungszeit; Z Tage Ratifizierungszeitraum. - z. B. Vorschlag scheitert; Status quo bleibt bestehen. - >- z. B. jedes Vollmitglied kann mit einem schriftlich begründeten Einwand, der eine während der Beratung nicht behandelte Erwägung benennt, eine erneute Abstimmung auslösen. - >- Definiere, was als begründeter Einwand gilt — nenne eine konkrete Erwägung, die während der Beratung nicht vorgebracht wurde; allgemeine Ablehnung genügt nicht. - >- z. B. 0 €; oder definiere eine Schwelle, unterhalb derer delegierte Ausgaben zulässig sind. - Weitere Abstimmungsgrundsätze, die deine Gemeinschaft festlegen möchte. es: title: Principios de Votación whyItMatters: >- Una votación sin un mecanismo, umbral y período de deliberación predefinidos es una invitación a fabricar resultados después del hecho — quien cuenta los votos o establece el plazo gana. Declarar estos parámetros de antemano hace que cada decisión colectiva sea reproducible y contestable en los mismos términos, independientemente de quién esté presente. whatToDefine: >- Indica la plataforma de votación, el umbral para cada tipo de decisión, el período de deliberación, la regla de empate, la regla de re-votación, y cualquier límite de gasto o alcance de autoridad delegada. placeholders: - p. ej. Snapshot, Loomio, consenso presencial. - >- p. ej. no se requiere votación — delegado al titular del rol operativo correspondiente según el Registro de Roles. - >- p. ej. supermayoría (≥⅔); deliberación mínima de Y días; período de ratificación de Z días. - p. ej. la propuesta no se aprueba; se mantiene el statu quo. - >- p. ej. cualquier Miembro Pleno puede solicitar una re-votación mediante una objeción razonada por escrito que cite una consideración no abordada durante la deliberación. - >- definir qué constituye una objeción razonada — citar una consideración específica no planteada durante la deliberación; el desacuerdo general no califica. - p. ej. 0 €; o definir un umbral por debajo del cual se permite el gasto delegado. - Otros principios de votación que tu comunidad quiera declarar. fr: title: Principes de vote whyItMatters: >- Un vote sans mécanisme, seuil et délai de délibération prédéfinis est une invitation à fabriquer des résultats après coup — celui qui compte les votes ou fixe l'horloge gagne. Déclarer ces paramètres à l'avance rend chaque décision collective reproductible et contestable selon les mêmes conditions, indépendamment de qui est présent. whatToDefine: >- Indique la plateforme de vote, le seuil pour chaque type de décision, la période de délibération, la règle en cas d'égalité, la règle de revote et toute limite de dépense ou de périmètre en cas d'autorité déléguée. placeholders: - p. ex. Snapshot, Loomio, consensus en présentiel. - >- p. ex. aucun vote requis — délégué au titulaire du rôle opérationnel concerné selon le Registre des rôles. - >- p. ex. supermajorité (≥⅔) ; délibération minimale de Y jours ; période de ratification de Z jours. - p. ex. la proposition échoue ; le statu quo est maintenu. - >- p. ex. tout Membre titulaire PEUT déclencher un revote par une objection motivée écrite citant un point non abordé pendant la délibération. - >- définis ce qui constitue une objection motivée — citer un point précis non soulevé pendant la délibération ; un désaccord général ne suffit pas. - p. ex. 0 € ; ou définis un seuil en dessous duquel la dépense déléguée est autorisée. - Autres principes de vote que ta communauté souhaite déclarer. pt-br: title: Princípios de Votação whyItMatters: >- Uma votação sem mecanismo, limiar e janela de deliberação predefinidos é um convite para fabricar resultados depois do fato — quem conta os votos ou define o relógio vence. Declarar esses parâmetros com antecedência torna cada decisão coletiva reproduzível e contestável nos mesmos termos, independentemente de quem está na sala. whatToDefine: >- Indique a plataforma de votação, o limiar para cada tipo de decisão, o período de deliberação, a regra de empate, a regra de nova votação e qualquer limite de gastos ou escopo da autoridade delegada. placeholders: - 'ex.: Snapshot, Loomio, consenso presencial.' - >- ex.: nenhuma votação necessária — delegada ao detentor do papel operacional relevante conforme o Registro de Papéis. - 'ex.: supermaioria (≥⅔); deliberação mínima de Y dias; período de ratificação de Z dias.' - 'ex.: a proposta falha; o status quo é mantido.' - >- ex.: qualquer Membro Pleno pode acionar nova votação com uma objeção escrita e fundamentada citando uma consideração não abordada durante a deliberação. - >- defina o que qualifica como objeção fundamentada — citar uma consideração específica não levantada durante a deliberação; discordância geral não qualifica. - 'ex.: R$ 0; ou defina um limiar abaixo do qual gastos delegados são permitidos.' - Outros princípios de votação que sua comunidade queira declarar. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 4.2.1 - 4.2.2 - 4.2.3 - 4.2.4 - key: decision-matrix.matrix artifact: decision-matrix order: 1 clauseRefs: - 4.4.1 - 4.4.2 - 4.4.3 - 4.4.4 i18n: en: title: Matrix whyItMatters: >- If the rules for who decides what live in people's heads, authority becomes whatever the loudest or most senior person says it is. A public matrix that binds every decision to a domain, body, mechanism, and threshold makes out-of-scope action visible the moment it happens — and makes any decision made outside it invalid by construction. whatToDefine: >- For each decision domain (membership, treasury, platform, partnerships, governance, etc.), set the decision type, the authorized body, who is eligible to participate, the mechanism, threshold, blocking conditions, and escalation path. placeholders: - e.g. Membership admission - Operational / Strategic / Constitutional - role or body - who participates - vote / delegated - threshold - blocking conditions - escalation path - e.g. Treasury spending — small - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - e.g. Treasury spending — large - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - e.g. Governance rule changes - Constitutional - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - e.g. Primary purpose / invariant changes - Constitutional - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... question: Which decisions belong to whom — in one table we can point at mid-argument? prompts: - >- For each area we decide about (membership, money, land and buildings, partnerships, our own rules): which decision type is it, and which role or body decides? - 'For each row: which mechanism and approval threshold apply?' - >- For each row: where does it go if the deciding role or body cannot agree, has a conflict of interest, or the matter goes beyond its limit? - >- Where is the matrix kept so that every member can read it at any time, and how do we tell members when it changes? - >- What happens to a decision someone made outside the matrix — who can point it out, and how is it undone? examples: - >- Membership admission is Strategic: the members' circle decides by consent after a 14-day round, escalating to the general meeting if it cannot agree. Spending under €500 is Operational and the treasurer decides alone; above that it is Strategic and needs a two-thirds vote, escalating to the general meeting. Changes to our purpose or governance are Constitutional and need a three-quarters vote after 30 days. The matrix is pinned in the members' handbook, and a decision made outside it has no effect until it is taken again through the right row. de: title: Matrix whyItMatters: >- Wenn die Regeln darüber, wer was entscheidet, nur in den Köpfen der Leute existieren, wird Autorität zu dem, was die lauteste oder ranghöchste Person sagt. Eine öffentliche Matrix, die jede Entscheidung an einen Bereich, ein Gremium, einen Mechanismus und eine Schwelle bindet, macht jede Kompetenzüberschreitung sofort sichtbar — und macht jede außerhalb der Matrix getroffene Entscheidung per Definition ungültig. whatToDefine: >- Lege für jeden Entscheidungsbereich (Mitgliedschaft, Finanzen, Plattform, Partnerschaften, Governance usw.) den Entscheidungstyp, das autorisierte Gremium, die teilnahmeberechtigten Personen, den Mechanismus, die Schwelle, Blockadebedingungen und den Eskalationspfad fest. placeholders: - z. B. Mitgliedsaufnahme - Operativ / Strategisch / Konstitutionell - Rolle oder Gremium - wer teilnimmt - Abstimmung / delegiert - Schwelle - Blockadebedingungen - Eskalationspfad - z. B. Finanzausgaben — klein - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - z. B. Finanzausgaben — groß - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - z. B. Änderungen an Governance-Regeln - Konstitutionell - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - z. B. Änderungen am Hauptzweck / an Invarianten - Konstitutionell - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... es: title: Matriz whyItMatters: >- Si las reglas sobre quién decide qué viven en la cabeza de las personas, la autoridad se convierte en lo que diga la persona más ruidosa o con más antigüedad. Una matriz pública que vincule cada decisión a un dominio, cuerpo, mecanismo y umbral hace visible la acción fuera de alcance en el momento en que ocurre — y hace que cualquier decisión tomada fuera de ella sea inválida por construcción. whatToDefine: >- Para cada dominio de decisión (membresía, tesorería, plataforma, alianzas, gobernanza, etc.), establece el tipo de decisión, el cuerpo autorizado, quién puede participar, el mecanismo, el umbral, las condiciones de bloqueo y la vía de escalamiento. placeholders: - p. ej. Admisión de miembros - Operativo / Estratégico / Constitucional - rol o cuerpo - quién participa - votación / delegado - umbral - condiciones de bloqueo - vía de escalamiento - p. ej. Gasto de tesorería — menor - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - p. ej. Gasto de tesorería — mayor - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - p. ej. Cambios en reglas de gobernanza - Constitucional - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - p. ej. Cambios al propósito primario / invariantes - Constitucional - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... fr: title: Matrice whyItMatters: >- Si les règles qui déterminent qui décide de quoi ne vivent que dans la tête des gens, l'autorité devient ce que la personne la plus bruyante ou la plus ancienne dit qu'elle est. Une matrice publique qui lie chaque décision à un domaine, un organe, un mécanisme et un seuil rend toute action hors périmètre visible dès qu'elle se produit — et rend invalide par construction toute décision prise en dehors d'elle. whatToDefine: >- Pour chaque domaine de décision (adhésion, trésorerie, plateforme, partenariats, gouvernance, etc.), définis le type de décision, l'organe autorisé, les personnes éligibles à participer, le mécanisme, le seuil, les conditions de blocage et le chemin d'escalade. placeholders: - p. ex. Admission de membres - Opérationnel / Stratégique / Constitutionnel - rôle ou organe - qui participe - vote / délégué - seuil - conditions de blocage - chemin d'escalade - p. ex. Dépenses de trésorerie — petites - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - p. ex. Dépenses de trésorerie — grandes - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - p. ex. Modifications des règles de gouvernance - Constitutionnel - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - p. ex. Modifications de la mission principale / des invariants - Constitutionnel - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... pt-br: title: Matriz whyItMatters: >- Se as regras sobre quem decide o quê vivem na cabeça das pessoas, a autoridade vira o que a pessoa mais barulhenta ou mais sênior disser. Uma matriz pública que vincula cada decisão a um domínio, órgão, mecanismo e limiar torna ações fora de escopo visíveis no momento em que acontecem — e torna qualquer decisão tomada fora dela inválida por construção. whatToDefine: >- Para cada domínio de decisão (admissão de membros, tesouraria, plataforma, parcerias, governança etc.), defina o tipo de decisão, o órgão autorizado, quem é elegível para participar, o mecanismo, o limiar, as condições de bloqueio e o caminho de escalonamento. placeholders: - 'ex.: Admissão de membros' - Operacional / Estratégica / Constitucional - papel ou órgão - quem participa - votação / delegada - limiar - condições de bloqueio - caminho de escalonamento - 'ex.: Gastos da tesouraria — pequenos' - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - 'ex.: Gastos da tesouraria — grandes' - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - 'ex.: Mudanças nas regras de governança' - Constitucional - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - 'ex.: Mudanças de propósito primário / invariantes' - Constitucional - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 4.4.1 - 4.4.2 - 4.4.3 - 4.4.4 - key: decision-matrix.decision-type-definitions artifact: decision-matrix order: 2 clauseRefs: - 4.1.1 - 4.1.2 - 4.1.3 - 4.1.4 - 4.1.5 i18n: en: title: Decision Type Definitions whyItMatters: >- Without a type, every decision gets handled at whatever speed and scrutiny happens to suit the moment — routine changes stall in debate, and constitutional shifts slip through unnoticed. Fixed types tie the weight of a decision to the process it must pass through, and the default-higher rule closes the gap where ambiguity would otherwise be exploited. whatToDefine: >- Define each decision type by what it covers, who executes it, what process it requires, and how disputes about classification are resolved. placeholders: - >- day-to-day functioning within existing rules; executed by the relevant role holder without a vote. - >- long-term direction, significant resource allocation, creation/removal of major structures; requires a Full Member vote with a defined deliberation period. - >- changes to Layer 0 (purpose, scope, invariants) or to the governance system itself; requires a Full Member vote, supermajority, and a ratification period. question: What kinds of decision do we make, and how do we tell a big one from a small one? prompts: - >- What counts as an Operational decision for us — day-to-day work within rules we already have? Name two or three real ones. - >- What counts as Strategic — long-term direction, large spending, starting or closing a major group? Where exactly is the line, for example an amount of money? - >- What counts as Constitutional — changes to our purpose, scope, core commitments, or how we govern ourselves? - >- For each type: who carries the decision out, and does it need a proposal and vote or not? (The exact thresholds are their own question.) - >- How do we make sure every collective decision lands in exactly one type — and when it could fit two, that it is treated as the bigger one? - Who settles a dispute about which type a decision is? examples: - >- Operational decisions keep things running within existing rules — buying seed, scheduling work days, repairing the pump — and the role holder in charge decides alone. Strategic decisions set direction for a year or more, spend over €1,000, or create or close a working group; they need a members' vote after deliberation. Constitutional decisions change our purpose, our core commitments or how we govern; they need a supermajority and a ratification period. If anyone doubts which type a decision is, it is treated as the higher one. de: title: Definitionen der Entscheidungstypen whyItMatters: >- Ohne einen Typ wird jede Entscheidung mit der Geschwindigkeit und Sorgfalt behandelt, die gerade passt — Routineänderungen versanden in Debatten, und konstitutionelle Änderungen rutschen unbemerkt durch. Feste Typen binden das Gewicht einer Entscheidung an den Prozess, den sie durchlaufen muss, und die Regel „im Zweifel höher einstufen" schließt die Lücke, die sonst ausgenutzt werden könnte. whatToDefine: >- Definiere jeden Entscheidungstyp anhand seines Geltungsbereichs, wer ihn ausführt, welchen Prozess er erfordert und wie Streitigkeiten über die Klassifizierung gelöst werden. placeholders: - >- Tagesgeschäft innerhalb bestehender Regeln; wird von der zuständigen Rolleninhaberin ohne Abstimmung ausgeführt. - >- langfristige Ausrichtung, bedeutende Ressourcenzuweisung, Schaffung/Abschaffung wesentlicher Strukturen; erfordert eine Abstimmung der Vollmitglieder mit definiertem Beratungszeitraum. - >- Änderungen an Schicht 0 (Zweck, Geltungsbereich, Invarianten) oder am Governance-System selbst; erfordert eine Abstimmung der Vollmitglieder, Supermehrheit und einen Ratifizierungszeitraum. es: title: Definiciones de Tipos de Decisión whyItMatters: >- Sin un tipo, cada decisión se maneja a la velocidad y con el escrutinio que convenga en el momento — los cambios rutinarios se estancan en debates, y los cambios constitucionales pasan desapercibidos. Los tipos fijos vinculan el peso de una decisión al proceso que DEBE superar, y la regla de tipo superior por defecto cierra la brecha donde la ambigüedad de otro modo sería explotada. whatToDefine: >- Define cada tipo de decisión según lo que abarca, quién la ejecuta, qué proceso requiere y cómo se resuelven las disputas sobre la clasificación. placeholders: - >- funcionamiento diario dentro de las reglas existentes; ejecutado por el titular del rol correspondiente sin votación. - >- dirección a largo plazo, asignación significativa de recursos, creación/eliminación de estructuras importantes; requiere votación de Miembros Plenos con un período de deliberación definido. - >- cambios a la Capa 0 (propósito, alcance, invariantes) o al propio sistema de gobernanza; requiere votación de Miembros Plenos, supermayoría y un período de ratificación. fr: title: Définitions des types de décision whyItMatters: >- Sans type, chaque décision est traitée à la vitesse et avec le niveau de scrutin qui convient sur le moment — les changements de routine s'enlisent dans des débats, et les modifications constitutionnelles passent inaperçues. Des types fixes lient le poids d'une décision au processus qu'elle DOIT traverser, et la règle du défaut vers le haut comble la faille que l'ambiguïté permettrait autrement d'exploiter. whatToDefine: >- Définis chaque type de décision en précisant ce qu'il couvre, qui l'exécute, quel processus il requiert et comment les litiges de classification sont résolus. placeholders: - >- fonctionnement quotidien dans le cadre des règles existantes ; exécuté par le titulaire du rôle concerné sans vote. - >- orientation à long terme, allocation significative de ressources, création/suppression de structures majeures ; requiert un vote des Membres titulaires avec une période de délibération définie. - >- modifications de la Couche 0 (mission, périmètre, invariants) ou du système de gouvernance lui-même ; requiert un vote des Membres titulaires, une supermajorité et une période de ratification. pt-br: title: Definições dos Tipos de Decisão whyItMatters: >- Sem um tipo, cada decisão é tratada na velocidade e com o rigor que calhar no momento — mudanças rotineiras travam em debates, e mudanças constitucionais passam despercebidas. Tipos fixos vinculam o peso de uma decisão ao processo pelo qual ela precisa passar, e a regra do tipo-mais-alto-por-padrão fecha a brecha onde a ambiguidade seria explorada. whatToDefine: >- Defina cada tipo de decisão pelo que ele abrange, quem o executa, qual processo exige e como disputas sobre classificação são resolvidas. placeholders: - >- funcionamento cotidiano dentro das regras existentes; executado pelo detentor do papel relevante sem votação. - >- direção de longo prazo, alocação significativa de recursos, criação/remoção de estruturas importantes; requer votação dos Membros Plenos com um período de deliberação definido. - >- mudanças na Camada 0 (propósito, escopo, invariantes) ou no próprio sistema de governança; requer votação dos Membros Plenos, supermaioria e um período de ratificação. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 4.1.1 - 4.1.2 - 4.1.3 - 4.1.4 - 4.1.5 - key: decision-matrix.ratification-record artifact: decision-matrix order: 3 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Ratification Record whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] de: title: Ratifizierungsprotokoll whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: Registro de Ratificación whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: Registre de ratification whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Registro de Ratificação whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: filled_from_decision dispositionNote: >- Written from the decision that adopted this artifact: reference, date, mechanism, tally and attendance as recorded at freeze time. ownsClauses: [] - key: governance-protocol.proposal-submission artifact: governance-protocol order: 0 clauseRefs: - 4.5.1 - 4.5.2 i18n: en: title: Proposal Submission whyItMatters: >- A decision process that accepts proposals informally — a message, a verbal suggestion, a founder's idea — has no reliable way to tell what is actually on the table. Requiring a standard submission format, filing location, and mandatory content fields means every proposal arrives with the same information, visible to everyone, traceable from day one. whatToDefine: >- State who may propose, where proposals are submitted, the mandatory content fields, and how decision type is determined and challenged. placeholders: - >- Operational decisions — handled by the relevant role holder per the Role Registry; no proposal required. - Strategic and Constitutional decisions — who may submit, and on what platform. - >- Mandatory proposal fields: summary, affected layers and artifacts, decision type, rationale, risks and mitigations, rollback plan, proposed effective date. - Decision type is declared by proposer; defaults to higher-impact type if unclear. - Withdrawal rules — when a proposal can be withdrawn and how. question: How does someone put a proposal in front of us, and what has to be in it? prompts: - Which decisions need a written proposal at all, and which can a role holder simply make? - Who may put forward a proposal, and where is it submitted so that everyone can see it? - >- What must every proposal contain — for example a summary, the decision type, what it changes, the reasons, the risks, and how to undo it? - >- Who declares the decision type of a proposal when it is submitted? (How a dispute about the type is settled is its own question.) - When may a proposer withdraw a proposal, and how? - >- Taken together with the steps that follow, does our process carry a proposal all the way — submission, deliberation, decision, carrying out, record and appeal — with no step missing? examples: - >- Any full member may submit a Strategic or Constitutional proposal by posting it in the Proposals section of our forum using the shared template. Each proposal states a summary, its decision type, the agreements it changes, the reasons, the risks and how to reverse it, and a proposed start date. The proposer declares the type; any member may ask for a higher one, and doubt is resolved upward. A proposer may withdraw a proposal at any time before voting opens. Operational decisions need no proposal. de: title: Antragseinreichung whyItMatters: >- Ein Entscheidungsprozess, der Anträge informell annimmt — eine Nachricht, ein mündlicher Vorschlag, eine Idee der Gründer:innen — hat keine verlässliche Möglichkeit festzustellen, was tatsächlich zur Abstimmung steht. Ein standardisiertes Einreichungsformat, ein festgelegter Ablageort und verbindliche Inhaltsfelder bedeuten, dass jeder Antrag mit denselben Informationen eingeht, für alle sichtbar und von Tag eins an nachvollziehbar. whatToDefine: >- Lege fest, wer Anträge stellen darf, wo Anträge eingereicht werden, welche Inhaltsfelder verpflichtend sind und wie der Entscheidungstyp bestimmt und angefochten wird. placeholders: - >- Operative Entscheidungen — werden von der zuständigen Rolleninhaber:in gemäß dem Rollenregister bearbeitet; kein Antrag erforderlich. - >- Strategische und Verfassungsentscheidungen — wer einreichen darf und auf welcher Plattform. - >- Pflichtfelder im Antrag: Zusammenfassung, betroffene Layer und Artefakte, Entscheidungstyp, Begründung, Risiken und Gegenmaßnahmen, Rücknahmeplan, vorgeschlagenes Wirksamkeitsdatum. - >- Der Entscheidungstyp wird von der antragstellenden Person angegeben; im Zweifelsfall gilt der höhere Wirkungstyp. - Rücknahmeregeln — wann ein Antrag zurückgezogen werden kann und wie. es: title: Presentación de Propuestas whyItMatters: >- Un proceso de decisión que acepta propuestas de manera informal — un mensaje, una sugerencia verbal, una idea del fundador — no tiene forma fiable de saber qué está realmente sobre la mesa. Exigir un formato de presentación estándar, una ubicación de archivo y campos de contenido obligatorios significa que cada propuesta llega con la misma información, visible para todos, rastreable desde el primer día. whatToDefine: >- Indica quién puede proponer, dónde se presentan las propuestas, los campos de contenido obligatorios y cómo se determina y se impugna el tipo de decisión. placeholders: - >- Decisiones operativas — gestionadas por el titular del rol correspondiente según el Registro de Roles; no se requiere propuesta. - Decisiones estratégicas y constitucionales — quién puede presentarlas y en qué plataforma. - >- Campos obligatorios de la propuesta: resumen, capas y artefactos afectados, tipo de decisión, justificación, riesgos y mitigaciones, plan de reversión, fecha de entrada en vigor propuesta. - >- El tipo de decisión lo declara quien propone; por defecto se asigna el tipo de mayor impacto si no está claro. - Reglas de retirada — cuándo se puede retirar una propuesta y cómo. fr: title: Soumission de proposition whyItMatters: >- Un processus décisionnel qui accepte les propositions de manière informelle — un message, une suggestion verbale, une idée du fondateur — n'a aucun moyen fiable de déterminer ce qui est réellement sur la table. Exiger un format de soumission standard, un emplacement de dépôt et des champs de contenu obligatoires garantit que chaque proposition arrive avec les mêmes informations, visible par tous, traçable dès le premier jour. whatToDefine: >- Indique qui peut proposer, où les propositions sont soumises, les champs de contenu obligatoires, et comment le type de décision est déterminé et contesté. placeholders: - >- Décisions opérationnelles — traitées par le titulaire du rôle concerné selon le Registre des rôles ; aucune proposition requise. - >- Décisions stratégiques et constitutionnelles — qui peut soumettre, et sur quelle plateforme. - >- Champs obligatoires de la proposition : résumé, couches et artefacts concernés, type de décision, justification, risques et mesures d'atténuation, plan de retour en arrière, date d'entrée en vigueur proposée. - >- Le type de décision est déclaré par le proposant ; par défaut, le type à impact le plus élevé s'applique en cas d'ambiguïté. - Règles de retrait — quand une proposition peut être retirée et comment. pt-br: title: Submissão de Propostas whyItMatters: >- Um processo de decisão que aceita propostas informalmente — uma mensagem, uma sugestão verbal, uma ideia de um fundador — não tem como saber com confiabilidade o que está realmente em pauta. Exigir um formato padrão de submissão, um local de arquivamento e campos de conteúdo obrigatórios significa que toda proposta chega com as mesmas informações, visível para todo mundo, rastreável desde o primeiro dia. whatToDefine: >- Indique quem pode propor, onde as propostas são submetidas, os campos de conteúdo obrigatórios e como o tipo de decisão é determinado e contestado. placeholders: - >- Decisões operacionais — tratadas pela pessoa responsável pelo papel correspondente, conforme o Registro de Papéis; não exigem proposta. - Decisões estratégicas e constitucionais — quem pode submeter e em qual plataforma. - >- Campos obrigatórios da proposta: resumo, camadas e artefatos afetados, tipo de decisão, justificativa, riscos e mitigações, plano de reversão, data efetiva proposta. - >- O tipo de decisão é declarado pela pessoa proponente; em caso de dúvida, assume-se o tipo de maior impacto. - Regras de retirada — quando uma proposta pode ser retirada e como. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 4.5.1 - 4.5.2 - key: governance-protocol.review-and-deliberation artifact: governance-protocol order: 1 clauseRefs: - 4.5.1 - 4.5.2 i18n: en: title: Review and Deliberation whyItMatters: >- Rushed votes favor whoever is already paying attention and disadvantage everyone else. A mandatory deliberation period, tied to the weight of the decision, gives members time to read, respond, and surface concerns before the vote opens — so the vote reflects considered judgment, not speed of reaction. whatToDefine: >- Name the deliberation venues and the minimum periods for Strategic and Constitutional decisions before a vote may open. placeholders: - Where deliberation happens (forum, chat, meeting). - Minimum deliberation period before a vote opens — Strategic. - Minimum deliberation period before a vote opens — Constitutional. - >- Expectation that members raise concerns during deliberation to avoid the need for re-votes. question: How long do we sit with a proposal before deciding, and who has to be heard first? prompts: - >- Where does discussion of a proposal happen — a forum thread, a meeting, or both — and how do members who miss a meeting still take part? - How long must a Strategic proposal stay open for discussion before a vote may begin? - How long must a Constitutional proposal stay open before a vote may begin? - >- Whose views must be heard before a vote opens — for example the people most affected, or whoever would carry the decision out? - >- Can the proposer change the proposal during discussion, and does a change restart the clock? - >- How do we encourage members to raise concerns now, rather than after the vote? (Re-opening a decision is its own question.) examples: - >- Discussion happens in the proposal's forum thread and in at least one general meeting, with notes posted for anyone who could not attend. A Strategic proposal stays open for at least 14 days and a Constitutional one for at least 30 days before voting may begin. The proposer must invite comment from the working group most affected. A substantial change to the proposal restarts the minimum period. Members are expected to raise concerns during this window, not after the vote. de: title: Prüfung und Beratung whyItMatters: >- Überhastete Abstimmungen bevorzugen diejenigen, die ohnehin schon aufmerksam sind, und benachteiligen alle anderen. Eine verpflichtende Beratungsfrist, abgestimmt auf die Tragweite der Entscheidung, gibt den Mitgliedern Zeit zum Lesen, Reagieren und Einbringen von Bedenken, bevor die Abstimmung beginnt — sodass die Abstimmung eine durchdachte Beurteilung widerspiegelt, keine Reaktionsgeschwindigkeit. whatToDefine: >- Benenne die Beratungsorte und die Mindestfristen für strategische und Verfassungsentscheidungen, bevor eine Abstimmung eröffnet werden darf. placeholders: - Wo die Beratung stattfindet (Forum, Chat, Treffen). - Mindestberatungsfrist vor Eröffnung einer Abstimmung — strategisch. - Mindestberatungsfrist vor Eröffnung einer Abstimmung — Verfassung. - >- Erwartung, dass Mitglieder Bedenken während der Beratung äußern, um erneute Abstimmungen zu vermeiden. es: title: Revisión y Deliberación whyItMatters: >- Las votaciones apresuradas favorecen a quien ya está prestando atención y perjudican a todos los demás. Un período de deliberación obligatorio, proporcional al peso de la decisión, da a los miembros tiempo para leer, responder y plantear inquietudes antes de que se abra la votación — de modo que el voto refleje un juicio meditado, no velocidad de reacción. whatToDefine: >- Indica los espacios de deliberación y los períodos mínimos para decisiones Estratégicas y Constitucionales antes de que pueda abrirse una votación. placeholders: - Dónde se lleva a cabo la deliberación (foro, chat, reunión). - Período mínimo de deliberación antes de abrir votación — Estratégica. - Período mínimo de deliberación antes de abrir votación — Constitucional. - >- Expectativa de que los miembros planteen inquietudes durante la deliberación para evitar la necesidad de revotaciones. fr: title: Examen et délibération whyItMatters: >- Les votes précipités favorisent ceux qui sont déjà attentifs et désavantagent tous les autres. Une période de délibération obligatoire, proportionnelle au poids de la décision, donne aux membres le temps de lire, répondre et soulever des préoccupations avant l'ouverture du vote — afin que le vote reflète un jugement réfléchi, et non une réaction rapide. whatToDefine: >- Nomme les lieux de délibération et les périodes minimales pour les décisions stratégiques et constitutionnelles avant qu'un vote puisse être ouvert. placeholders: - Où se déroule la délibération (forum, chat, réunion). - Période minimale de délibération avant l'ouverture d'un vote — Stratégique. - Période minimale de délibération avant l'ouverture d'un vote — Constitutionnelle. - >- Attente que les membres soulèvent leurs préoccupations pendant la délibération pour éviter la nécessité de re-votes. pt-br: title: Análise e Deliberação whyItMatters: >- Votações apressadas favorecem quem já está prestando atenção e prejudicam todo mundo. Um período obrigatório de deliberação, proporcional ao peso da decisão, dá às pessoas membras tempo para ler, responder e levantar preocupações antes da abertura da votação — para que o voto reflita um juízo ponderado, não a velocidade de reação. whatToDefine: >- Nomeie os espaços de deliberação e os períodos mínimos para decisões estratégicas e constitucionais antes da abertura de uma votação. placeholders: - Onde a deliberação acontece (fórum, chat, reunião). - Período mínimo de deliberação antes da abertura da votação — Estratégica. - Período mínimo de deliberação antes da abertura da votação — Constitucional. - >- Expectativa de que as pessoas membras levantem preocupações durante a deliberação para evitar a necessidade de nova votação. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: governance-protocol.decision-execution artifact: governance-protocol order: 2 clauseRefs: - 4.5.1 - 4.5.4 i18n: en: title: Decision Execution whyItMatters: >- A passed proposal that never reaches the affected artifact is a decision in name only — the rules on the ground still say what they said before. Binding execution to a concrete artifact update and version-history entry closes the gap between what was decided and what is actually in force. whatToDefine: >- State what happens when a proposal passes (artifact updates, version history) and when it is rejected (archive). Define a time bound for both. placeholders: - 'On passing: how proposal is filed; affected artifacts updated; version history entry made.' - 'On rejection: where proposal is archived.' - Time bound for execution after a vote concludes. question: Once we have decided something, who carries it out and by when? prompts: - >- Once a proposal passes, who is responsible for carrying it out — the proposer, a named role, or a working group? - >- Which of our agreements and documents must be changed to match the decision, and who makes those changes? - How long after the vote closes must the decision be in force and the documents updated? - >- When a proposal is rejected, who closes it and tells the proposer, and by when? (Where records are kept is its own question.) - >- What happens if the deadline passes and nothing has been done — who notices, and who takes over? examples: - >- Every passed proposal names one person responsible for carrying it out; if it does not, the coordination circle names someone within 7 days. That person updates every affected agreement and notes the change in the version history within 14 days of the vote closing. Rejected proposals are marked as rejected and closed by the facilitator within 7 days, and the proposer is told why. If a deadline is missed, the facilitator raises it at the next general meeting and a new person is assigned. de: title: Entscheidungsumsetzung whyItMatters: >- Ein angenommener Antrag, der nie im betroffenen Artefakt ankommt, ist eine Entscheidung nur dem Namen nach — die geltenden Regeln sagen immer noch dasselbe wie vorher. Die Umsetzung an eine konkrete Artefakt-Aktualisierung und einen Versionshistorie-Eintrag zu knüpfen, schließt die Lücke zwischen dem, was entschieden wurde, und dem, was tatsächlich gilt. whatToDefine: >- Lege fest, was passiert, wenn ein Antrag angenommen wird (Artefakt-Aktualisierungen, Versionshistorie) und wenn er abgelehnt wird (Archivierung). Definiere eine Frist für beides. placeholders: - >- Bei Annahme: wie der Antrag abgelegt wird; betroffene Artefakte aktualisiert werden; Eintrag in der Versionshistorie erstellt wird. - 'Bei Ablehnung: wo der Antrag archiviert wird.' - Frist für die Umsetzung nach Abschluss einer Abstimmung. es: title: Ejecución de la Decisión whyItMatters: >- Una propuesta aprobada que nunca llega al artefacto afectado es una decisión solo de nombre — las reglas vigentes siguen diciendo lo mismo que antes. Vincular la ejecución a una actualización concreta del artefacto y a una entrada en el historial de versiones cierra la brecha entre lo que se decidió y lo que está realmente en vigor. whatToDefine: >- Indica qué sucede cuando una propuesta se aprueba (actualización de artefactos, historial de versiones) y cuando se rechaza (archivo). Define un plazo para ambos casos. placeholders: - >- Al aprobarse: cómo se archiva la propuesta; artefactos afectados actualizados; entrada en el historial de versiones registrada. - 'Al rechazarse: dónde se archiva la propuesta.' - Plazo para la ejecución después de que concluye una votación. fr: title: Exécution de la décision whyItMatters: >- Une proposition adoptée qui ne parvient jamais à l'artefact concerné n'est une décision que de nom — les règles en vigueur sur le terrain disent toujours ce qu'elles disaient avant. Lier l'exécution à une mise à jour concrète de l'artefact et à une entrée dans l'historique des versions comble l'écart entre ce qui a été décidé et ce qui est réellement en vigueur. whatToDefine: >- Indique ce qui se passe quand une proposition est adoptée (mise à jour des artefacts, historique des versions) et quand elle est rejetée (archivage). Définis un délai pour les deux cas. placeholders: - >- En cas d'adoption : comment la proposition est classée ; les artefacts concernés sont mis à jour ; une entrée dans l'historique des versions est créée. - 'En cas de rejet : où la proposition est archivée.' - Délai d'exécution après la clôture du vote. pt-br: title: Execução da Decisão whyItMatters: >- Uma proposta aprovada que nunca chega ao artefato afetado é uma decisão só no nome — as regras na prática continuam dizendo o que diziam antes. Vincular a execução a uma atualização concreta de artefato e a uma entrada no histórico de versões fecha a lacuna entre o que foi decidido e o que de fato está em vigor. whatToDefine: >- Indique o que acontece quando uma proposta é aprovada (atualizações de artefatos, histórico de versões) e quando é rejeitada (arquivamento). Defina um prazo limite para ambos os casos. placeholders: - >- Em caso de aprovação: como a proposta é arquivada; artefatos afetados atualizados; entrada no histórico de versões. - 'Em caso de rejeição: onde a proposta é arquivada.' - Prazo limite para execução após o encerramento da votação. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: governance-protocol.documentation-and-publication artifact: governance-protocol order: 3 clauseRefs: - 4.5.4 i18n: en: title: Documentation and Publication whyItMatters: >- Keeping a record of only the decisions that passed erases the reasoning history — members lose track of what was already considered and rejected, and the same debates get re-litigated indefinitely. Archiving both passed and rejected proposals, with a time bound and a verifiable decision record, preserves institutional memory and makes the governance system auditable. whatToDefine: >- State retention rules for passed and rejected proposals, what counts as the decision record, and the version-history update obligation. placeholders: - All passed and rejected proposals are filed within X days of the vote closing. - The vote artifact (e.g. Snapshot link) serves as the decision record. - Version history (Layer 6) updated with every passed proposal. question: Where does a decision get written down, and who can read it afterwards? prompts: - >- Which governance actions get recorded — passed and rejected proposals, withdrawn ones, votes, appointments? - >- What exactly counts as the record of a decision — the closed vote, the minutes, the final proposal text — and what must it show? - Within how many days of a vote closing is the record filed, and by whom? - >- How do we make sure these records follow our general rules for documentation — the same place, format and naming as our other records? - When is the version history updated, and what does each entry say? - Who can read the decision records afterwards? examples: - >- Every proposal, passed or rejected, is filed in the Decisions folder of our shared drive within 7 days of the vote closing, by the facilitator who ran the vote. The decision record is the closed vote page with the tally and the final proposal text, linked to the minutes of any meeting where it was discussed. Every passed proposal also gets a version-history entry saying what changed. All members can read the folder; nothing in it is deleted, and corrections are added as new entries. de: title: Dokumentation und Veröffentlichung whyItMatters: >- Wenn nur die angenommenen Entscheidungen aufbewahrt werden, geht die Begründungsgeschichte verloren — Mitglieder verlieren den Überblick darüber, was bereits geprüft und abgelehnt wurde, und dieselben Debatten werden endlos wieder aufgerollt. Sowohl angenommene als auch abgelehnte Anträge zu archivieren, mit einer Frist und einem überprüfbaren Entscheidungsprotokoll, bewahrt das institutionelle Gedächtnis und macht das Governance-System prüfbar. whatToDefine: >- Lege Aufbewahrungsregeln für angenommene und abgelehnte Anträge fest, was als Entscheidungsprotokoll gilt und die Pflicht zur Aktualisierung der Versionshistorie. placeholders: - >- Alle angenommenen und abgelehnten Anträge werden innerhalb von X Tagen nach Abstimmungsende abgelegt. - Das Abstimmungsartefakt (z. B. Snapshot-Link) dient als Entscheidungsprotokoll. - Versionshistorie (Schicht 6) wird bei jedem angenommenen Antrag aktualisiert. es: title: Documentación y Publicación whyItMatters: >- Mantener un registro solo de las decisiones aprobadas borra el historial de razonamiento — los miembros pierden la pista de lo que ya se consideró y rechazó, y los mismos debates se reabren indefinidamente. Archivar tanto las propuestas aprobadas como las rechazadas, con un plazo y un registro de decisión verificable, preserva la memoria institucional y hace que el sistema de gobernanza sea auditable. whatToDefine: >- Indica las reglas de retención para propuestas aprobadas y rechazadas, qué constituye el registro de decisión y la obligación de actualizar el historial de versiones. placeholders: - >- Todas las propuestas aprobadas y rechazadas se archivan dentro de los X días posteriores al cierre de la votación. - El artefacto de votación (p. ej., enlace de Snapshot) sirve como registro de decisión. - El historial de versiones (Capa 6) se actualiza con cada propuesta aprobada. fr: title: Documentation et publication whyItMatters: >- Ne conserver un registre que des décisions adoptées efface l'historique des raisonnements — les membres perdent la trace de ce qui a déjà été examiné et rejeté, et les mêmes débats sont indéfiniment relancés. Archiver les propositions adoptées et rejetées, avec un délai et un registre de décision vérifiable, préserve la mémoire institutionnelle et rend le système de gouvernance auditable. whatToDefine: >- Indique les règles de conservation pour les propositions adoptées et rejetées, ce qui constitue le registre de décision, et l'obligation de mise à jour de l'historique des versions. placeholders: - >- Toutes les propositions adoptées et rejetées sont classées dans les X jours suivant la clôture du vote. - L'artefact de vote (p. ex. lien Snapshot) sert de registre de décision. - L'historique des versions (Couche 6) est mis à jour avec chaque proposition adoptée. pt-br: title: Documentação e Publicação whyItMatters: >- Manter registro apenas das decisões aprovadas apaga o histórico de raciocínio — as pessoas membras perdem a noção do que já foi considerado e rejeitado, e os mesmos debates voltam à tona indefinidamente. Arquivar tanto propostas aprovadas quanto rejeitadas, com um prazo limite e um registro verificável de decisão, preserva a memória institucional e torna o sistema de governança auditável. whatToDefine: >- Indique as regras de retenção para propostas aprovadas e rejeitadas, o que conta como registro de decisão e a obrigação de atualização do histórico de versões. placeholders: - >- Todas as propostas aprovadas e rejeitadas são arquivadas em até X dias após o encerramento da votação. - O artefato da votação (por exemplo, link do Snapshot) serve como registro de decisão. - O histórico de versões (Camada 6) é atualizado a cada proposta aprovada. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 4.5.4 - key: governance-protocol.appeal-and-review artifact: governance-protocol order: 4 clauseRefs: - 4.5.2 - 4.6.2 i18n: en: title: Appeal and Review whyItMatters: >- A governance system with no appeal route hardens mistakes into permanent rules; one with unlimited informal appeal paths never settles anything. Allowing any Full Member to trigger a re-vote — but only with a written, reasoned objection raising something not already addressed — keeps the system self-correcting without turning every decision into a standing referendum. whatToDefine: >- Define the conditions for triggering a re-vote, the objection format, and the threshold/mechanism for the re-vote itself. placeholders: - Who may trigger a re-vote and how. - Reasoned objection requirement — a consideration not addressed in original deliberation. - Re-vote uses the same mechanism and threshold as the original. - Treatment of repeated frivolous re-vote requests. question: If someone thinks a decision went wrong, how do they get it looked at again? prompts: - Who may ask for a decision to be looked at again, and within how long after it was made? - >- What must the request contain — and what counts as a new reason rather than simply disagreeing with the outcome? - Who checks whether a request qualifies, and how quickly? - >- How is the second decision made — the same mechanism and threshold as the first, or something different? - Does the original decision stay in force while it is being looked at again? - How do we handle repeated requests on the same matter that bring no new reasons? examples: - >- Any full member may request a re-vote within 30 days of a decision by posting a written objection that names a consideration not raised during discussion; disagreeing with the result is not enough. The facilitators check the objection within 7 days and, if it qualifies, open a re-vote using the same mechanism and threshold as the original. The decision stays in force in the meantime. A further request on the same matter within 12 months needs the written support of five full members. de: title: Einspruch und Überprüfung whyItMatters: >- Ein Governance-System ohne Einspruchsmöglichkeit zementiert Fehler zu dauerhaften Regeln; eines mit unbegrenzten informellen Einspruchswegen bringt nichts zum Abschluss. Jedem Vollmitglied die Möglichkeit zu geben, eine erneute Abstimmung auszulösen — aber nur mit einem schriftlichen, begründeten Einwand, der etwas noch nicht Behandeltes aufwirft — hält das System selbstkorrigierend, ohne dass jede Entscheidung zu einem Dauerreferendum wird. whatToDefine: >- Definiere die Bedingungen für eine erneute Abstimmung, das Format des Einwands und den Schwellenwert/Mechanismus für die erneute Abstimmung selbst. placeholders: - Wer eine erneute Abstimmung auslösen darf und wie. - >- Anforderung eines begründeten Einwands — ein Aspekt, der in der ursprünglichen Beratung nicht behandelt wurde. - >- Die erneute Abstimmung verwendet denselben Mechanismus und Schwellenwert wie die ursprüngliche. - Umgang mit wiederholten nichtigen Anträgen auf erneute Abstimmung. es: title: Apelación y Revisión whyItMatters: >- Un sistema de gobernanza sin vía de apelación convierte los errores en reglas permanentes; uno con vías de apelación informales ilimitadas nunca resuelve nada. Permitir que cualquier Miembro Pleno solicite una revotación — pero solo con una objeción escrita y razonada que plantee algo no abordado previamente — mantiene el sistema autocorrectivo sin convertir cada decisión en un referéndum permanente. whatToDefine: >- Define las condiciones para solicitar una revotación, el formato de la objeción y el umbral/mecanismo para la revotación en sí. placeholders: - Quién puede solicitar una revotación y cómo. - >- Requisito de objeción razonada — una consideración no abordada en la deliberación original. - La revotación utiliza el mismo mecanismo y umbral que la original. - Tratamiento de solicitudes de revotación reiteradas y frívolas. fr: title: Appel et révision whyItMatters: >- Un système de gouvernance sans voie d'appel fige les erreurs en règles permanentes ; un système avec des voies d'appel informelles illimitées ne règle jamais rien. Permettre à tout membre actif de déclencher un re-vote — mais uniquement avec une objection écrite et motivée soulevant un point non encore traité — maintient le système auto-correctif sans transformer chaque décision en référendum permanent. whatToDefine: >- Définis les conditions pour déclencher un re-vote, le format de l'objection, et le seuil/mécanisme du re-vote lui-même. placeholders: - Qui peut déclencher un re-vote et comment. - Exigence d'objection motivée — un point non traité lors de la délibération initiale. - Le re-vote utilise le même mécanisme et le même seuil que le vote initial. - Traitement des demandes de re-vote répétées et abusives. pt-br: title: Recurso e Revisão whyItMatters: >- Um sistema de governança sem rota de recurso cristaliza erros em regras permanentes; um com rotas informais ilimitadas de recurso nunca decide nada de fato. Permitir que qualquer Membro Pleno acione uma nova votação — mas apenas com uma objeção escrita e fundamentada que traga algo ainda não tratado — mantém o sistema autocorretivo sem transformar toda decisão em um referendo permanente. whatToDefine: >- Defina as condições para acionar uma nova votação, o formato da objeção e o limiar/mecanismo da nova votação em si. placeholders: - Quem pode acionar uma nova votação e como. - Exigência de objeção fundamentada — uma consideração não tratada na deliberação original. - A nova votação usa o mesmo mecanismo e limiar da original. - Tratamento de pedidos repetidos e frívolos de nova votação. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: governance-protocol.conflict-between-decisions artifact: governance-protocol order: 5 clauseRefs: - 4.5.3 i18n: en: title: Conflict Between Decisions whyItMatters: >- When two decisions point in different directions, someone has to choose which one counts — and if that choice is made ad hoc, it reduces to whoever has the authority or energy to enforce their reading. A fixed precedence rule (higher type wins; more recent wins at the same type) resolves conflicts mechanically, without a judgment call. whatToDefine: >- State the precedence rule (typically: higher decision type prevails; more recent wins at the same type, unless explicitly locked). placeholders: - 'Same-type conflicts: more recent prevails unless earlier explicitly locked future changes.' - Where conflicts are surfaced and how they are resolved. question: When two of our own decisions contradict each other, which one wins? prompts: - When decisions of different types contradict each other, does the higher type always win? - >- When two decisions of the same type contradict each other, does the more recent one win — and can an earlier decision protect itself from being overridden, and how? - Who may point out a conflict between decisions, and where do they raise it? - >- Until the conflict is settled, which decision do we follow — and how is the contradiction removed for good? examples: - >- A higher decision type always prevails: a Constitutional decision over a Strategic one, and a Strategic decision over an Operational one. Between two decisions of the same type, the more recent one prevails, unless the earlier one stated explicitly that it could only be changed by a higher type. Any member can flag a conflict in the governance channel; the facilitators confirm within 7 days which decision applies under this rule, and a proposal to remove the contradiction goes to the next general meeting. de: title: Konflikte zwischen Entscheidungen whyItMatters: >- Wenn zwei Entscheidungen in unterschiedliche Richtungen weisen, muss jemand bestimmen, welche gilt — und wenn diese Wahl ad hoc getroffen wird, läuft es darauf hinaus, wer die Autorität oder Energie hat, seine Auslegung durchzusetzen. Eine feste Vorrangegel (höherer Typ gewinnt; neuere gewinnt bei gleichem Typ) löst Konflikte mechanisch, ohne eine Ermessensentscheidung. whatToDefine: >- Lege die Vorrangregel fest (typischerweise: höherer Entscheidungstyp hat Vorrang; neuere gewinnt bei gleichem Typ, sofern nicht ausdrücklich gesperrt). placeholders: - >- Konflikte gleichen Typs: neuere hat Vorrang, es sei denn, die ältere hat zukünftige Änderungen ausdrücklich gesperrt. - Wo Konflikte aufgedeckt werden und wie sie gelöst werden. es: title: Conflicto entre Decisiones whyItMatters: >- Cuando dos decisiones apuntan en direcciones opuestas, alguien tiene que elegir cuál prevalece — y si esa elección se hace de forma improvisada, se reduce a quien tenga la autoridad o la energía para imponer su interpretación. Una regla de precedencia fija (el tipo superior prevalece; la más reciente prevalece dentro del mismo tipo) resuelve conflictos de forma mecánica, sin necesidad de un juicio discrecional. whatToDefine: >- Indica la regla de precedencia (típicamente: el tipo de decisión superior prevalece; la más reciente prevalece dentro del mismo tipo, salvo bloqueo explícito). placeholders: - >- Conflictos del mismo tipo: la más reciente prevalece, salvo que la anterior haya bloqueado explícitamente cambios futuros. - Dónde se plantean los conflictos y cómo se resuelven. fr: title: Conflit entre décisions whyItMatters: >- Quand deux décisions pointent dans des directions différentes, quelqu'un doit choisir laquelle prime — et si ce choix est fait de manière ad hoc, cela se réduit à celui qui a l'autorité ou l'énergie pour imposer sa lecture. Une règle de préséance fixe (le type supérieur l'emporte ; la plus récente l'emporte à type égal) résout les conflits mécaniquement, sans appel au jugement. whatToDefine: >- Indique la règle de préséance (typiquement : le type de décision supérieur prévaut ; la plus récente l'emporte à type égal, sauf verrouillage explicite). placeholders: - >- Conflits de même type : la plus récente prévaut, sauf si la précédente a explicitement verrouillé les modifications futures. - Où les conflits sont signalés et comment ils sont résolus. pt-br: title: Conflito Entre Decisões whyItMatters: >- Quando duas decisões apontam em direções diferentes, alguém precisa escolher qual delas vale — e se essa escolha for feita caso a caso, ela se reduz a quem tem autoridade ou energia para impor sua leitura. Uma regra fixa de precedência (o tipo mais alto prevalece; em caso de empate de tipo, a mais recente prevalece) resolve conflitos de forma mecânica, sem julgamento subjetivo. whatToDefine: >- Indique a regra de precedência (tipicamente: o tipo de decisão mais alto prevalece; no mesmo tipo, a mais recente vence, salvo se travada explicitamente). placeholders: - >- Conflitos no mesmo tipo: a mais recente prevalece, salvo se a anterior travou explicitamente mudanças futuras. - Onde os conflitos aparecem e como são resolvidos. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 4.5.3 - key: governance-protocol.safeguards-and-failure-modes artifact: governance-protocol order: 6 clauseRefs: - 4.6.1 - 4.6.2 - 4.6.3 i18n: en: title: Safeguards and Failure Modes whyItMatters: >- Every governance system fails somewhere — captured by a subgroup, frozen by informal vetoes, drifted by a role holder who quietly expanded their remit. Naming the specific failure modes in advance, wiring in challenge routes that cannot be retaliated against, and requiring a formal review when failures accumulate, is what keeps governance from slowly hollowing out while no one is watching. whatToDefine: >- For each named failure mode, state the safeguard. Include a trigger that forces a Constitutional review if failures accumulate. placeholders: - how the protocol prevents unilateral authority above operational scope. - >- rule that only written, reasoned objections submitted via the defined process carry weight. - rule about quorum and openness of voting. - >- rule that no role grants permanent authority; founders hold no special governance authority beyond membership state. - reference Layer 4 anti-retaliation provisions. - e.g. three or more governance failures within X months trigger a Constitutional review. question: >- What stops power collecting in a few hands, lets anyone challenge a decision safely, and forces a review when governance keeps failing? prompts: - What stops decision power concentrating in one person or a small group? - What stops an informal veto — someone blocking a decision outside the agreed process? - >- What stops a subgroup capturing decisions, for example by turning up only when it suits them? - What stops founders or long-standing role holders becoming entrenched? - How can anyone challenge a decision without fear of retaliation? - Which pattern of failures forces a formal review — and who starts it? de: title: Schutzmaßnahmen und Fehlermodi whyItMatters: >- Jedes Governance-System versagt irgendwo — vereinnahmt von einer Untergruppe, blockiert durch informelle Vetos, verwässert von einer Rolleninhaber:in, die ihren Zuständigkeitsbereich still und leise ausgeweitet hat. Die spezifischen Fehlermodi im Voraus zu benennen, Anfechtungswege einzubauen, die nicht mit Vergeltung beantwortet werden können, und eine formale Überprüfung zu verlangen, wenn sich Fehler häufen — das ist es, was verhindert, dass Governance sich langsam aushöhlt, während niemand hinschaut. whatToDefine: >- Benenne für jeden Fehlermodus die entsprechende Schutzmaßnahme. Füge einen Auslöser hinzu, der eine Verfassungsüberprüfung erzwingt, wenn sich Fehler häufen. placeholders: - wie das Protokoll einseitige Autorität über den operativen Rahmen hinaus verhindert. - >- Regel, dass nur schriftliche, begründete Einwände, die über den definierten Prozess eingereicht werden, Gewicht haben. - Regel zu Beschlussfähigkeit und Offenheit der Abstimmung. - >- Regel, dass keine Rolle dauerhafte Autorität verleiht; Gründer:innen haben keine besondere Governance-Autorität über ihren Mitgliedschaftsstatus hinaus. - Verweis auf die Anti-Vergeltungsbestimmungen in Schicht 4. - >- z. B. drei oder mehr Governance-Fehler innerhalb von X Monaten lösen eine Verfassungsüberprüfung aus. es: title: Salvaguardas y Modos de Fallo whyItMatters: >- Todo sistema de gobernanza falla en algún punto — capturado por un subgrupo, paralizado por vetos informales, desviado por un titular de rol que amplió silenciosamente su ámbito. Nombrar los modos de fallo específicos de antemano, establecer vías de impugnación que no puedan ser objeto de represalias, y exigir una revisión formal cuando los fallos se acumulan, es lo que evita que la gobernanza se vacíe lentamente mientras nadie observa. whatToDefine: >- Para cada modo de fallo nombrado, indica la salvaguarda. Incluye un disparador que fuerce una revisión Constitucional si los fallos se acumulan. placeholders: - cómo el protocolo previene la autoridad unilateral más allá del ámbito operativo. - >- regla de que solo las objeciones escritas y razonadas presentadas a través del proceso definido tienen peso. - regla sobre quórum y apertura de la votación. - >- regla de que ningún rol otorga autoridad permanente; los fundadores no tienen autoridad de gobernanza especial más allá de su estado de membresía. - referencia a las disposiciones anti-represalias de la Capa 4. - p. ej., tres o más fallos de gobernanza en X meses activan una revisión Constitucional. fr: title: Garde-fous et modes de défaillance whyItMatters: >- Tout système de gouvernance échoue quelque part — capturé par un sous-groupe, figé par des vetos informels, dévié par un titulaire de rôle qui a discrètement élargi son périmètre. Nommer les modes de défaillance spécifiques à l'avance, intégrer des voies de contestation à l'abri de représailles, et exiger une révision formelle lorsque les défaillances s'accumulent, voilà ce qui empêche la gouvernance de se vider lentement de sa substance sans que personne ne s'en aperçoive. whatToDefine: >- Pour chaque mode de défaillance nommé, indique le garde-fou correspondant. Inclus un déclencheur qui impose une révision constitutionnelle si les défaillances s'accumulent. placeholders: - comment le protocole empêche l'autorité unilatérale au-delà du périmètre opérationnel. - >- règle selon laquelle seules les objections écrites et motivées soumises via le processus défini ont du poids. - règle concernant le quorum et l'ouverture du vote. - >- règle selon laquelle aucun rôle ne confère d'autorité permanente ; les fondateurs ne détiennent aucune autorité de gouvernance spéciale au-delà de leur statut de membre. - référence aux dispositions anti-représailles de la Couche 4. - >- p. ex. trois défaillances de gouvernance ou plus en X mois déclenchent une révision constitutionnelle. pt-br: title: Salvaguardas e Modos de Falha whyItMatters: >- Todo sistema de governança falha em algum ponto — capturado por um subgrupo, congelado por vetos informais, desviado por uma pessoa responsável por um papel que silenciosamente expandiu seu escopo. Nomear os modos de falha específicos com antecedência, prever rotas de contestação que não possam sofrer retaliação e exigir uma revisão formal quando as falhas se acumulam é o que impede que a governança se esvazie lentamente sem ninguém perceber. whatToDefine: >- Para cada modo de falha nomeado, indique a salvaguarda. Inclua um gatilho que force uma revisão constitucional caso as falhas se acumulem. placeholders: - como o protocolo impede autoridade unilateral acima do escopo operacional. - >- regra de que apenas objeções escritas e fundamentadas, submetidas pelo processo definido, têm peso. - regra sobre quórum e abertura da votação. - >- regra de que nenhum papel concede autoridade permanente; pessoas fundadoras não detêm autoridade especial de governança além de seu estado de membresia. - referência às disposições antirretaliação da Camada 4. - >- por exemplo, três ou mais falhas de governança em X meses acionam uma revisão constitucional. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 4.6.1 - 4.6.2 - 4.6.3 - key: governance-protocol.ratification-record artifact: governance-protocol order: 7 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Ratification Record whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] de: title: Ratifizierungsprotokoll whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: Registro de Ratificación whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: Registre de ratification whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Registro de Ratificação whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: filled_from_decision dispositionNote: >- Written from the decision that adopted this artifact: reference, date, mechanism, tally and attendance as recorded at freeze time. ownsClauses: [] - key: internal-economy-protocol.commons-vs-private-classification artifact: internal-economy-protocol order: 0 clauseRefs: - 5.1.1 - 5.1.2 - 5.1.3 - 5.1.4 - 5.1.5 - 5.6.2 i18n: en: title: Commons vs. Private Classification whyItMatters: >- Unclassified resources are where quiet privatization happens — someone starts treating a shared asset as personal, or a private asset gets quietly absorbed into community obligations, and by the time anyone notices the norm has shifted. Explicit classification, with stewards and transfer rules named up front, makes any change to that status a visible governance act rather than a creeping fact. whatToDefine: >- For each resource the community holds, declare classification (Commons / Private), name a steward, define access rules, and state transfer constraints. Unclassified resources must not be allocated, encumbered, monetized, or transferred until classified. placeholders: - e.g. RCOS specification and artifacts - Commons / Private - steward role - who reads / writes - transfer constraints - e.g. Shared treasury - ... - ... - ... - ... - e.g. Community website / domains - ... - ... - ... - ... - e.g. Brand and social accounts - ... - ... - ... - ... - e.g. Land or physical infrastructure - ... - ... - ... - ... question: What belongs to all of us, what stays personal, and where is that written down? prompts: - >- For each thing we hold — land, buildings, money, tools, websites, accounts: is it shared by all of us or someone's own, and who is its steward or owner? - >- For each shared resource: who may use it and how, who decides about it, who looks after it, and how is its upkeep paid for? - >- Can a shared resource ever be sold, lent out or made someone's own — and if so, only through which decision, so it never happens quietly? - Where does our say over someone's private belongings stop? - >- Where is the list kept, how is each change dated and versioned, and what happens to something nobody has listed yet? examples: - >- Every change to our resource register is a new dated version agreed at a members' meeting. The land and workshop are shared: any member may use them, and the land group decides about them and keeps them up through monthly work days, with repairs paid from the shared budget. Shared resources may not be sold, lent long-term or made private except by a vote of full members. Members' homes, vehicles and savings are their own, and we have no say over them beyond the membership agreement. Anything not yet registered stays untouched until classified. de: title: 'Klassifikation: Gemeingut vs. Privateigentum' whyItMatters: >- Nicht klassifizierte Ressourcen sind der Ort, an dem stille Privatisierung geschieht — jemand beginnt, ein gemeinschaftliches Gut als persönliches zu behandeln, oder ein privates Gut wird stillschweigend in Gemeinschaftsverpflichtungen übernommen, und wenn es jemand bemerkt, hat sich die Norm bereits verschoben. Eine explizite Klassifikation — mit vorab benannten Verwalter\*innen und Übertragungsregeln — macht jede Statusänderung zu einem sichtbaren Governance-Akt statt zu einer schleichenden Tatsache. whatToDefine: >- Lege für jede Ressource der Gemeinschaft die Klassifikation fest (Gemeingut / Privateigentum), benenne eine\*n Verwalter\*in, definiere Zugangsregeln und formuliere Übertragungsbeschränkungen. Nicht klassifizierte Ressourcen dürfen weder zugewiesen, belastet, monetarisiert noch übertragen werden, bis sie klassifiziert sind. placeholders: - z. B. RCOS-Spezifikation und Artefakte - Gemeingut / Privateigentum - Verwalterrolle - wer liest / schreibt - Übertragungsbeschränkungen - z. B. Gemeinschaftskasse - ... - ... - ... - ... - z. B. Gemeinschaftswebsite / Domains - ... - ... - ... - ... - z. B. Marke und Social-Media-Konten - ... - ... - ... - ... - z. B. Grundstück oder physische Infrastruktur - ... - ... - ... - ... es: title: Clasificación de Bienes Comunes vs. Privados whyItMatters: >- Los recursos sin clasificar son donde ocurre la privatización silenciosa: alguien empieza a tratar un bien compartido como personal, o un bien privado se absorbe silenciosamente en las obligaciones comunitarias, y para cuando alguien se da cuenta la norma ya cambió. La clasificación explícita, con custodios y reglas de transferencia nombrados desde el inicio, convierte cualquier cambio de ese estado en un acto de gobernanza visible en lugar de un hecho que se impone gradualmente. whatToDefine: >- Para cada recurso que posea la comunidad, declara la clasificación (Bienes Comunes / Privado), nombra un custodio, define reglas de acceso y establece restricciones de transferencia. Los recursos sin clasificar no DEBEN ser asignados, gravados, monetizados ni transferidos hasta que estén clasificados. placeholders: - p. ej. Especificación y artefactos RCOS - Bienes Comunes / Privado - rol de custodio - quién lee / escribe - restricciones de transferencia - p. ej. Tesorería compartida - ... - ... - ... - ... - p. ej. Sitio web / dominios de la comunidad - ... - ... - ... - ... - p. ej. Marca y cuentas en redes sociales - ... - ... - ... - ... - p. ej. Terreno o infraestructura física - ... - ... - ... - ... fr: title: Classification communs vs. privés whyItMatters: >- Les ressources non classifiées sont le terrain de la privatisation silencieuse — quelqu'un commence à traiter un bien partagé comme personnel, ou un bien privé se retrouve absorbé discrètement dans les obligations communautaires, et quand quelqu'un s'en aperçoit, la norme a déjà changé. Une classification explicite, avec des intendants et des règles de transfert nommés dès le départ, fait de tout changement de statut un acte de gouvernance visible plutôt qu'un glissement insidieux. whatToDefine: >- Pour chaque ressource détenue par la communauté, déclare la classification (Communs / Privé), nomme un intendant, définis les règles d'accès et indique les contraintes de transfert. Les ressources non classifiées NE DOIVENT PAS être allouées, grevées, monétisées ou transférées tant qu'elles ne sont pas classifiées. placeholders: - ex. Spécification et artefacts RCOS - Communs / Privé - rôle d'intendant - qui lit / écrit - contraintes de transfert - ex. Trésorerie partagée - ... - ... - ... - ... - ex. Site web / domaines de la communauté - ... - ... - ... - ... - ex. Marque et comptes de réseaux sociaux - ... - ... - ... - ... - ex. Terrain ou infrastructure physique - ... - ... - ... - ... pt-br: title: Classificação Bens Comuns vs. Privados whyItMatters: >- Recursos não classificados são onde a privatização silenciosa acontece — alguém começa a tratar um ativo compartilhado como pessoal, ou um ativo privado é absorvido silenciosamente pelas obrigações da comunidade, e quando alguém percebe a norma já mudou. A classificação explícita, com guardiões e regras de transferência nomeadas desde o início, transforma qualquer mudança nesse status em um ato de governança visível, em vez de um fato que se infiltra. whatToDefine: >- Para cada recurso que a comunidade possui, declare a classificação (Bens Comuns / Privado), nomeie um guardião, defina as regras de acesso e indique as restrições de transferência. Recursos não classificados não devem ser alocados, onerados, monetizados ou transferidos até serem classificados. placeholders: - 'ex.: especificação e artefatos RCOS' - Bens Comuns / Privado - papel do guardião - quem lê / escreve - restrições de transferência - 'ex.: Tesouraria compartilhada' - ... - ... - ... - ... - 'ex.: Site / domínios da comunidade' - ... - ... - ... - ... - 'ex.: Marca e contas em redes sociais' - ... - ... - ... - ... - 'ex.: Terra ou infraestrutura física' - ... - ... - ... - ... disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 5.1.1 - 5.1.2 - 5.1.3 - 5.1.4 - 5.1.5 - 5.6.2 - key: internal-economy-protocol.recognized-contribution-categories artifact: internal-economy-protocol order: 1 clauseRefs: - 5.2.1 - 5.2.3 - 5.6.3 i18n: en: title: Recognized Contribution Categories whyItMatters: >- If the community never says out loud which kinds of work it depends on, the invisible work — care, facilitation, moderation, stewardship — stays invisible, and the people doing it burn out or leave. Enumerating categories converts "someone just does this" into recognized labour the system has to account for. whatToDefine: >- List the categories of contribution your community recognizes. Care, facilitation, stewardship, and informal participation are commonly under-recognized — name them explicitly if they apply. placeholders: - e.g. Knowledge & Research - examples - e.g. Technical Development - examples - e.g. Governance & Coordination - examples - e.g. Community Building - examples - e.g. Care & Support - examples - e.g. Stewardship - examples - e.g. Informal Participation - examples question: Which kinds of work do we count as contribution — including the work nobody sees? prompts: - >- Which kinds of contribution do we recognise — for example practical work, care, teaching, coordination, upkeep? - >- Which work keeps us running but is rarely noticed or thanked — hosting, listening, cleaning up after meetings, moderating, chasing paperwork? - >- For each kind of work we depend on: is it recognised, shared out as a duty, or paid — so that nothing essential relies on someone quietly doing it for free? - >- How would we notice that work we depend on is missing from the list? (How contributions are recorded is its own question.) examples: - >- We recognise six kinds of contribution: writing and research, building and maintaining our tools, coordination and facilitation, welcoming and mentoring new members, moderation and care for people in conflict or distress, and upkeep of shared documents and accounts. Moderation and care rotate between members every three months, so no one carries them indefinitely. At each quarterly review, any work we relied on that is not on this list is either added as a category or turned into a rotating duty. de: title: Anerkannte Beitragskategorien whyItMatters: >- Wenn die Gemeinschaft nie ausspricht, auf welche Arten von Arbeit sie angewiesen ist, bleibt die unsichtbare Arbeit — Fürsorge, Moderation, Facilitation, Verwaltung — unsichtbar, und die Menschen, die sie leisten, brennen aus oder gehen. Das Aufzählen von Kategorien verwandelt „das macht halt irgendjemand" in anerkannte Arbeit, die das System berücksichtigen muss. whatToDefine: >- Liste die Beitragskategorien auf, die deine Gemeinschaft anerkennt. Fürsorge, Facilitation, Verwaltung und informelle Teilnahme werden häufig zu wenig anerkannt — benenne sie explizit, wenn sie zutreffen. placeholders: - z. B. Wissen & Forschung - Beispiele - z. B. Technische Entwicklung - Beispiele - z. B. Governance & Koordination - Beispiele - z. B. Gemeinschaftsaufbau - Beispiele - z. B. Fürsorge & Unterstützung - Beispiele - z. B. Verwaltung - Beispiele - z. B. Informelle Teilnahme - Beispiele es: title: Categorías de Contribución Reconocidas whyItMatters: >- Si la comunidad nunca dice en voz alta de qué tipos de trabajo depende, el trabajo invisible — cuidado, facilitación, moderación, custodia — permanece invisible, y las personas que lo realizan se agotan o se van. Enumerar las categorías convierte "alguien simplemente hace esto" en trabajo reconocido que el sistema tiene que tener en cuenta. whatToDefine: >- Enumera las categorías de contribución que tu comunidad reconoce. El cuidado, la facilitación, la custodia y la participación informal suelen estar insuficientemente reconocidos — nómbralos explícitamente si aplican. placeholders: - p. ej. Conocimiento e Investigación - ejemplos - p. ej. Desarrollo Técnico - ejemplos - p. ej. Gobernanza y Coordinación - ejemplos - p. ej. Construcción de Comunidad - ejemplos - p. ej. Cuidado y Apoyo - ejemplos - p. ej. Custodia - ejemplos - p. ej. Participación Informal - ejemplos fr: title: Catégories de contribution reconnues whyItMatters: >- Si la communauté ne dit jamais à voix haute de quels types de travail elle dépend, le travail invisible — soin, facilitation, modération, intendance — reste invisible, et les personnes qui l'accomplissent s'épuisent ou partent. Énumérer les catégories transforme « quelqu'un s'en occupe, c'est tout » en travail reconnu que le système est tenu de prendre en compte. whatToDefine: >- Liste les catégories de contribution que ta communauté reconnaît. Le soin, la facilitation, l'intendance et la participation informelle sont souvent sous-reconnus — nomme-les explicitement si cela s'applique. placeholders: - ex. Connaissance et recherche - exemples - ex. Développement technique - exemples - ex. Gouvernance et coordination - exemples - ex. Construction communautaire - exemples - ex. Soin et soutien - exemples - ex. Intendance - exemples - ex. Participation informelle - exemples pt-br: title: Categorias de Contribuição Reconhecidas whyItMatters: >- Se a comunidade nunca diz em voz alta de quais tipos de trabalho depende, o trabalho invisível — cuidado, facilitação, moderação, gestão — permanece invisível, e as pessoas que o realizam se esgotam ou vão embora. Enumerar categorias converte "alguém simplesmente faz isso" em trabalho reconhecido que o sistema precisa contabilizar. whatToDefine: >- Liste as categorias de contribuição que sua comunidade reconhece. Cuidado, facilitação, gestão e participação informal são comumente sub-reconhecidos — nomeie-os explicitamente se forem aplicáveis. placeholders: - 'ex.: Conhecimento e Pesquisa' - exemplos - 'ex.: Desenvolvimento Técnico' - exemplos - 'ex.: Governança e Coordenação' - exemplos - 'ex.: Construção de Comunidade' - exemplos - 'ex.: Cuidado e Apoio' - exemplos - 'ex.: Gestão (Stewardship)' - exemplos - 'ex.: Participação Informal' - exemplos disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 5.2.1 - 5.2.3 - 5.6.3 - key: internal-economy-protocol.contribution-recognition-mechanism artifact: internal-economy-protocol order: 2 clauseRefs: - 5.2.2 - 5.2.5 i18n: en: title: Contribution Recognition Mechanism whyItMatters: >- Without a defined mechanism, "who gets credit" becomes a matter of who is loudest or closest to whoever decides. Specifying what qualifies, how it's recorded, who validates, and how to dispute it turns recognition into something a member can actually rely on — and blocks recognition from silently mutating into governance influence. whatToDefine: >- State what qualifies, how recognitions are recorded, who validates, what they unlock (or do not unlock), and how members dispute a record. placeholders: - which activities count, and at whose declaration. - structured channel; informal/self-reported channel. - automatic / role holder / nomination process. - >- recognition affects internal-unit balance only; does not grant additional governance rights beyond the membership state. - window and process for contesting a record. question: >- How do we keep track of and recognise contributions — and what, if anything, does recognition unlock? prompts: - How is a contribution recorded or acknowledged, and by whom? - Who may confirm a record? (Contesting one is its own question.) - Does recognition give any benefits, responsibilities or access to shared resources? - >- How do we make sure recognition never gives extra say in decisions beyond what the Decision Matrix grants? examples: - >- Members log their own contributions on the shared sheet within a week, and the task lead or any other member confirms them. Confirmed contributions count towards the monthly participation minimum and give priority when booking the guest room. They never give extra votes, a veto or a stronger voice in any decision. de: title: Mechanismus zur Beitragsanerkennung whyItMatters: >- Ohne einen definierten Mechanismus wird „wer Anerkennung bekommt" zu einer Frage davon, wer am lautesten ist oder der entscheidenden Person am nächsten steht. Wenn festgelegt wird, was zählt, wie es dokumentiert wird, wer es bestätigt und wie man es anfechten kann, wird Anerkennung zu etwas, auf das sich ein Mitglied tatsächlich verlassen kann — und es wird verhindert, dass Anerkennung sich stillschweigend in Governance-Einfluss verwandelt. whatToDefine: >- Lege fest, was zählt, wie Anerkennungen dokumentiert werden, wer sie bestätigt, was sie bewirken (oder nicht bewirken), und wie Mitglieder einen Eintrag anfechten können. placeholders: - welche Aktivitäten zählen und auf wessen Erklärung hin. - strukturierter Kanal; informeller/selbst gemeldeter Kanal. - automatisch / Rolleninhaber\*in / Nominierungsprozess. - >- Anerkennung wirkt sich nur auf das Guthaben interner Einheiten aus; sie gewährt keine zusätzlichen Governance-Rechte über den Mitgliedschaftsstatus hinaus. - Frist und Verfahren zur Anfechtung eines Eintrags. es: title: Mecanismo de Reconocimiento de Contribuciones whyItMatters: >- Sin un mecanismo definido, "quién obtiene crédito" se convierte en una cuestión de quién habla más fuerte o está más cerca de quien decide. Especificar qué califica, cómo se registra, quién valida y cómo se impugna convierte el reconocimiento en algo con lo que un miembro puede contar de verdad — y evita que el reconocimiento mute silenciosamente en influencia de gobernanza. whatToDefine: >- Indica qué califica, cómo se registran los reconocimientos, quién valida, qué desbloquean (o no desbloquean) y cómo los miembros impugnan un registro. placeholders: - qué actividades cuentan y a declaración de quién. - canal estructurado; canal informal/auto-reportado. - automático / titular de rol / proceso de nominación. - >- el reconocimiento solo afecta el saldo de unidades internas; no otorga derechos de gobernanza adicionales más allá del estado de membresía. - plazo y proceso para impugnar un registro. fr: title: Mécanisme de reconnaissance des contributions whyItMatters: >- Sans mécanisme défini, « qui obtient du crédit » devient une affaire de qui parle le plus fort ou de qui est le plus proche de la personne qui décide. Spécifier ce qui est éligible, comment c'est enregistré, qui valide et comment contester transforme la reconnaissance en quelque chose sur lequel un membre peut réellement compter — et empêche la reconnaissance de se muer silencieusement en influence de gouvernance. whatToDefine: >- Indique ce qui est éligible, comment les reconnaissances sont enregistrées, qui valide, ce qu'elles débloquent (ou ne débloquent pas) et comment les membres contestent un enregistrement. placeholders: - quelles activités comptent, et sur déclaration de qui. - canal structuré ; canal informel / auto-déclaré. - automatique / titulaire de rôle / processus de nomination. - >- la reconnaissance affecte uniquement le solde en unités internes ; elle n'accorde pas de droits de gouvernance supplémentaires au-delà de l'état d'adhésion. - délai et processus pour contester un enregistrement. pt-br: title: Mecanismo de Reconhecimento de Contribuições whyItMatters: >- Sem um mecanismo definido, "quem recebe crédito" se torna uma questão de quem grita mais alto ou está mais próximo de quem decide. Especificar o que se qualifica, como é registrado, quem valida e como contestar transforma o reconhecimento em algo com que um membro pode realmente contar — e impede que o reconhecimento se transforme silenciosamente em influência sobre a governança. whatToDefine: >- Indique o que se qualifica, como os reconhecimentos são registrados, quem valida, o que eles desbloqueiam (ou não desbloqueiam) e como os membros contestam um registro. placeholders: - quais atividades contam, e por declaração de quem. - canal estruturado; canal informal/autodeclarado. - automático / titular de papel / processo de nomeação. - >- o reconhecimento afeta apenas o saldo da unidade interna; não concede direitos adicionais de governança além do estado de membresia. - janela e processo para contestar um registro. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 5.2.2 - 5.2.5 - key: internal-economy-protocol.internal-units artifact: internal-economy-protocol order: 3 clauseRefs: - 5.2.4 - 5.2.5 i18n: en: title: Internal Units whyItMatters: >- Internal units tend to grow powers no one voted for — decay, caps, transferability, governance weight — unless each property is nailed down in writing. Listing issuance, transfer rules, privacy, and explicit non-governance status makes the units tools of recognition rather than quiet shadow currencies. whatToDefine: >- If your community uses internal units (XP, ECO, credits, etc.), define each unit's purpose, issuance, transferability, decay, cap, fraud prevention, and privacy. Explicitly state that units do not grant governance rights beyond the membership state. placeholders: - Unit A - Unit B - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... question: If we use our own credits or hours, who issues them and what can they be used for? prompts: - >- Do we use any units of our own (hours, credits, points)? If not, say so — and what would we need to agree before introducing one? - 'For each unit: what is it for, who issues it, for what, and how much?' - Can a unit be given, traded or sold to someone else — and if so, between whom? - >- Does a unit expire, lose value over time, or stop at a maximum? (Whether that is enough to stop anyone steering everything is its own question.) - >- How do we prevent fake or mistaken entries, how is a wrong balance corrected, and where does someone go if they disagree with theirs? - >- Who can see each person's balance and transactions — everyone, only the holder, or a named role? examples: - >- We use one unit, the work hour. The work-hour coordinator logs one hour for each hour of shared work signed off by that task's lead; hours cannot be given, traded or sold. Hours expire 24 months after they are earned, and no one may hold more than 200. Each member sees their own balance and all transactions without names; the coordinator corrects mistakes within a week, and anyone who disagrees with their balance uses our process for disputed economic records. - >- We do not use any internal credits, hours or points. Before introducing one, full members must agree what it is for, how it is issued, whether it can be transferred, when it expires, how mistakes are corrected and who can see balances, as an amendment to this protocol. de: title: Interne Einheiten whyItMatters: >- Interne Einheiten neigen dazu, Befugnisse zu entwickeln, über die niemand abgestimmt hat — Verfall, Obergrenzen, Übertragbarkeit, Governance-Gewicht — es sei denn, jede Eigenschaft wird schriftlich festgehalten. Die Auflistung von Ausgabe, Übertragungsregeln, Datenschutz und explizitem Nicht-Governance-Status macht die Einheiten zu Werkzeugen der Anerkennung statt zu stillen Schattenwährungen. whatToDefine: >- Wenn deine Gemeinschaft interne Einheiten verwendet (XP, ECO, Credits usw.), definiere für jede Einheit Zweck, Ausgabe, Übertragbarkeit, Verfall, Obergrenze, Betrugsprävention und Datenschutz. Stelle explizit fest, dass Einheiten keine Governance-Rechte über den Mitgliedschaftsstatus hinaus gewähren. placeholders: - Einheit A - Einheit B - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... es: title: Unidades Internas whyItMatters: >- Las unidades internas tienden a adquirir poderes que nadie votó — decaimiento, topes, transferibilidad, peso en la gobernanza — a menos que cada propiedad quede fijada por escrito. Listar la emisión, reglas de transferencia, privacidad y su estatus explícito de no-gobernanza hace que las unidades sean herramientas de reconocimiento en lugar de monedas sombra silenciosas. whatToDefine: >- Si tu comunidad usa unidades internas (XP, ECO, créditos, etc.), define para cada unidad su propósito, emisión, transferibilidad, decaimiento, tope, prevención de fraude y privacidad. Indica explícitamente que las unidades no otorgan derechos de gobernanza más allá del estado de membresía. placeholders: - Unidad A - Unidad B - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... fr: title: Unités internes whyItMatters: >- Les unités internes tendent à acquérir des pouvoirs que personne n'a votés — dépréciation, plafonds, transférabilité, poids de gouvernance — à moins que chaque propriété ne soit consignée par écrit. Lister l'émission, les règles de transfert, la confidentialité et le statut explicitement non-gouvernemental fait de ces unités des outils de reconnaissance plutôt que de discrètes devises parallèles. whatToDefine: >- Si ta communauté utilise des unités internes (XP, ECO, crédits, etc.), définis pour chaque unité son objectif, son émission, sa transférabilité, sa dépréciation, son plafond, la prévention de la fraude et la confidentialité. Indique explicitement que les unités n'accordent pas de droits de gouvernance au-delà de l'état d'adhésion. placeholders: - Unité A - Unité B - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... pt-br: title: Unidades Internas whyItMatters: >- Unidades internas tendem a adquirir poderes nos quais ninguém votou — decaimento, limites, transferibilidade, peso na governança — a menos que cada propriedade seja fixada por escrito. Listar emissão, regras de transferência, privacidade e status explícito de não-governança torna as unidades ferramentas de reconhecimento, em vez de moedas-sombra silenciosas. whatToDefine: >- Se sua comunidade usa unidades internas (XP, ECO, créditos, etc.), defina o propósito, emissão, transferibilidade, decaimento, limite máximo, prevenção de fraude e privacidade de cada unidade. Indique explicitamente que as unidades não concedem direitos de governança além do estado de membresia. placeholders: - Unidade A - Unidade B - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... - ... disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 5.2.4 - key: internal-economy-protocol.accumulation-constraints artifact: internal-economy-protocol order: 4 clauseRefs: - 5.4.1 - 5.4.2 - 5.4.3 - 5.4.4 - 5.6.4 i18n: en: title: Accumulation Constraints whyItMatters: >- Any internal unit that can pile up without limit eventually becomes leverage — a few members with large balances gain informal sway the governance system never granted them. Stating accumulation rules explicitly, even when the current rule is "none yet," keeps the question open and forces a visible decision before concentration becomes a structural problem. whatToDefine: >- State the current accumulation rule (cap, decay, none) and the rule that no internal unit may be converted into governance authority. placeholders: - Hard cap on internal units, if any. - Decay rule, if any. - >- Internal units cannot be converted into governance authority or used to bypass the Decision Matrix. question: What stops one person accumulating enough to steer everything — and how would we notice? prompts: - >- What limits how much of any unit, resource or claim on the community one person can build up — a cap, expiry, no transfers, redistribution, or a time limit? - >- How do we make sure no one turns money, credits, loans or favours into extra say — by buying influence, making others depend on them, or going around the Decision Matrix? - >- What signs would tell us influence is gathering in a few hands, who checks them, and how often? - When a sign shows up, who may tighten the limits, and through which decision? examples: - >- No member may hold more than 100 credits, and unused credits expire after 18 months. Credits, loans to the community and donations never give anyone extra votes, a veto, or any say beyond what the Decision Matrix grants. Twice a year the finance steward reports the largest single credit balance and the largest amount the community owes any one member. If any member is at the cap or is owed more than €5,000, the next members' meeting reviews these limits and may tighten them by vote. de: title: Akkumulationsbeschränkungen whyItMatters: >- Jede interne Einheit, die sich ohne Limit anhäufen lässt, wird irgendwann zum Hebel — einige wenige Mitglieder mit großen Guthaben gewinnen informellen Einfluss, den das Governance-System ihnen nie verliehen hat. Das explizite Festlegen von Akkumulationsregeln — auch wenn die aktuelle Regel „noch keine" lautet — hält die Frage offen und erzwingt eine sichtbare Entscheidung, bevor Konzentration zum strukturellen Problem wird. whatToDefine: >- Lege die aktuelle Akkumulationsregel fest (Obergrenze, Verfall, keine) und die Regel, dass keine interne Einheit in Governance-Autorität umgewandelt werden darf. placeholders: - Obergrenze für interne Einheiten, falls vorhanden. - Verfallsregel, falls vorhanden. - >- Interne Einheiten dürfen nicht in Governance-Autorität umgewandelt oder dazu verwendet werden, die Entscheidungsmatrix zu umgehen. es: title: Restricciones de Acumulación whyItMatters: >- Cualquier unidad interna que pueda acumularse sin límite eventualmente se convierte en apalancamiento — unos pocos miembros con saldos grandes obtienen influencia informal que el sistema de gobernanza nunca les otorgó. Establecer las reglas de acumulación explícitamente, incluso cuando la regla actual es "ninguna todavía", mantiene la cuestión abierta y obliga a tomar una decisión visible antes de que la concentración se convierta en un problema estructural. whatToDefine: >- Indica la regla de acumulación actual (tope, decaimiento, ninguna) y la regla de que ninguna unidad interna PUEDE convertirse en autoridad de gobernanza. placeholders: - Tope máximo de unidades internas, si lo hay. - Regla de decaimiento, si la hay. - >- Las unidades internas no PUEDEN convertirse en autoridad de gobernanza ni usarse para eludir la Matriz de Decisiones. fr: title: Contraintes d'accumulation whyItMatters: >- Toute unité interne pouvant s'accumuler sans limite finit par devenir un levier — quelques membres avec des soldes élevés acquièrent une influence informelle que le système de gouvernance ne leur a jamais accordée. Énoncer les règles d'accumulation explicitement, même quand la règle actuelle est « aucune pour l'instant », maintient la question ouverte et impose une décision visible avant que la concentration ne devienne un problème structurel. whatToDefine: >- Indique la règle d'accumulation actuelle (plafond, dépréciation, aucune) et la règle selon laquelle aucune unité interne NE PEUT être convertie en autorité de gouvernance. placeholders: - Plafond sur les unités internes, le cas échéant. - Règle de dépréciation, le cas échéant. - >- Les unités internes ne peuvent pas être converties en autorité de gouvernance ni utilisées pour contourner la matrice de décision. pt-br: title: Restrições de Acumulação whyItMatters: >- Qualquer unidade interna que possa se acumular sem limite eventualmente se torna alavancagem — alguns membros com saldos grandes ganham influência informal que o sistema de governança nunca lhes concedeu. Declarar as regras de acumulação explicitamente, mesmo quando a regra atual é "nenhuma ainda", mantém a questão em aberto e força uma decisão visível antes que a concentração se torne um problema estrutural. whatToDefine: >- Indique a regra atual de acumulação (limite, decaimento, nenhuma) e a regra de que nenhuma unidade interna pode ser convertida em autoridade de governança. placeholders: - Limite máximo de unidades internas, se houver. - Regra de decaimento, se houver. - >- As unidades internas não podem ser convertidas em autoridade de governança nem usadas para contornar a Matriz de Decisão. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 5.4.1 - 5.4.2 - 5.4.3 - 5.4.4 - 5.6.4 - key: internal-economy-protocol.external-income-interfaces artifact: internal-economy-protocol order: 5 clauseRefs: - 5.3.2 i18n: en: title: External Income Interfaces whyItMatters: >- Once funds are in hand, the conversation shifts from "should we accept this?" to "what do we do with it?" — and the conditions attached to the income (grant terms, partnership obligations, service commitments) are often already locked in. Requiring a Strategic decision before any new income channel opens keeps the community in control of what it takes on. whatToDefine: >- List current declared income channels, name potential future channels, and require Strategic approval before any new channel is opened. placeholders: - Current income channels. - Potential future income channels. - >- Rule: any new external income interface must be declared and approved via a Strategic decision before funds are received or commitments made. question: How does money from outside reach us, and on what terms? prompts: - >- Through which channels does money from outside reach us today, and which might we open in future — or refuse outright? - >- What must be decided before a new channel opens, and may anyone accept money or promise anything before that decision? - >- What conditions attached to outside money — reports, branding, promises about how we work — must members see before saying yes? examples: - >- Money from outside reaches us through course fees and one foundation grant; in future we may consider renting out rooms or selling produce, but we will not take money from advertisers. No new income channel may be opened, and no one may accept funds or promise anything to a funder or customer, until full members approve it by a Strategic decision after seeing its full terms, including any reporting duties or conditions on how we work. de: title: Externe Einkommensschnittstellen whyItMatters: >- Sobald Mittel eingegangen sind, verschiebt sich das Gespräch von „Sollen wir das annehmen?" zu „Was machen wir damit?" — und die an das Einkommen geknüpften Bedingungen (Förderbedingungen, Partnerschaftsverpflichtungen, Dienstleistungszusagen) sind oft bereits festgelegt. Eine strategische Entscheidung vor der Eröffnung eines neuen Einkommenskanals zu verlangen, stellt sicher, dass die Gemeinschaft die Kontrolle darüber behält, was sie auf sich nimmt. whatToDefine: >- Liste die aktuell erklärten Einkommenskanäle auf, benenne potenzielle zukünftige Kanäle, und verlange eine strategische Genehmigung, bevor ein neuer Kanal eröffnet wird. placeholders: - Aktuelle Einkommenskanäle. - Potenzielle zukünftige Einkommenskanäle. - >- Regel: Jede neue externe Einkommensschnittstelle muss erklärt und durch eine strategische Entscheidung genehmigt werden, bevor Mittel empfangen oder Verpflichtungen eingegangen werden. es: title: Interfaces de Ingresos Externos whyItMatters: >- Una vez que los fondos están en mano, la conversación pasa de "¿deberíamos aceptar esto?" a "¿qué hacemos con esto?" — y las condiciones vinculadas a los ingresos (términos de subvención, obligaciones de asociación, compromisos de servicio) a menudo ya están fijadas. Requerir una decisión Estratégica antes de abrir cualquier nuevo canal de ingresos mantiene a la comunidad en control de lo que asume. whatToDefine: >- Enumera los canales de ingresos actuales declarados, nombra posibles canales futuros y requiere aprobación Estratégica antes de abrir cualquier nuevo canal. placeholders: - Canales de ingresos actuales. - Posibles canales de ingresos futuros. - >- Regla: cualquier nueva interfaz de ingresos externos DEBE ser declarada y aprobada mediante una decisión Estratégica antes de que se reciban fondos o se asuman compromisos. fr: title: Interfaces de revenus externes whyItMatters: >- Une fois les fonds en main, la conversation passe de « devrions-nous accepter cela ? » à « qu'en fait-on ? » — et les conditions attachées au revenu (termes de subvention, obligations de partenariat, engagements de service) sont souvent déjà verrouillées. Exiger une décision Stratégique avant l'ouverture de tout nouveau canal de revenus permet à la communauté de garder le contrôle sur ce qu'elle prend en charge. whatToDefine: >- Liste les canaux de revenus actuellement déclarés, nomme les canaux futurs potentiels et exige une approbation Stratégique avant l'ouverture de tout nouveau canal. placeholders: - Canaux de revenus actuels. - Canaux de revenus futurs potentiels. - >- Règle : toute nouvelle interface de revenus externes DOIT être déclarée et approuvée par une décision Stratégique avant que des fonds ne soient reçus ou des engagements pris. pt-br: title: Interfaces de Receita Externa whyItMatters: >- Uma vez que os fundos estão em mãos, a conversa muda de "deveríamos aceitar isso?" para "o que fazemos com isso?" — e as condições associadas à receita (termos de subvenção, obrigações de parceria, compromissos de serviço) já estão frequentemente fixadas. Exigir uma decisão Estratégica antes da abertura de qualquer novo canal de receita mantém a comunidade no controle do que assume. whatToDefine: >- Liste os canais de receita atualmente declarados, nomeie potenciais canais futuros e exija aprovação Estratégica antes que qualquer novo canal seja aberto. placeholders: - Canais de receita atuais. - Potenciais canais de receita futuros. - >- Regra: qualquer nova interface de receita externa deve ser declarada e aprovada via uma decisão Estratégica antes que os fundos sejam recebidos ou compromissos sejam assumidos. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: internal-economy-protocol.dispute-resolution-for-economic-records artifact: internal-economy-protocol order: 6 clauseRefs: - 5.5.3 i18n: en: title: Dispute Resolution for Economic Records whyItMatters: >- Contribution and balance records accumulate fast; if disputes could be raised indefinitely, the ledger would never settle and every historical credit would stay contestable. A defined window with a named resolver and an appeal path gives members a real chance to correct errors without leaving the whole economic history perpetually unstable. whatToDefine: >- State the dispute window, named resolver, and appeal path. Reference the Contribution Recognition Mechanism for the full process. placeholders: - >- Window for contesting a contribution record or balance; named resolver; appeal path to Full Members via the governance process. question: When someone says the record of their contribution is wrong, how is that settled? prompts: - How long after a contribution record or balance is entered can someone contest it? - Who settles a disputed record — and who steps in if that person is involved? - 'How is a correction made: is the original kept and a new entry added, and who is told?' - >- If someone disagrees with the outcome, where can they appeal, and when is the matter closed? examples: - >- Any member can contest a contribution record or balance within 60 days of it being entered by writing to the records steward. The records steward, or another steward if the records steward is involved, decides within 21 days and writes down the reasons. Corrections are added as new entries and the original is never deleted. Either side may appeal to the next full members' meeting, whose decision is final. de: title: Streitbeilegung für wirtschaftliche Aufzeichnungen whyItMatters: >- Beitrags- und Guthabeneinträge häufen sich schnell an; wenn Streitigkeiten unbegrenzt erhoben werden könnten, würde das Hauptbuch nie abgeschlossen und jeder historische Eintrag bliebe anfechtbar. Ein definiertes Zeitfenster mit einer benannten Schlichtungsperson und einem Beschwerdeweg gibt Mitgliedern eine echte Chance, Fehler zu korrigieren, ohne die gesamte wirtschaftliche Historie dauerhaft instabil zu lassen. whatToDefine: >- Lege das Zeitfenster für Streitigkeiten, die benannte Schlichtungsperson und den Beschwerdeweg fest. Verweise auf den Mechanismus zur Beitragsanerkennung für den vollständigen Prozess. placeholders: - >- Zeitfenster für die Anfechtung eines Beitragseintrags oder Guthabens; benannte Schlichtungsperson; Beschwerdeweg an Vollmitglieder über den Governance-Prozess. es: title: Resolución de Disputas para Registros Económicos whyItMatters: >- Los registros de contribuciones y saldos se acumulan rápido; si las disputas pudieran plantearse indefinidamente, el libro mayor nunca se estabilizaría y cada crédito histórico quedaría eternamente impugnable. Un plazo definido con un resolutor designado y una vía de apelación da a los miembros una oportunidad real de corregir errores sin dejar toda la historia económica perpetuamente inestable. whatToDefine: >- Indica el plazo de impugnación, el resolutor designado y la vía de apelación. Consulta el Mecanismo de Reconocimiento de Contribuciones para el proceso completo. placeholders: - >- Plazo para impugnar un registro de contribución o saldo; resolutor designado; vía de apelación a los Miembros Plenos mediante el proceso de gobernanza. fr: title: Résolution des litiges concernant les registres économiques whyItMatters: >- Les registres de contributions et de soldes s'accumulent vite ; si les litiges pouvaient être soulevés indéfiniment, le registre ne se stabiliserait jamais et chaque crédit historique resterait contestable. Un délai défini avec un résolveur nommé et une voie de recours donne aux membres une vraie chance de corriger les erreurs sans laisser l'historique économique perpétuellement instable. whatToDefine: >- Indique le délai de contestation, le résolveur nommé et la voie de recours. Réfère-toi au mécanisme de reconnaissance des contributions pour le processus complet. placeholders: - >- Délai pour contester un enregistrement de contribution ou un solde ; résolveur nommé ; voie de recours auprès des membres actifs via le processus de gouvernance. pt-br: title: Resolução de Disputas para Registros Econômicos whyItMatters: >- Registros de contribuição e saldo se acumulam rapidamente; se as disputas pudessem ser levantadas indefinidamente, o livro-razão nunca se estabilizaria e cada crédito histórico permaneceria contestável. Uma janela definida com um responsável nomeado e um caminho de apelação dá aos membros uma chance real de corrigir erros sem deixar toda a história econômica perpetuamente instável. whatToDefine: >- Indique a janela de disputa, o responsável nomeado e o caminho de apelação. Faça referência ao Mecanismo de Reconhecimento de Contribuições para o processo completo. placeholders: - >- Janela para contestar um registro de contribuição ou saldo; responsável nomeado; caminho de apelação aos Membros Plenos via processo de governança. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 5.5.3 - key: internal-economy-protocol.ratification-record artifact: internal-economy-protocol order: 7 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Ratification Record whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] de: title: Ratifizierungsprotokoll whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: Registro de Ratificación whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: Registre de ratification whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Registro de Ratificação whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: filled_from_decision dispositionNote: >- Written from the decision that adopted this artifact: reference, date, mechanism, tally and attendance as recorded at freeze time. ownsClauses: [] - key: treasury-ruleset.treasury-scope artifact: treasury-ruleset order: 0 clauseRefs: - 5.3.1 - 5.5.4 i18n: en: title: Treasury Scope whyItMatters: >- Without an explicit boundary, any money flowing near the community — a founder's personal card, a side account, an informal reimbursement pool — can drift into being treated as community money, with all the obligations that entails. Naming exactly which accounts are treasury and which are not protects both the community and the individuals paying out of pocket. whatToDefine: >- Name every account that is treasury (wallet, bank account, etc.) and state explicitly that personal funds operating informally are not treasury and create no community obligation. placeholders: - >- Define which accounts are community treasury — explicit wallet addresses, bank accounts, etc. State that any new treasury account must be declared and approved via a Strategic decision before funds are received into it. State that personal funds covering operational costs are not treasury and carry no community repayment claim. question: What is held in common — and where does the shared purse end and a personal one begin? prompts: - Which accounts, wallets or cash boxes are community money — named one by one? - >- How is a new treasury account opened, and can money be paid into it before that is decided? - >- When someone pays a community cost out of their own pocket, does that make it community money — and does the community then owe them? - >- Where shared money and private resources meet — a member's land we use, or shared money spent near someone's home: which rule applies? examples: - >- Our treasury is exactly two accounts: the co-op's current account and its savings account, both in the co-op's name. Any new treasury account must be approved by a Strategic decision of full members before money is paid into it. Money a member spends from their own pocket on shared costs is not treasury and creates no debt, unless the spend was approved in advance under our spending rules, in which case it is repaid from the current account. Treasury money is never spent on repairs inside private flats. de: title: Geltungsbereich der Kasse whyItMatters: >- Ohne eine ausdrückliche Abgrenzung kann jedes Geld, das in der Nähe der Gemeinschaft fließt — die persönliche Karte einer Gründerin, ein Nebenkonto, ein informeller Erstattungspool — schleichend als Gemeinschaftsgeld behandelt werden, mit allen Pflichten, die das mit sich bringt. Genau festzulegen, welche Konten zur Kasse gehören und welche nicht, schützt sowohl die Gemeinschaft als auch die Einzelpersonen, die aus eigener Tasche zahlen. whatToDefine: >- Benennt jedes Konto, das zur Kasse gehört (Wallet, Bankkonto usw.), und stellt ausdrücklich fest, dass persönliche Mittel, die informell eingesetzt werden, nicht zur Kasse gehören und keine Verpflichtung der Gemeinschaft begründen. placeholders: - >- Legt fest, welche Konten die Gemeinschaftskasse bilden — explizite Wallet-Adressen, Bankkonten usw. Stellt fest, dass jedes neue Kassenkonto vor dem Eingang von Geldern durch eine Strategische Entscheidung deklariert und genehmigt werden muss. Stellt fest, dass persönliche Mittel, die Betriebskosten decken, nicht zur Kasse gehören und keinen Rückzahlungsanspruch gegenüber der Gemeinschaft begründen. es: title: Alcance de la Tesorería whyItMatters: >- Sin un límite explícito, cualquier dinero que fluya cerca de la comunidad — la tarjeta personal de un fundador, una cuenta paralela, un fondo informal de reembolsos — puede terminar siendo tratado como dinero comunitario, con todas las obligaciones que eso implica. Nombrar exactamente qué cuentas son tesorería y cuáles no protege tanto a la comunidad como a las personas que pagan de su propio bolsillo. whatToDefine: >- Nombra cada cuenta que es tesorería (billetera, cuenta bancaria, etc.) y establece explícitamente que los fondos personales que operan informalmente no son tesorería y no crean ninguna obligación comunitaria. placeholders: - >- Define qué cuentas son tesorería comunitaria — direcciones de billetera explícitas, cuentas bancarias, etc. Establece que cualquier nueva cuenta de tesorería DEBE ser declarada y aprobada mediante una decisión Estratégica antes de que se reciban fondos en ella. Establece que los fondos personales que cubren costes operativos no son tesorería y no generan derecho de reembolso comunitario. fr: title: Périmètre de la trésorerie whyItMatters: >- Sans limite explicite, tout argent circulant près de la communauté — la carte personnelle d'un fondateur, un compte parallèle, une cagnotte informelle de remboursement — peut progressivement être traité comme de l'argent communautaire, avec toutes les obligations que cela implique. Nommer précisément quels comptes relèvent de la trésorerie et lesquels n'en relèvent pas protège à la fois la communauté et les individus qui paient de leur poche. whatToDefine: >- Nomme chaque compte qui fait partie de la trésorerie (portefeuille, compte bancaire, etc.) et indique explicitement que les fonds personnels utilisés de manière informelle ne sont pas de la trésorerie et ne créent aucune obligation communautaire. placeholders: - >- Définis quels comptes constituent la trésorerie communautaire — adresses de portefeuille explicites, comptes bancaires, etc. Indique que tout nouveau compte de trésorerie DOIT être déclaré et approuvé par une décision Stratégique avant que des fonds y soient reçus. Indique que les fonds personnels couvrant des coûts opérationnels ne sont pas de la trésorerie et n'ouvrent aucun droit à remboursement communautaire. pt-br: title: Escopo da Tesouraria whyItMatters: >- Sem um limite explícito, qualquer dinheiro que circule perto da comunidade — o cartão pessoal de uma fundadora, uma conta paralela, um fundo informal de reembolsos — pode acabar sendo tratado como dinheiro comunitário, com todas as obrigações que isso implica. Nomear exatamente quais contas são da tesouraria e quais não são protege tanto a comunidade quanto as pessoas que pagam do próprio bolso. whatToDefine: >- Nomeie cada conta que faz parte da tesouraria (carteira, conta bancária, etc.) e declare explicitamente que fundos pessoais usados informalmente não são da tesouraria e não geram nenhuma obrigação para a comunidade. placeholders: - >- Defina quais contas são a tesouraria da comunidade — endereços específicos de carteira, contas bancárias, etc. Declare que qualquer nova conta de tesouraria DEVE ser declarada e aprovada por uma decisão Estratégica antes de receber recursos. Declare que fundos pessoais usados para cobrir custos operacionais não são da tesouraria e não geram nenhum direito de reembolso pela comunidade. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 5.3.1 - 5.5.4 - key: treasury-ruleset.income-sources artifact: treasury-ruleset order: 1 clauseRefs: - 5.3.2 i18n: en: title: Income Sources whyItMatters: >- Every income source carries strings — reporting requirements, expectations, dependency risks. If income channels can open informally, those strings get attached before the community has had a chance to weigh them. One declared list, changed only through Strategic decisions, keeps the community's obligations under its own control. whatToDefine: >- Name every income source the community currently has, and reference the Internal Economy Protocol for the rule that any new income channel requires a Strategic decision. placeholders: - >- List current income sources, or state that there are none. Reference the External Income Interfaces section in the Internal Economy Protocol. question: Where does our money come from, and what are we relying on? prompts: - What money comes in today — from whom, how often, and for what? If nothing yet, say so. - What does each source expect from us in return, and when does it end? - Which source would hurt most if it stopped? - >- Who keeps this list up to date when a source ends or its terms change? (Opening a new source is its own question.) examples: - >- Our income comes from three sources: monthly member contributions, fees from the two open courses we run each summer, and a three-year grant from a regional foundation that ends next spring and requires a yearly activity report. We have no loans, sponsors or investors. Losing the grant would hurt most, so we plan each year's budget without it. The finance steward updates this list whenever a source ends or its terms change. de: title: Einnahmequellen whyItMatters: >- Jede Einnahmequelle bringt Bedingungen mit sich — Berichtspflichten, Erwartungen, Abhängigkeitsrisiken. Wenn Einnahmekanäle informell entstehen können, werden diese Bedingungen angehängt, bevor die Gemeinschaft Gelegenheit hatte, sie abzuwägen. Eine deklarierte Liste, die nur durch Strategische Entscheidungen geändert wird, hält die Verpflichtungen der Gemeinschaft unter ihrer eigenen Kontrolle. whatToDefine: >- Benennt jede Einnahmequelle, die die Gemeinschaft derzeit hat, und verweist auf das Binnenwirtschaftsprotokoll für die Regel, dass jeder neue Einnahmekanal eine Strategische Entscheidung erfordert. placeholders: - >- Listet die aktuellen Einnahmequellen auf oder stellt fest, dass es keine gibt. Verweist auf den Abschnitt „Externe Einnahmeschnittstellen" im Binnenwirtschaftsprotokoll. es: title: Fuentes de Ingreso whyItMatters: >- Cada fuente de ingreso trae condiciones — requisitos de reporte, expectativas, riesgos de dependencia. Si los canales de ingreso pueden abrirse informalmente, esas condiciones se adhieren antes de que la comunidad haya tenido oportunidad de evaluarlas. Una lista declarada, modificable solo mediante decisiones Estratégicas, mantiene las obligaciones de la comunidad bajo su propio control. whatToDefine: >- Nombra cada fuente de ingreso que la comunidad tiene actualmente y referencia el Protocolo de Economía Interna para la regla de que cualquier nuevo canal de ingreso requiere una decisión Estratégica. placeholders: - >- Enumera las fuentes de ingreso actuales, o indica que no hay ninguna. Referencia la sección de Interfaces de Ingresos Externos en el Protocolo de Economía Interna. fr: title: Sources de revenus whyItMatters: >- Chaque source de revenus comporte des contreparties — obligations de déclaration, attentes, risques de dépendance. Si des canaux de revenus peuvent s'ouvrir de manière informelle, ces contreparties s'attachent avant que la communauté ait eu l'occasion de les évaluer. Une liste unique et déclarée, modifiable uniquement par décision Stratégique, maintient les obligations de la communauté sous son propre contrôle. whatToDefine: >- Nomme chaque source de revenus actuelle de la communauté, et renvoie au Protocole d'économie interne pour la règle selon laquelle tout nouveau canal de revenus nécessite une décision Stratégique. placeholders: - >- Liste les sources de revenus actuelles, ou indique qu'il n'y en a aucune. Renvoie à la section Interfaces de revenus externes du Protocole d'économie interne. pt-br: title: Fontes de Receita whyItMatters: >- Toda fonte de receita carrega amarras — exigências de prestação de contas, expectativas, riscos de dependência. Se canais de receita podem se abrir informalmente, essas amarras se conectam antes que a comunidade tenha tido a chance de avaliá-las. Uma única lista declarada, alterada apenas por decisões Estratégicas, mantém as obrigações da comunidade sob seu próprio controle. whatToDefine: >- Nomeie cada fonte de receita que a comunidade tem atualmente e faça referência ao Protocolo de Economia Interna para a regra de que qualquer novo canal de receita requer uma decisão Estratégica. placeholders: - >- Liste as fontes de receita atuais, ou declare que não há nenhuma. Faça referência à seção Interfaces de Receita Externa no Protocolo de Economia Interna. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 5.3.2 - key: treasury-ruleset.spending-authority artifact: treasury-ruleset order: 2 clauseRefs: - 5.3.3 - 5.7.1 i18n: en: title: Spending Authority whyItMatters: >- When spending authority is vague, two failure modes appear: either every small decision escalates and nothing gets done, or a single steward quietly accumulates discretion no one ever voted to grant them. A table of amounts, decision types, and authorized bodies removes the ambiguity and makes unauthorized spending immediately visible. whatToDefine: >- Define spending tiers by amount and the decision type, authorized body, and mechanism for each. Multi-year contracts and debt should sit in their own (Constitutional) tier. placeholders: - Up to delegated limit (e.g. €X) - Operational - Finance Steward - Delegated - Any amount above delegated limit - Strategic - Full Members - Vote - Multi-year contracts, debt, or structural financial obligations - Constitutional - Full Members - Supermajority + ratification question: >- Who can spend how much without asking, who approves the rest, and how is every spend recorded? prompts: - >- For each spending tier: up to what amount or for which kind of cost, which type of decision, who approves it, and how? - >- Which commitments sit in their own tier whatever the amount — multi-year contracts, loans, anything that binds future members? - What happens when a spend is urgent, or ends up costing more than was approved? - >- What is recorded for every spend — amount, purpose, who approved it, which decision it rests on — and where? examples: - >- The finance steward may approve any single spend up to €300 within the agreed yearly budget. Anything above €300, or outside the budget, needs a Strategic decision by vote of full members. Multi-year contracts, loans and other long-term obligations need a Constitutional decision: two-thirds of full members, confirmed at a second meeting 14 days later. A spend that will cost more than approved goes to the next tier first. Every spend is logged within a week with amount, purpose, approver and a link to the decision. de: title: Ausgabenbefugnis whyItMatters: >- Wenn die Ausgabenbefugnis vage ist, treten zwei Fehlermodi auf: Entweder eskaliert jede kleine Entscheidung und nichts wird erledigt, oder eine einzelne Stewardship-Person häuft still Ermessensspielraum an, den ihr niemand je per Abstimmung eingeräumt hat. Eine Tabelle mit Beträgen, Entscheidungstypen und befugten Gremien beseitigt die Mehrdeutigkeit und macht unautorisierte Ausgaben sofort sichtbar. whatToDefine: >- Definiert Ausgabenstufen nach Betrag sowie den Entscheidungstyp, das befugte Gremium und den Mechanismus für jede Stufe. Mehrjährige Verträge und Schulden sollten in einer eigenen (konstitutionellen) Stufe stehen. placeholders: - Bis zur delegierten Grenze (z. B. €X) - Operativ - Finanz-Steward - Delegiert - Jeder Betrag über der delegierten Grenze - Strategisch - Vollmitglieder - Abstimmung - Mehrjährige Verträge, Schulden oder strukturelle finanzielle Verpflichtungen - Konstitutionell - Vollmitglieder - Supermehrheit + Ratifizierung es: title: Autoridad de Gasto whyItMatters: >- Cuando la autoridad de gasto es vaga, aparecen dos modos de fallo: o cada pequeña decisión escala y nada se hace, o un solo administrador acumula silenciosamente discrecionalidad que nadie votó concederle. Una tabla con montos, tipos de decisión y órganos autorizados elimina la ambigüedad y hace que el gasto no autorizado sea inmediatamente visible. whatToDefine: >- Define niveles de gasto por monto y el tipo de decisión, órgano autorizado y mecanismo para cada uno. Los contratos plurianuales y la deuda DEBERÍAN tener su propio nivel (Constitucional). placeholders: - Hasta el límite delegado (p. ej. €X) - Operacional - Administrador/a de Finanzas - Delegado - Cualquier monto por encima del límite delegado - Estratégico - Miembros Plenos - Votación - Contratos plurianuales, deuda u obligaciones financieras estructurales - Constitucional - Miembros Plenos - Supermayoría + ratificación fr: title: Autorité de dépense whyItMatters: >- Quand l'autorité de dépense est floue, deux modes de défaillance apparaissent : soit chaque petite décision est escaladée et rien n'avance, soit un·e intendant·e accumule discrètement un pouvoir discrétionnaire que personne n'a jamais voté. Un tableau indiquant les montants, les types de décision et les organes autorisés supprime l'ambiguïté et rend immédiatement visible toute dépense non autorisée. whatToDefine: >- Définis des paliers de dépense par montant avec le type de décision, l'organe autorisé et le mécanisme pour chacun. Les contrats pluriannuels et la dette DEVRAIENT avoir leur propre palier (Constitutionnel). placeholders: - Jusqu'à la limite déléguée (p. ex. X €) - Opérationnel - Intendant·e des finances - Délégué - Tout montant au-delà de la limite déléguée - Stratégique - Membres à part entière - Vote - Contrats pluriannuels, dette ou obligations financières structurelles - Constitutionnel - Membres à part entière - Supermajorité + ratification pt-br: title: Autoridade de Gastos whyItMatters: >- Quando a autoridade de gastos é vaga, surgem dois modos de falha: ou cada pequena decisão é escalada e nada anda, ou uma única pessoa responsável acumula silenciosamente uma discricionariedade que ninguém votou para conceder. Uma tabela com valores, tipos de decisão e órgãos autorizados elimina a ambiguidade e torna qualquer gasto não autorizado imediatamente visível. whatToDefine: >- Defina os escalões de gasto por valor e o tipo de decisão, órgão autorizado e mecanismo para cada um. Contratos plurianuais e dívidas DEVERIAM ficar em seu próprio escalão (Constitucional). placeholders: - 'Até o limite delegado (ex.: R$ X)' - Operacional - Pessoa Responsável pelas Finanças - Delegado - Qualquer valor acima do limite delegado - Estratégica - Membros Plenos - Votação - Contratos plurianuais, dívidas ou obrigações financeiras estruturais - Constitucional - Membros Plenos - Supermaioria + ratificação disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 5.3.3 - 5.7.1 - key: treasury-ruleset.transparency-and-reporting artifact: treasury-ruleset order: 3 clauseRefs: - 5.3.4 - 5.3.5 - 5.6.1 i18n: en: title: Transparency and Reporting whyItMatters: >- Opacity in a treasury compounds: one missing disclosure invites another, and before long members can no longer verify whether the community's money is being handled as they agreed. Making real-time visibility the baseline — and requiring any exception to be named, justified, and time-bounded — keeps audit within reach of every member, not just stewards. whatToDefine: >- State the visibility default for each treasury account. Where direct visibility is not possible (e.g. some bank accounts), define a periodic reporting cadence with a named owner. placeholders: - >- Primary treasury (e.g. Safe multi-sig): all Full Members hold at minimum read access; real-time visibility. - >- Other declared accounts: direct multi-user read access if supported; otherwise periodic balance and transaction summary. - >- All spending decisions reference the linked governance record (vote ID or delegated decision log). question: Who can see the accounts, how often, and what may be held back? prompts: - >- For each treasury account: who can see the balance and every transaction, and is that live or reported later? - >- Where an account cannot be shared directly, who reports on it, how often, and in what detail? - How do members see what we owe and what we have promised, not only what we hold? - >- What may be kept private — for example a payment to someone in hardship: who decides, for how long, and why? - >- Even where something is kept private, how can members still check that the rules were followed? examples: - >- All full members have read-only access to the community bank account and see every transaction as it happens. The treasurer posts a monthly summary of balances, money in and out, debts and signed commitments to the members' forum within ten days of the month's end. The one exception is support paid to a member in hardship: the name stays hidden for up to 12 months, but the amount, date and approving decision are always shown, and two members chosen by lot each year may check the full details. de: title: Transparenz und Berichtswesen whyItMatters: >- Intransparenz in der Kasse potenziert sich: Eine fehlende Offenlegung lädt zur nächsten ein, und bald können die Mitglieder nicht mehr überprüfen, ob das Geld der Gemeinschaft so verwaltet wird, wie sie es vereinbart haben. Echtzeit-Sichtbarkeit als Ausgangslage zu setzen — und jede Ausnahme namentlich, begründet und zeitlich begrenzt zu verlangen — hält die Prüfbarkeit für jedes Mitglied erreichbar, nicht nur für Stewards. whatToDefine: >- Legt den Sichtbarkeitsstandard für jedes Kassenkonto fest. Wo direkte Einsicht nicht möglich ist (z. B. bei manchen Bankkonten), definiert einen periodischen Berichtszyklus mit einer namentlich benannten verantwortlichen Person. placeholders: - >- Primäre Kasse (z. B. Safe Multi-Sig): Alle Vollmitglieder haben mindestens Lesezugriff; Echtzeit-Sichtbarkeit. - >- Andere deklarierte Konten: direkter Mehrbenutzerzugriff zum Lesen, falls unterstützt; andernfalls periodische Saldo- und Transaktionsübersicht. - >- Alle Ausgabenentscheidungen verweisen auf den verknüpften Governance-Eintrag (Abstimmungs-ID oder delegiertes Entscheidungsprotokoll). es: title: Transparencia y Reportes whyItMatters: >- La opacidad en una tesorería se acumula: una divulgación faltante invita a otra, y antes de que te des cuenta los miembros ya no pueden verificar si el dinero de la comunidad se está gestionando como acordaron. Hacer de la visibilidad en tiempo real la línea base — y exigir que cualquier excepción sea nombrada, justificada y limitada en el tiempo — mantiene la auditoría al alcance de cada miembro, no solo de los administradores. whatToDefine: >- Establece la visibilidad por defecto para cada cuenta de tesorería. Donde la visibilidad directa no sea posible (p. ej. algunas cuentas bancarias), define una cadencia de reporte periódico con un responsable nombrado. placeholders: - >- Tesorería principal (p. ej. multi-firma Safe): todos los Miembros Plenos tienen como mínimo acceso de lectura; visibilidad en tiempo real. - >- Otras cuentas declaradas: acceso directo de lectura multiusuario si es compatible; de lo contrario, resumen periódico de saldo y transacciones. - >- Todas las decisiones de gasto referencian el registro de gobernanza vinculado (ID de votación o registro de decisiones delegadas). fr: title: Transparence et rapports whyItMatters: >- L'opacité dans une trésorerie s'accumule : une divulgation manquante en invite une autre, et bientôt les membres ne peuvent plus vérifier si l'argent de la communauté est géré comme ils l'avaient convenu. Faire de la visibilité en temps réel la référence — et exiger que toute exception soit nommée, justifiée et limitée dans le temps — maintient l'audit à la portée de chaque membre, pas seulement des intendant·e·s. whatToDefine: >- Indique le niveau de visibilité par défaut pour chaque compte de trésorerie. Lorsque la visibilité directe n'est pas possible (p. ex. certains comptes bancaires), définis une cadence de reporting périodique avec un·e responsable nommé·e. placeholders: - >- Trésorerie principale (p. ex. multi-sig Safe) : tous les Membres à part entière disposent au minimum d'un accès en lecture ; visibilité en temps réel. - >- Autres comptes déclarés : accès en lecture multi-utilisateur direct si possible ; sinon, résumé périodique des soldes et transactions. - >- Toutes les décisions de dépense font référence à l'enregistrement de gouvernance associé (identifiant de vote ou journal des décisions déléguées). pt-br: title: Transparência e Prestação de Contas whyItMatters: >- A opacidade em uma tesouraria se acumula: uma divulgação ausente convida outra, e em pouco tempo os membros já não conseguem verificar se o dinheiro da comunidade está sendo gerido como acordaram. Tornar a visibilidade em tempo real a linha de base — e exigir que qualquer exceção seja nomeada, justificada e com prazo definido — mantém a auditoria ao alcance de cada membro, não só das pessoas responsáveis. whatToDefine: >- Declare o padrão de visibilidade para cada conta da tesouraria. Onde a visibilidade direta não for possível (ex.: algumas contas bancárias), defina uma cadência periódica de prestação de contas com um responsável nomeado. placeholders: - >- Tesouraria principal (ex.: multi-sig Safe): todos os Membros Plenos têm, no mínimo, acesso de leitura; visibilidade em tempo real. - >- Outras contas declaradas: acesso direto de leitura para múltiplos usuários, se houver suporte; caso contrário, resumo periódico de saldo e transações. - >- Todas as decisões de gasto fazem referência ao registro de governança vinculado (ID da votação ou registro de decisão delegada). disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 5.3.4 - 5.3.5 - 5.6.1 - key: treasury-ruleset.reserve-risk-and-debt-constraints artifact: treasury-ruleset order: 4 clauseRefs: - 5.3.6 i18n: en: title: Reserve, Risk, and Debt Constraints whyItMatters: >- Debt and recurring commitments bind the community beyond the people currently in it — future members inherit the obligations. Forbidding them unless a Strategic vote explicitly authorizes keeps long-term constraints from being entered into casually, and preserves the option to stay lightweight. whatToDefine: >- State the rules on debt, recurring obligations, contingency reserves, and off-treasury financial instruments. Default to "not allowed without Strategic vote" for anything that binds the future. placeholders: - allowed only via Strategic vote. - recurring costs / contracts allowed only via Strategic vote. - reserve target, or state that one is not yet defined. - loans, investments, guarantees only via Strategic vote. question: How much may we owe, and how much do we keep aside for a bad year? prompts: - >- May we borrow money at all — and if so, how much, from whom, and only through which decision? - >- Which recurring costs or long contracts (leases, subscriptions, paid staff) need a decision before anyone signs? - >- Do we keep money aside for a bad year — how much, what may it be used for, and who may draw on it? If we have no target yet, say so. - >- May anyone take out loans, give guarantees or make investments on our behalf outside the treasury accounts? examples: - >- We do not borrow, give guarantees or make investments unless full members approve it by a Strategic vote, and total debt may never exceed six months of our usual income. Any contract or recurring cost lasting longer than a year also needs a Strategic vote. We aim to keep three months of running costs in a separate reserve account; it may only be used for emergency repairs or lost income, and every withdrawal is reported at the next members' meeting. de: title: Rücklagen-, Risiko- und Schuldenbeschränkungen whyItMatters: >- Schulden und wiederkehrende Verpflichtungen binden die Gemeinschaft über die aktuellen Mitglieder hinaus — zukünftige Mitglieder erben die Verpflichtungen. Sie nur zuzulassen, wenn eine Strategische Abstimmung sie ausdrücklich genehmigt, verhindert, dass langfristige Bindungen beiläufig eingegangen werden, und bewahrt die Möglichkeit, schlank zu bleiben. whatToDefine: >- Legt die Regeln zu Schulden, wiederkehrenden Verpflichtungen, Rücklagen und außerhalb der Kasse geführten Finanzinstrumenten fest. Standard ist „nicht erlaubt ohne Strategische Abstimmung" für alles, was die Zukunft bindet. placeholders: - nur per Strategischer Abstimmung zulässig. - wiederkehrende Kosten / Verträge nur per Strategischer Abstimmung zulässig. - Rücklagenziel, oder feststellen, dass noch keines definiert ist. - Darlehen, Investitionen, Bürgschaften nur per Strategischer Abstimmung. es: title: Reservas, Riesgos y Restricciones de Deuda whyItMatters: >- La deuda y los compromisos recurrentes vinculan a la comunidad más allá de las personas que actualmente la integran — los futuros miembros heredan las obligaciones. Prohibirlas salvo que una votación Estratégica las autorice explícitamente evita que se contraigan restricciones a largo plazo de manera casual y preserva la opción de mantenerse ligeros. whatToDefine: >- Establece las reglas sobre deuda, obligaciones recurrentes, reservas de contingencia e instrumentos financieros fuera de tesorería. Por defecto: "no permitido sin votación Estratégica" para todo lo que comprometa el futuro. placeholders: - permitida solo mediante votación Estratégica. - costes recurrentes / contratos permitidos solo mediante votación Estratégica. - objetivo de reserva, o indicar que aún no se ha definido. - préstamos, inversiones, garantías solo mediante votación Estratégica. fr: title: Réserve, risque et contraintes d'endettement whyItMatters: >- La dette et les engagements récurrents lient la communauté au-delà des personnes qui en font actuellement partie — les futurs membres héritent des obligations. Les interdire sauf autorisation explicite par vote Stratégique empêche que des contraintes à long terme soient contractées à la légère, et préserve la possibilité de rester léger. whatToDefine: >- Indique les règles concernant la dette, les engagements récurrents, les réserves de contingence et les instruments financiers hors trésorerie. Par défaut, « non autorisé sans vote Stratégique » pour tout ce qui engage l'avenir. placeholders: - autorisée uniquement par vote Stratégique. - coûts récurrents / contrats autorisés uniquement par vote Stratégique. - objectif de réserve, ou indiquer qu'il n'est pas encore défini. - prêts, investissements, garanties uniquement par vote Stratégique. pt-br: title: Restrições de Reserva, Risco e Dívida whyItMatters: >- Dívida e compromissos recorrentes vinculam a comunidade para além das pessoas que estão nela hoje — futuros membros herdam as obrigações. Proibi-los a menos que uma votação Estratégica autorize explicitamente impede que restrições de longo prazo sejam assumidas de forma leviana e preserva a opção de manter a estrutura enxuta. whatToDefine: >- Declare as regras sobre dívida, obrigações recorrentes, reservas de contingência e instrumentos financeiros fora da tesouraria. Padrão para "não permitido sem votação Estratégica" para qualquer coisa que vincule o futuro. placeholders: - permitida apenas via votação Estratégica. - custos / contratos recorrentes permitidos apenas via votação Estratégica. - meta de reserva, ou declare que ainda não está definida. - empréstimos, investimentos, garantias apenas via votação Estratégica. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 5.3.6 - key: treasury-ruleset.conflict-of-interest-rules artifact: treasury-ruleset order: 5 clauseRefs: - 5.4.3 i18n: en: title: Conflict-of-Interest Rules whyItMatters: >- Even well-intentioned people unconsciously tilt decisions toward their own interests; a rule that requires disclosure and abstention removes the judgment call and the social pressure to "trust someone." Self-approval of spending is the single most common way small governance systems quietly lose integrity, so the rule is stated bluntly. whatToDefine: >- State the no-self-approval rule and the disclose-and-abstain rule for any member with a direct financial interest in a spending decision. placeholders: - Requesters may not approve their own spending requests. - >- Members with a direct financial interest in a spending decision must declare it and abstain. - Treasury role holders may not authorize unilateral spending beyond the delegated limit. question: What does someone do when a decision about money would benefit them personally? prompts: - >- Can anyone approve a spend they asked for themselves — and if not, who approves it instead? - >- What counts as a personal interest — a relative's business, a friend who supplies us, a paid role? - >- When someone would gain from a payment or purchase, when do they say so, and do they step out of the discussion and the decision? - >- Where are declarations recorded, and what happens to a decision if an interest was not declared? examples: - >- No one may approve a spending request they made themselves; it goes to another steward instead. Any member who, or whose partner, family or business, would gain from a spending or purchasing decision must say so before discussion starts, then leaves the discussion and does not vote. Declarations are noted in the minutes. If an undeclared interest comes to light later, the decision is reviewed at the next members' meeting. de: title: Interessenkonfliktregeln whyItMatters: >- Selbst gut meinende Menschen neigen unbewusst dazu, Entscheidungen zu ihren eigenen Gunsten zu kippen; eine Regel, die Offenlegung und Enthaltung verlangt, beseitigt die subjektive Einschätzung und den sozialen Druck, jemandem „einfach zu vertrauen". Die Selbstgenehmigung von Ausgaben ist der häufigste Weg, auf dem kleine Governance-Systeme still ihre Integrität verlieren — daher wird die Regel unmissverständlich formuliert. whatToDefine: >- Formuliert die Regel gegen Selbstgenehmigung und die Regel zur Offenlegung und Enthaltung für jedes Mitglied mit einem direkten finanziellen Interesse an einer Ausgabenentscheidung. placeholders: - Antragstellende dürfen ihre eigenen Ausgabenanträge nicht genehmigen. - >- Mitglieder mit einem direkten finanziellen Interesse an einer Ausgabenentscheidung müssen dieses offenlegen und sich enthalten. - >- Kassenverantwortliche dürfen keine einseitigen Ausgaben über die delegierte Grenze hinaus autorisieren. es: title: Reglas de Conflicto de Intereses whyItMatters: >- Incluso las personas bienintencionadas inclinan inconscientemente las decisiones hacia sus propios intereses; una regla que exige divulgación y abstención elimina el juicio subjetivo y la presión social de "confiar en alguien". La autoaprobación de gastos es la forma más común en que los sistemas de gobernanza pequeños pierden silenciosamente su integridad, por eso la regla se enuncia sin rodeos. whatToDefine: >- Establece la regla de no autoaprobación y la regla de divulgar y abstenerse para cualquier miembro con un interés financiero directo en una decisión de gasto. placeholders: - Los solicitantes no PUEDEN aprobar sus propias solicitudes de gasto. - >- Los miembros con un interés financiero directo en una decisión de gasto DEBEN declararlo y abstenerse. - >- Los titulares de roles de tesorería no PUEDEN autorizar gastos unilaterales por encima del límite delegado. fr: title: Règles relatives aux conflits d'intérêts whyItMatters: >- Même des personnes bien intentionnées orientent inconsciemment les décisions vers leurs propres intérêts ; une règle exigeant la divulgation et l'abstention supprime le jugement subjectif et la pression sociale de « faire confiance à quelqu'un ». L'auto-approbation des dépenses est le moyen le plus courant par lequel les petits systèmes de gouvernance perdent silencieusement leur intégrité, c'est pourquoi la règle est énoncée sans détour. whatToDefine: >- Énonce la règle de non-auto-approbation et la règle de divulgation-et-abstention pour tout membre ayant un intérêt financier direct dans une décision de dépense. placeholders: - Les demandeur·euse·s NE DOIVENT PAS approuver leurs propres demandes de dépense. - >- Les membres ayant un intérêt financier direct dans une décision de dépense DOIVENT le déclarer et s'abstenir. - >- Les titulaires de rôles de trésorerie NE DOIVENT PAS autoriser de dépense unilatérale au-delà de la limite déléguée. pt-br: title: Regras de Conflito de Interesses whyItMatters: >- Até mesmo pessoas bem-intencionadas inclinam, inconscientemente, decisões a favor dos próprios interesses; uma regra que exige divulgação e abstenção elimina o julgamento subjetivo e a pressão social para "confiar em alguém". A autoaprovação de gastos é, isoladamente, a forma mais comum pela qual pequenos sistemas de governança perdem integridade silenciosamente, por isso a regra é colocada de forma direta. whatToDefine: >- Declare a regra de não autoaprovação e a regra de divulgar-e-abster-se para qualquer membro com interesse financeiro direto em uma decisão de gasto. placeholders: - Quem solicita NÃO DEVE aprovar suas próprias solicitações de gasto. - >- Membros com interesse financeiro direto em uma decisão de gasto DEVEM declará-lo e abster-se. - >- Quem ocupa cargo na tesouraria NÃO DEVE autorizar gastos unilaterais acima do limite delegado. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: treasury-ruleset.ratification-record artifact: treasury-ruleset order: 6 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Ratification Record whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] de: title: Ratifizierungsnachweis whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: Registro de Ratificación whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: Procès-verbal de ratification whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Registro de Ratificação whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: filled_from_decision dispositionNote: >- Written from the decision that adopted this artifact: reference, date, mechanism, tally and attendance as recorded at freeze time. ownsClauses: [] - key: accountability-protocol.triggers artifact: accountability-protocol order: 0 clauseRefs: - 6.4.1 - 6.5.4 i18n: en: title: Triggers whyItMatters: >- 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. whatToDefine: >- List the specific, verifiable triggers that initiate an accountability check. Each trigger should be observable from records or a direct referral. placeholders: - A member has not made a recognized contribution in X consecutive months. - A member has breached a Membership Agreement obligation. - A member has violated a Layer 0 identity constraint or invariant. - A referral is made from the Conflict Resolution Ladder (Step 3 or above). question: What has to happen before the accountability process starts, and who can start it? prompts: - >- 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? examples: - >- 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. de: title: Auslöser whyItMatters: >- Wenn Rechenschaftsprüfungen nur stattfinden, wenn jemand sich stark genug fühlt, sie durchzusetzen, werden sie politisch. Die genauen Auslöser zu benennen — Inaktivität, Verstoß, Invarianten-Verletzung, Verweisung — bedeutet, dass der Prozess bei einer Bedingung ansetzt, die jeder überprüfen kann, und nicht bei einem Urteil über eine Person. whatToDefine: >- Liste die konkreten, überprüfbaren Auslöser auf, die eine Rechenschaftsprüfung einleiten. Jeder Auslöser sollte anhand von Aufzeichnungen oder einer direkten Verweisung nachvollziehbar sein. placeholders: - Ein Mitglied in X aufeinanderfolgenden Monaten keinen anerkannten Beitrag geleistet hat. - Ein Mitglied gegen eine Pflicht aus der Mitgliedschaftsvereinbarung verstoßen hat. - Ein Mitglied eine Identitäts-Einschränkung oder Invariante der Schicht 0 verletzt hat. - Eine Verweisung aus der Konfliktlösungsleiter (Stufe 3 oder höher) erfolgt ist. es: title: Desencadenantes whyItMatters: >- Si las revisiones de rendición de cuentas solo ocurren cuando alguien se siente lo suficientemente fuerte como para presionar, se vuelven políticas. Nombrar los desencadenantes exactos — inactividad, incumplimiento, violación de invariantes, derivación — significa que el proceso se inicia a partir de una condición que cualquiera puede verificar, no a partir de un juicio sobre una persona. whatToDefine: >- Enumera los desencadenantes específicos y verificables que inician una revisión de rendición de cuentas. Cada desencadenante debe ser observable a partir de registros o una derivación directa. placeholders: - Un miembro no ha realizado una contribución reconocida en X meses consecutivos. - Un miembro ha incumplido una obligación del Acuerdo de Membresía. - Un miembro ha violado una restricción de identidad o invariante de la Capa 0. - Se recibe una derivación de la Escalera de Resolución de Conflictos (Paso 3 o superior). fr: title: Déclencheurs whyItMatters: >- Si les contrôles de responsabilisation ne se produisent que lorsque quelqu'un se sent suffisamment motivé pour insister, ils deviennent politiques. Nommer les déclencheurs exacts — inactivité, manquement, violation d'un invariant, renvoi — signifie que le processus démarre à partir d'une condition que n'importe qui peut vérifier, et non à partir d'un jugement sur une personne. whatToDefine: >- Liste les déclencheurs spécifiques et vérifiables qui initient un contrôle de responsabilisation. Chaque déclencheur doit être observable à partir de registres ou d'un renvoi direct. placeholders: - Un membre n'a pas effectué de contribution reconnue pendant X mois consécutifs. - Un membre a manqué à une obligation de l'Accord d'adhésion. - Un membre a violé une contrainte d'identité ou un invariant de la Couche 0. - >- Un renvoi est effectué depuis l'Échelle de résolution des conflits (étape 3 ou supérieure). pt-br: title: Gatilhos whyItMatters: >- Se verificações de responsabilização só acontecem quando alguém se sente forte o suficiente para insistir, elas se tornam políticas. Nomear os gatilhos exatos — inatividade, descumprimento, violação de invariante, encaminhamento — significa que o processo começa a partir de uma condição que qualquer pessoa pode verificar, e não de um julgamento sobre uma pessoa. whatToDefine: >- Liste os gatilhos específicos e verificáveis que iniciam uma verificação de responsabilização. Cada gatilho deve ser observável a partir de registros ou de um encaminhamento direto. placeholders: - Um membro não fez uma contribuição reconhecida por X meses consecutivos. - Um membro descumpriu uma obrigação do Acordo de Membresia. - Um membro violou uma restrição ou invariante de identidade da Camada 0. - >- É feito um encaminhamento a partir da Escada de Resolução de Conflitos (Etapa 3 ou superior). disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 6.5.4 - key: accountability-protocol.investigation-and-review artifact: accountability-protocol order: 1 clauseRefs: - 6.4.2 - 6.4.3 - 6.4.6 - 6.5.4 i18n: en: title: Investigation and Review whyItMatters: >- 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. whatToDefine: >- Define soft (inactivity), medium (obligation breach), and serious (invariant violation, safety) pathways. State who initiates, the response window, and the escalation route for each. placeholders: - >- medium = non-compliance with a Membership Agreement obligation that does not threaten member safety or community integrity; serious = Layer 0 invariant violation, credible safety concern, persistent bad-faith conduct. - who contacts the member; response window; outcome paths. - written notice; response window; resolution / escalation paths. - direct escalation to the appropriate Conflict Resolution Ladder step. question: Who looks into what happened, and how do they do it without taking sides? prompts: - >- 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.) examples: - >- 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. de: title: Untersuchung und Überprüfung whyItMatters: >- Einen versäumten Beitrag genauso zu behandeln wie eine Invarianten-Verletzung erdrückt entweder leichte Fälle mit schwerem Verfahren oder lässt schwere Fälle mit einem privaten Gespräch durchrutschen. Abgestufte Wege — sanftes Nachfragen, mittlere schriftliche Benachrichtigung, direkte Eskalation bei schweren Verstößen — passen das Gewicht der Reaktion an das Gewicht des Verstoßes an und machen Wiedergutmachung dort zum Standard, wo Wiedergutmachung noch möglich ist. whatToDefine: >- Definiere sanfte (Inaktivität), mittlere (Pflichtverletzung) und schwere (Invarianten-Verletzung, Sicherheit) Wege. Gib an, wer den Prozess einleitet, welche Reaktionsfrist gilt und wie die Eskalation jeweils verläuft. placeholders: - >- mittel = Nichteinhaltung einer Pflicht aus der Mitgliedschaftsvereinbarung, die weder die Sicherheit von Mitgliedern noch die Integrität der Gemeinschaft gefährdet; schwer = Verletzung einer Invariante der Schicht 0, glaubwürdige Sicherheitsbedenken, anhaltend bösgläubiges Verhalten. - Wer kontaktiert das Mitglied; Reaktionsfrist; mögliche Ergebnisse. - Schriftliche Benachrichtigung; Reaktionsfrist; Lösungs- / Eskalationswege. - Direkte Eskalation an die entsprechende Stufe der Konfliktlösungsleiter. es: title: Investigación y Revisión whyItMatters: >- Tratar una contribución omitida igual que una violación de invariante aplasta los casos menores con un proceso pesado o deja que los graves se resuelvan con una conversación privada. Vías graduadas — verificación suave, notificación escrita intermedia, escalamiento directo para incumplimientos graves — ajustan el peso de la respuesta al peso del incumplimiento y mantienen la reparación como opción predeterminada donde la reparación aún es posible. whatToDefine: >- Define las vías suave (inactividad), intermedia (incumplimiento de obligación) y grave (violación de invariantes, seguridad). Indica quién inicia, el plazo de respuesta y la ruta de escalamiento para cada una. placeholders: - >- intermedio = incumplimiento de una obligación del Acuerdo de Membresía que no amenaza la seguridad de los miembros ni la integridad de la comunidad; grave = violación de invariante de la Capa 0, preocupación creíble de seguridad, conducta persistente de mala fe. - quién contacta al miembro; plazo de respuesta; posibles resultados. - notificación escrita; plazo de respuesta; vías de resolución / escalamiento. - escalamiento directo al paso correspondiente de la Escalera de Resolución de Conflictos. fr: title: Enquête et examen whyItMatters: >- Traiter une contribution manquée de la même façon qu'une violation d'invariant soit écrase les cas mineurs sous un processus lourd, soit laisse les cas graves passer par une simple conversation privée. Des parcours gradués — vérification informelle, avis écrit de niveau intermédiaire, escalade directe pour les manquements graves — ajustent le poids de la réponse au poids du manquement et maintiennent la réparation comme option par défaut là où la réparation est encore possible. whatToDefine: >- Définis les parcours léger (inactivité), intermédiaire (manquement à une obligation) et grave (violation d'invariant, sécurité). Indique qui initie le processus, le délai de réponse et la voie d'escalade pour chacun. placeholders: - >- intermédiaire = non-respect d'une obligation de l'Accord d'adhésion qui ne menace pas la sécurité des membres ni l'intégrité de la communauté ; grave = violation d'un invariant de la Couche 0, préoccupation crédible de sécurité, conduite persistante de mauvaise foi. - qui contacte le membre ; délai de réponse ; issues possibles. - avis écrit ; délai de réponse ; voies de résolution / escalade. - escalade directe vers l'étape appropriée de l'Échelle de résolution des conflits. pt-br: title: Investigação e Revisão whyItMatters: >- Tratar uma contribuição não realizada da mesma forma que uma violação de invariante ou esmaga casos menores com processos pesados ou deixa casos sérios escaparem por uma conversa privada. Caminhos graduados — verificação leve, notificação escrita média, escalonamento direto para descumprimentos sérios — combinam o peso da resposta com o peso do descumprimento e mantêm a reparação como padrão onde a reparação ainda é possível. whatToDefine: >- Defina caminhos leve (inatividade), médio (descumprimento de obrigação) e sério (violação de invariante, segurança). Indique quem inicia, a janela de resposta e a rota de escalonamento para cada um. placeholders: - >- médio = descumprimento de uma obrigação do Acordo de Membresia que não ameaça a segurança dos membros ou a integridade da comunidade; sério = violação de invariante da Camada 0, preocupação crível com segurança, conduta persistente de má-fé. - quem contata o membro; janela de resposta; caminhos de desfecho. - notificação escrita; janela de resposta; caminhos de resolução / escalonamento. - escalonamento direto para a etapa apropriada da Escada de Resolução de Conflitos. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: accountability-protocol.due-process-guarantees artifact: accountability-protocol order: 2 clauseRefs: - 6.4.2 - 6.4.4 - 6.5.4 i18n: en: title: Due Process Guarantees whyItMatters: >- 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 deciding body's word is final by default, which concentrates power exactly where it should not concentrate. whatToDefine: >- State the right to written notice, a minimum response window, and an explicit appeal path to Full Members. placeholders: - member is notified in writing of the concern before any review or sanction begins. - minimum response window — e.g. 30 days. - any decision may be appealed via the governance process (Strategic vote). question: What is someone accused of something entitled to, before anything is decided? prompts: - >- 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? examples: - >- 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. de: title: Verfahrensgarantien whyItMatters: >- Rechenschaft ohne faires Verfahren ist nur Bestrafung mit Papierkram. Ein Mitglied, das mit einer Sanktion konfrontiert ist, muss das Anliegen kennen, echte Zeit zum Antworten haben und eine Stelle zum Einlegen eines Widerspruchs haben — andernfalls ist das Wort des Entscheidungsgremiums standardmäßig endgültig, was Macht genau dort konzentriert, wo sie sich nicht konzentrieren sollte. whatToDefine: >- Lege das Recht auf schriftliche Benachrichtigung, eine Mindest-Reaktionsfrist und einen expliziten Widerspruchsweg an die Vollmitglieder fest. placeholders: - >- Das Mitglied wird schriftlich über das Anliegen informiert, bevor eine Überprüfung oder Sanktion beginnt. - Mindest-Reaktionsfrist — z. B. 30 Tage. - >- Jede Entscheidung kann über den Governance-Prozess angefochten werden (strategische Abstimmung). es: title: Garantías de Debido Proceso whyItMatters: >- La rendición de cuentas sin debido proceso es solo castigo con papeleo. Un miembro que enfrenta una sanción necesita conocer la preocupación, tener tiempo real para responder y tener un lugar al que apelar — de lo contrario, la palabra del órgano decisor es definitiva por defecto, lo cual concentra el poder exactamente donde no debería concentrarse. whatToDefine: >- Establece el derecho a notificación por escrito, un plazo mínimo de respuesta y una vía de apelación explícita ante los Miembros Plenos. placeholders: - >- el miembro es notificado por escrito sobre la preocupación antes de que comience cualquier revisión o sanción. - plazo mínimo de respuesta — p. ej. 30 días. - cualquier decisión puede apelarse a través del proceso de gobernanza (voto Estratégico). fr: title: Garanties de procédure régulière whyItMatters: >- La responsabilisation sans procédure régulière n'est que de la punition avec de la paperasse. Un membre faisant face à une sanction doit connaître le motif de préoccupation, disposer d'un délai réel pour répondre, et avoir une instance à laquelle faire appel — sinon la décision de l'organe compétent est définitive par défaut, ce qui concentre le pouvoir exactement là où il ne devrait pas se concentrer. whatToDefine: >- Indique le droit à une notification écrite, un délai de réponse minimum et une voie d'appel explicite auprès des Membres titulaires. placeholders: - le membre est notifié par écrit du motif de préoccupation avant tout examen ou sanction. - délai de réponse minimum — par ex. 30 jours. - >- toute décision peut faire l'objet d'un appel via le processus de gouvernance (vote stratégique). pt-br: title: Garantias de Devido Processo whyItMatters: >- Responsabilização sem devido processo é apenas punição com papelada. Um membro diante de uma sanção precisa conhecer a preocupação, ter tempo real para responder e ter um lugar para recorrer — caso contrário, a palavra do órgão decisório é final por padrão, o que concentra poder exatamente onde ele não deveria se concentrar. whatToDefine: >- Indique o direito à notificação escrita, uma janela mínima de resposta e um caminho explícito de recurso aos Membros Plenos. placeholders: - >- o membro é notificado por escrito sobre a preocupação antes de qualquer revisão ou sanção ter início. - janela mínima de resposta — por exemplo, 30 dias. - >- qualquer decisão pode ser objeto de recurso por meio do processo de governança (voto Estratégico). disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: accountability-protocol.anti-retaliation-protections artifact: accountability-protocol order: 3 clauseRefs: - 6.3.2 i18n: en: title: Anti-Retaliation Protections whyItMatters: >- 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. whatToDefine: >- State that retaliation against any member who raises, participates in, or gives information to an accountability process is itself an accountability trigger. placeholders: - >- Retaliation against a member for participating in any part of this process is itself an accountability trigger. question: How do we protect someone who raises a concern from paying for it later? prompts: - >- 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? examples: - >- 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. de: title: Schutz vor Vergeltung whyItMatters: >- Wenn das Äußern eines Anliegens oder das Bereitstellen von Informationen ein Mitglied Ansehen, Beziehungen oder Zugang kosten kann, werden die Menschen schweigen und das Rechenschaftssystem bricht in der Praxis zusammen. Vergeltung selbst als Auslöser zu benennen, macht die Kosten der Unterdrückung höher als die Kosten der Meldung. whatToDefine: >- Halte fest, dass Vergeltung gegen jedes Mitglied, das ein Anliegen erhebt, an einem Rechenschaftsprozess teilnimmt oder Informationen dazu beisteuert, selbst ein Auslöser für eine Rechenschaftsprüfung ist. placeholders: - >- Vergeltung gegen ein Mitglied für die Teilnahme an irgendeinem Teil dieses Prozesses ist selbst ein Auslöser für eine Rechenschaftsprüfung. es: title: Protecciones contra Represalias whyItMatters: >- Si plantear una preocupación o dar información puede costarle a un miembro su posición, relaciones o acceso, la gente guardará silencio y el sistema de rendición de cuentas colapsará en la práctica. Nombrar las represalias como un desencadenante en sí mismo hace que el costo de la supresión sea mayor que el costo de denunciar. whatToDefine: >- Establece que las represalias contra cualquier miembro que plantee, participe en o proporcione información a un proceso de rendición de cuentas son en sí mismas un desencadenante de rendición de cuentas. placeholders: - >- Las represalias contra un miembro por participar en cualquier parte de este proceso son en sí mismas un desencadenante de rendición de cuentas. fr: title: Protections contre les représailles whyItMatters: >- Si le fait de soulever une préoccupation ou de fournir des informations peut coûter à un membre son statut, ses relations ou son accès, les gens garderont le silence et le système de responsabilisation s'effondrera dans la pratique. Qualifier les représailles elles-mêmes comme déclencheur rend le coût de la suppression plus élevé que le coût du signalement. whatToDefine: >- Indique que les représailles contre tout membre qui soulève, participe à, ou fournit des informations dans le cadre d'un processus de responsabilisation constituent elles-mêmes un déclencheur de responsabilisation. placeholders: - >- Les représailles contre un membre pour sa participation à toute partie de ce processus constituent elles-mêmes un déclencheur de responsabilisation. pt-br: title: Proteções Antirretaliação whyItMatters: >- Se levantar uma preocupação ou prestar informação pode custar a um membro posição, relacionamentos ou acesso, as pessoas vão se calar e o sistema de responsabilização desmorona na prática. Nomear a retaliação como, ela própria, um gatilho torna o custo da supressão maior do que o custo do relato. whatToDefine: >- Indique que a retaliação contra qualquer membro que levante, participe ou preste informação a um processo de responsabilização é, ela própria, um gatilho de responsabilização. placeholders: - >- A retaliação contra um membro por participar de qualquer parte deste processo é, ela própria, um gatilho de responsabilização. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 6.3.2 - key: accountability-protocol.sanction-and-repair-options artifact: accountability-protocol order: 4 clauseRefs: - 6.4.1 - 6.4.2 - 6.4.3 - 6.4.5 - 6.4.6 - 6.5.4 - 6.6.3 i18n: en: title: Sanction and Repair Options whyItMatters: >- 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. whatToDefine: >- For each sanction type, define preconditions, authorized body, and appeal path. Repair-oriented responses should be the default; punitive ones reserved for safety-critical or unresolved breaches. placeholders: - Private check-in / reminder - inactivity or minor breach - role - 'yes' - Written warning - unresolved obligation breach after check-in - role - 'yes' - Temporary access restriction - safety-critical situation; review window - role - 'yes' - Forced exit - serious or unresolved breach, or Full Member decision - Full Members - yes — re-vote question: >- What consequences can follow, how are they kept proportionate and open to appeal — and how does repair come before punishment? prompts: - >- 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? examples: - >- 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. de: title: Sanktions- und Wiedergutmachungsoptionen whyItMatters: >- Ad-hoc-Sanktionen, die mitten im Prozess erfunden werden, spiegeln wider, wer am lautesten im Raum ist, nicht was der Verstoß rechtfertigt. Ein fester Katalog — mit Voraussetzungen, befugtem Gremium und Widerspruchsweg für jede Sanktion — hält die Reaktionen verhältnismäßig, verhindert, dass informeller Ausschluss zur Standardstrafe wird, und macht deutlich, wenn eine Sanktion außerhalb des Zuständigkeitsbereichs des anwendenden Gremiums liegt. whatToDefine: >- Definiere für jeden Sanktionstyp die Voraussetzungen, das befugte Gremium und den Widerspruchsweg. Auf Wiedergutmachung ausgerichtete Maßnahmen sollten der Standard sein; strafende Maßnahmen sind sicherheitskritischen oder ungelösten Verstößen vorbehalten. placeholders: - Persönliches Nachfragen / Erinnerung - Inaktivität oder geringfügiger Verstoß - Rolle - ja - Schriftliche Verwarnung - Ungelöste Pflichtverletzung nach Nachfragen - Rolle - ja - Vorübergehende Zugangsbeschränkung - Sicherheitskritische Situation; Überprüfungsfenster - Rolle - ja - Erzwungener Austritt - Schwerer oder ungelöster Verstoß, oder Entscheidung der Vollmitglieder - Vollmitglieder - ja — erneute Abstimmung es: title: Opciones de Sanción y Reparación whyItMatters: >- Las sanciones ad hoc inventadas en medio del proceso reflejan a quien más fuerte habla en la sala, no lo que el incumplimiento amerita. Un menú fijo — con precondiciones, órgano autorizado y vía de apelación para cada una — mantiene las respuestas proporcionales, evita que la exclusión informal se convierta en el castigo predeterminado y hace evidente cuándo una sanción está fuera del alcance del órgano que la aplica. whatToDefine: >- Para cada tipo de sanción, define las precondiciones, el órgano autorizado y la vía de apelación. Las respuestas orientadas a la reparación deben ser la opción predeterminada; las punitivas se reservan para incumplimientos críticos para la seguridad o no resueltos. placeholders: - Verificación privada / recordatorio - inactividad o incumplimiento menor - rol - sí - Advertencia escrita - incumplimiento de obligación no resuelto tras verificación - rol - sí - Restricción temporal de acceso - situación crítica para la seguridad; plazo de revisión - rol - sí - Salida forzada - incumplimiento grave o no resuelto, o decisión de los Miembros Plenos - Miembros Plenos - sí — nueva votación fr: title: Options de sanction et de réparation whyItMatters: >- Des sanctions improvisées en cours de processus reflètent la voix la plus forte dans la salle, pas ce que le manquement justifie. Un catalogue fixe — avec des conditions préalables, l'organe habilité et la voie d'appel pour chaque sanction — maintient la proportionnalité des réponses, empêche l'exclusion informelle de devenir la punition par défaut, et rend évident quand une sanction dépasse le périmètre de l'organe qui l'applique. whatToDefine: >- Pour chaque type de sanction, définis les conditions préalables, l'organe habilité et la voie d'appel. Les réponses orientées vers la réparation doivent être la règle par défaut ; les réponses punitives sont réservées aux manquements critiques pour la sécurité ou non résolus. placeholders: - Vérification privée / rappel - inactivité ou manquement mineur - rôle - oui - Avertissement écrit - manquement à une obligation non résolu après vérification - rôle - oui - Restriction d'accès temporaire - situation critique pour la sécurité ; fenêtre d'examen - rôle - oui - Exclusion forcée - manquement grave ou non résolu, ou décision des Membres titulaires - Membres titulaires - oui — nouveau vote pt-br: title: Opções de Sanção e Reparação whyItMatters: >- Sanções inventadas no meio do processo refletem quem fala mais alto na sala, não o que o descumprimento merece. Um menu fixo — com pré-condições, órgão autorizado e caminho de recurso para cada uma — mantém as respostas proporcionais, evita que a exclusão informal vire a punição padrão e torna óbvio quando uma sanção está fora do escopo do órgão que a aplica. whatToDefine: >- Para cada tipo de sanção, defina as pré-condições, o órgão autorizado e o caminho de recurso. Respostas orientadas à reparação devem ser o padrão; as punitivas reservadas para descumprimentos críticos à segurança ou não resolvidos. placeholders: - Verificação privada / lembrete - inatividade ou descumprimento menor - papel - sim - Advertência escrita - descumprimento de obrigação não resolvido após verificação - papel - sim - Restrição temporária de acesso - situação crítica à segurança; janela de revisão - papel - sim - Saída forçada - descumprimento sério ou não resolvido, ou decisão dos Membros Plenos - Membros Plenos - sim — nova votação disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 6.4.1 - 6.4.2 - 6.4.3 - 6.4.5 - 6.4.6 - 6.6.3 - key: accountability-protocol.conditions-for-restoring-rights artifact: accountability-protocol order: 5 clauseRefs: - 6.4.4 i18n: en: title: Conditions for Restoring Rights whyItMatters: >- 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. whatToDefine: >- For each sanction class, state the path to restoration of rights — re-application after voluntary exit, re-application block after forced exit, restoration after temporary restriction. placeholders: - re-application via Onboarding Protocol; no automatic restoration. - minimum re-application block; standard admission process applies. - rights restored upon confirmation of resolution within review window. question: How does someone get their standing back once a sanction has run its course? prompts: - >- 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? examples: - >- 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. de: title: Bedingungen für die Wiederherstellung von Rechten whyItMatters: >- Wenn es keinen definierten Weg zurück gibt, wird jede Sanktion faktisch dauerhaft und jeder Austritt zu einer lebenslangen Strafe. Explizite Bedingungen für die Wiederherstellung signalisieren, dass Rechenschaft auf Wiedergutmachung abzielt, wo Wiedergutmachung möglich ist, und sie verhindern nachträgliches Gatekeeping darüber, ob jemand „wirklich" willkommen zurück ist. whatToDefine: >- Lege für jede Sanktionsklasse den Weg zur Wiederherstellung der Rechte fest — erneute Bewerbung nach freiwilligem Austritt, Sperrfrist für erneute Bewerbung nach erzwungenem Austritt, Wiederherstellung nach vorübergehender Einschränkung. placeholders: - Erneute Bewerbung über das Onboarding-Protokoll; keine automatische Wiederherstellung. - Mindest-Sperrfrist für erneute Bewerbung; das reguläre Aufnahmeverfahren gilt. - >- Rechte werden nach Bestätigung der Lösung innerhalb des Überprüfungsfensters wiederhergestellt. es: title: Condiciones para la Restitución de Derechos whyItMatters: >- Si no hay un camino definido de regreso, toda sanción se vuelve efectivamente permanente y toda salida se convierte en una sentencia de por vida. Las condiciones de restitución explícitas señalan que la rendición de cuentas busca la reparación donde la reparación es posible, y evitan el control de acceso posterior sobre si alguien es "realmente" bienvenido de vuelta. whatToDefine: >- Para cada clase de sanción, establece el camino hacia la restitución de derechos — re-solicitud tras salida voluntaria, bloqueo de re-solicitud tras salida forzada, restitución tras restricción temporal. placeholders: - re-solicitud a través del Protocolo de Incorporación; sin restitución automática. - bloqueo mínimo de re-solicitud; se aplica el proceso estándar de admisión. - >- los derechos se restituyen tras la confirmación de resolución dentro del plazo de revisión. fr: title: Conditions de rétablissement des droits whyItMatters: >- S'il n'existe pas de chemin de retour défini, chaque sanction devient effectivement permanente et chaque sortie devient une condamnation à vie. Des conditions de rétablissement explicites signalent que la responsabilisation vise la réparation là où la réparation est possible, et elles empêchent un filtrage a posteriori pour décider si quelqu'un est « vraiment » le bienvenu de retour. whatToDefine: >- Pour chaque catégorie de sanction, indique le chemin vers le rétablissement des droits — nouvelle candidature après un départ volontaire, période de blocage de candidature après une exclusion forcée, rétablissement après une restriction temporaire. placeholders: - nouvelle candidature via le Protocole d'intégration ; pas de rétablissement automatique. - période minimale de blocage de candidature ; le processus d'admission standard s'applique. - droits rétablis après confirmation de la résolution dans la fenêtre d'examen. pt-br: title: Condições para Restauração de Direitos whyItMatters: >- Se não há um caminho de volta definido, toda sanção se torna efetivamente permanente e toda saída se torna uma sentença vitalícia. Condições explícitas de restauração sinalizam que a responsabilização é sobre reparação onde a reparação é possível, e impedem o controle de acesso ad hoc sobre se alguém é "realmente" bem-vindo de volta. whatToDefine: >- Para cada classe de sanção, indique o caminho para a restauração de direitos — nova candidatura após saída voluntária, bloqueio de nova candidatura após saída forçada, restauração após restrição temporária. placeholders: - nova candidatura via Protocolo de Integração; sem restauração automática. - bloqueio mínimo de nova candidatura; aplica-se o processo padrão de admissão. - direitos restaurados mediante confirmação de resolução dentro da janela de revisão. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: accountability-protocol.coordination-with-layer-1 artifact: accountability-protocol order: 6 clauseRefs: - 6.4.4 i18n: en: title: Coordination with Layer 1 whyItMatters: >- 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. whatToDefine: >- State that all forced exits and temporary access restrictions follow the Exit & Separation Protocol (Layer 1), and clarify that a temporary restriction does not constitute exit. placeholders: - >- All forced exits and temporary access restrictions follow the Exit & Separation Protocol (Layer 1). A temporary access restriction does not constitute exit and does not trigger the re-application block unless a forced exit is subsequently voted by Full Members. question: >- When accountability leads to someone being suspended or removed, how do we make sure due process came first and the exit protocol's rules apply? prompts: - >- 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.) examples: - >- 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. de: title: Abstimmung mit Schicht 1 whyItMatters: >- Austrittsregeln sind aus gutem Grund in Schicht 1 angesiedelt — sie regeln, wer Mitglied ist und wer nicht. Wenn Rechenschaftsmaßnahmen ihren eigenen parallelen Austrittsweg schaffen würden, gäbe es zwei Regelwerke, zwei Sätze von Aufzeichnungen und ein Schlupfloch, um das faire Verfahren zu umgehen. Ein einziges kanonisches Austrittsprotokoll schließt diese Lücke. whatToDefine: >- Halte fest, dass alle erzwungenen Austritte und vorübergehenden Zugangsbeschränkungen dem Austritts- und Trennungsprotokoll (Schicht 1) folgen, und stelle klar, dass eine vorübergehende Einschränkung keinen Austritt darstellt. placeholders: - >- Alle erzwungenen Austritte und vorübergehenden Zugangsbeschränkungen folgen dem Austritts- und Trennungsprotokoll (Schicht 1). Eine vorübergehende Zugangsbeschränkung stellt keinen Austritt dar und löst keine Sperrfrist für eine erneute Bewerbung aus, es sei denn, ein erzwungener Austritt wird anschließend von den Vollmitgliedern beschlossen. es: title: Coordinación con la Capa 1 whyItMatters: >- Las reglas de salida están en la Capa 1 por una razón — gobiernan quién es y quién no es miembro. Si las acciones de rendición de cuentas crearan su propia vía de salida paralela, habría dos conjuntos de reglas, dos conjuntos de registros y una laguna para eludir el debido proceso. Un único protocolo de salida canónico cierra esa brecha. whatToDefine: >- Establece que todas las salidas forzadas y restricciones temporales de acceso siguen el Protocolo de Salida y Separación (Capa 1), y aclara que una restricción temporal no constituye una salida. placeholders: - >- Todas las salidas forzadas y restricciones temporales de acceso siguen el Protocolo de Salida y Separación (Capa 1). Una restricción temporal de acceso no constituye una salida y no activa el bloqueo de re-solicitud a menos que los Miembros Plenos voten posteriormente una salida forzada. fr: title: Coordination avec la Couche 1 whyItMatters: >- Les règles de sortie se trouvent dans la Couche 1 pour une bonne raison — elles régissent qui est et qui n'est pas membre. Si les actions de responsabilisation créaient leur propre chemin de sortie parallèle, il y aurait deux ensembles de règles, deux ensembles de registres, et une faille pour contourner la procédure régulière. Un seul protocole de sortie canonique comble cette lacune. whatToDefine: >- Indique que toutes les exclusions forcées et restrictions d'accès temporaires suivent le Protocole de sortie et de séparation (Couche 1), et précise qu'une restriction temporaire ne constitue pas une sortie. placeholders: - >- Toutes les exclusions forcées et restrictions d'accès temporaires suivent le Protocole de sortie et de séparation (Couche 1). Une restriction d'accès temporaire ne constitue pas une sortie et ne déclenche pas la période de blocage de candidature, sauf si une exclusion forcée est ensuite votée par les Membres titulaires. pt-br: title: Coordenação com a Camada 1 whyItMatters: >- As regras de saída vivem na Camada 1 por um motivo — elas governam quem é e quem não é membro. Se ações de responsabilização criassem seu próprio caminho paralelo de saída, haveria dois conjuntos de regras, dois conjuntos de registros e uma brecha para pular o devido processo. Um único protocolo canônico de saída fecha essa brecha. whatToDefine: >- Indique que todas as saídas forçadas e restrições temporárias de acesso seguem o Protocolo de Saída e Separação (Camada 1), e esclareça que uma restrição temporária não constitui saída. placeholders: - >- Todas as saídas forçadas e restrições temporárias de acesso seguem o Protocolo de Saída e Separação (Camada 1). Uma restrição temporária de acesso não constitui saída e não aciona o bloqueio de nova candidatura, a menos que uma saída forçada seja subsequentemente votada pelos Membros Plenos. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 6.4.4 - key: accountability-protocol.ratification-record artifact: accountability-protocol order: 7 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Ratification Record whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] de: title: Ratifizierungsprotokoll whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: Registro de Ratificación whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: Registre de ratification whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Registro de Ratificação whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: filled_from_decision dispositionNote: >- Written from the decision that adopted this artifact: reference, date, mechanism, tally and attendance as recorded at freeze time. ownsClauses: [] - key: conflict-resolution-ladder.conflict-classification artifact: conflict-resolution-ladder order: 0 clauseRefs: - 6.1.1 - 6.1.2 - 6.1.3 - 6.1.4 - 6.1.5 - 6.5.3 - 6.6.4 - 6.7.1 i18n: en: title: Conflict Classification whyItMatters: >- Without named classes, every dispute gets treated the same — or worse, treated differently based on who is involved. Explicit classes set the entry point, the response window, and the documentation burden up front, so safety-critical matters cannot be quietly routed through a friendly chat and minor friction cannot be weaponized into a formal review. whatToDefine: >- For each class, set entry criteria, the entry step in the ladder, the initial response window, and the documentation burden. placeholders: - Interpersonal - member-to-member friction - Step 1 - window - from which step - Role-based - role-performance dispute - ... - ... - ... - Structural - governance-process dispute - ... - ... - ... - Ethical / obligation breach - ... - ... - ... - ... - Safety-critical - credible safety risk, coercion, abuse, or threats - bypasses earlier steps - short window - from intake; immediate action permitted question: >- What kinds of conflict do we have names for, so nobody invents one mid-argument — and which are safety-critical? prompts: - >- Which kinds of conflict do we name — at least interpersonal, role-based, structural and ethical? - Which situations are safety-critical, and what changes for them? - >- For each kind: how do we recognise it, how quickly must we respond, and which path does it take? - 'For each kind: what gets written down? (Who may read it is its own question.)' - What happens when a conflict is put in the wrong kind, or nobody classifies it? examples: - >- We name five kinds of conflict: between people, about a role, about our rules or structures, about a breach of our agreements, and safety-critical. A conflict is safety-critical whenever someone credibly fears for their safety or is being coerced; it skips the early steps and our safety measures apply at once. Everyday conflicts get a reply within 14 days and start with a private conversation; the others start with the conflict coordinator, who records the kind and the reason. A conflict nobody has classified within a week is reviewed as a process failure. de: title: Konfliktklassifizierung whyItMatters: >- Ohne benannte Klassen wird jeder Streit gleich behandelt — oder schlimmer noch, je nach beteiligter Person unterschiedlich. Explizite Klassen legen den Einstiegspunkt, das Reaktionsfenster und den Dokumentationsaufwand von vornherein fest, sodass sicherheitskritische Angelegenheiten nicht stillschweigend über ein freundliches Gespräch abgehandelt und geringfügige Reibungen nicht zu einer formellen Überprüfung aufgebauscht werden können. whatToDefine: >- Lege für jede Klasse die Eintrittskriterien, die Einstiegsstufe in der Leiter, das anfängliche Reaktionsfenster und den Dokumentationsaufwand fest. placeholders: - Zwischenmenschlich - Reibung zwischen Mitgliedern - Stufe 1 - Fenster - ab welcher Stufe - Rollenbasiert - Streit über Rollenausübung - ... - ... - ... - Strukturell - Streit über Governance-Prozesse - ... - ... - ... - Ethischer / Pflichtverstoss - ... - ... - ... - ... - Sicherheitskritisch - glaubhaftes Sicherheitsrisiko, Nötigung, Missbrauch oder Drohungen - überspringt frühere Stufen - kurzes Fenster - ab Eingang; sofortiges Handeln erlaubt es: title: Clasificación de Conflictos whyItMatters: >- Sin clases definidas, toda disputa recibe el mismo tratamiento — o peor, un tratamiento diferente según quién esté involucrado. Las clases explícitas establecen desde el inicio el punto de entrada, la ventana de respuesta y la carga de documentación, de modo que los asuntos críticos para la seguridad no puedan canalizarse discretamente a través de una conversación amistosa y las fricciones menores no puedan convertirse en arma mediante una revisión formal. whatToDefine: >- Para cada clase, define los criterios de entrada, el paso de entrada en la escalera, la ventana de respuesta inicial y la carga de documentación. placeholders: - Interpersonal - fricción entre miembros - Paso 1 - ventana - desde qué paso - Basado en roles - disputa sobre desempeño del rol - ... - ... - ... - Estructural - disputa sobre procesos de gobernanza - ... - ... - ... - Ético / incumplimiento de obligaciones - ... - ... - ... - ... - Crítico para la seguridad - riesgo de seguridad creíble, coerción, abuso o amenazas - omite pasos anteriores - ventana corta - desde la admisión; acción inmediata permitida fr: title: Classification des conflits whyItMatters: >- Sans classes nommées, chaque différend est traité de la même manière — ou pire, traité différemment selon les personnes impliquées. Des classes explicites définissent le point d'entrée, le délai de réponse et la charge de documentation dès le départ, de sorte que les situations critiques pour la sécurité ne puissent pas être discrètement redirigées vers une conversation informelle et que des frictions mineures ne puissent pas être instrumentalisées en examen formel. whatToDefine: >- Pour chaque classe, définis les critères d'entrée, l'étape d'entrée dans l'échelle, le délai de réponse initial et la charge de documentation. placeholders: - Interpersonnel - friction entre membres - Étape 1 - délai - à partir de quelle étape - Lié au rôle - différend sur l'exercice d'un rôle - ... - ... - ... - Structurel - différend sur un processus de gouvernance - ... - ... - ... - Éthique / manquement à une obligation - ... - ... - ... - ... - Critique pour la sécurité - risque crédible pour la sécurité, coercition, abus ou menaces - contourne les étapes précédentes - délai court - dès la prise en charge ; action immédiate autorisée pt-br: title: Classificação de Conflitos whyItMatters: >- Sem classes nomeadas, toda disputa acaba tratada da mesma forma — ou, pior, tratada de forma diferente dependendo de quem está envolvido. Classes explícitas definem o ponto de entrada, o prazo de resposta e o ônus de documentação desde o início, de modo que questões críticas de segurança não possam ser silenciosamente encaminhadas por meio de uma conversa amigável e atritos menores não possam ser instrumentalizados em uma revisão formal. whatToDefine: >- Para cada classe, defina os critérios de entrada, o passo inicial na escada, o prazo de resposta inicial e o ônus de documentação. placeholders: - Interpessoal - atrito entre membros - Passo 1 - prazo - a partir de qual passo - Baseado em papéis - disputa sobre desempenho de papel - ... - ... - ... - Estrutural - disputa sobre processo de governança - ... - ... - ... - Ética / violação de obrigação - ... - ... - ... - ... - Crítico de segurança - risco de segurança crível, coerção, abuso ou ameaças - contorna passos anteriores - prazo curto - desde a abertura; ação imediata permitida disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 6.1.1 - 6.1.2 - 6.1.3 - 6.1.4 - 6.1.5 - 6.5.3 - 6.6.4 - 6.7.1 - key: conflict-resolution-ladder.resolution-ladder-steps artifact: conflict-resolution-ladder order: 1 clauseRefs: - 6.2.1 - 6.2.2 - 6.2.3 - 6.2.4 - 6.2.5 - 6.5.3 - 6.6.1 i18n: en: title: Resolution Ladder Steps whyItMatters: >- Most conflict is low-stakes and best resolved between the people involved; forcing everything into formal review would kill trust and flood the governance system. A ladder matches process weight to dispute weight — private conversation first, facilitated dialogue next, written record only when needed, governance vote only when all else fails. It also makes escalation a structural right, not a favour granted by whoever holds social power. whatToDefine: >- Define each ladder step: who is involved, what happens, the time window, and the escalation rule. Keep the early steps light and confidential; reserve formal review for later steps. placeholders: - parties attempt to resolve privately; window; outcome rules. - facilitator hosts conversation; confidentiality; window; outcome rules. - formal written record opened; submissions; window; outcome rules. - structured review; both parties present; written recommendation; window; outcome rules. - >- minimum-necessary disclosure to Full Members; deliberation period; vote mechanism and threshold. - coordinated with the Exit & Separation Protocol; minimum re-application block. question: What are the steps from a quiet word to a formal process, and in what order? prompts: - >- For each step, from a private conversation to a governance decision: who is involved, what happens, and how long does it take? - >- How is a conflict raised, written down and acknowledged — and how are the other people involved told and invited to take part? - >- When does a conflict move up to the next step, and can either side ask for that themselves? - >- When nothing else resolves it, how does it reach a decision through our Decision Matrix — with no shortcut around it? - >- How do we make sure anyone can use the ladder, whatever their standing, seniority or friendships? - >- What do we do when a conflict is being ignored or quietly buried? (Non-response and deadlock, choosing a facilitator, and who may read the records are their own questions.) examples: - >- Step 1: the people involved talk privately within two weeks. Step 2: either may ask for a facilitator, who hosts a conversation within three weeks. Step 3: either may open a written case with the Conflict Coordinator, who logs and acknowledges it within 7 days and invites the other side. Step 4: a panel of three members hears both sides and recommends within 30 days. Step 5: the Full Members decide under the Decision Matrix. Any member may start or move up the ladder; leaving a known conflict unaddressed is a breach. de: title: Stufen der Lösungsleiter whyItMatters: >- Die meisten Konflikte sind niedrigschwellig und lassen sich am besten zwischen den Beteiligten lösen; alles in eine formelle Überprüfung zu zwingen würde Vertrauen zerstören und das Governance-System überfluten. Eine Leiter passt den Prozessaufwand an das Streitgewicht an — zuerst ein privates Gespräch, dann ein moderierter Dialog, eine schriftliche Dokumentation nur bei Bedarf, eine Governance-Abstimmung nur wenn alles andere scheitert. Ausserdem wird die Eskalation zu einem strukturellen Recht, statt einem Gefallen, der von der Person mit der meisten sozialen Macht gewährt wird. whatToDefine: >- Definiere jede Leiterstufe: wer beteiligt ist, was passiert, das Zeitfenster und die Eskalationsregel. Halte die frühen Stufen leicht und vertraulich; reserviere die formelle Überprüfung für spätere Stufen. placeholders: - Parteien versuchen, die Sache privat zu klären; Zeitfenster; Ergebnisregeln. - Moderator*in leitet das Gespräch; Vertraulichkeit; Zeitfenster; Ergebnisregeln. - formelle schriftliche Dokumentation wird eröffnet; Eingaben; Zeitfenster; Ergebnisregeln. - >- strukturierte Überprüfung; beide Parteien anwesend; schriftliche Empfehlung; Zeitfenster; Ergebnisregeln. - >- minimalnotwendige Offenlegung gegenüber Vollmitgliedern; Beratungsfrist; Abstimmungsverfahren und Schwellenwert. - >- koordiniert mit dem Austritts- & Trennungsprotokoll; Mindest-Sperrfrist für erneute Bewerbung. es: title: Pasos de la Escalera de Resolución whyItMatters: >- La mayoría de los conflictos son de bajo impacto y se resuelven mejor entre las personas involucradas; forzar todo hacia una revisión formal destruiría la confianza e inundaría el sistema de gobernanza. Una escalera ajusta el peso del proceso al peso de la disputa — primero conversación privada, luego diálogo facilitado, registro escrito solo cuando sea necesario, votación de gobernanza solo cuando todo lo demás falla. También convierte la escalada en un derecho estructural, no en un favor concedido por quien detenta el poder social. whatToDefine: >- Define cada paso de la escalera: quién participa, qué sucede, la ventana temporal y la regla de escalada. Mantén los primeros pasos ligeros y confidenciales; reserva la revisión formal para pasos posteriores. placeholders: - las partes intentan resolver en privado; ventana; reglas de resultado. - un facilitador conduce la conversación; confidencialidad; ventana; reglas de resultado. - se abre un registro escrito formal; presentaciones; ventana; reglas de resultado. - >- revisión estructurada; ambas partes presentes; recomendación escrita; ventana; reglas de resultado. - >- divulgación mínima necesaria a los Miembros Plenos; período de deliberación; mecanismo de votación y umbral. - >- coordinado con el Protocolo de Salida y Separación; período mínimo de bloqueo para re-solicitud. fr: title: Étapes de l'échelle de résolution whyItMatters: >- La plupart des conflits sont à faible enjeu et se résolvent mieux entre les personnes concernées ; tout forcer dans un examen formel tuerait la confiance et submergerait le système de gouvernance. Une échelle adapte le poids du processus au poids du différend — conversation privée d'abord, dialogue facilité ensuite, trace écrite seulement quand c'est nécessaire, vote de gouvernance uniquement quand tout le reste a échoué. Cela fait aussi de l'escalade un droit structurel, et non une faveur accordée par la personne qui détient le pouvoir social. whatToDefine: >- Définis chaque étape de l'échelle : qui est impliqué, ce qui se passe, le délai et la règle d'escalade. Garde les premières étapes légères et confidentielles ; réserve l'examen formel aux étapes ultérieures. placeholders: - les parties tentent de résoudre en privé ; délai ; règles de résultat. - >- un·e facilitateur·rice anime la conversation ; confidentialité ; délai ; règles de résultat. - ouverture d'un dossier écrit formel ; soumissions ; délai ; règles de résultat. - >- examen structuré ; les deux parties présentes ; recommandation écrite ; délai ; règles de résultat. - >- divulgation minimale nécessaire aux Membres Titulaires ; période de délibération ; mécanisme de vote et seuil. - >- coordonné avec le Protocole de sortie et de séparation ; période minimale avant une nouvelle candidature. pt-br: title: Passos da Escada de Resolução whyItMatters: >- A maior parte dos conflitos é de baixo impacto e é melhor resolvida entre as pessoas envolvidas; forçar tudo para uma revisão formal destruiria a confiança e sobrecarregaria o sistema de governança. Uma escada ajusta o peso do processo ao peso da disputa — conversa privada primeiro, diálogo facilitado em seguida, registro escrito apenas quando necessário, votação de governança somente quando tudo mais falhar. Isso também torna a escalada um direito estrutural, e não um favor concedido por quem detém poder social. whatToDefine: >- Defina cada passo da escada: quem está envolvido, o que acontece, o prazo e a regra de escalada. Mantenha os primeiros passos leves e confidenciais; reserve a revisão formal para passos posteriores. placeholders: - as partes tentam resolver em privado; prazo; regras de resultado. - facilitador conduz a conversa; confidencialidade; prazo; regras de resultado. - registro formal escrito aberto; submissões; prazo; regras de resultado. - >- revisão estruturada; ambas as partes presentes; recomendação escrita; prazo; regras de resultado. - >- divulgação mínima necessária aos Membros Plenos; período de deliberação; mecanismo de votação e limiar. - coordenado com o Protocolo de Saída e Separação; bloqueio mínimo para reaplicação. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 6.2.1 - 6.2.2 - 6.2.3 - 6.2.4 - 6.2.5 - 6.6.1 - key: conflict-resolution-ladder.non-response-withdrawal-and-deadlock artifact: conflict-resolution-ladder order: 2 clauseRefs: - 6.2.5 - 6.1.5 i18n: en: title: Non-Response, Withdrawal, and Deadlock whyItMatters: >- The easiest way to defeat any accountability process is to ignore it. If non-response, withdrawal, or deadlock leaves the matter frozen, the party on the receiving end of harm carries the cost of the inaction. Explicit rules for each failure mode convert silence into a documented escalation trigger rather than a veto. whatToDefine: >- Define how non-response, mid-process withdrawal, deadlock, and procedural failure are handled. Each should have a documented escalation path. placeholders: - >- Follow-up notice; additional grace period; treatment of continued silence as non-resolution; escalation rule. - >- Notification of withdrawal; option for the other party to close or request a written summary; escalation rule for outstanding accountability matters. - Documentation of the deadlock; escalation to governance decision. - >- How procedural objections are raised; where they are logged; trigger for review of this artifact under the Change Protocol. question: What happens when somebody will not take part, walks out, or we simply get stuck? prompts: - >- If someone does not respond: how many reminders do they get, over how long, before silence counts as non-resolution — and what happens next? - >- If someone withdraws partway through: how is the other side told, and may they close the matter or ask for a written summary? - When someone withdraws, what happens to any accountability matter that is still open? - When we are stuck, how is the deadlock written down and taken to a governance decision? - >- How does someone object that the process itself went wrong, where is that logged, and when does it lead to a review of this ladder? examples: - >- If someone does not reply within 14 days, the facilitator sends a second notice with 14 more days; continued silence counts as non-resolution and the case moves up a step. If someone withdraws, the other party is told within 7 days and may close the matter or ask for a written summary; any open accountability matter continues. A written-up deadlock goes to the Full Members. Objections to the process go in the conflict log, and three in one year start a review of this ladder. de: title: Nichtreaktion, Rückzug und Pattsituation whyItMatters: >- Der einfachste Weg, jeden Rechenschaftsprozess auszuhebeln, ist ihn zu ignorieren. Wenn Nichtreaktion, Rückzug oder Pattsituation die Angelegenheit einfriert, trägt die geschädigte Partei die Kosten der Untätigkeit. Explizite Regeln für jeden Ausfallmodus verwandeln Schweigen in einen dokumentierten Eskalationsauslöser statt in ein Veto. whatToDefine: >- Definiere, wie Nichtreaktion, Rückzug während des Prozesses, Pattsituationen und Verfahrensfehler behandelt werden. Jeder Fall sollte einen dokumentierten Eskalationspfad haben. placeholders: - >- Folgebenachrichtigung; zusätzliche Nachfrist; Behandlung anhaltenden Schweigens als Nichtlösung; Eskalationsregel. - >- Mitteilung über den Rückzug; Option für die andere Partei, den Fall abzuschliessen oder eine schriftliche Zusammenfassung anzufordern; Eskalationsregel für offene Rechenschaftsfragen. - Dokumentation der Pattsituation; Eskalation zur Governance-Entscheidung. - >- Wie Verfahrenseinwände erhoben werden; wo sie protokolliert werden; Auslöser für eine Überprüfung dieses Artefakts gemäss dem Änderungsprotokoll. es: title: Falta de Respuesta, Retiro y Punto Muerto whyItMatters: >- La forma más fácil de derrotar cualquier proceso de rendición de cuentas es ignorarlo. Si la falta de respuesta, el retiro o el punto muerto dejan el asunto congelado, la parte que recibe el daño carga con el costo de la inacción. Reglas explícitas para cada modo de fallo convierten el silencio en un detonante de escalada documentado en lugar de un veto. whatToDefine: >- Define cómo se manejan la falta de respuesta, el retiro a mitad del proceso, el punto muerto y el fallo procedimental. Cada uno DEBE tener una ruta de escalada documentada. placeholders: - >- Aviso de seguimiento; período de gracia adicional; tratamiento del silencio continuado como no resolución; regla de escalada. - >- Notificación de retiro; opción para la otra parte de cerrar o solicitar un resumen escrito; regla de escalada para asuntos pendientes de rendición de cuentas. - Documentación del punto muerto; escalada a decisión de gobernanza. - >- Cómo se plantean las objeciones procedimentales; dónde se registran; detonante para revisión de este artefacto bajo el Protocolo de Cambios. fr: title: Non-réponse, retrait et impasse whyItMatters: >- Le moyen le plus simple de faire échouer tout processus de responsabilité est de l'ignorer. Si la non-réponse, le retrait ou l'impasse laissent l'affaire gelée, la partie qui subit le préjudice porte le coût de l'inaction. Des règles explicites pour chaque mode de défaillance transforment le silence en déclencheur d'escalade documenté plutôt qu'en veto. whatToDefine: >- Définis comment la non-réponse, le retrait en cours de processus, l'impasse et la défaillance procédurale sont gérés. Chacun doit avoir un chemin d'escalade documenté. placeholders: - >- Relance ; délai de grâce supplémentaire ; traitement du silence prolongé comme non-résolution ; règle d'escalade. - >- Notification du retrait ; possibilité pour l'autre partie de clore ou de demander un résumé écrit ; règle d'escalade pour les questions de responsabilité en suspens. - Documentation de l'impasse ; escalade vers une décision de gouvernance. - >- Comment les objections procédurales sont soulevées ; où elles sont consignées ; déclencheur pour la révision de cet artefact dans le cadre du Protocole de modification. pt-br: title: Não-Resposta, Retirada e Impasse whyItMatters: >- A maneira mais fácil de derrotar qualquer processo de responsabilização é ignorá-lo. Se a não-resposta, a retirada ou o impasse deixam o assunto congelado, é a parte que sofre o dano que arca com o custo da inação. Regras explícitas para cada modo de falha convertem o silêncio em um gatilho documentado de escalada, em vez de um veto. whatToDefine: >- Defina como a não-resposta, a retirada no meio do processo, o impasse e a falha procedimental são tratados. Cada um deve ter um caminho de escalada documentado. placeholders: - >- Aviso de acompanhamento; período de tolerância adicional; tratamento do silêncio continuado como não-resolução; regra de escalada. - >- Notificação da retirada; opção para a outra parte encerrar ou solicitar um resumo escrito; regra de escalada para questões de responsabilização pendentes. - Documentação do impasse; escalada para decisão de governança. - >- Como objeções procedimentais são levantadas; onde são registradas; gatilho para revisão deste artefato sob o Protocolo de Mudança. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: conflict-resolution-ladder.facilitator-selection-and-replacement artifact: conflict-resolution-ladder order: 3 clauseRefs: - 6.3.1 - 6.3.3 i18n: en: title: Facilitator Selection and Replacement whyItMatters: >- A facilitator who is implicated in the conflict — or socially aligned with one party — cannot hold the process fairly, no matter how good their intentions. Naming selection and replacement rules up front means the affected party does not have to fight for a neutral hearing while already under stress. whatToDefine: >- State the default facilitator role, the rule when the facilitator is a party, the right to decline, and any provision for external facilitation. placeholders: - Default facilitator role per the Role Registry. - Rule when the facilitator is a party — selection of a neutral substitute. - Right of either party to decline a facilitator with stated conflict of interest. - Optional external facilitation by mutual agreement. question: Who facilitates a conflict, and how does either side get them replaced? prompts: - Who facilitates by default — which role in our Role Registry? - >- When the facilitator is involved in the conflict, or close to one side, who chooses a neutral substitute and how? - How can either side decline a facilitator, and what reason do they have to give? - When may we bring in someone from outside, who has to agree, and who pays? examples: - >- The Conflict Steward named in the Role Registry facilitates by default. If they are a party, or share a household with one, each party names one member and those two choose a neutral facilitator together. Either party may decline a facilitator by stating a conflict of interest, and a replacement is found within 10 days. If both parties agree, we invite an external mediator, paid from the shared fund. de: title: Auswahl und Ersetzung der Moderation whyItMatters: >- Eine moderierende Person, die selbst in den Konflikt verwickelt ist — oder sozial einer Partei nahesteht — kann den Prozess nicht fair führen, egal wie gut ihre Absichten sind. Auswahl- und Ersetzungsregeln vorab festzulegen bedeutet, dass die betroffene Partei nicht um ein neutrales Verfahren kämpfen muss, während sie ohnehin unter Stress steht. whatToDefine: >- Lege die standardmässige Moderationsrolle fest, die Regel für den Fall, dass die moderierende Person selbst Partei ist, das Ablehnungsrecht und eine optionale externe Moderation. placeholders: - Standard-Moderationsrolle gemäss dem Rollenverzeichnis. - >- Regel für den Fall, dass die moderierende Person selbst Partei ist — Auswahl einer neutralen Vertretung. - >- Recht jeder Partei, eine moderierende Person bei festgestelltem Interessenkonflikt abzulehnen. - Optionale externe Moderation in gegenseitigem Einvernehmen. es: title: Selección y Sustitución del Facilitador whyItMatters: >- Un facilitador que está implicado en el conflicto — o socialmente alineado con una parte — no puede conducir el proceso de manera justa, sin importar cuán buenas sean sus intenciones. Definir las reglas de selección y sustitución de antemano significa que la parte afectada no tiene que luchar por una audiencia neutral mientras ya está bajo estrés. whatToDefine: >- Indica el rol de facilitador por defecto, la regla cuando el facilitador es parte del conflicto, el derecho a declinar y cualquier disposición para facilitación externa. placeholders: - Rol de facilitador por defecto según el Registro de Roles. - Regla cuando el facilitador es parte — selección de un sustituto neutral. - >- Derecho de cualquiera de las partes a declinar a un facilitador con conflicto de interés declarado. - Facilitación externa opcional por acuerdo mutuo. fr: title: Sélection et remplacement du facilitateur ou de la facilitatrice whyItMatters: >- Un·e facilitateur·rice impliqué·e dans le conflit — ou socialement aligné·e avec l'une des parties — ne peut pas conduire le processus équitablement, quelles que soient ses intentions. Nommer les règles de sélection et de remplacement dès le départ signifie que la partie concernée n'a pas à se battre pour obtenir une audience neutre alors qu'elle est déjà sous pression. whatToDefine: >- Indique le rôle de facilitateur·rice par défaut, la règle lorsque le facilitateur ou la facilitatrice est partie au conflit, le droit de récusation et toute disposition pour une facilitation externe. placeholders: - Rôle de facilitateur·rice par défaut selon le Registre des rôles. - >- Règle lorsque le facilitateur ou la facilitatrice est partie au conflit — sélection d'un·e remplaçant·e neutre. - >- Droit de chaque partie de récuser un·e facilitateur·rice en cas de conflit d'intérêts déclaré. - Facilitation externe optionnelle par accord mutuel. pt-br: title: Seleção e Substituição de Facilitador whyItMatters: >- Um facilitador implicado no conflito — ou socialmente alinhado a uma das partes — não consegue conduzir o processo de forma justa, por melhores que sejam suas intenções. Definir regras de seleção e substituição com antecedência significa que a parte afetada não precisa lutar por uma escuta neutra enquanto já está sob estresse. whatToDefine: >- Indique o papel padrão do facilitador, a regra quando o facilitador é uma das partes, o direito de recusa e qualquer previsão de facilitação externa. placeholders: - Papel padrão do facilitador conforme o Registro de Papéis. - Regra quando o facilitador é uma das partes — seleção de um substituto neutro. - >- Direito de qualquer das partes de recusar um facilitador com conflito de interesse declarado. - Facilitação externa opcional mediante acordo mútuo. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: conflict-resolution-ladder.privacy-and-information-access-boundaries artifact: conflict-resolution-ladder order: 4 clauseRefs: - 6.5.3 i18n: en: title: Privacy and Information Access Boundaries whyItMatters: >- Conflict records contain the most sensitive material the community holds. Leaks, gossip, or casual disclosure cause second-order harm and deter future reporting. Explicit boundaries — what stays with the parties, what reaches Full Members, and when records are destroyed — make confidentiality enforceable rather than aspirational. whatToDefine: >- State which steps are fully confidential, what minimum information may be disclosed at the governance step, the retention period, and the non-disclosure obligation. placeholders: - 'Steps 1–4: fully confidential; only parties and Facilitator may access records.' - >- Steps 5–6: minimum necessary information disclosed to Full Members; parties notified before disclosure. Define what "minimum necessary" means. - 'Record retention: who holds records, for how long, then destroyed.' - >- Non-disclosure: no participant may share information about the process outside the defined participants without written consent of all parties. question: Who is allowed to know what about a conflict, while it runs and afterwards? prompts: - Which steps are fully confidential, and who may see the records during them? - >- When a conflict reaches a governance decision, what is the least the Full Members need to know — and are the people involved told before anything is shared? - Who holds the records, for how long, and how are they destroyed? - What may participants tell people outside the process, and whose consent changes that? examples: - >- Steps 1 to 4 are fully confidential: only the parties and the facilitator may see the notes. If a case reaches the Full Members, they receive only what they need to decide — what the conflict is about, which steps were tried, and the options — and the parties see that summary three days before it is shared. The facilitator keeps the records for three years after the case closes, then deletes them. No participant may discuss the case outside the process without the written consent of all parties. de: title: Datenschutz und Informationszugangsgrenzen whyItMatters: >- Konfliktakten enthalten das sensibelste Material, über das die Gemeinschaft verfügt. Durchsickern, Klatsch oder beiläufige Weitergabe verursachen Folgeschäden und schrecken vor zukünftigen Meldungen ab. Explizite Grenzen — was bei den Parteien bleibt, was die Vollmitglieder erfahren und wann Akten vernichtet werden — machen Vertraulichkeit durchsetzbar statt nur wünschenswert. whatToDefine: >- Lege fest, welche Stufen vollständig vertraulich sind, welche Mindestinformationen in der Governance-Stufe offengelegt werden dürfen, die Aufbewahrungsfrist und die Verschwiegenheitspflicht. placeholders: - >- Stufen 1–4: vollständig vertraulich; nur Parteien und Moderation haben Zugang zu den Akten. - >- Stufen 5–6: minimalnotwendige Informationen werden den Vollmitgliedern offengelegt; Parteien werden vor der Offenlegung benachrichtigt. Definiere, was „minimalnotwendig" bedeutet. - 'Aufbewahrung: wer die Akten verwahrt, für wie lange, danach Vernichtung.' - >- Verschwiegenheit: kein*e Teilnehmer*in darf Informationen über den Prozess ausserhalb der definierten Beteiligten ohne schriftliche Zustimmung aller Parteien weitergeben. es: title: Privacidad y Límites de Acceso a la Información whyItMatters: >- Los registros de conflictos contienen el material más sensible que posee la comunidad. Las filtraciones, los rumores o la divulgación casual causan daño de segundo orden y disuaden futuras denuncias. Límites explícitos — qué permanece con las partes, qué llega a los Miembros Plenos y cuándo se destruyen los registros — hacen que la confidencialidad sea exigible en lugar de aspiracional. whatToDefine: >- Indica qué pasos son completamente confidenciales, qué información mínima puede divulgarse en el paso de gobernanza, el período de retención y la obligación de no divulgación. placeholders: - >- Pasos 1–4: completamente confidenciales; solo las partes y el Facilitador pueden acceder a los registros. - >- Pasos 5–6: información mínima necesaria divulgada a los Miembros Plenos; las partes son notificadas antes de la divulgación. Definir qué significa "mínimo necesario". - >- Retención de registros: quién conserva los registros, por cuánto tiempo, y luego se destruyen. - >- No divulgación: ningún participante puede compartir información sobre el proceso fuera de los participantes definidos sin el consentimiento escrito de todas las partes. fr: title: Vie privée et limites d'accès à l'information whyItMatters: >- Les dossiers de conflit contiennent les informations les plus sensibles que la communauté détient. Les fuites, les commérages ou les divulgations informelles causent des préjudices secondaires et découragent les signalements futurs. Des limites explicites — ce qui reste entre les parties, ce qui parvient aux Membres Titulaires et quand les dossiers sont détruits — rendent la confidentialité exécutoire plutôt qu'aspirationnelle. whatToDefine: >- Indique quelles étapes sont entièrement confidentielles, quelles informations minimales peuvent être divulguées à l'étape de gouvernance, la durée de conservation et l'obligation de non-divulgation. placeholders: - >- Étapes 1–4 : entièrement confidentielles ; seules les parties et le facilitateur ou la facilitatrice peuvent accéder aux dossiers. - >- Étapes 5–6 : information minimale nécessaire divulguée aux Membres Titulaires ; les parties sont notifiées avant la divulgation. Définis ce que signifie « minimale nécessaire ». - >- Conservation des dossiers : qui détient les dossiers, pendant combien de temps, puis destruction. - >- Non-divulgation : aucun·e participant·e ne peut partager d'informations sur le processus en dehors des participant·e·s défini·e·s sans le consentement écrit de toutes les parties. pt-br: title: Limites de Privacidade e Acesso à Informação whyItMatters: >- Os registros de conflito contêm o material mais sensível que a comunidade guarda. Vazamentos, fofocas ou divulgações casuais causam danos de segunda ordem e desencorajam relatos futuros. Limites explícitos — o que permanece com as partes, o que chega aos Membros Plenos e quando os registros são destruídos — tornam a confidencialidade exigível, e não meramente aspiracional. whatToDefine: >- Indique quais passos são totalmente confidenciais, qual a informação mínima que pode ser divulgada na etapa de governança, o período de retenção e a obrigação de não divulgação. placeholders: - >- Passos 1–4: totalmente confidenciais; apenas as partes e o Facilitador podem acessar os registros. - >- Passos 5–6: informação mínima necessária divulgada aos Membros Plenos; partes notificadas antes da divulgação. Defina o que significa "mínima necessária". - >- Retenção de registros: quem guarda os registros, por quanto tempo, e quando são destruídos. - >- Não divulgação: nenhum participante pode compartilhar informações sobre o processo fora dos participantes definidos sem o consentimento escrito de todas as partes. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: conflict-resolution-ladder.safeguards artifact: conflict-resolution-ladder order: 5 clauseRefs: - 6.3.1 - 6.3.2 - 6.3.3 - 6.3.4 - 6.3.5 - 6.6.2 i18n: en: title: Safeguards whyItMatters: >- Process alone does not protect the party with less power. Retaliation, bad-faith complaints, conflicted facilitators, and unreviewed safety risks can all neutralize an otherwise good procedure. Safeguards are the backstops that keep the ladder functional when incentives push against honest reporting. whatToDefine: >- For each safeguard, state the rule and the consequence when it is violated. Power-differential cases need their own intake channel. placeholders: - >- retaliation against a member raising a conflict in good faith is itself grounds for an accountability process. - >- deliberately false complaints may trigger an accountability process against the complainant. - see Facilitator Selection and Replacement. - either party may pause once for up to X days by written notice. - facilitator may recommend a temporary access restriction pending review; review window. - >- where a power differential exists, the affected member may submit intake directly to a body other than the standard Facilitator. - >- Full Members may temporarily suspend a role holder's delegated authority during review without constituting forced exit. question: >- What changes when the people in a conflict do not have equal power — or when someone is not safe? prompts: - >- What extra protection applies when the people in a conflict do not have equal power — for example independent facilitation, or a separate way to raise it? - >- When someone is not safe, what may we do at once, before the process ends — and who decides? - How do we make sure safety comes before participation rights, roles and convenience? examples: - >- When the people in a conflict have unequal power — a role holder and a newer member, say — the less powerful person may raise it with an outside facilitator instead of our conflict steward, and the role holder's authority over them is paused while it runs. If someone credibly reports being unsafe, any two stewards may at once separate the people involved, restrict access to shared spaces or suspend a role for up to 14 days, before the process ends. Safety comes first, even when it costs someone a role or is inconvenient. de: title: Schutzmassnahmen whyItMatters: >- Ein Prozess allein schützt nicht die Partei mit weniger Macht. Vergeltung, böswillige Beschwerden, befangene Moderation und ungeprüfte Sicherheitsrisiken können ein ansonsten gutes Verfahren aushebeln. Schutzmassnahmen sind die Sicherheitsnetze, die die Leiter funktionsfähig halten, wenn Anreize gegen ehrliche Meldungen wirken. whatToDefine: >- Lege für jede Schutzmassnahme die Regel und die Konsequenz bei Verstoss fest. Fälle mit Machtgefälle benötigen einen eigenen Eingangskanal. placeholders: - >- Vergeltung gegen ein Mitglied, das in gutem Glauben einen Konflikt meldet, ist selbst Grund für ein Rechenschaftsverfahren. - >- Vorsätzlich falsche Beschwerden können ein Rechenschaftsverfahren gegen die beschwerdeführende Person auslösen. - siehe Auswahl und Ersetzung der Moderation. - >- Jede Partei darf den Prozess einmal für bis zu X Tage per schriftlicher Mitteilung pausieren. - >- Die Moderation darf eine vorübergehende Zugangsbeschränkung bis zur Überprüfung empfehlen; Überprüfungsfenster. - >- Wenn ein Machtgefälle besteht, darf das betroffene Mitglied die Eingabe direkt an ein anderes Gremium als die standardmässige Moderation richten. - >- Vollmitglieder dürfen die delegierte Autorität einer Rolleninhaberin oder eines Rolleninhabers während der Überprüfung vorübergehend aussetzen, ohne dass dies einen erzwungenen Austritt darstellt. es: title: Salvaguardas whyItMatters: >- El proceso por sí solo no protege a la parte con menos poder. Las represalias, las quejas de mala fe, los facilitadores con conflictos de interés y los riesgos de seguridad no revisados pueden neutralizar un procedimiento que de otro modo sería bueno. Las salvaguardas son los mecanismos de respaldo que mantienen la escalera funcional cuando los incentivos empujan en contra de la denuncia honesta. whatToDefine: >- Para cada salvaguarda, establece la regla y la consecuencia cuando se viola. Los casos con diferencial de poder necesitan su propio canal de admisión. placeholders: - >- las represalias contra un miembro que plantea un conflicto de buena fe son en sí mismas motivo para un proceso de rendición de cuentas. - >- las quejas deliberadamente falsas pueden desencadenar un proceso de rendición de cuentas contra el denunciante. - ver Selección y Sustitución del Facilitador. - cualquiera de las partes puede pausar una vez por hasta X días mediante aviso escrito. - >- el facilitador puede recomendar una restricción temporal de acceso pendiente de revisión; ventana de revisión. - >- cuando existe un diferencial de poder, el miembro afectado puede presentar la admisión directamente a un órgano distinto al Facilitador estándar. - >- los Miembros Plenos pueden suspender temporalmente la autoridad delegada de un titular de rol durante la revisión sin que esto constituya una salida forzada. fr: title: Garde-fous whyItMatters: >- Le processus seul ne protège pas la partie ayant le moins de pouvoir. Les représailles, les plaintes de mauvaise foi, les facilitateur·rice·s en conflit d'intérêts et les risques de sécurité non examinés peuvent tous neutraliser une procédure par ailleurs bien conçue. Les garde-fous sont les filets de sécurité qui maintiennent l'échelle fonctionnelle lorsque les incitations poussent contre un signalement honnête. whatToDefine: >- Pour chaque garde-fou, indique la règle et la conséquence en cas de violation. Les situations avec différentiel de pouvoir nécessitent leur propre canal de prise en charge. placeholders: - >- les représailles contre un membre soulevant un conflit de bonne foi constituent elles-mêmes un motif de processus de responsabilité. - >- les plaintes délibérément fausses peuvent déclencher un processus de responsabilité contre le ou la plaignant·e. - voir Sélection et remplacement du facilitateur ou de la facilitatrice. - >- chaque partie peut suspendre une fois pour une durée maximale de X jours par notification écrite. - >- le facilitateur ou la facilitatrice peut recommander une restriction d'accès temporaire en attendant l'examen ; délai d'examen. - >- lorsqu'un différentiel de pouvoir existe, le membre concerné peut soumettre sa prise en charge directement à une instance autre que le facilitateur ou la facilitatrice habituel·le. - >- les Membres Titulaires peuvent suspendre temporairement l'autorité déléguée d'un·e titulaire de rôle pendant l'examen sans que cela constitue une exclusion forcée. pt-br: title: Salvaguardas whyItMatters: >- Processo, por si só, não protege a parte com menos poder. Retaliação, denúncias de má-fé, facilitadores em conflito de interesse e riscos de segurança não revisados podem neutralizar até mesmo um bom procedimento. As salvaguardas são as redes de proteção que mantêm a escada funcional quando os incentivos atuam contra o relato honesto. whatToDefine: >- Para cada salvaguarda, indique a regra e a consequência quando ela é violada. Casos com diferencial de poder precisam de seu próprio canal de abertura. placeholders: - >- retaliação contra um membro que levanta um conflito de boa-fé é, em si, motivo para um processo de responsabilização. - >- denúncias deliberadamente falsas podem desencadear um processo de responsabilização contra o denunciante. - ver Seleção e Substituição de Facilitador. - qualquer das partes pode pausar uma vez por até X dias mediante aviso escrito. - >- o facilitador pode recomendar uma restrição temporária de acesso aguardando revisão; prazo de revisão. - >- quando há um diferencial de poder, o membro afetado pode submeter a abertura diretamente a um órgão diferente do Facilitador padrão. - >- os Membros Plenos podem suspender temporariamente a autoridade delegada de um detentor de papel durante a revisão, sem que isso constitua saída forçada. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 6.3.1 - 6.3.3 - 6.3.4 - 6.3.5 - 6.6.2 - key: conflict-resolution-ladder.ratification-record artifact: conflict-resolution-ladder order: 6 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Ratification Record whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] de: title: Ratifizierungsprotokoll whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: Registro de Ratificación whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: Procès-verbal de ratification whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Registro de Ratificação whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: filled_from_decision dispositionNote: >- Written from the decision that adopted this artifact: reference, date, mechanism, tally and attendance as recorded at freeze time. ownsClauses: [] - key: meeting-templates.meeting-type-operations artifact: meeting-templates order: 0 clauseRefs: - 7.2.1 - 7.2.2 - 7.2.3 - 7.2.4 - 7.6.4 i18n: en: title: 'Meeting Type: Operations' whyItMatters: >- Day-to-day coordination needs a regular beat, not ad-hoc improvisation. The Operations meeting is the community's heartbeat — a predictable space to review active work, surface blockers, and make small operational decisions. Crucially, only Operational decisions happen here; Strategic and Constitutional ones go through the governance process, so the meeting can't quietly accumulate authority it doesn't have. whatToDefine: >- Set purpose, decision scope, required and optional participants, cadence, duration, and facilitation rules. Keep decision scope to Operational only. placeholders: - review active work, coordinate tasks, surface blockers, make operational decisions. - who is invited; minimum quorum. - who may attend on invitation. - weekly / bi-weekly / monthly. - e.g. 90 minutes maximum. - facilitator role; substitute rule. - duration - duration - duration - duration - duration - duration - duration; optional - role holder per Decision Matrix - what was decided - location question: How do we run the meeting where the week's work gets sorted out? prompts: - >- What is this meeting for, and which decisions may it make — and what happens when something bigger than day-to-day work comes up? - Who has to be there, how many make a quorum, and who may join if they wish? - >- How often does it meet, how long may it run, and who facilitates — chosen or rotated how, with what cover if they are away? - What is the fixed agenda, in what order? - >- Who takes notes, in what format, and where and how soon are they published — and how is each decision recorded? - >- Do we have a template like this one for every kind of meeting we hold — operations, governance, coordination, reflection and conflict — and how do we notice when meetings overrun or multiply? (The overall limit on meeting load is its own question.) examples: - >- The Operations meeting reviews active work, clears blockers and makes Operational decisions only; anything Strategic or Constitutional becomes a proposal. All current role holders attend (quorum four); any member may join. It meets weekly for at most 60 minutes, run by a facilitator who rotates monthly. Agenda: check-in, task review, blockers, decisions, actions. Notes go on the shared board within 48 hours, each decision with who made it, the outcome and its start date. If it overruns three weeks running, that goes to the quarterly workload review. de: title: 'Sitzungstyp: Operativ' whyItMatters: >- Die tägliche Koordination braucht einen regelmäßigen Rhythmus, keine Ad-hoc-Improvisation. Die operative Sitzung ist der Herzschlag der Gemeinschaft — ein vorhersehbarer Raum, um laufende Arbeit zu prüfen, Hindernisse sichtbar zu machen und kleine operative Entscheidungen zu treffen. Entscheidend ist: Hier fallen nur operative Entscheidungen; strategische und konstitutionelle laufen über den Governance-Prozess, sodass die Sitzung nicht stillschweigend Befugnisse ansammeln kann, die sie nicht hat. whatToDefine: >- Legt Zweck, Entscheidungsbereich, erforderliche und optionale Teilnehmende, Rhythmus, Dauer und Moderationsregeln fest. Beschränkt den Entscheidungsbereich auf ausschließlich operative Entscheidungen. placeholders: - >- laufende Arbeit prüfen, Aufgaben koordinieren, Hindernisse sichtbar machen, operative Entscheidungen treffen. - wer eingeladen ist; Mindest-Quorum. - wer auf Einladung teilnehmen darf. - wöchentlich / zweiwöchentlich / monatlich. - z. B. maximal 90 Minuten. - Moderationsrolle; Vertretungsregel. - Dauer - Dauer - Dauer - Dauer - Dauer - Dauer - Dauer; optional - Rolleninhaber:in laut Entscheidungsmatrix - was entschieden wurde - Ablageort es: title: 'Tipo de Reunión: Operaciones' whyItMatters: >- La coordinación del día a día necesita un ritmo regular, no improvisación ad-hoc. La reunión de Operaciones es el latido de la comunidad — un espacio predecible para revisar el trabajo activo, detectar bloqueos y tomar pequeñas decisiones operativas. Fundamentalmente, solo las decisiones Operativas ocurren aquí; las Estratégicas y Constitucionales pasan por el proceso de gobernanza, así que la reunión no puede acumular silenciosamente autoridad que no tiene. whatToDefine: >- Define el propósito, el alcance de decisión, los participantes obligatorios y opcionales, la cadencia, la duración y las reglas de facilitación. Mantén el alcance de decisión solo en Operativo. placeholders: - revisar trabajo activo, coordinar tareas, detectar bloqueos, tomar decisiones operativas. - quién está invitado; quórum mínimo. - quién puede asistir por invitación. - semanal / quincenal / mensual. - p. ej. 90 minutos máximo. - rol de facilitador/a; regla de sustitución. - duración - duración - duración - duración - duración - duración - duración; opcional - titular del rol según la Matriz de Decisión - qué se decidió - ubicación fr: title: 'Type de réunion : Opérations' whyItMatters: >- La coordination au quotidien a besoin d'un rythme régulier, pas d'improvisation ad hoc. La réunion Opérations est le pouls de la communauté — un espace prévisible pour passer en revue le travail en cours, faire remonter les blocages et prendre de petites décisions opérationnelles. Point crucial : seules les décisions Opérationnelles sont prises ici ; les décisions Stratégiques et Constitutionnelles passent par le processus de gouvernance, de sorte que la réunion ne peut pas accumuler discrètement une autorité qu'elle n'a pas. whatToDefine: >- Définis l'objectif, le périmètre de décision, les participants requis et optionnels, la cadence, la durée et les règles de facilitation. Limite le périmètre de décision aux décisions Opérationnelles uniquement. placeholders: - >- passer en revue le travail en cours, coordonner les tâches, faire remonter les blocages, prendre des décisions opérationnelles. - qui est invité ; quorum minimum. - qui peut assister sur invitation. - hebdomadaire / bimensuelle / mensuelle. - p. ex. 90 minutes maximum. - rôle de facilitateur·rice ; règle de remplacement. - durée - durée - durée - durée - durée - durée - durée ; optionnel - titulaire du rôle selon la Matrice de décision - ce qui a été décidé - emplacement pt-br: title: 'Tipo de Reunião: Operações' whyItMatters: >- A coordenação do dia a dia precisa de uma cadência regular, não de improvisação ad-hoc. A reunião de Operações é o batimento cardíaco da comunidade — um espaço previsível para revisar o trabalho ativo, trazer à tona bloqueios e tomar pequenas decisões operacionais. Crucialmente, apenas decisões Operacionais acontecem aqui; as Estratégicas e Constitucionais passam pelo processo de governança, para que a reunião não acumule silenciosamente uma autoridade que não tem. whatToDefine: >- Defina propósito, escopo de decisão, participantes obrigatórios e opcionais, cadência, duração e regras de facilitação. Mantenha o escopo de decisão apenas como Operacional. placeholders: - >- revisar trabalho ativo, coordenar tarefas, trazer à tona bloqueios, tomar decisões operacionais. - quem é convidado; quórum mínimo. - quem pode comparecer mediante convite. - semanal / quinzenal / mensal. - 'ex.: 90 minutos no máximo.' - papel do facilitador; regra de substituição. - duração - duração - duração - duração - duração - duração - duração; opcional - titular do papel conforme a Matriz de Decisão - o que foi decidido - localização disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 7.2.1 - 7.2.2 - 7.2.3 - 7.2.4 - 7.6.4 - key: meeting-templates.meeting-type-governance artifact: meeting-templates order: 1 clauseRefs: - 7.2.1 - 7.2.2 - 7.2.3 - 7.6.4 i18n: en: title: 'Meeting Type: Governance' whyItMatters: >- If a meeting can both discuss and decide, whoever is in the room that day gets to decide — regardless of quorum or authority rules. Keeping deliberation separate from the binding vote preserves the integrity of the Decision Matrix and ensures absent members still get a vote. whatToDefine: >- This meeting deliberates on active proposals during their deliberation period. The binding decision is made via the governance process per the Decision Matrix. placeholders: - all Full Members invited; proposer must be present. - who may observe. - as needed during deliberation periods. - e.g. 60 minutes maximum. - facilitator role. - duration - >- duration — proposer presents the proposal: what it changes, why, and alternatives considered. - duration — factual questions only; no advocacy yet. - duration. - duration — facilitator summarises; confirms vote timeline. - link to proposal - Strategic / Constitutional - vote mechanism + threshold - Passed / Rejected / Tabled question: How do we run the meeting where decisions actually get made? prompts: - Who must be invited, must the proposer be present, and who may observe? - When is this meeting held, and how long may it run? - Who facilitates, and how are they chosen? - >- What is the agenda — how long for presenting the proposal, for clarifying questions, for discussion, and for the closing summary? - >- Is anything decided in the room, or does the binding decision happen afterwards so that members who could not attend still take part? (The thresholds themselves are set in the Decision Matrix.) - >- What do the notes record — which proposal, what type of decision, how it will be decided, and the outcome — and where are they published? examples: - >- A Governance meeting is held during the deliberation period of every Strategic or Constitutional proposal. All Full Members are invited, the proposer must attend, and anyone else may observe. It lasts at most 60 minutes: the proposer presents (10 minutes), clarifying questions only (10), open discussion (30), then the facilitator summarises and confirms when voting opens (10). Nothing is decided in the room — the vote runs online for seven days afterwards. Notes link to the proposal and are posted within two days. de: title: 'Sitzungstyp: Governance' whyItMatters: >- Wenn eine Sitzung gleichzeitig diskutieren und entscheiden kann, bestimmen diejenigen, die gerade im Raum sind — ungeachtet der Quorum- oder Befugnisregeln. Die Trennung von Beratung und verbindlicher Abstimmung wahrt die Integrität der Entscheidungsmatrix und stellt sicher, dass abwesende Mitglieder trotzdem mitabstimmen können. whatToDefine: >- Diese Sitzung berät über aktive Vorschläge während ihrer Beratungsphase. Die verbindliche Entscheidung erfolgt über den Governance-Prozess gemäß der Entscheidungsmatrix. placeholders: - alle Vollmitglieder eingeladen; Antragsteller:in muss anwesend sein. - wer beobachten darf. - nach Bedarf während der Beratungsphasen. - z. B. maximal 60 Minuten. - Moderationsrolle. - Dauer - >- Dauer — Antragsteller:in stellt den Vorschlag vor: was sich ändert, warum, und welche Alternativen erwogen wurden. - Dauer — nur Sachfragen; noch keine Positionierung. - Dauer. - Dauer — Moderation fasst zusammen; bestätigt den Abstimmungszeitplan. - Link zum Vorschlag - Strategisch / Konstitutionell - Abstimmungsmechanismus + Schwelle - Angenommen / Abgelehnt / Vertagt es: title: 'Tipo de Reunión: Gobernanza' whyItMatters: >- Si una reunión puede tanto discutir como decidir, quien esté en la sala ese día decide — independientemente del quórum o las reglas de autoridad. Mantener la deliberación separada de la votación vinculante preserva la integridad de la Matriz de Decisión y asegura que los miembros ausentes sigan teniendo voto. whatToDefine: >- Esta reunión delibera sobre propuestas activas durante su período de deliberación. La decisión vinculante se toma a través del proceso de gobernanza según la Matriz de Decisión. placeholders: - todos los Miembros Plenos invitados; el proponente debe estar presente. - quién puede observar. - según sea necesario durante los períodos de deliberación. - p. ej. 60 minutos máximo. - rol de facilitador/a. - duración - >- duración — el proponente presenta la propuesta: qué cambia, por qué, y alternativas consideradas. - duración — solo preguntas factuales; sin posicionamiento aún. - duración. - duración — el facilitador/a resume; confirma el calendario de votación. - enlace a la propuesta - Estratégica / Constitucional - mecanismo de votación + umbral - Aprobada / Rechazada / Aplazada fr: title: 'Type de réunion : Gouvernance' whyItMatters: >- Si une réunion peut à la fois discuter et décider, ce sont les personnes présentes ce jour-là qui décident — indépendamment des règles de quorum ou d'autorité. Séparer la délibération du vote contraignant préserve l'intégrité de la Matrice de décision et garantit que les membres absents conservent leur droit de vote. whatToDefine: >- Cette réunion délibère sur les propositions actives pendant leur période de délibération. La décision contraignante est prise via le processus de gouvernance conformément à la Matrice de décision. placeholders: - >- tous les Membres titulaires sont invités ; le·la porteur·se de la proposition doit être présent·e. - qui peut observer. - selon les besoins pendant les périodes de délibération. - p. ex. 60 minutes maximum. - rôle de facilitateur·rice. - durée - >- durée — le·la porteur·se présente la proposition : ce qu'elle change, pourquoi, et les alternatives envisagées. - durée — questions factuelles uniquement ; pas encore de plaidoyer. - durée. - durée — le·la facilitateur·rice résume ; confirme le calendrier de vote. - lien vers la proposition - Stratégique / Constitutionnelle - mécanisme de vote + seuil - Adoptée / Rejetée / Reportée pt-br: title: 'Tipo de Reunião: Governança' whyItMatters: >- Se uma reunião pode tanto discutir quanto decidir, quem estiver na sala naquele dia acaba decidindo — independentemente das regras de quórum ou autoridade. Manter a deliberação separada da votação vinculante preserva a integridade da Matriz de Decisão e garante que membros ausentes ainda tenham voto. whatToDefine: >- Esta reunião delibera sobre propostas ativas durante seu período de deliberação. A decisão vinculante é tomada por meio do processo de governança conforme a Matriz de Decisão. placeholders: - todos os Membros Plenos convidados; o(a) proponente DEVE estar presente. - quem pode observar. - conforme necessário durante períodos de deliberação. - 'ex.: 60 minutos no máximo.' - papel do facilitador. - duração - >- duração — o(a) proponente apresenta a proposta: o que muda, por quê, e alternativas consideradas. - duração — apenas perguntas factuais; ainda sem defesa de posições. - duração. - duração — o(a) facilitador(a) resume; confirma o cronograma da votação. - link para a proposta - Estratégica / Constitucional - mecanismo de votação + limiar - Aprovada / Rejeitada / Adiada disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: meeting-templates.meeting-type-coordination-alignment artifact: meeting-templates order: 2 clauseRefs: - 7.2.1 - 7.2.2 - 7.2.3 - 7.6.4 i18n: en: title: 'Meeting Type: Coordination & Alignment' whyItMatters: >- Some blockers span more than one role and can't be resolved in the regular Operations rhythm. Coordination & Alignment gives cross-role work its own space — for dependencies, handoffs, and competing priorities — so the weekly meeting doesn't balloon trying to absorb everything. whatToDefine: >- Use this template when cross-role coordination is needed. Keep decision scope Operational only and limit required participants to those with active initiatives. placeholders: - role holders with active initiatives. - all Full Members welcome. - monthly or as needed. - e.g. 60 minutes. - facilitator; substitute rule. - duration - duration - duration - duration question: How do we run the meeting that keeps separate work from drifting apart? prompts: - When do we call this meeting rather than raising things at the regular Operations meeting? - >- Who has to attend — only role holders with active pieces of work that depend on each other — and who else is welcome? - How often does it meet, how long may it run, and who facilitates, with what cover? - What is the agenda — dependencies, handoffs, competing priorities — and in what order? - >- What may it agree, and what happens when a clash of priorities needs a bigger decision than it is allowed to make? - Where are the notes and agreed handoffs recorded, and how soon? examples: - >- Coordination meets online on the first Tuesday of each month for at most 60 minutes, and any two role holders can call one sooner. Only role holders with an active initiative must attend; any member may join. The agenda is dependencies, handoffs, then competing priorities. It may agree Operational changes only — a priority clash that needs a Strategic call is written up as a proposal. Facilitation rotates among attendees, and notes with the agreed handoffs go in the shared channel the same week. de: title: 'Sitzungstyp: Koordination & Abstimmung' whyItMatters: >- Manche Hindernisse betreffen mehr als eine Rolle und lassen sich im regulären operativen Rhythmus nicht lösen. Koordination & Abstimmung gibt rollenübergreifender Arbeit einen eigenen Raum — für Abhängigkeiten, Übergaben und konkurrierende Prioritäten — damit die wöchentliche Sitzung nicht ausufert, weil sie alles auffangen muss. whatToDefine: >- Nutzt diese Vorlage, wenn rollenübergreifende Koordination nötig ist. Beschränkt den Entscheidungsbereich auf operative Entscheidungen und begrenzt die erforderlichen Teilnehmenden auf diejenigen mit aktiven Initiativen. placeholders: - Rolleninhaber:innen mit aktiven Initiativen. - alle Vollmitglieder willkommen. - monatlich oder nach Bedarf. - z. B. 60 Minuten. - Moderator:in; Vertretungsregel. - Dauer - Dauer - Dauer - Dauer es: title: 'Tipo de Reunión: Coordinación y Alineación' whyItMatters: >- Algunos bloqueos abarcan más de un rol y no pueden resolverse en el ritmo regular de Operaciones. Coordinación y Alineación le da al trabajo transversal entre roles su propio espacio — para dependencias, traspasos y prioridades en competencia — para que la reunión semanal no se infle intentando absorberlo todo. whatToDefine: >- Usa esta plantilla cuando se necesite coordinación entre roles. Mantén el alcance de decisión solo en Operativo y limita los participantes obligatorios a quienes tengan iniciativas activas. placeholders: - titulares de roles con iniciativas activas. - todos los Miembros Plenos son bienvenidos. - mensual o según sea necesario. - p. ej. 60 minutos. - facilitador/a; regla de sustitución. - duración - duración - duración - duración fr: title: 'Type de réunion : Coordination & Alignement' whyItMatters: >- Certains blocages impliquent plusieurs rôles et ne peuvent pas être résolus dans le rythme régulier des Opérations. La réunion Coordination & Alignement offre aux travaux transversaux leur propre espace — pour les dépendances, les passages de relais et les priorités concurrentes — afin que la réunion hebdomadaire ne s'étire pas en essayant de tout absorber. whatToDefine: >- Utilise ce modèle lorsqu'une coordination entre rôles est nécessaire. Limite le périmètre de décision aux décisions Opérationnelles uniquement et restreins les participants requis à ceux ayant des initiatives actives. placeholders: - titulaires de rôles avec des initiatives actives. - tous les Membres titulaires sont les bienvenus. - mensuelle ou selon les besoins. - p. ex. 60 minutes. - facilitateur·rice ; règle de remplacement. - durée - durée - durée - durée pt-br: title: 'Tipo de Reunião: Coordenação e Alinhamento' whyItMatters: >- Alguns bloqueios atravessam mais de um papel e não podem ser resolvidos no ritmo regular de Operações. Coordenação e Alinhamento dá ao trabalho entre papéis seu próprio espaço — para dependências, transições e prioridades conflitantes — para que a reunião semanal não cresça desordenadamente tentando absorver tudo. whatToDefine: >- Use este modelo quando for necessária coordenação entre papéis. Mantenha o escopo de decisão apenas como Operacional e limite os participantes obrigatórios àqueles com iniciativas ativas. placeholders: - titulares de papéis com iniciativas ativas. - todos os Membros Plenos são bem-vindos. - mensal ou conforme necessário. - 'ex.: 60 minutos.' - facilitador(a); regra de substituição. - duração - duração - duração - duração disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: meeting-templates.meeting-type-reflection-learning artifact: meeting-templates order: 3 clauseRefs: - 7.2.1 - 7.2.2 - 7.2.3 - 7.6.4 i18n: en: title: 'Meeting Type: Reflection & Learning' whyItMatters: >- Reflection that happens only when time allows never happens. A named meeting type with a defined cadence makes space for looking back — and keeps retrospection from getting squeezed out by operational urgency. Without it, the Learning Log (Layer 6) stays empty and the framework stops evolving. whatToDefine: >- This meeting reviews the most recent period and feeds insights to the Learning Log (Layer 6) and the Future Proposals queue. placeholders: - all Full Members invited. - quarterly. - e.g. 90 minutes. - facilitator role. - duration - duration - duration - duration; no blame, focus on patterns. - duration; identify Learning Log entries. - duration. - duration - list or "none" - list or "none" question: How do we run the meeting where we look back rather than forward? prompts: - Who is invited, how often do we meet, and how long may it run? - Who facilitates, and how are they chosen? - >- What is the agenda — how do we look back at the period, what worked, what did not — and how do we keep it about patterns rather than blame? - >- What comes out of it — which lessons go into the Learning Log, and which ideas become future proposals? - Can this meeting decide anything itself, or does it only send items on? - What stops it being postponed or dropped whenever we are busy? examples: - >- Every three months all Full Members are invited to a 90-minute Reflection meeting, in person with a call-in link. A facilitator chosen at the previous one runs it: what happened this quarter, what worked, what did not — looking for patterns, not blame — then which lessons go into the Learning Log and which ideas become future proposals. It decides nothing itself. It may be postponed once, never cancelled. The list of outputs, or "none", is published with the notes within a week. de: title: 'Sitzungstyp: Reflexion & Lernen' whyItMatters: >- Reflexion, die nur stattfindet, wenn gerade Zeit ist, findet nie statt. Ein benannter Sitzungstyp mit festem Rhythmus schafft Raum für den Rückblick — und verhindert, dass Retrospektiven von der operativen Dringlichkeit verdrängt werden. Ohne das bleibt das Lernprotokoll (Schicht 6) leer und das Framework hört auf, sich weiterzuentwickeln. whatToDefine: >- Diese Sitzung bilanziert den letzten Zeitraum und speist Erkenntnisse in das Lernprotokoll (Schicht 6) und die Warteschlange für zukünftige Vorschläge ein. placeholders: - alle Vollmitglieder eingeladen. - vierteljährlich. - z. B. maximal 90 Minuten. - Moderationsrolle. - Dauer - Dauer - Dauer - Dauer; kein Schuldzuweisen, Fokus auf Muster. - Dauer; Einträge für das Lernprotokoll identifizieren. - Dauer. - Dauer - Liste oder „keine" - Liste oder „keine" es: title: 'Tipo de Reunión: Reflexión y Aprendizaje' whyItMatters: >- La reflexión que ocurre solo cuando hay tiempo no ocurre nunca. Un tipo de reunión con nombre y cadencia definida crea el espacio para mirar atrás — y evita que la retrospección quede aplastada por la urgencia operativa. Sin ella, el Registro de Aprendizajes (Capa 6) permanece vacío y el marco deja de evolucionar. whatToDefine: >- Esta reunión revisa el período más reciente y alimenta los aprendizajes al Registro de Aprendizajes (Capa 6) y a la cola de Propuestas Futuras. placeholders: - todos los Miembros Plenos invitados. - trimestral. - p. ej. 90 minutos. - rol de facilitador/a. - duración - duración - duración - duración; sin culpas, enfocarse en patrones. - duración; identificar entradas para el Registro de Aprendizajes. - duración. - duración - lista o "ninguna" - lista o "ninguna" fr: title: 'Type de réunion : Réflexion & Apprentissage' whyItMatters: >- La réflexion qui n'a lieu que quand le temps le permet n'a jamais lieu. Un type de réunion nommé avec une cadence définie crée l'espace pour regarder en arrière — et empêche la rétrospection d'être éclipsée par l'urgence opérationnelle. Sans cela, le Journal d'apprentissage (Couche 6) reste vide et le cadre cesse d'évoluer. whatToDefine: >- Cette réunion passe en revue la période la plus récente et alimente le Journal d'apprentissage (Couche 6) et la file des Propositions futures. placeholders: - tous les Membres titulaires sont invités. - trimestrielle. - p. ex. 90 minutes. - rôle de facilitateur·rice. - durée - durée - durée - durée ; pas de blâme, se concentrer sur les schémas. - durée ; identifier les entrées du Journal d'apprentissage. - durée. - durée - liste ou « aucune » - liste ou « aucune » pt-br: title: 'Tipo de Reunião: Reflexão e Aprendizado' whyItMatters: >- A reflexão que só acontece quando o tempo permite nunca acontece. Um tipo de reunião nomeado e com cadência definida abre espaço para olhar para trás — e impede que a retrospectiva seja espremida pela urgência operacional. Sem ela, o Registro de Aprendizado (Camada 6) fica vazio e o framework para de evoluir. whatToDefine: >- Esta reunião revisa o período mais recente e alimenta insights no Registro de Aprendizado (Camada 6) e na fila de Propostas Futuras. placeholders: - todos os Membros Plenos convidados. - trimestral. - 'ex.: 90 minutos.' - papel do facilitador. - duração - duração - duração - duração; sem culpabilização, foco em padrões. - duração; identifique entradas do Registro de Aprendizado. - duração. - duração - lista ou "nenhuma" - lista ou "nenhuma" disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: meeting-templates.meeting-type-conflict-handling artifact: meeting-templates order: 4 clauseRefs: - 7.2.1 - 7.2.2 - 7.2.3 - 7.6.4 i18n: en: title: 'Meeting Type: Conflict Handling' whyItMatters: >- Conflict work has rules that other meetings don't: confidentiality, Facilitator selection that bypasses party preference, anti-retaliation protections, and restricted records. Using the Operations template for a conflict session would quietly violate all of these. A dedicated template makes the different container visible from the first minute. whatToDefine: >- Use this template only for facilitated sessions under Conflict Resolution Ladder Steps 2–4. Privacy and Facilitator-selection rules are governed by Layer 4, not by the meeting itself. placeholders: - typically 60–90 minutes; Facilitator may extend. - duration; consent, confidentiality, anti-retaliation, pause rights. - uninterrupted; equal time. - duration. - duration. - duration. - duration. - duration; record per Layer 4 privacy rules. - Agreement reached / Escalated to next step / Adjourned question: How do we run a meeting whose subject is a conflict? prompts: - >- Which steps of our conflict process use this meeting format, and when must we not use an ordinary meeting instead? - How long does a session last, and who may extend it? - >- What is said at the start — about consent, confidentiality, protection from retaliation, and anyone's right to pause? - >- What is the agenda — how does each party get to speak uninterrupted and for equal time, and what follows? - >- How can a session end — agreement, moving to the next step, or adjourning — and how is that outcome noted? (Who facilitates and who may see the record are set in the conflict protocol.) examples: - >- This format is used only for facilitated sessions at steps 2 to 4 of our conflict ladder. A session runs up to 90 minutes; the Facilitator may extend it once by 30 minutes if both parties agree. It opens with the ground rules: taking part is voluntary, what is said stays in the room, nobody may be penalised for raising the conflict, and anyone may call a pause. Each party then speaks uninterrupted for equal time, followed by exploring options and agreeing next steps. It ends as agreement reached, escalated, or adjourned. de: title: 'Sitzungstyp: Konfliktbearbeitung' whyItMatters: >- Konfliktarbeit hat Regeln, die andere Sitzungen nicht haben: Vertraulichkeit, Moderator:innen-Auswahl, die die Parteipräferenzen umgeht, Schutz vor Vergeltung und eingeschränkte Protokollierung. Die operative Vorlage für eine Konfliktsitzung zu verwenden, würde stillschweigend all diese Regeln verletzen. Eine eigene Vorlage macht den unterschiedlichen Rahmen ab der ersten Minute sichtbar. whatToDefine: >- Verwendet diese Vorlage nur für moderierte Sitzungen gemäß den Stufen 2–4 der Konfliktlösungsleiter. Datenschutz- und Moderator:innen-Auswahlregeln werden durch Schicht 4 geregelt, nicht durch die Sitzung selbst. placeholders: - typischerweise 60–90 Minuten; Moderator:in kann verlängern. - Dauer; Einverständnis, Vertraulichkeit, Vergeltungsschutz, Pausenrecht. - ohne Unterbrechung; gleiche Redezeit. - Dauer. - Dauer. - Dauer. - Dauer. - Dauer; Protokoll gemäß Datenschutzregeln der Schicht 4. - Einigung erzielt / Eskalation auf nächste Stufe / Vertagt es: title: 'Tipo de Reunión: Gestión de Conflictos' whyItMatters: >- El trabajo con conflictos tiene reglas que otras reuniones no tienen: confidencialidad, selección de Facilitador/a que no depende de la preferencia de las partes, protecciones contra represalias y registros restringidos. Usar la plantilla de Operaciones para una sesión de conflicto violaría silenciosamente todas estas reglas. Una plantilla dedicada hace visible el contenedor diferente desde el primer minuto. whatToDefine: >- Usa esta plantilla solo para sesiones facilitadas bajo los Pasos 2–4 de la Escalera de Resolución de Conflictos. Las reglas de privacidad y selección del Facilitador/a están gobernadas por la Capa 4, no por la reunión en sí. placeholders: - típicamente 60–90 minutos; el Facilitador/a puede extender. - duración; consentimiento, confidencialidad, anti-represalias, derecho a pausar. - sin interrupciones; tiempo igual. - duración. - duración. - duración. - duración. - duración; registro según las reglas de privacidad de la Capa 4. - Acuerdo alcanzado / Escalado al siguiente paso / Aplazado fr: title: 'Type de réunion : Traitement des conflits' whyItMatters: >- Le travail sur les conflits obéit à des règles que les autres réunions n'ont pas : confidentialité, sélection du·de la facilitateur·rice qui contourne les préférences des parties, protections contre les représailles et registres restreints. Utiliser le modèle Opérations pour une session de conflit violerait discrètement toutes ces règles. Un modèle dédié rend le cadre différent visible dès la première minute. whatToDefine: >- Utilise ce modèle uniquement pour les sessions facilitées relevant des étapes 2 à 4 de l'Échelle de résolution des conflits. Les règles de confidentialité et de sélection du·de la facilitateur·rice sont régies par la Couche 4, pas par la réunion elle-même. placeholders: - typiquement 60 à 90 minutes ; le·la facilitateur·rice peut prolonger. - durée ; consentement, confidentialité, non-représailles, droit de pause. - sans interruption ; temps égal. - durée. - durée. - durée. - durée. - durée ; enregistrement selon les règles de confidentialité de la Couche 4. - Accord trouvé / Escaladé à l'étape suivante / Ajourné pt-br: title: 'Tipo de Reunião: Tratamento de Conflitos' whyItMatters: >- O trabalho com conflitos tem regras que outras reuniões não têm: confidencialidade, seleção do(a) Facilitador(a) que ignora a preferência das partes, proteções contra retaliação e registros restritos. Usar o modelo de Operações para uma sessão de conflito violaria silenciosamente todas elas. Um modelo dedicado torna o container diferente visível desde o primeiro minuto. whatToDefine: >- Use este modelo apenas para sessões facilitadas sob os Passos 2–4 da Escada de Resolução de Conflitos. As regras de privacidade e de seleção do(a) Facilitador(a) são regidas pela Camada 4, não pela própria reunião. placeholders: - tipicamente 60–90 minutos; o(a) Facilitador(a) PODE estender. - duração; consentimento, confidencialidade, não retaliação, direito de pausa. - sem interrupções; tempo igual. - duração. - duração. - duração. - duração. - duração; registrar conforme regras de privacidade da Camada 4. - Acordo alcançado / Escalado para o próximo passo / Suspenso disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: meeting-templates.ratification-record artifact: meeting-templates order: 5 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Ratification Record whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] de: title: Ratifizierungsprotokoll whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: Registro de Ratificación whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: Registre de ratification whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Registro de Ratificação whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: filled_from_decision dispositionNote: >- Written from the decision that adopted this artifact: reference, date, mechanism, tally and attendance as recorded at freeze time. ownsClauses: [] - key: operations-manual.core-operational-processes artifact: operations-manual order: 0 clauseRefs: - 7.3.4 - 7.7.2 - 7.6.3 i18n: en: title: Core Operational Processes whyItMatters: >- If a process only lives in one person's head, the community depends on that person showing up — forever. Writing the critical processes down, with named owners, is what converts private knowledge into a community asset that survives handovers, absences, and exits. whatToDefine: >- For every recurring critical process (onboarding, exit, proposal publication, contribution recording, meeting cadence, treasury management, platform access review), name an owner and a brief description. placeholders: - Member onboarding - role - see Onboarding Protocol (Layer 1) - Member exit - role - see Exit & Separation Protocol (Layer 1) - Proposal publication - role - see Governance Protocol (Layer 2) - Contribution recording - role - see Internal Economy Protocol (Layer 3) - Recurring meeting - facilitator - agenda publication; notes; action tracking - Treasury management - finance steward - see Treasury Ruleset (Layer 3) - Platform access review - infrastructure steward - review cadence; access revocation for exited members question: Which things have to keep happening every week — and are they written down anywhere? prompts: - >- Which processes have to keep happening for the community to work — onboarding, exit, publishing proposals, recording contributions, running meetings, managing money, reviewing platform access, and anything else? - 'For each process: which role owns it, and what does it involve in two or three sentences?' - >- For each process: where are the steps written down, so someone new could carry it out without asking the person who usually does it? (Where our documents live in general is its own question.) - >- Which of these still depends on one person's memory or goodwill — and who will write it up, by when? - >- How do we keep each written process up to date when the way we actually do it changes? (Handoffs between roles are their own question.) examples: - >- Our core processes are member onboarding and member exit (Membership Admin, following those protocols), proposal publication (Governance Secretary), contribution recording (Contribution Steward), the weekly meeting (rotating facilitator: agenda, notes, action list), treasury management (Finance Steward) and platform access review (Infrastructure Steward, monthly, removing exited members). Each has a one-page checklist in the shared handbook that a new role holder can follow without help, and the owner updates it within a week of any change in practice. de: title: Zentrale Betriebsprozesse whyItMatters: >- Wenn ein Prozess nur im Kopf einer einzigen Person existiert, hängt die Gemeinschaft davon ab, dass diese Person immer verfügbar ist — für immer. Kritische Prozesse schriftlich festzuhalten, mit benannten Verantwortlichen, verwandelt privates Wissen in ein Gemeinschaftsgut, das Übergaben, Abwesenheiten und Austritte übersteht. whatToDefine: >- Benennt für jeden wiederkehrenden kritischen Prozess (Onboarding, Austritt, Antragsveröffentlichung, Beitragserfassung, Sitzungsrhythmus, Kassenverwaltung, Überprüfung von Plattformzugängen) eine verantwortliche Person und eine kurze Beschreibung. placeholders: - Mitglieder-Onboarding - Rolle - siehe Onboarding-Protokoll (Schicht 1) - Mitgliederaustritt - Rolle - siehe Austritts- & Trennungsprotokoll (Schicht 1) - Antragsveröffentlichung - Rolle - siehe Governance-Protokoll (Schicht 2) - Beitragserfassung - Rolle - siehe Binnenwirtschaftsprotokoll (Schicht 3) - Regelmäßige Sitzung - Moderation - Agenda-Veröffentlichung; Protokoll; Aufgabennachverfolgung - Kassenverwaltung - Finanzverantwortliche:r - siehe Kassenordnung (Schicht 3) - Überprüfung der Plattformzugänge - Infrastrukturverantwortliche:r - Prüfrhythmus; Zugangsentzug für ausgetretene Mitglieder es: title: Procesos Operativos Fundamentales whyItMatters: >- Si un proceso solo existe en la cabeza de una persona, la comunidad depende de que esa persona aparezca — para siempre. Documentar los procesos críticos por escrito, con responsables nombrados, es lo que convierte el conocimiento privado en un activo comunitario que sobrevive a traspasos, ausencias y salidas. whatToDefine: >- Para cada proceso crítico recurrente (incorporación, salida, publicación de propuestas, registro de contribuciones, cadencia de reuniones, gestión de tesorería, revisión de accesos a plataformas), nombra un responsable y una breve descripción. placeholders: - Incorporación de miembros - rol - ver Protocolo de Incorporación (Capa 1) - Salida de miembros - rol - ver Protocolo de Salida y Separación (Capa 1) - Publicación de propuestas - rol - ver Protocolo de Gobernanza (Capa 2) - Registro de contribuciones - rol - ver Protocolo de Economía Interna (Capa 3) - Reunión recurrente - facilitador/a - publicación de agenda; actas; seguimiento de acciones - Gestión de tesorería - administrador/a de finanzas - ver Reglamento de Tesorería (Capa 3) - Revisión de accesos a plataformas - administrador/a de infraestructura - cadencia de revisión; revocación de accesos para miembros que han salido fr: title: Processus opérationnels essentiels whyItMatters: >- Si un processus n'existe que dans la tête d'une seule personne, la communauté dépend de la présence de cette personne — indéfiniment. Mettre par écrit les processus critiques, avec des responsables nommés, c'est ce qui transforme un savoir privé en un bien commun capable de survivre aux passations, aux absences et aux départs. whatToDefine: >- Pour chaque processus critique récurrent (intégration, départ, publication de propositions, enregistrement des contributions, cadence des réunions, gestion de la trésorerie, revue des accès aux plateformes), nomme un·e responsable et fournis une brève description. placeholders: - Intégration des membres - rôle - voir Protocole d'intégration (Couche 1) - Départ des membres - rôle - voir Protocole de départ et séparation (Couche 1) - Publication des propositions - rôle - voir Protocole de gouvernance (Couche 2) - Enregistrement des contributions - rôle - voir Protocole d'économie interne (Couche 3) - Réunion récurrente - facilitateur·rice - publication de l'ordre du jour ; notes ; suivi des actions - Gestion de la trésorerie - intendant·e finances - voir Règles de trésorerie (Couche 3) - Revue des accès aux plateformes - intendant·e infrastructure - cadence de revue ; révocation des accès pour les membres sortis pt-br: title: Processos Operacionais Essenciais whyItMatters: >- Se um processo só existe na cabeça de uma pessoa, a comunidade depende dela aparecer — para sempre. Escrever os processos críticos, com pessoas responsáveis nomeadas, é o que transforma conhecimento privado em um ativo comunitário que sobrevive a transições, ausências e saídas. whatToDefine: >- Para cada processo crítico recorrente (acolhimento, saída, publicação de propostas, registro de contribuições, cadência de reuniões, gestão de tesouraria, revisão de acesso a plataformas), nomeie uma pessoa responsável e uma breve descrição. placeholders: - Acolhimento de membros - papel - ver Protocolo de Acolhimento (Camada 1) - Saída de membros - papel - ver Protocolo de Saída e Separação (Camada 1) - Publicação de propostas - papel - ver Protocolo de Governança (Camada 2) - Registro de contribuições - papel - ver Protocolo de Economia Interna (Camada 3) - Reunião recorrente - facilitador(a) - publicação de pauta; notas; acompanhamento de ações - Gestão de tesouraria - responsável financeiro - ver Regulamento de Tesouraria (Camada 3) - Revisão de acesso a plataformas - responsável por infraestrutura - cadência de revisão; revogação de acesso de membros que saíram disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 7.3.4 - 7.6.3 - 7.7.2 - key: operations-manual.temporary-and-ad-hoc-responsibilities artifact: operations-manual order: 1 clauseRefs: - 7.1.5 - 7.1.4 - 7.7.1 i18n: en: title: Temporary and Ad-Hoc Responsibilities whyItMatters: >- Ad-hoc tasks quietly calcify into permanent unpaid jobs — usually on whoever said yes once. A hard time-box and a forced review make the difference between "I covered for a week" and "apparently this is my role now." whatToDefine: >- State that any temporary responsibility must be time-bounded at assignment, documented, reviewed before expiry, and either formalised or terminated. placeholders: - Explicitly time-bounded from the outset (specific end date or completion condition). - Documented as temporary at the time of assignment. - Reviewed before the end date; converted to a formal role or terminated. - >- Maximum duration of any temporary responsibility before it must be formally assigned or terminated — e.g. 90 days. question: How do we stop a temporary favour becoming somebody's permanent unpaid job? prompts: - >- When someone takes on a temporary task, how is its end set — a date, or a clear condition that marks it done? - Where is it recorded as temporary at the moment it is handed out, and by whom? - >- What is the longest a temporary responsibility may run, extensions included, before it must become a formal role or stop? - >- Who checks on it before the end date, and how is it either ended or turned into a proper role? (Defining the new role is a Role Registry question.) examples: - >- Every temporary task is given with an end date or a clear "done when" condition and logged as temporary on the task board by whoever assigns it. A week before it ends, the assigner and the person doing it check in: the task either ends, or it is proposed as a new role for the Role Registry. No temporary responsibility may run longer than 90 days in total, extensions included. de: title: Temporäre und Ad-hoc-Verantwortlichkeiten whyItMatters: >- Ad-hoc-Aufgaben verfestigen sich still und leise zu dauerhaften, unbezahlten Jobs — meist bei der Person, die einmal Ja gesagt hat. Eine feste Zeitbegrenzung und eine erzwungene Überprüfung machen den Unterschied zwischen „Ich bin eine Woche eingesprungen" und „Anscheinend ist das jetzt meine Aufgabe." whatToDefine: >- Haltet fest, dass jede temporäre Verantwortlichkeit bei der Zuweisung zeitlich begrenzt, dokumentiert und vor Ablauf überprüft werden muss — und dann entweder formalisiert oder beendet wird. placeholders: - >- Von Anfang an ausdrücklich zeitlich begrenzt sein (konkretes Enddatum oder Abschlussbedingung). - Zum Zeitpunkt der Zuweisung als temporär dokumentiert werden. - >- Vor dem Enddatum überprüft und entweder in eine formale Rolle überführt oder beendet werden. - >- Maximale Dauer einer temporären Verantwortlichkeit, bevor sie formal zugewiesen oder beendet werden muss — z. B. 90 Tage. es: title: Responsabilidades Temporales y Ad-Hoc whyItMatters: >- Las tareas ad-hoc se solidifican silenciosamente en trabajos permanentes no remunerados — generalmente sobre quien dijo que sí una vez. Un límite temporal estricto y una revisión obligatoria marcan la diferencia entre "cubrí durante una semana" y "aparentemente este es mi rol ahora." whatToDefine: >- Establece que toda responsabilidad temporal DEBE estar acotada en el tiempo al asignarla, documentada, revisada antes del vencimiento, y formalizada o terminada. placeholders: - >- Estar explícitamente acotada en el tiempo desde el inicio (fecha de fin específica o condición de finalización). - Documentarse como temporal en el momento de la asignación. - Revisarse antes de la fecha de fin; convertirse en un rol formal o terminarse. - >- Duración máxima de cualquier responsabilidad temporal antes de que DEBA asignarse formalmente o terminarse — p. ej. 90 días. fr: title: Responsabilités temporaires et ponctuelles whyItMatters: >- Les tâches ponctuelles se transforment silencieusement en postes permanents non rémunérés — généralement portés par la personne qui a dit oui une fois. Une durée maximale stricte et une revue obligatoire font la différence entre « j'ai assuré le relais pendant une semaine » et « apparemment c'est mon rôle maintenant. » whatToDefine: >- Indique que toute responsabilité temporaire DOIT être limitée dans le temps dès son attribution, documentée, revue avant expiration, puis soit formalisée soit clôturée. placeholders: - >- Explicitement limitée dans le temps dès le départ (date de fin spécifique ou condition d'achèvement). - Documentée comme temporaire au moment de l'attribution. - Revue avant la date de fin ; convertie en rôle formel ou clôturée. - >- Durée maximale de toute responsabilité temporaire avant qu'elle ne DOIVE être formellement attribuée ou clôturée — p. ex. 90 jours. pt-br: title: Responsabilidades Temporárias e Ad-Hoc whyItMatters: >- Tarefas ad-hoc silenciosamente se cristalizam em trabalhos permanentes não remunerados — geralmente sobre quem disse sim uma vez. Um prazo rígido e uma revisão obrigatória fazem a diferença entre "cobri por uma semana" e "aparentemente esse é o meu papel agora". whatToDefine: >- Estabeleça que qualquer responsabilidade temporária DEVE ter prazo definido na atribuição, ser documentada, revisada antes da expiração e formalizada ou encerrada. placeholders: - >- Explicitamente limitada no tempo desde o início (data final específica ou condição de conclusão). - Documentada como temporária no momento da atribuição. - Revisada antes da data final; convertida em papel formal ou encerrada. - >- Duração máxima de qualquer responsabilidade temporária antes que precise ser formalmente atribuída ou encerrada — por exemplo, 90 dias. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 7.1.5 - key: operations-manual.role-and-domain-interfaces artifact: operations-manual order: 2 clauseRefs: - 7.6.3 - 7.3.4 i18n: en: title: Role and Domain Interfaces whyItMatters: >- Most operational failures happen not inside a role but between roles — at the boundaries where work moves from one owner to the next. Naming the handoffs turns invisible dependencies into reviewable ones, and prevents "I thought you had it" failures. whatToDefine: >- For each pair of roles that pass work to each other, name the handoff and the type of work transferred. placeholders: - role - role - what is handed off - role - role - ... question: Where does one role's work end and the next one's begin? prompts: - Which roles regularly pass work to each other? - >- For each handoff: what is handed over, in which direction, and how does the receiving role know it has arrived? - >- At what point does the work stop being the first role's responsibility and become the next one's? - >- Where does work pass between a role and a meeting — for example, a decision that a role must then carry out? - When a handoff gets dropped, who notices and who sorts it out? examples: - >- Membership Admin to Infrastructure Steward: when a new member's trial starts, the admin posts their details in the access channel and the steward sets up accounts within three days; on exit the same route removes them. Finance Steward to Contribution Steward: at each month-end the finance steward shares amounts paid in so contribution records can be reconciled. Governance meeting to role holders: each adopted decision is assigned to a named role in the notes, and that role confirms it has picked it up. de: title: Rollen- und Zuständigkeitsschnittstellen whyItMatters: >- Die meisten Betriebsfehler passieren nicht innerhalb einer Rolle, sondern zwischen Rollen — an den Schnittstellen, wo Arbeit von einer verantwortlichen Person zur nächsten wandert. Die Übergaben zu benennen macht unsichtbare Abhängigkeiten überprüfbar und verhindert „Ich dachte, du hättest dich drum gekümmert"-Situationen. whatToDefine: >- Benennt für jedes Rollenpaar, das Arbeit weitergibt, die Übergabe und die Art der übertragenen Arbeit. placeholders: - Rolle - Rolle - was übergeben wird - Rolle - Rolle - ... es: title: Interfaces entre Roles y Dominios whyItMatters: >- La mayoría de los fallos operativos no ocurren dentro de un rol sino entre roles — en las fronteras donde el trabajo pasa de un responsable al siguiente. Nombrar los traspasos convierte dependencias invisibles en dependencias revisables, y previene los fallos de "yo pensaba que lo tenías tú". whatToDefine: >- Para cada par de roles que se pasan trabajo entre sí, nombra el traspaso y el tipo de trabajo transferido. placeholders: - rol - rol - qué se traspasa - rol - rol - ... fr: title: Interfaces entre rôles et domaines whyItMatters: >- La plupart des défaillances opérationnelles ne surviennent pas à l'intérieur d'un rôle mais entre les rôles — aux frontières où le travail passe d'un·e responsable à l'autre. Nommer les passations transforme des dépendances invisibles en dépendances vérifiables, et prévient les échecs du type « je pensais que c'était toi qui t'en occupais ». whatToDefine: >- Pour chaque paire de rôles qui se transmettent du travail, nomme la passation et le type de travail transféré. placeholders: - rôle - rôle - ce qui est transmis - rôle - rôle - ... pt-br: title: Interfaces entre Papéis e Domínios whyItMatters: >- A maioria das falhas operacionais não acontece dentro de um papel, mas entre papéis — nas fronteiras onde o trabalho passa de um responsável para outro. Nomear as transições transforma dependências invisíveis em revisáveis e evita falhas do tipo "achei que você tivesse cuidado disso". whatToDefine: >- Para cada par de papéis que passa trabalho entre si, nomeie a transição e o tipo de trabalho transferido. placeholders: - papel - papel - o que é entregue - papel - papel - ... disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: operations-manual.workload-boundaries artifact: operations-manual order: 3 clauseRefs: - 7.4.1 - 7.4.2 - 7.4.3 - 7.4.4 - 7.7.3 i18n: en: title: Workload Boundaries whyItMatters: >- Unbounded coordination load is the default failure mode of volunteer communities — it quietly burns out the most committed members until they leave. Explicit, reviewable limits make capacity a shared concern rather than a private burden. whatToDefine: >- Set bounds on meeting load, role load, response-time expectations, and the path for renegotiating responsibilities. placeholders: - recurring meeting cadence and maximum duration; rules for extraordinary meetings. - cap if any; rule for flagging overload; resolution window. - non-urgent async; urgent operational; safety-critical. - process for redistributing responsibilities; resolution window. - >- how persistent overload, burnout risk, chronic non-participation, or dependency on over-functioning individuals is detected, and how it is routed into the Layer 4 review or repair process. question: >- How much time, meeting and care can we ask of one person — and what happens when someone is overloaded? prompts: - >- How much meeting time can we ask of one person — how often, how long, and what counts as an extra meeting? - >- How many roles or hours a week may one person carry — counting unseen work like hosting, cleaning up or emotional support? - >- What reply times do we expect — for everyday messages, urgent operational matters and safety issues — and when is nobody expected to answer? - >- When someone says they are overloaded, how is their work covered, handed on or shared out — and how quickly? - >- What signs tell us there is a pattern — lasting overload, burnout, members going quiet, or everything resting on a few people — and which review or repair process does that start? - How often do we review these limits, and how are they changed? examples: - >- Recurring meetings take up at most four hours a month per person; an extra meeting needs 72 hours' notice. Nobody holds more than two roles or about eight hours a week, care and hosting work included. Messages get a reply within three days, urgent operational ones within a day, safety issues at once. Anyone can say they are overloaded, and their tasks are reshared within two weeks; overload flagged twice in a quarter goes to our review-and-repair process. These limits are reviewed yearly and changed by proposal. de: title: Belastungsgrenzen whyItMatters: >- Unbegrenzte Koordinationslast ist der Standard-Fehlermodus von Freiwilligengemeinschaften — sie brennt still die engagiertesten Mitglieder aus, bis sie gehen. Explizite, überprüfbare Grenzen machen Kapazität zu einer gemeinsamen Angelegenheit statt zu einer privaten Last. whatToDefine: >- Legt Grenzen für Sitzungsbelastung, Rollenbelastung, Reaktionszeit-Erwartungen und den Weg zur Neuverhandlung von Verantwortlichkeiten fest. placeholders: - >- Wiederkehrender Sitzungsrhythmus und maximale Dauer; Regeln für außerordentliche Sitzungen. - Obergrenze falls vorhanden; Regel zur Überlastungsmeldung; Lösungsfrist. - Nicht-dringend asynchron; dringend betrieblich; sicherheitskritisch. - Verfahren zur Umverteilung von Verantwortlichkeiten; Lösungsfrist. - >- Wie anhaltende Überlastung, Burnout-Risiko, chronische Nichtbeteiligung oder Abhängigkeit von überfunktionierenden Personen erkannt und in den Review- oder Reparaturprozess von Schicht 4 überführt wird. es: title: Límites de Carga de Trabajo whyItMatters: >- La carga de coordinación ilimitada es el modo de fallo predeterminado de las comunidades voluntarias — quema silenciosamente a los miembros más comprometidos hasta que se van. Límites explícitos y revisables hacen de la capacidad una preocupación compartida en lugar de una carga privada. whatToDefine: >- Establece límites para la carga de reuniones, carga de roles, expectativas de tiempo de respuesta, y el camino para renegociar responsabilidades. placeholders: - >- cadencia de reuniones recurrentes y duración máxima; reglas para reuniones extraordinarias. - tope si lo hay; regla para señalar sobrecarga; plazo de resolución. - asíncrono no urgente; operativo urgente; crítico para la seguridad. - proceso para redistribuir responsabilidades; plazo de resolución. - >- cómo se detecta la sobrecarga persistente, el riesgo de agotamiento, la no participación crónica o la dependencia de personas que sobrefuncionan, y cómo se deriva al proceso de revisión o reparación de la Capa 4. fr: title: Limites de charge de travail whyItMatters: >- Une charge de coordination illimitée est le mode de défaillance par défaut des communautés bénévoles — elle épuise silencieusement les membres les plus engagés jusqu'à ce qu'ils partent. Des limites explicites et vérifiables font de la capacité une préoccupation collective plutôt qu'un fardeau individuel. whatToDefine: >- Définis des limites pour la charge de réunions, la charge par rôle, les attentes en termes de temps de réponse, et le processus de renégociation des responsabilités. placeholders: - >- cadence des réunions récurrentes et durée maximale ; règles pour les réunions extraordinaires. - plafond le cas échéant ; règle pour signaler une surcharge ; délai de résolution. - asynchrone non urgent ; opérationnel urgent ; critique pour la sécurité. - processus de redistribution des responsabilités ; délai de résolution. - >- comment la surcharge persistante, le risque d'épuisement, la non-participation chronique ou la dépendance envers des personnes en sur-fonctionnement sont détectés, et comment ils sont orientés vers le processus de révision ou de réparation de la Couche 4. pt-br: title: Limites de Carga de Trabalho whyItMatters: >- Carga de coordenação sem limites é o modo padrão de falha de comunidades voluntárias — ela silenciosamente esgota as pessoas mais comprometidas até que elas saiam. Limites explícitos e revisáveis fazem da capacidade uma preocupação compartilhada em vez de um fardo privado. whatToDefine: >- Defina limites para carga de reuniões, carga de papéis, expectativas de tempo de resposta e o caminho para renegociar responsabilidades. placeholders: - cadência das reuniões recorrentes e duração máxima; regras para reuniões extraordinárias. - limite, se houver; regra para sinalizar sobrecarga; janela de resolução. - assíncrono não urgente; operacional urgente; crítico para a segurança. - processo para redistribuir responsabilidades; janela de resolução. - >- como a sobrecarga persistente, o risco de esgotamento, a não participação crônica ou a dependência de pessoas que assumem funções em excesso são detectados, e como são encaminhados ao processo de revisão ou reparação da Camada 4. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 7.4.1 - 7.4.2 - 7.4.3 - 7.4.4 - 7.7.3 - key: operations-manual.operational-continuity artifact: operations-manual order: 4 clauseRefs: - 7.5.1 - 7.5.2 - 7.5.3 i18n: en: title: Operational Continuity whyItMatters: >- A community that depends on one irreplaceable person is one illness, one conflict, or one exit away from collapse. Naming the single points of failure — honestly — and building handover into every role is what keeps the community surviving its founders. whatToDefine: >- Name current single points of failure honestly. State the handover requirement for each role and the cadence of continuity review. placeholders: - honest list of single points of failure; recruitment plan to reduce concentration. - >- reference handover requirements per role in the Role Registry; handover must be completed before a role is vacated. - quarterly; ad hoc on role change. question: If any one of us disappeared for a month, what would stop working? prompts: - >- Honestly, who or what is a single point of failure today — a person, account, key or skill that only one of us has? - 'For each one: what is our plan to share it, and by when?' - >- For each core role and process: is the procedure written down, and what must be handed over before the holder leaves? - Who backs up each core role — and where is a backup not yet possible? - >- How often do we review this, and what else triggers a review, such as a role changing hands? examples: - >- Today only one member can access the bank account and only one understands the water system. By March a second bank signatory will be added, and the water system will have a written guide and a trained deputy. Every core role has a named backup and a handover checklist that must be completed before the holder steps down. The Infrastructure Steward reviews this list every quarter and whenever a role changes hands. de: title: Betriebliche Kontinuität whyItMatters: >- Eine Gemeinschaft, die von einer einzigen unersetzlichen Person abhängt, ist nur eine Krankheit, einen Konflikt oder einen Austritt vom Zusammenbruch entfernt. Die Single Points of Failure ehrlich zu benennen — und Übergaben in jede Rolle einzubauen — ist das, was die Gemeinschaft ihre Gründer:innen überleben lässt. whatToDefine: >- Benennt die aktuellen Single Points of Failure ehrlich. Haltet die Übergabe-Anforderungen pro Rolle und den Rhythmus der Kontinuitätsüberprüfung fest. placeholders: - >- Ehrliche Auflistung der Single Points of Failure; Rekrutierungsplan zur Verringerung der Konzentration. - >- Verweis auf die Übergabe-Anforderungen pro Rolle im Rollenregister; Übergabe muss abgeschlossen sein, bevor eine Rolle aufgegeben wird. - Vierteljährlich; ad hoc bei Rollenwechsel. es: title: Continuidad Operativa whyItMatters: >- Una comunidad que depende de una persona irremplazable está a una enfermedad, un conflicto o una salida de distancia del colapso. Nombrar los puntos únicos de fallo — con honestidad — e incorporar el traspaso en cada rol es lo que permite a la comunidad sobrevivir a sus fundadores. whatToDefine: >- Nombra honestamente los puntos únicos de fallo actuales. Establece el requisito de traspaso para cada rol y la cadencia de revisión de continuidad. placeholders: - >- lista honesta de puntos únicos de fallo; plan de reclutamiento para reducir la concentración. - >- referencia a los requisitos de traspaso por rol en el Registro de Roles; el traspaso DEBE completarse antes de que un rol quede vacante. - trimestral; ad hoc ante cambio de rol. fr: title: Continuité opérationnelle whyItMatters: >- Une communauté qui dépend d'une personne irremplaçable n'est qu'à une maladie, un conflit ou un départ de l'effondrement. Nommer honnêtement les points de défaillance uniques — et intégrer la passation dans chaque rôle — c'est ce qui permet à la communauté de survivre à ses fondateur·rices. whatToDefine: >- Nomme honnêtement les points de défaillance uniques actuels. Indique les exigences de passation pour chaque rôle et la cadence de revue de continuité. placeholders: - >- liste honnête des points de défaillance uniques ; plan de recrutement pour réduire la concentration. - >- référence aux exigences de passation par rôle dans le Registre des rôles ; la passation DOIT être achevée avant qu'un rôle ne soit libéré. - trimestrielle ; ponctuelle lors d'un changement de rôle. pt-br: title: Continuidade Operacional whyItMatters: >- Uma comunidade que depende de uma pessoa insubstituível está a uma doença, um conflito ou uma saída do colapso. Nomear os pontos únicos de falha — honestamente — e incorporar a transição em cada papel é o que mantém a comunidade sobrevivendo aos seus fundadores. whatToDefine: >- Nomeie os atuais pontos únicos de falha honestamente. Estabeleça a exigência de transição para cada papel e a cadência de revisão da continuidade. placeholders: - >- lista honesta de pontos únicos de falha; plano de recrutamento para reduzir a concentração. - >- consulte as exigências de transição por papel no Registro de Papéis; a transição DEVE ser concluída antes que um papel seja desocupado. - trimestral; ad hoc em caso de mudança de papel. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 7.5.1 - 7.5.2 - 7.5.3 - key: operations-manual.information-flow-and-anti-gatekeeping artifact: operations-manual order: 5 clauseRefs: - 7.3.5 - 7.7.4 - 7.3.2 i18n: en: title: Information Flow and Anti-Gatekeeping whyItMatters: >- Whoever controls access to information controls the community, whether they mean to or not. Making access rules explicit — and disallowing sole points of access — is what prevents informal gatekeepers from accumulating the kind of power the governance system is supposed to check. whatToDefine: >- State which records are open to all Full Members, the response window for information requests, and the rule against sole points of access for governance-relevant information. placeholders: - Governance decisions accessible to all Full Members. - Meeting notes published within X hours. - Membership state and role assignments accessible. - Contribution records accessible. - Information request response window. - >- Withholding access to information members are entitled to is an accountability trigger under Layer 4. - >- No role or individual may be the sole point of access for information required by other role holders. question: How do we make sure nobody has to go through one person to find something out? prompts: - >- Which records can every Full Member open directly, without asking anyone — decisions, meeting notes, roles, membership, contributions? (Restricted and private records are their own question.) - How soon after a meeting must notes and decisions be published? - >- When someone asks for information they are entitled to, who must answer, and within how long? - >- How do we make sure no single person or role is the only way in to information others need — passwords, files, contacts? - What happens when someone holds back information a member is entitled to? examples: - >- Every Full Member can read decisions, meeting notes, role assignments, membership status and contribution records in the shared drive without asking anyone. Meeting notes are posted within 48 hours. Any other request for information a member is entitled to is answered within five days. Every shared account and folder has at least two people with access, and withholding information a member is entitled to is treated as an accountability issue under our conflict process. de: title: Informationsfluss und Anti-Gatekeeping whyItMatters: >- Wer den Zugang zu Informationen kontrolliert, kontrolliert die Gemeinschaft — ob beabsichtigt oder nicht. Zugriffsregeln explizit zu machen — und alleinige Zugangspunkte zu untersagen — verhindert, dass informelle Gatekeeper die Art von Macht ansammeln, die das Governance-System eigentlich kontrollieren soll. whatToDefine: >- Haltet fest, welche Unterlagen allen Vollmitgliedern zugänglich sind, wie lang die Antwortfrist für Informationsanfragen ist und welche Regel gegen alleinige Zugangspunkte für governance-relevante Informationen gilt. placeholders: - Governance-Entscheidungen sind für alle Vollmitglieder zugänglich. - Sitzungsprotokolle werden innerhalb von X Stunden veröffentlicht. - Mitgliedschaftsstatus und Rollenzuweisungen sind einsehbar. - Beitragsnachweise sind einsehbar. - Antwortfrist für Informationsanfragen. - >- Das Zurückhalten von Informationen, auf die Mitglieder Anspruch haben, ist ein Rechenschaftsauslöser gemäß Schicht 4. - >- Keine Rolle und keine Einzelperson darf der alleinige Zugangspunkt für Informationen sein, die andere Rolleninhaber:innen benötigen. es: title: Flujo de Información y Anti-Monopolización whyItMatters: >- Quien controla el acceso a la información controla la comunidad, lo pretenda o no. Hacer explícitas las reglas de acceso — y prohibir los puntos únicos de acceso — es lo que impide que los guardianes informales acumulen el tipo de poder que el sistema de gobernanza se supone que debe controlar. whatToDefine: >- Indica qué registros están abiertos a todos los Miembros Plenos, el plazo de respuesta para solicitudes de información, y la regla contra los puntos únicos de acceso para información relevante de gobernanza. placeholders: - Decisiones de gobernanza accesibles para todos los Miembros Plenos. - Actas de reuniones publicadas en un plazo de X horas. - Estado de membresía y asignaciones de roles accesibles. - Registros de contribuciones accesibles. - Plazo de respuesta a solicitudes de información. - >- Retener el acceso a información a la que los miembros tienen derecho es un activador de rendición de cuentas según la Capa 4. - >- Ningún rol o individuo PUEDE ser el único punto de acceso para información requerida por otros titulares de roles. fr: title: Flux d'information et anti-verrouillage whyItMatters: >- Quiconque contrôle l'accès à l'information contrôle la communauté, intentionnellement ou non. Rendre les règles d'accès explicites — et interdire les points d'accès uniques — c'est ce qui empêche les gardien·nes informel·les d'accumuler le type de pouvoir que le système de gouvernance est censé contrôler. whatToDefine: >- Indique quels registres sont accessibles à tou·tes les Membres actifs, le délai de réponse aux demandes d'information, et la règle interdisant les points d'accès uniques pour l'information pertinente à la gouvernance. placeholders: - Décisions de gouvernance accessibles à tou·tes les Membres actifs. - Notes de réunion publiées dans un délai de X heures. - État des adhésions et affectations de rôles accessibles. - Registres de contributions accessibles. - Délai de réponse aux demandes d'information. - >- Retenir l'accès à des informations auxquelles les membres ont droit déclenche le processus de responsabilité prévu par la Couche 4. - >- Aucun rôle ni individu NE PEUT être le seul point d'accès à une information requise par d'autres titulaires de rôle. pt-br: title: Fluxo de Informação e Antibloqueio de Acesso whyItMatters: >- Quem controla o acesso à informação controla a comunidade, querendo ou não. Tornar as regras de acesso explícitas — e proibir pontos únicos de acesso — é o que impede que guardiões informais acumulem o tipo de poder que o sistema de governança deveria conter. whatToDefine: >- Estabeleça quais registros são abertos a todos os Membros Plenos, a janela de resposta para solicitações de informação e a regra contra pontos únicos de acesso a informações relevantes para a governança. placeholders: - Decisões de governança acessíveis a todos os Membros Plenos. - Notas de reuniões publicadas em até X horas. - Estado de adesão e atribuições de papéis acessíveis. - Registros de contribuições acessíveis. - Janela de resposta para solicitações de informação. - >- Negar acesso a informações às quais os membros têm direito é um gatilho de responsabilização sob a Camada 4. - >- Nenhum papel ou indivíduo PODE ser o único ponto de acesso a informações requeridas por outros responsáveis por papéis. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 7.3.5 - 7.7.4 - key: operations-manual.documentation-locations-and-update-procedures artifact: operations-manual order: 6 clauseRefs: - 7.3.1 - 7.3.2 - 7.3.3 - 7.8.1 i18n: en: title: Documentation Locations and Update Procedures whyItMatters: >- If no one can say where the canonical version of something lives, there is no canonical version. Naming the location, owner, and review cadence for each document type is what makes the community's memory auditable rather than folkloric. whatToDefine: For each document type, name the canonical location, the owner, and the review cadence. placeholders: - RCOS artifacts - location - owner - cadence - Member registry - location - owner - cadence - Meeting notes - location - owner - cadence - Governance proposals - location - owner - cadence - Contribution records - location - owner - cadence question: >- What do we write down, where, and who may read it — and can every decision be traced to who made it and how? prompts: - >- For each kind of record — our governance documents, member registry, meeting notes, proposals, contribution records: where does the official copy live, who keeps it, and how often is it reviewed? - >- What must be written down about decisions, roles, day-to-day operations and shared obligations — what does each record have to contain at minimum? - >- Who may read which records, and which are restricted for privacy — on what grounds, and who may still see them? - When must a new record be published or announced, and to whom? - >- Does every decision record say what type of decision it was and which area it covers, who had the authority, how it was decided and by what threshold, the outcome, and when it takes effect? - >- Where can anyone find, written down, our roles, who may decide what, our meeting types, and our access and privacy rules? examples: - >- Governance documents, the member registry and proposals live in the shared drive, kept by the Secretary and reviewed yearly; meeting notes and contribution records live on the wiki, kept by each facilitator and the Contribution Steward and reviewed quarterly. Every decision record states its type and area, who decided, the mechanism and threshold, the outcome and its start date, and is announced within three days. Members can read everything except health, safeguarding and conflict records, which only the people involved and two named stewards may see. de: title: Dokumentationsstandorte und Aktualisierungsverfahren whyItMatters: >- Wenn niemand sagen kann, wo die kanonische Version von etwas liegt, gibt es keine kanonische Version. Für jeden Dokumenttyp den Ablageort, die verantwortliche Person und den Überprüfungsrhythmus zu benennen, macht das Gedächtnis der Gemeinschaft auditierbar statt folkloristisch. whatToDefine: >- Benennt für jeden Dokumenttyp den kanonischen Ablageort, die verantwortliche Person und den Überprüfungsrhythmus. placeholders: - RCOS-Artefakte - Ablageort - Verantwortlich - Rhythmus - Mitgliederregister - Ablageort - Verantwortlich - Rhythmus - Sitzungsprotokolle - Ablageort - Verantwortlich - Rhythmus - Governance-Anträge - Ablageort - Verantwortlich - Rhythmus - Beitragsnachweise - Ablageort - Verantwortlich - Rhythmus es: title: Ubicaciones de Documentación y Procedimientos de Actualización whyItMatters: >- Si nadie puede decir dónde está la versión canónica de algo, no hay versión canónica. Nombrar la ubicación, el responsable y la cadencia de revisión de cada tipo de documento es lo que hace que la memoria de la comunidad sea auditable en lugar de folclórica. whatToDefine: >- Para cada tipo de documento, nombra la ubicación canónica, el responsable y la cadencia de revisión. placeholders: - Artefactos RCOS - ubicación - responsable - cadencia - Registro de miembros - ubicación - responsable - cadencia - Actas de reuniones - ubicación - responsable - cadencia - Propuestas de gobernanza - ubicación - responsable - cadencia - Registros de contribuciones - ubicación - responsable - cadencia fr: title: Emplacements de la documentation et procédures de mise à jour whyItMatters: >- Si personne ne peut dire où se trouve la version canonique d'un document, il n'y a pas de version canonique. Nommer l'emplacement, le ou la responsable et la cadence de revue pour chaque type de document, c'est ce qui rend la mémoire de la communauté auditable plutôt que folklorique. whatToDefine: >- Pour chaque type de document, nomme l'emplacement canonique, le ou la responsable et la cadence de revue. placeholders: - Artefacts RCOS - emplacement - responsable - cadence - Registre des membres - emplacement - responsable - cadence - Notes de réunion - emplacement - responsable - cadence - Propositions de gouvernance - emplacement - responsable - cadence - Registres de contributions - emplacement - responsable - cadence pt-br: title: Localização da Documentação e Procedimentos de Atualização whyItMatters: >- Se ninguém consegue dizer onde mora a versão canônica de algo, não há versão canônica. Nomear a localização, a pessoa responsável e a cadência de revisão para cada tipo de documento é o que torna a memória da comunidade auditável em vez de folclórica. whatToDefine: >- Para cada tipo de documento, nomeie a localização canônica, a pessoa responsável e a cadência de revisão. placeholders: - Artefatos RCOS - localização - responsável - cadência - Registro de membros - localização - responsável - cadência - Notas de reuniões - localização - responsável - cadência - Propostas de governança - localização - responsável - cadência - Registros de contribuições - localização - responsável - cadência disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 7.3.1 - 7.3.2 - 7.3.3 - 7.8.1 - key: operations-manual.ratification-record artifact: operations-manual order: 7 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Ratification Record whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] de: title: Ratifizierungsnachweis whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: Registro de Ratificación whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: Registre de ratification whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Registro de Ratificação whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: filled_from_decision dispositionNote: >- Written from the decision that adopted this artifact: reference, date, mechanism, tally and attendance as recorded at freeze time. ownsClauses: [] - key: role-registry.overview artifact: role-registry order: 0 clauseRefs: - 7.1.1 - 7.1.2 - 7.1.4 - 7.7.1 i18n: en: title: Overview whyItMatters: >- Ongoing responsibilities without explicit roles become invisible labor — done by whoever notices, resented silently, and impossible to hand over. Making every ongoing responsibility a named, accountable role is what prevents the community from running on the unpaid goodwill of a few members. whatToDefine: >- Distinguish operational roles (carrying delegated authority per the Decision Matrix) from functional roles (contribution-scoped, no special governance authority). State the "in good standing" definition you will use for eligibility. placeholders: - period question: Which ongoing jobs have a name and a person, rather than being everybody's and nobody's? prompts: - >- Which ongoing responsibilities do we have today, and does each belong to a named role — or is some of it still done by whoever happens to notice? - >- What makes a role operational (it may act for the community within set limits) rather than functional (it does work but carries no special say)? - What does ‘in good standing’ mean for anyone who wants to take on a role? - >- What must every role entry contain — purpose, scope and authority, boundaries with other roles, who is eligible, term, and how holders are appointed, reviewed and removed? - >- How do we make sure nobody is held responsible for work that was never assigned to their role? - How often do we check the registry against the work actually being done, and who does it? examples: - >- Every ongoing task belongs to a role in this registry; if it is not listed, nobody can be held to it, and whoever notices proposes a role for it. Operational roles may act for the community within limits set in the Decision Matrix; functional roles do work but carry no extra say. A member is in good standing if they are up to date on agreed contributions and not suspended. Each entry lists purpose, scope and authority, boundaries, eligibility, term, and appointment, review and removal. Stewards check the registry every six months. de: title: Überblick whyItMatters: >- Laufende Verantwortlichkeiten ohne explizite Rollen werden zu unsichtbarer Arbeit — erledigt von wem auch immer es auffällt, still hingenommen und unmöglich zu übergeben. Jede laufende Verantwortung zu einer benannten, rechenschaftspflichtigen Rolle zu machen, verhindert, dass die Gemeinschaft auf dem unbezahlten Wohlwollen einiger weniger Mitglieder läuft. whatToDefine: >- Unterscheidet operative Rollen (mit delegierter Autorität gemäß der Entscheidungsmatrix) von funktionalen Rollen (beitragsbezogen, ohne besondere Governance-Autorität). Legt die Definition von „in gutem Status" fest, die ihr für die Berechtigung verwenden werdet. placeholders: - Zeitraum es: title: Visión general whyItMatters: >- Las responsabilidades continuas sin roles explícitos se convierten en trabajo invisible — lo hace quien se da cuenta, genera resentimiento silencioso y es imposible de traspasar. Convertir cada responsabilidad continua en un rol con nombre y rendición de cuentas es lo que evita que la comunidad funcione a base de la buena voluntad no reconocida de unos pocos miembros. whatToDefine: >- Distingue los roles operativos (que llevan autoridad delegada según la Matriz de Decisiones) de los roles funcionales (limitados a contribuciones, sin autoridad de gobernanza especial). Indica la definición de "en buen estado" que usarás para la elegibilidad. placeholders: - período fr: title: Vue d'ensemble whyItMatters: >- Les responsabilités continues sans rôle explicite deviennent du travail invisible — effectué par la personne qui le remarque, source de ressentiment silencieux, et impossible à transmettre. Associer chaque responsabilité continue à un rôle nommé et redevable est ce qui empêche la communauté de fonctionner grâce à la bonne volonté non reconnue de quelques membres. whatToDefine: >- Distingue les rôles opérationnels (détenant une autorité déléguée selon la Matrice de décision) des rôles fonctionnels (limités à un périmètre de contribution, sans autorité de gouvernance particulière). Indique la définition de « en règle » que tu utiliseras pour l'éligibilité. placeholders: - période pt-br: title: Visão Geral whyItMatters: >- Responsabilidades contínuas sem papéis explícitos viram trabalho invisível — feitas por quem percebe, ressentidas silenciosamente e impossíveis de transferir. Tornar cada responsabilidade contínua um papel nomeado e responsabilizável é o que impede que a comunidade funcione à custa da boa vontade não remunerada de alguns membros. whatToDefine: >- Distinga papéis operacionais (que carregam autoridade delegada conforme a Matriz de Decisão) de papéis funcionais (com escopo de contribuição, sem autoridade especial de governança). Defina o que você usará como "em situação regular" para fins de elegibilidade. placeholders: - período disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 7.1.1 - 7.1.2 - 7.1.4 - 7.7.1 - key: role-registry.summary-table artifact: role-registry order: 1 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Summary Table whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: - Role name - Operational / Functional - holder or "Vacant" - ... - ... - ... de: title: Übersichtstabelle whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: - Rollenname - Operativ / Funktional - Inhaber\*in oder „Vakant" - ... - ... - ... es: title: Tabla resumen whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: - Nombre del rol - Operativo / Funcional - titular o "Vacante" - ... - ... - ... fr: title: Tableau récapitulatif whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: - Nom du rôle - Opérationnel / Fonctionnel - titulaire ou « Vacant » - ... - ... - ... pt-br: title: Tabela Resumo whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: - Nome do papel - Operacional / Funcional - detentor ou "Vago" - ... - ... - ... disposition: derived dispositionNote: >- A table of the roles defined in the sections below it. Generated from them, so a community that edits a role does not have to remember to edit the summary — and cannot leave the two disagreeing. ownsClauses: [] - key: role-registry.operational-roles artifact: role-registry order: 2 clauseRefs: - 7.1.2 - 7.1.3 i18n: en: title: Operational Roles whyItMatters: >- Operational roles carry real power — they can act without a community vote within their scope. That power only stays safe if each role has a clear accountability mechanism: who can raise concerns, how review happens, and how a role can be reassigned when trust breaks. whatToDefine: >- For each operational role, fill in the template below with concrete scope, decision authority, interfaces, eligibility, term, appointment, review/removal, and handover requirements. placeholders: - Operational Role Name, e.g. Membership Admin - one-sentence purpose. - concrete responsibilities. - which decisions in the Decision Matrix this role executes; explicit limits. - other roles this role hands off to or receives from. - Full Member in good standing; any additional criteria. - ongoing / rotating / fixed term. - how the role is assigned. - how concerns are raised; reassignment via Strategic vote. - what must be transferred before vacating. - Operational Role Name, e.g. Finance Steward - purpose. - responsibilities. - Decision Matrix scope; spending limit. - other roles. - Full Member in good standing. - ... - ... - ... - ... - >- Add additional operational roles as needed (e.g. Infrastructure Steward, Communications Steward). question: For each role that keeps things running, what is it answerable for and who reviews that? prompts: - >- Which operational roles do we need, and for each: what is it for and what is it responsible for? - >- For each role: which decisions may it take without a community vote, and where are its limits (for example, a spending cap)? - 'For each role: who is eligible, how long is the term, and how is the holder chosen?' - 'For each role: how, how often and by whom is the holder''s work reviewed?' - >- For each role: what happens if the work is not getting done or the holder is overloaded — and how can the role be reassigned? - 'For each role: what must be handed over before the holder leaves it?' examples: - >- Finance Steward: keeps the accounts, pays agreed bills and reports the balance monthly. May approve spending up to €500 per item within the budget; anything more needs a proposal. Any Full Member in good standing may stand for a two-year term, chosen by Strategic vote. The Operations meeting reviews the role every six months, and any member can raise a concern. If the holder is overloaded, the deputy takes over payments; persistent failure leads to reassignment by Strategic vote. Before leaving, the holder hands over bank access, open invoices and the reporting checklist. de: title: Operative Rollen whyItMatters: >- Operative Rollen tragen echte Macht — sie können innerhalb ihres Zuständigkeitsbereichs ohne Gemeinschaftsabstimmung handeln. Diese Macht bleibt nur sicher, wenn jede Rolle einen klaren Rechenschaftsmechanismus hat: Wer kann Bedenken äußern, wie läuft die Überprüfung ab, und wie kann eine Rolle neu besetzt werden, wenn das Vertrauen bricht. whatToDefine: >- Füllt für jede operative Rolle die untenstehende Vorlage mit konkretem Zuständigkeitsbereich, Entscheidungsbefugnis, Schnittstellen, Berechtigungskriterien, Amtszeit, Ernennung, Überprüfung/Abberufung und Übergabeanforderungen aus. placeholders: - Name der operativen Rolle, z. B. Mitgliederverwaltung - Zweck in einem Satz. - konkrete Verantwortlichkeiten. - welche Entscheidungen in der Entscheidungsmatrix diese Rolle ausführt; explizite Grenzen. - andere Rollen, an die diese Rolle übergibt oder von denen sie empfängt. - Vollmitglied in gutem Status; ggf. weitere Kriterien. - fortlaufend / rotierend / befristet. - wie die Rolle besetzt wird. - wie Bedenken vorgebracht werden; Neubesetzung per Strategischer Abstimmung. - was vor dem Verlassen der Rolle übergeben werden muss. - Name der operativen Rolle, z. B. Finanzverantwortliche\*r - Zweck. - Verantwortlichkeiten. - Entscheidungsmatrix-Bereich; Ausgabenlimit. - andere Rollen. - Vollmitglied in gutem Status. - ... - ... - ... - ... - >- Weitere operative Rollen nach Bedarf hinzufügen (z. B. Infrastrukturverantwortliche\*r, Kommunikationsverantwortliche\*r). es: title: Roles operativos whyItMatters: >- Los roles operativos tienen poder real — pueden actuar sin votación comunitaria dentro de su ámbito. Ese poder solo se mantiene seguro si cada rol tiene un mecanismo claro de rendición de cuentas: quién puede plantear preocupaciones, cómo se realiza la revisión y cómo se puede reasignar un rol cuando se rompe la confianza. whatToDefine: >- Para cada rol operativo, completa la plantilla a continuación con ámbito concreto, autoridad de decisión, interfaces, elegibilidad, mandato, nombramiento, revisión/remoción y requisitos de traspaso. placeholders: - Nombre del rol operativo, p. ej. Administrador de Membresía - propósito en una frase. - responsabilidades concretas. - qué decisiones de la Matriz de Decisiones ejecuta este rol; límites explícitos. - otros roles con los que este rol entrega o recibe trabajo. - Miembro Pleno en buen estado; cualquier criterio adicional. - continuo / rotativo / mandato fijo. - cómo se asigna el rol. - cómo se plantean preocupaciones; reasignación mediante votación Estratégica. - qué debe transferirse antes de dejar el cargo. - Nombre del rol operativo, p. ej. Administrador de Finanzas - propósito. - responsabilidades. - ámbito en la Matriz de Decisiones; límite de gasto. - otros roles. - Miembro Pleno en buen estado. - ... - ... - ... - ... - >- Añade roles operativos adicionales según sea necesario (p. ej. Administrador de Infraestructura, Administrador de Comunicaciones). fr: title: Rôles opérationnels whyItMatters: >- Les rôles opérationnels détiennent un pouvoir réel — ils peuvent agir sans vote communautaire dans leur périmètre. Ce pouvoir ne reste sûr que si chaque rôle dispose d'un mécanisme de redevabilité clair : qui peut soulever des préoccupations, comment se déroule l'examen, et comment un rôle peut être réattribué lorsque la confiance se brise. whatToDefine: >- Pour chaque rôle opérationnel, remplis le modèle ci-dessous avec le périmètre concret, l'autorité de décision, les interfaces, l'éligibilité, la durée, la procédure de nomination, l'examen/la révocation, et les exigences de passation. placeholders: - Nom du rôle opérationnel, p. ex. Administration des adhésions - objet en une phrase. - responsabilités concrètes. - quelles décisions de la Matrice de décision ce rôle exécute ; limites explicites. - autres rôles auxquels ce rôle transmet ou dont il reçoit. - Membre à part entière en règle ; tout critère supplémentaire. - continu / rotatif / durée fixe. - comment le rôle est attribué. - comment les préoccupations sont soulevées ; réattribution par vote Stratégique. - ce qui doit être transmis avant de quitter le rôle. - Nom du rôle opérationnel, p. ex. Intendant·e des finances - objet. - responsabilités. - périmètre de la Matrice de décision ; plafond de dépenses. - autres rôles. - Membre à part entière en règle. - ... - ... - ... - ... - >- Ajouter d'autres rôles opérationnels selon les besoins (p. ex. Intendant·e des infrastructures, Intendant·e de la communication). pt-br: title: Papéis Operacionais whyItMatters: >- Papéis operacionais carregam poder real — podem agir sem uma votação da comunidade dentro do seu escopo. Esse poder só permanece seguro se cada papel tiver um mecanismo claro de responsabilização: quem pode levantar preocupações, como acontece a revisão e como um papel pode ser reatribuído quando a confiança é quebrada. whatToDefine: >- Para cada papel operacional, preencha o modelo abaixo com escopo concreto, autoridade decisória, interfaces, elegibilidade, mandato, nomeação, revisão/remoção e requisitos de transição. placeholders: - 'Nome do Papel Operacional, ex.: Administrador(a) de Membros' - propósito em uma frase. - responsabilidades concretas. - quais decisões da Matriz de Decisão este papel executa; limites explícitos. - outros papéis para os quais este papel transfere ou dos quais recebe. - Membro Pleno em situação regular; quaisquer critérios adicionais. - contínuo / rotativo / mandato fixo. - como o papel é atribuído. - como preocupações são levantadas; reatribuição via votação Estratégica. - o que DEVE ser transferido antes de deixar o cargo. - 'Nome do Papel Operacional, ex.: Guardião(ã) das Finanças' - propósito. - responsabilidades. - escopo na Matriz de Decisão; limite de gastos. - outros papéis. - Membro Pleno em situação regular. - ... - ... - ... - ... - >- Adicione papéis operacionais adicionais conforme necessário (ex.: Guardião(ã) de Infraestrutura, Guardião(ã) de Comunicação). disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 7.1.3 - key: role-registry.functional-roles artifact: role-registry order: 3 clauseRefs: - 7.1.1 - 7.1.2 i18n: en: title: Functional Roles whyItMatters: >- Not every contribution needs delegated authority — most work is about doing, not deciding. Functional roles name contribution scopes without bundling in governance power, so members can opt into work without an authority transfer, and so the governance system stays clear about who can act on behalf of the community. whatToDefine: >- For each functional role, define purpose, scope, interfaces, eligibility, and handover. Functional roles do not require a vote to assume — declaration is sufficient. placeholders: - Functional Role Name, e.g. Facilitator - purpose. - responsibilities. - Full Member rights only. - other roles. - Full Member; any additional preferences. - ongoing until vacated. - self-declaration. - may be vacated at any time; conflict-of-interest substitution per Layer 4 if relevant. - active commitments to brief in. - Add additional functional roles as needed. question: Which roles exist for a function rather than for daily work, and what are they for? prompts: - >- Which functional roles do we have — for example facilitator, note-taker or welcomer — and what is each for? - 'For each role: what does it do, and which other roles does it work with?' - 'For each role: who may take it on, and is saying ‘I''ll do it’ enough?' - >- For each role: what does it not include — which decisions can it not make on the community's behalf? - 'For each role: how does someone step down, and what must they brief the next person on?' examples: - >- Facilitator: prepares and runs meetings so everyone is heard and the agenda finishes on time. Any Full Member may take it on by announcing it in the members' channel; no vote is needed, and it carries no extra say in decisions. A facilitator who is a party to a conflict on the agenda steps aside for that item. They may step down at any time after briefing the next facilitator on upcoming meetings and open actions. de: title: Funktionale Rollen whyItMatters: >- Nicht jeder Beitrag braucht delegierte Autorität — die meiste Arbeit dreht sich ums Tun, nicht ums Entscheiden. Funktionale Rollen benennen Beitragsbereiche, ohne Governance-Macht zu bündeln, sodass Mitglieder sich in Arbeit einbringen können, ohne eine Autoritätsübertragung, und damit das Governance-System klar bleibt, wer im Namen der Gemeinschaft handeln darf. whatToDefine: >- Definiert für jede funktionale Rolle Zweck, Zuständigkeitsbereich, Schnittstellen, Berechtigung und Übergabe. Funktionale Rollen erfordern keine Abstimmung zur Übernahme — eine Erklärung genügt. placeholders: - Name der funktionalen Rolle, z. B. Moderation - Zweck. - Verantwortlichkeiten. - nur Vollmitglieder-Rechte. - andere Rollen. - Vollmitglied; ggf. weitere Präferenzen. - fortlaufend bis zur Niederlegung. - Selbsterklärung. - >- kann jederzeit niedergelegt werden; Befangenheitsvertretung gemäß Schicht 4 falls relevant. - laufende Verpflichtungen einweisen. - Weitere funktionale Rollen nach Bedarf hinzufügen. es: title: Roles funcionales whyItMatters: >- No toda contribución necesita autoridad delegada — la mayor parte del trabajo consiste en hacer, no en decidir. Los roles funcionales nombran ámbitos de contribución sin agrupar poder de gobernanza, de modo que los miembros puedan optar por realizar trabajo sin una transferencia de autoridad, y para que el sistema de gobernanza mantenga claridad sobre quién puede actuar en nombre de la comunidad. whatToDefine: >- Para cada rol funcional, define propósito, ámbito, interfaces, elegibilidad y traspaso. Los roles funcionales no requieren votación para asumirlos — basta con una declaración. placeholders: - Nombre del rol funcional, p. ej. Facilitador - propósito. - responsabilidades. - solo derechos de Miembro Pleno. - otros roles. - Miembro Pleno; cualquier preferencia adicional. - continuo hasta dejar vacante. - autodeclaración. - >- puede dejarse vacante en cualquier momento; sustitución por conflicto de interés según la Capa 4 si corresponde. - compromisos activos a informar. - Añade roles funcionales adicionales según sea necesario. fr: title: Rôles fonctionnels whyItMatters: >- Chaque contribution n'a pas besoin d'une autorité déléguée — la plupart du travail consiste à faire, pas à décider. Les rôles fonctionnels nomment des périmètres de contribution sans y associer de pouvoir de gouvernance, de sorte que les membres peuvent s'engager dans le travail sans transfert d'autorité, et que le système de gouvernance reste clair sur qui peut agir au nom de la communauté. whatToDefine: >- Pour chaque rôle fonctionnel, définis l'objet, le périmètre, les interfaces, l'éligibilité et la passation. Les rôles fonctionnels ne nécessitent pas de vote pour être assumés — une déclaration suffit. placeholders: - Nom du rôle fonctionnel, p. ex. Facilitateur·ice - objet. - responsabilités. - droits de Membre à part entière uniquement. - autres rôles. - Membre à part entière ; toute préférence supplémentaire. - continu jusqu'à libération. - auto-déclaration. - >- peut être libéré à tout moment ; substitution en cas de conflit d'intérêts selon la Couche 4 si pertinent. - engagements en cours à transmettre. - Ajouter d'autres rôles fonctionnels selon les besoins. pt-br: title: Papéis Funcionais whyItMatters: >- Nem toda contribuição precisa de autoridade delegada — a maior parte do trabalho é sobre fazer, não decidir. Papéis funcionais nomeiam escopos de contribuição sem agregar poder de governança, para que os membros possam aderir ao trabalho sem uma transferência de autoridade e para que o sistema de governança permaneça claro sobre quem pode agir em nome da comunidade. whatToDefine: >- Para cada papel funcional, defina propósito, escopo, interfaces, elegibilidade e transição. Papéis funcionais não requerem votação para serem assumidos — a declaração é suficiente. placeholders: - 'Nome do Papel Funcional, ex.: Facilitador(a)' - propósito. - responsabilidades. - apenas direitos de Membro Pleno. - outros papéis. - Membro Pleno; quaisquer preferências adicionais. - contínuo até ser deixado. - autodeclaração. - >- PODE ser deixado a qualquer momento; substituição por conflito de interesse conforme a Camada 4, se relevante. - compromissos ativos a serem informados. - Adicione papéis funcionais adicionais conforme necessário. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: role-registry.ratification-record artifact: role-registry order: 4 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Ratification Record whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] de: title: Ratifizierungsnachweis whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: Registro de ratificación whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: Registre de ratification whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Registro de Ratificação whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: filled_from_decision dispositionNote: >- Written from the decision that adopted this artifact: reference, date, mechanism, tally and attendance as recorded at freeze time. ownsClauses: [] - key: change-protocol.how-changes-are-proposed artifact: change-protocol order: 0 clauseRefs: - 8.1.1 - 8.1.3 - 8.6.3 - 8.8.1 i18n: en: title: How Changes Are Proposed whyItMatters: >- A change that arrives as a vague idea in chat cannot be evaluated, challenged, or rolled back later. Forcing every proposal through the same minimum shape — affected artifacts, rationale, risks, rollback — turns an opinion into a reviewable artifact and makes it impossible to slip a rule change past the community by accident. whatToDefine: >- State who may propose, where proposals are submitted, and the mandatory content fields. Tie this to the Governance Protocol (Layer 2). placeholders: - Any Full Member may propose a change to any RCOS artifact. State the submission channel. - Summary of the change. - Affected layers and artifacts (with links). - Decision type (Operational / Strategic / Constitutional). - Rationale. - Risks and mitigations. - Rollback plan. - Proposed effective date. question: >- How does somebody propose adding, changing, pausing or removing one of our rules, roles or structures? prompts: - >- Who may propose adding, changing, pausing or removing a rule, role, document or way of deciding? - Where is a proposal submitted, and who makes sure it reaches everyone? - Which documents and sections does the proposal have to name as affected? - >- Which decision type and which decision path from our Decision Matrix does the proposal have to name — and so who decides it? - What must every proposal say about its purpose, its reach and its known risks? - >- What must it say about its effective date, any transition period, what happens to existing roles, agreements and records, and how it would be undone? (How long it is reviewed, and what happens in an emergency, are their own questions.) examples: - >- Any Full Member may propose adding, changing, pausing or removing a rule, role, document or decision structure by filling in the proposal form in the proposals folder and telling the facilitator. The form names the documents and sections affected, the decision type and path from our Decision Matrix, what the change is meant to do, how far it reaches and its risks, the effective date and any transition period, what happens to existing roles, agreements and records, and how it would be rolled back. Incomplete forms are returned before discussion starts. de: title: Wie Änderungen vorgeschlagen werden whyItMatters: >- Eine Änderung, die als vage Idee im Chat auftaucht, kann nicht bewertet, angefochten oder später zurückgenommen werden. Indem jeder Vorschlag durch dieselbe Mindestform geleitet wird — betroffene Artefakte, Begründung, Risiken, Rücknahmeplan — wird eine Meinung zu einem überprüfbaren Artefakt, und es wird unmöglich, eine Regeländerung versehentlich an der Gemeinschaft vorbeizuschleusen. whatToDefine: >- Legt fest, wer vorschlagen darf, wo Vorschläge eingereicht werden und welche Pflichtfelder sie enthalten müssen. Verknüpft dies mit dem Governance-Protokoll (Schicht 2). placeholders: - >- Jedes Vollmitglied darf eine Änderung an jedem RCOS-Artefakt vorschlagen. Gebt den Einreichungskanal an. - Zusammenfassung der Änderung. - Betroffene Schichten und Artefakte (mit Links). - Entscheidungstyp (Operativ / Strategisch / Konstitutionell). - Begründung. - Risiken und Gegenmaßnahmen. - Rücknahmeplan. - Vorgeschlagenes Inkrafttreten. es: title: Cómo se proponen los cambios whyItMatters: >- Un cambio que llega como una idea vaga en un chat no puede ser evaluado, cuestionado ni revertido después. Obligar a que cada propuesta pase por una forma mínima común —artefactos afectados, justificación, riesgos, plan de reversión— convierte una opinión en un artefacto revisable y hace imposible colar un cambio de reglas sin que la comunidad se dé cuenta. whatToDefine: >- Indica quién puede proponer, dónde se envían las propuestas y los campos de contenido obligatorios. Vincúlalo con el Protocolo de Gobernanza (Capa 2). placeholders: - >- Cualquier Miembro Pleno puede proponer un cambio a cualquier artefacto RCOS. Indica el canal de envío. - Resumen del cambio. - Capas y artefactos afectados (con enlaces). - Tipo de decisión (Operativa / Estratégica / Constitucional). - Justificación. - Riesgos y mitigaciones. - Plan de reversión. - Fecha de entrada en vigor propuesta. fr: title: Comment les changements sont proposés whyItMatters: >- Un changement qui arrive sous forme d'idée vague dans une discussion ne peut être ni évalué, ni contesté, ni annulé par la suite. Imposer à chaque proposition la même structure minimale — artefacts concernés, justification, risques, retour en arrière — transforme une opinion en artefact vérifiable et rend impossible de faire passer un changement de règle inaperçu au sein de la communauté. whatToDefine: >- Indique qui peut proposer, où les propositions sont soumises et quels champs de contenu sont obligatoires. Relie ceci au Protocole de gouvernance (Couche 2). placeholders: - >- Tout Membre de plein droit peut proposer un changement à tout artefact RCOS. Indique le canal de soumission. - Résumé du changement. - Couches et artefacts concernés (avec liens). - Type de décision (Opérationnel / Stratégique / Constitutionnel). - Justification. - Risques et mesures d'atténuation. - Plan de retour en arrière. - Date d'entrée en vigueur proposée. pt-br: title: Como as Mudanças São Propostas whyItMatters: >- Uma mudança que chega como uma ideia vaga no chat não pode ser avaliada, questionada ou revertida mais tarde. Forçar toda proposta a passar pelo mesmo formato mínimo — artefatos afetados, justificativa, riscos, reversão — transforma uma opinião em um artefato revisável e torna impossível passar uma mudança de regra pela comunidade por acidente. whatToDefine: >- Declare quem pode propor, onde as propostas são submetidas e os campos de conteúdo obrigatórios. Conecte isso ao Protocolo de Governança (Camada 2). placeholders: - >- Qualquer Membro Pleno pode propor uma mudança em qualquer artefato RCOS. Declare o canal de submissão. - Resumo da mudança. - Camadas e artefatos afetados (com links). - Tipo de decisão (Operacional / Estratégica / Constitucional). - Justificativa. - Riscos e mitigações. - Plano de reversão. - Data de vigência proposta. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 8.1.1 - 8.1.3 - 8.6.3 - 8.8.1 - key: change-protocol.how-proposals-are-classified artifact: change-protocol order: 1 clauseRefs: - 8.1.2 - 8.1.4 i18n: en: title: How Proposals Are Classified whyItMatters: >- Not every change deserves the same friction. Typo fixes should not need a supermajority; constitutional shifts should not pass quietly. Mapping proposals to decision types — and defaulting unclear cases upward — makes the cost of a change proportional to its blast radius and protects Layer 0 from being eroded through small moves. whatToDefine: >- Define what falls under each decision type. State the default-higher rule for ambiguous cases. placeholders: - >- wording corrections, formatting, minor content updates; no vote required; executed by the responsible role within delegated limits. - changes to Layer 1–5 content that affect member rights, processes, or structures. - >- changes to Layer 0 (purpose, scope, invariants) or to the governance system itself (Layer 2). question: >- How do we tell a small adjustment from a change to who we are — and a permanent change from an experiment? prompts: - >- For each decision type (for example Operational, Strategic, Constitutional): what kinds of change fall under it? - >- Which changes are always Constitutional — such as anything touching our purpose, our scope, the commitments we said would never change, or how we govern ourselves? - >- How do we tell a permanent change from a time-limited experiment, and where is that written on the proposal? - >- When it is unclear which type a proposal is, which type applies, and who settles a disagreement about it? examples: - >- Wording fixes and formatting are Operational: the document keeper makes them and lists them at the next circle. Changes to how members join, decide, share costs or hold roles are Strategic. Anything touching our purpose, our scope, our non-negotiable commitments or the way we govern ourselves is Constitutional and goes through the Constitutional decision process. A proposal with a fixed end date is filed as an experiment; everything else is permanent. If we disagree about the type, the higher one applies. de: title: Wie Vorschläge klassifiziert werden whyItMatters: >- Nicht jede Änderung verdient denselben Aufwand. Tippfehlerkorrekturen sollten keine Supermehrheit erfordern; verfassungsändernde Eingriffe sollten nicht still und leise durchgehen. Indem Vorschläge Entscheidungstypen zugeordnet werden — und unklare Fälle standardmäßig nach oben gestuft werden — wird der Aufwand einer Änderung proportional zu ihrem Wirkungsradius, und Schicht 0 wird davor geschützt, durch kleine Schritte ausgehöhlt zu werden. whatToDefine: >- Definiert, was unter jeden Entscheidungstyp fällt. Legt die Regel fest, dass unklare Fälle in die höhere Kategorie eingestuft werden. placeholders: - >- Formulierungskorrekturen, Formatierung, kleinere inhaltliche Aktualisierungen; keine Abstimmung erforderlich; wird von der zuständigen Rolle im Rahmen delegierter Befugnisse umgesetzt. - >- Änderungen an Inhalten der Schichten 1–5, die Mitgliedsrechte, Prozesse oder Strukturen betreffen. - >- Änderungen an Schicht 0 (Zweck, Geltungsbereich, Invarianten) oder am Governance-System selbst (Schicht 2). es: title: Cómo se clasifican las propuestas whyItMatters: >- No todos los cambios merecen la misma fricción. Las correcciones de erratas no deberían necesitar una supermayoría; los cambios constitucionales no deberían aprobarse en silencio. Asignar las propuestas a tipos de decisión —y elevar por defecto los casos ambiguos— hace que el coste de un cambio sea proporcional a su radio de impacto y protege la Capa 0 de ser erosionada mediante movimientos pequeños. whatToDefine: >- Define qué entra en cada tipo de decisión. Indica la regla de elevación por defecto para casos ambiguos. placeholders: - >- correcciones de redacción, formato, actualizaciones menores de contenido; sin votación requerida; ejecutada por el rol responsable dentro de los límites delegados. - >- cambios en el contenido de las Capas 1–5 que afectan derechos de miembros, procesos o estructuras. - >- cambios en la Capa 0 (propósito, alcance, invariantes) o en el propio sistema de gobernanza (Capa 2). fr: title: Comment les propositions sont classifiées whyItMatters: >- Tous les changements ne méritent pas le même niveau de friction. Les corrections de coquilles ne devraient pas nécessiter une supermajorité ; les changements constitutionnels ne devraient pas passer en silence. Associer les propositions aux types de décision — et classer par défaut les cas ambigus vers le type supérieur — rend le coût d'un changement proportionnel à sa portée et protège la Couche 0 contre l'érosion par petites touches. whatToDefine: >- Définis ce qui relève de chaque type de décision. Indique la règle de classification par défaut vers le type supérieur pour les cas ambigus. placeholders: - >- corrections de formulation, mise en forme, mises à jour mineures de contenu ; aucun vote requis ; exécuté par le rôle responsable dans les limites de sa délégation. - >- changements du contenu des Couches 1 à 5 qui affectent les droits des membres, les processus ou les structures. - >- changements de la Couche 0 (raison d'être, périmètre, invariants) ou du système de gouvernance lui-même (Couche 2). pt-br: title: Como as Propostas São Classificadas whyItMatters: >- Nem toda mudança merece a mesma fricção. Correções de erros de digitação não deveriam exigir uma supermaioria; mudanças constitucionais não deveriam passar silenciosamente. Mapear propostas para tipos de decisão — e elevar casos ambíguos por padrão — torna o custo de uma mudança proporcional ao seu raio de impacto e protege a Camada 0 de ser erodida por pequenos movimentos. whatToDefine: >- Defina o que se enquadra em cada tipo de decisão. Declare a regra de elevação padrão para casos ambíguos. placeholders: - >- correções de redação, formatação, atualizações menores de conteúdo; não exige votação; executada pelo papel responsável dentro dos limites delegados. - >- mudanças no conteúdo das Camadas 1–5 que afetam direitos, processos ou estruturas dos membros. - >- mudanças na Camada 0 (propósito, escopo, invariantes) ou no próprio sistema de governança (Camada 2). disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 8.1.2 - 8.1.4 - key: change-protocol.review-and-deliberation artifact: change-protocol order: 2 clauseRefs: - 8.1.2 - 8.7.1 i18n: en: title: Review and Deliberation whyItMatters: >- Without a floor on deliberation time, any change can be rushed through on a slow day when few members are paying attention. Mandatory minimums — longer for higher-impact changes — guarantee that members who are travelling, ill, or simply busy still get a real chance to read, object, or show up. whatToDefine: >- Set minimum deliberation periods for each decision type, and a ratification period for Constitutional changes. placeholders: - no deliberation required. - minimum X-day deliberation; deliberation venue. - minimum Y-day deliberation; Z-day ratification period after the vote passes. question: How long does a proposed change have to sit before we are allowed to adopt it? prompts: - >- For each decision type: what is the shortest time a proposal must be open for discussion before it can be decided? - >- Where does the discussion happen, so that members who are away, ill or busy can still read and respond? - >- For Constitutional changes, how long is the ratification period after the vote passes, and what can members do during it? - >- If some small changes need no waiting period, how can members still see them and ask for a proper review afterwards? (Urgent changes are their own question.) examples: - >- Operational changes need no waiting period but are posted in the changes channel for 7 days, during which any member can ask for a full review. Strategic proposals stay open for at least 14 days, including one general meeting, before a decision. Constitutional proposals need at least 30 days of discussion and, after the vote passes, a 14-day ratification period in which any Full Member may call for a second vote. de: title: Prüfung und Beratung whyItMatters: >- Ohne eine Mindestberatungszeit kann jede Änderung an einem ruhigen Tag durchgepeitscht werden, wenn nur wenige Mitglieder aufpassen. Verbindliche Mindestfristen — länger bei größerer Tragweite — garantieren, dass Mitglieder, die verreist, krank oder einfach beschäftigt sind, eine echte Chance bekommen, zu lesen, Einwände zu erheben oder teilzunehmen. whatToDefine: >- Legt Mindestberatungsfristen für jeden Entscheidungstyp fest sowie eine Ratifizierungsfrist für konstitutionelle Änderungen. placeholders: - Keine Beratung erforderlich. - Mindestens X Tage Beratung; Beratungsort. - Mindestens Y Tage Beratung; Z Tage Ratifizierungsfrist nach erfolgreicher Abstimmung. es: title: Revisión y deliberación whyItMatters: >- Sin un mínimo de tiempo de deliberación, cualquier cambio puede aprobarse de forma apresurada en un día tranquilo cuando pocos miembros están prestando atención. Los mínimos obligatorios —más largos para cambios de mayor impacto— garantizan que los miembros que están viajando, enfermos o simplemente ocupados tengan una oportunidad real de leer, objetar o participar. whatToDefine: >- Establece periodos mínimos de deliberación para cada tipo de decisión y un periodo de ratificación para los cambios Constitucionales. placeholders: - sin deliberación requerida. - mínimo X días de deliberación; lugar de deliberación. - >- mínimo Y días de deliberación; Z días de periodo de ratificación tras la aprobación de la votación. fr: title: Examen et délibération whyItMatters: >- Sans durée minimale de délibération, tout changement peut être adopté à la hâte un jour calme où peu de membres sont attentifs. Des minimums obligatoires — plus longs pour les changements à fort impact — garantissent que les membres en déplacement, malades ou simplement occupés disposent d'une vraie chance de lire, d'objecter ou de se manifester. whatToDefine: >- Définis les périodes minimales de délibération pour chaque type de décision, ainsi qu'une période de ratification pour les changements constitutionnels. placeholders: - aucune délibération requise. - délibération minimale de X jours ; lieu de délibération. - >- délibération minimale de Y jours ; période de ratification de Z jours après l'adoption du vote. pt-br: title: Revisão e Deliberação whyItMatters: >- Sem um piso para o tempo de deliberação, qualquer mudança pode ser apressada em um dia tranquilo em que poucos membros estão prestando atenção. Mínimos obrigatórios — mais longos para mudanças de maior impacto — garantem que membros que estejam viajando, doentes ou simplesmente ocupados ainda tenham uma chance real de ler, objetar ou aparecer. whatToDefine: >- Defina períodos mínimos de deliberação para cada tipo de decisão e um período de ratificação para mudanças Constitucionais. placeholders: - não exige deliberação. - deliberação mínima de X dias; espaço de deliberação. - >- deliberação mínima de Y dias; período de ratificação de Z dias após a aprovação da votação. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 8.7.1 - key: change-protocol.adoption-and-publication artifact: change-protocol order: 3 clauseRefs: - 8.2.1 - 8.2.2 - 8.2.5 - 8.6.3 i18n: en: title: Adoption and Publication whyItMatters: >- A vote that passes but is never written down is the same as no vote at all — and worse, it creates a gap where whoever remembers the outcome gets to define it. Tight, ordered publication steps close that gap and make "what was adopted" a matter of record, not of memory. whatToDefine: >- State the ordered steps that must run after a proposal passes. Include time bounds and the version-history obligation. placeholders: - Proposal file moved to the passed-proposals archive within X days. - Affected artifacts updated within X days. - Version history entry added. - Status fields updated on affected artifacts. question: When a change is adopted, how does everyone find out, and from when does it apply? prompts: - Once a proposal passes, which steps follow, in what order, and within how many days? - >- Who is responsible for updating the affected documents and adding the Version History entry? (What the entry contains is its own question.) - How are all members told about the change, and what does the notice include? - From when does an adopted change apply — and can it ever apply before it is published? - What happens if a change was agreed but never written up — does it count? examples: - >- Within 7 days of a change passing, the secretary updates every affected document, marks the old wording as superseded, adds a Version History entry and moves the proposal to the passed-proposals folder. All members then receive an email with a summary and the effective date. The change applies from the effective date named in the proposal, or from publication if that is later. A change that has not been written up this way is not in force, however clearly people remember agreeing to it. de: title: Annahme und Veröffentlichung whyItMatters: >- Eine Abstimmung, die bestanden wird, aber nie schriftlich festgehalten wird, ist so gut wie keine Abstimmung — und schlimmer noch, sie schafft eine Lücke, in der derjenige, der sich an das Ergebnis erinnert, es definieren darf. Strikte, geordnete Veröffentlichungsschritte schließen diese Lücke und machen „was wurde beschlossen" zu einer Frage der Akten, nicht des Gedächtnisses. whatToDefine: >- Legt die geordneten Schritte fest, die nach Annahme eines Vorschlags durchlaufen werden müssen. Gebt Fristen und die Versionsverlaufspflicht an. placeholders: - >- Vorschlagsdatei wird innerhalb von X Tagen ins Archiv für angenommene Vorschläge verschoben. - Betroffene Artefakte werden innerhalb von X Tagen aktualisiert. - Eintrag im Versionsverlauf wird hinzugefügt. - Statusfelder der betroffenen Artefakte werden aktualisiert. es: title: Adopción y publicación whyItMatters: >- Una votación que se aprueba pero nunca se registra por escrito es lo mismo que ninguna votación — y peor, crea un vacío donde quien recuerde el resultado puede definirlo a su manera. Unos pasos de publicación estrictos y ordenados cierran ese vacío y convierten el "qué se adoptó" en una cuestión de registro, no de memoria. whatToDefine: >- Indica los pasos ordenados que DEBEN ejecutarse después de que una propuesta sea aprobada. Incluye plazos y la obligación de historial de versiones. placeholders: - >- El archivo de la propuesta se mueve al archivo de propuestas aprobadas en un plazo de X días. - Los artefactos afectados se actualizan en un plazo de X días. - Se añade una entrada en el historial de versiones. - Se actualizan los campos de estado en los artefactos afectados. fr: title: Adoption et publication whyItMatters: >- Un vote qui passe mais n'est jamais consigné par écrit équivaut à une absence de vote — et pire, il crée un vide où quiconque se souvient du résultat peut le définir à sa guise. Des étapes de publication rigoureuses et ordonnées comblent ce vide et font de « ce qui a été adopté » une question d'archive, non de mémoire. whatToDefine: >- Indique les étapes ordonnées qui doivent être exécutées après l'adoption d'une proposition. Inclus les délais et l'obligation de maintenir un historique des versions. placeholders: - >- Fichier de proposition déplacé vers l'archive des propositions adoptées dans un délai de X jours. - Artefacts concernés mis à jour dans un délai de X jours. - Entrée ajoutée à l'historique des versions. - Champs de statut mis à jour sur les artefacts concernés. pt-br: title: Adoção e Publicação whyItMatters: >- Uma votação que passa mas nunca é registrada é o mesmo que nenhuma votação — e pior, cria uma lacuna em que quem se lembra do resultado é quem o define. Etapas de publicação rígidas e ordenadas fecham essa lacuna e tornam "o que foi adotado" uma questão de registro, não de memória. whatToDefine: >- Declare as etapas ordenadas que devem ocorrer após a aprovação de uma proposta. Inclua limites de tempo e a obrigação de histórico de versões. placeholders: - Arquivo da proposta movido para o arquivo de propostas aprovadas em até X dias. - Artefatos afetados atualizados em até X dias. - Entrada de histórico de versão adicionada. - Campos de status atualizados nos artefatos afetados. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 8.2.5 - key: change-protocol.rejection artifact: change-protocol order: 4 clauseRefs: - 8.2.2 - 8.2.4 i18n: en: title: Rejection whyItMatters: >- Rejected ideas carry as much signal as accepted ones — they show what the community considered and declined. Keeping rejections filed and accessible prevents the same proposal from reappearing under a new name every six months and gives future members a view of the paths not taken. whatToDefine: >- State the archive location for rejected proposals and the re-vote conditions for revisiting the question. placeholders: - Proposal file moved to the rejected-proposals archive within X days. - No artifact changes made. - Re-vote mechanism applies if new information emerges (per the Decision Matrix, Layer 2). question: What happens to a rejected proposal — can it come back, and how soon? prompts: - >- Where is a rejected proposal kept, together with its decision record, and within how many days is it filed? - Is the proposer told why it was rejected, and by whom? - Can the same proposal come back — after how long, or only with new information? - >- Who decides whether a returning proposal is really new, or the same one under a different name? examples: - >- Within 7 days, a rejected proposal is filed in the rejected-proposals folder with its decision record and a short note of the main reasons given. Nothing in our documents changes. The same proposal may come back after six months, or sooner if the proposer shows new information that was not available during the first discussion; the facilitator decides whether a returning proposal is substantially the same. de: title: Ablehnung whyItMatters: >- Abgelehnte Ideen sind ebenso aufschlussreich wie angenommene — sie zeigen, was die Gemeinschaft in Betracht gezogen und verworfen hat. Das Aufbewahren und Zugänglichmachen von Ablehnungen verhindert, dass derselbe Vorschlag alle sechs Monate unter neuem Namen wieder auftaucht, und gibt zukünftigen Mitgliedern einen Blick auf die nicht eingeschlagenen Wege. whatToDefine: >- Gebt den Archivort für abgelehnte Vorschläge und die Bedingungen für eine erneute Abstimmung an. placeholders: - >- Vorschlagsdatei wird innerhalb von X Tagen ins Archiv für abgelehnte Vorschläge verschoben. - Keine Artefaktänderungen werden vorgenommen. - >- Mechanismus zur erneuten Abstimmung greift, wenn neue Informationen vorliegen (gemäß der Entscheidungsmatrix, Schicht 2). es: title: Rechazo whyItMatters: >- Las ideas rechazadas aportan tanta información como las aceptadas — muestran lo que la comunidad consideró y declinó. Mantener los rechazos archivados y accesibles evita que la misma propuesta reaparezca con un nombre nuevo cada seis meses y da a los futuros miembros una visión de los caminos no tomados. whatToDefine: >- Indica la ubicación del archivo de propuestas rechazadas y las condiciones de re-votación para revisitar la cuestión. placeholders: - >- El archivo de la propuesta se mueve al archivo de propuestas rechazadas en un plazo de X días. - No se realizan cambios en los artefactos. - >- Se aplica el mecanismo de re-votación si surge nueva información (según la Matriz de Decisión, Capa 2). fr: title: Rejet whyItMatters: >- Les idées rejetées portent autant de signal que celles acceptées — elles montrent ce que la communauté a examiné et refusé. Garder les rejets classés et accessibles empêche la même proposition de réapparaître sous un nouveau nom tous les six mois et offre aux futurs membres une vue des chemins non empruntés. whatToDefine: >- Indique l'emplacement de l'archive pour les propositions rejetées et les conditions de nouveau vote pour rouvrir la question. placeholders: - >- Fichier de proposition déplacé vers l'archive des propositions rejetées dans un délai de X jours. - Aucune modification d'artefact effectuée. - >- Le mécanisme de nouveau vote s'applique si de nouvelles informations émergent (selon la Matrice de décision, Couche 2). pt-br: title: Rejeição whyItMatters: >- Ideias rejeitadas carregam tanto sinal quanto as aceitas — elas mostram o que a comunidade considerou e recusou. Manter rejeições arquivadas e acessíveis impede que a mesma proposta reapareça com um novo nome a cada seis meses e dá aos futuros membros uma visão dos caminhos não trilhados. whatToDefine: >- Declare o local de arquivamento das propostas rejeitadas e as condições de nova votação para revisitar a questão. placeholders: - Arquivo da proposta movido para o arquivo de propostas rejeitadas em até X dias. - Nenhuma alteração em artefatos é feita. - >- O mecanismo de nova votação se aplica se surgirem novas informações (conforme a Matriz de Decisão, Camada 2). disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: change-protocol.transition-and-migration artifact: change-protocol order: 5 clauseRefs: - 8.5.1 - 8.5.2 i18n: en: title: Transition and Migration whyItMatters: >- If new rules could silently rewrite existing agreements, membership would be meaningless — what you signed up for could be changed out from under you. Explicit transition rules guarantee that rights are not reduced retroactively and that people operating under the old rules are given time and notice before the ground shifts. whatToDefine: >- State the rules protecting existing role holders, members, and records when a rule change takes effect. placeholders: - Existing role holders notified before the change takes effect. - Existing members' rights may not be reduced without consent or a Constitutional vote. - >- Records that predate the change are not retroactively altered unless explicitly part of the proposal. - A transition period may be defined in the proposal itself. question: >- What extra care does a change that is hard to undo need — and what happens to what is already running under the old rule? prompts: - How do we recognise a change as high-impact or hard to undo, and who decides that it is? - >- For those changes, how much longer is the discussion, and what higher threshold do they need? - How are the risks written down and acknowledged before the decision? - How much notice do current role holders and members get before a change affects them? - >- Can a change reduce the rights existing members already have, and if so, what does it take? - >- What happens to records and agreements made under the old rule — are they left as they were? examples: - >- A change counts as high-impact if it affects money, housing or membership rights, or cannot easily be undone. Such changes get twice the normal discussion time, need a two-thirds majority instead of a simple one, and include a written risk section that members acknowledge before voting. Affected role holders are told at least 30 days before the change takes effect. Existing members' rights are never reduced without their consent or a Constitutional vote, and records made under the old rule are not altered. de: title: Übergang und Migration whyItMatters: >- Wenn neue Regeln bestehende Vereinbarungen stillschweigend umschreiben könnten, wäre die Mitgliedschaft bedeutungslos — das, wofür ihr euch angemeldet habt, könnte unter euren Füßen geändert werden. Explizite Übergangsregeln garantieren, dass Rechte nicht rückwirkend eingeschränkt werden und dass Personen, die unter den alten Regeln arbeiten, Zeit und Vorankündigung erhalten, bevor sich die Grundlage ändert. whatToDefine: >- Legt die Regeln fest, die bestehende Rolleninhaber, Mitglieder und Aufzeichnungen schützen, wenn eine Regeländerung in Kraft tritt. placeholders: - Bestehende Rolleninhaber werden vor Inkrafttreten der Änderung benachrichtigt. - >- Bestehende Mitgliedsrechte dürfen nicht ohne Zustimmung oder eine konstitutionelle Abstimmung eingeschränkt werden. - >- Aufzeichnungen, die vor der Änderung entstanden sind, werden nicht rückwirkend geändert, es sei denn, dies ist ausdrücklich Teil des Vorschlags. - Eine Übergangsfrist kann im Vorschlag selbst festgelegt werden. es: title: Transición y migración whyItMatters: >- Si las nuevas reglas pudieran reescribir silenciosamente los acuerdos existentes, la membresía no tendría sentido — lo que firmaste podría cambiar sin que te enteres. Las reglas de transición explícitas garantizan que los derechos no se reduzcan retroactivamente y que las personas que operan bajo las reglas antiguas reciban tiempo y aviso antes de que el terreno cambie. whatToDefine: >- Indica las reglas que protegen a los titulares de roles existentes, miembros y registros cuando un cambio de regla entra en vigor. placeholders: - Los titulares de roles existentes son notificados antes de que el cambio entre en vigor. - >- Los derechos de los miembros existentes no pueden reducirse sin consentimiento o una votación Constitucional. - >- Los registros anteriores al cambio no se alteran retroactivamente a menos que sea parte explícita de la propuesta. - Se puede definir un periodo de transición en la propia propuesta. fr: title: Transition et migration whyItMatters: >- Si de nouvelles règles pouvaient réécrire silencieusement des accords existants, l'adhésion n'aurait aucun sens — ce à quoi tu as souscrit pourrait être modifié sans que tu t'en aperçoives. Des règles de transition explicites garantissent que les droits ne sont pas réduits rétroactivement et que les personnes opérant sous les anciennes règles disposent de temps et d'un préavis avant que le terrain ne change. whatToDefine: >- Indique les règles protégeant les titulaires de rôles existants, les membres et les registres lorsqu'un changement de règle prend effet. placeholders: - Les titulaires de rôles existants sont notifiés avant l'entrée en vigueur du changement. - >- Les droits des membres existants ne peuvent pas être réduits sans consentement ou vote constitutionnel. - >- Les registres antérieurs au changement ne sont pas modifiés rétroactivement, sauf si cela fait explicitement partie de la proposition. - Une période de transition peut être définie dans la proposition elle-même. pt-br: title: Transição e Migração whyItMatters: >- Se novas regras pudessem silenciosamente reescrever acordos existentes, a participação como membro perderia o sentido — aquilo com o que você se comprometeu poderia ser mudado por baixo dos panos. Regras explícitas de transição garantem que direitos não sejam reduzidos retroativamente e que pessoas operando sob as regras antigas tenham tempo e aviso antes que o terreno mude. whatToDefine: >- Declare as regras que protegem os atuais ocupantes de papéis, membros e registros quando uma mudança de regra entra em vigor. placeholders: - Os atuais ocupantes de papéis são notificados antes da mudança entrar em vigor. - >- Os direitos dos membros existentes não podem ser reduzidos sem consentimento ou uma votação Constitucional. - >- Registros anteriores à mudança não são alterados retroativamente, a menos que isso faça parte explícita da proposta. - Um período de transição pode ser definido na própria proposta. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 8.5.2 - key: change-protocol.rollback artifact: change-protocol order: 6 clauseRefs: - 8.1.5 - 8.5.1 i18n: en: title: Rollback whyItMatters: >- A change that cannot be undone through the same path that created it is a trap. Requiring rollback to use the original decision type keeps the door open for correction without letting a single member quietly reverse a community-level decision by calling it a "fix." whatToDefine: State that rollback uses the same decision type and process as the original adoption. placeholders: - >- Any passed decision can be reversed through the same process as the original. Any Full Member may trigger a re-vote by submitting a written reasoned objection that was not considered during the original deliberation. Rollback uses the same decision type as the original. question: How do we check whether a change is working — and revise or undo it if it is not? prompts: - How and when do we check whether an adopted change is working as intended? - >- What signs mean a change needs revising or reversing — such as harm, instability, or decisions gathering in fewer hands? - Who may ask for a change to be revised or reversed, and what do they have to show? - Which decision type and process does a reversal use? - >- When choosing between ways to solve a problem, how do we favour the one that is easier to undo? examples: - >- Every adopted Strategic or Constitutional change is reviewed six months after it takes effect: the stewardship circle reports whether it caused harm, confusion, or put decisions into fewer hands. Any Full Member can ask for a change to be revised or reversed by giving written reasons that were not considered the first time. A reversal uses the same decision type as the original adoption. When two options would solve the same problem, we choose the one that is easier to undo. de: title: Rücknahme whyItMatters: >- Eine Änderung, die nicht auf demselben Weg rückgängig gemacht werden kann, auf dem sie entstanden ist, ist eine Falle. Indem die Rücknahme denselben Entscheidungstyp verwenden muss, bleibt die Tür für Korrekturen offen, ohne dass ein einzelnes Mitglied eine Entscheidung auf Gemeinschaftsebene stillschweigend rückgängig machen kann, indem es sie als „Korrektur" bezeichnet. whatToDefine: >- Legt fest, dass die Rücknahme denselben Entscheidungstyp und denselben Prozess wie die ursprüngliche Annahme verwendet. placeholders: - >- Jede angenommene Entscheidung kann über denselben Prozess wie die ursprüngliche rückgängig gemacht werden. Jedes Vollmitglied kann eine erneute Abstimmung auslösen, indem es einen schriftlichen begründeten Einwand einreicht, der in der ursprünglichen Beratung nicht berücksichtigt wurde. Die Rücknahme verwendet denselben Entscheidungstyp wie das Original. es: title: Reversión whyItMatters: >- Un cambio que no puede deshacerse por el mismo camino que lo creó es una trampa. Exigir que la reversión use el mismo tipo de decisión original mantiene la puerta abierta a la corrección sin permitir que un solo miembro revierta en silencio una decisión comunitaria llamándola una "corrección." whatToDefine: >- Indica que la reversión utiliza el mismo tipo de decisión y proceso que la adopción original. placeholders: - >- Cualquier decisión aprobada puede revertirse mediante el mismo proceso que la original. Cualquier Miembro Pleno puede activar una re-votación presentando una objeción razonada por escrito que no fue considerada durante la deliberación original. La reversión utiliza el mismo tipo de decisión que la original. fr: title: Retour en arrière whyItMatters: >- Un changement qui ne peut pas être annulé par le même chemin qui l'a créé est un piège. Exiger que le retour en arrière utilise le même type de décision que l'original maintient la porte ouverte à la correction sans permettre à un seul membre d'inverser discrètement une décision communautaire en l'appelant une « correction ». whatToDefine: >- Indique que le retour en arrière utilise le même type de décision et le même processus que l'adoption originale. placeholders: - >- Toute décision adoptée peut être annulée par le même processus que l'original. Tout Membre de plein droit peut déclencher un nouveau vote en soumettant une objection écrite et motivée qui n'a pas été prise en compte lors de la délibération originale. Le retour en arrière utilise le même type de décision que l'original. pt-br: title: Reversão whyItMatters: >- Uma mudança que não pode ser desfeita pelo mesmo caminho que a criou é uma armadilha. Exigir que a reversão use o tipo de decisão original mantém a porta aberta para correção sem permitir que um único membro silenciosamente reverta uma decisão de nível comunitário chamando-a de "correção". whatToDefine: Declare que a reversão usa o mesmo tipo de decisão e processo da adoção original. placeholders: - >- Qualquer decisão aprovada pode ser revertida pelo mesmo processo que a original. Qualquer Membro Pleno pode acionar uma nova votação ao submeter uma objeção fundamentada por escrito que não foi considerada durante a deliberação original. A reversão usa o mesmo tipo de decisão da original. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 8.1.5 - 8.5.1 - key: change-protocol.emergency-changes artifact: change-protocol order: 7 clauseRefs: - 8.5.3 i18n: en: title: Emergency Changes whyItMatters: >- Some harms unfold faster than a vote can be convened. A narrow, well-guarded emergency path lets the community respond to genuine safety or platform failures without handing anyone a general-purpose override. The mandatory report, review, and ratification-or-rollback cycle is what keeps emergency powers from becoming ordinary powers. whatToDefine: >- Define the conditions under which an emergency change may be made, who can make it, and the mandatory report-review-ratify-or-rollback cycle. placeholders: - role - Immediate action required to prevent safety harm or platform failure. - A Full Member vote cannot be convened in time. - The change does not override a Layer 0 invariant. - Reported to all Full Members within X hours. - Reviewed at the next community meeting. - Ratified via the appropriate decision type within Y days, or automatically rolled back. question: What may we decide in a hurry, who may do it, and when does it expire? prompts: - >- What situations count as an emergency — and what makes waiting for a normal decision impossible? - Who may make an emergency change, alone or together with someone else? - >- What can never be changed in an emergency, such as our purpose or the commitments we said would never change? - How quickly must an emergency change be reported, and to whom? - >- When is it reviewed, and by when must it be confirmed through the normal decision type — or does it end automatically? examples: - >- The two safety coordinators together may make an emergency change only when immediate action is needed to prevent harm to people or loss of the building, and a members' meeting cannot be held in time. An emergency change can never alter our purpose or core commitments. It is reported to all members within 24 hours, discussed at the next meeting, and lapses after 21 days unless members ratify it through the decision type the change would normally need. de: title: Notfalländerungen whyItMatters: >- Manche Schäden entfalten sich schneller, als eine Abstimmung einberufen werden kann. Ein enger, gut abgesicherter Notfallpfad ermöglicht es der Gemeinschaft, auf echte Sicherheitsrisiken oder Plattformausfälle zu reagieren, ohne jemandem einen allgemeinen Überstimmungsmechanismus in die Hand zu geben. Der verpflichtende Zyklus aus Bericht, Prüfung und Ratifizierung-oder-Rücknahme verhindert, dass Notfallbefugnisse zu gewöhnlichen Befugnissen werden. whatToDefine: >- Definiert die Bedingungen, unter denen eine Notfalländerung vorgenommen werden darf, wer sie durchführen darf, und den verpflichtenden Zyklus aus Bericht-Prüfung-Ratifizierung-oder-Rücknahme. placeholders: - Rolle - >- Sofortiges Handeln ist erforderlich, um Sicherheitsschäden oder Plattformausfälle zu verhindern. - Eine Abstimmung der Vollmitglieder kann nicht rechtzeitig einberufen werden. - Die Änderung setzt keine Invariante der Schicht 0 außer Kraft. - Allen Vollmitgliedern innerhalb von X Stunden gemeldet werden. - Beim nächsten Gemeinschaftstreffen geprüft werden. - >- Über den entsprechenden Entscheidungstyp innerhalb von Y Tagen ratifiziert werden, oder sie werden automatisch zurückgenommen. es: title: Cambios de emergencia whyItMatters: >- Algunos daños se producen más rápido de lo que se puede convocar una votación. Una vía de emergencia estrecha y bien protegida permite a la comunidad responder ante fallos genuinos de seguridad o plataforma sin otorgar a nadie un poder de anulación general. El ciclo obligatorio de informe, revisión y ratificación-o-reversión es lo que evita que los poderes de emergencia se conviertan en poderes ordinarios. whatToDefine: >- Define las condiciones bajo las cuales se puede realizar un cambio de emergencia, quién puede hacerlo y el ciclo obligatorio de informe-revisión-ratificación-o-reversión. placeholders: - rol - >- Se requiere acción inmediata para prevenir un daño a la seguridad o un fallo de plataforma. - No se puede convocar una votación de Miembros Plenos a tiempo. - El cambio no anula un invariante de la Capa 0. - Ser comunicados a todos los Miembros Plenos en un plazo de X horas. - Ser revisados en la siguiente reunión comunitaria. - >- Ser ratificados mediante el tipo de decisión correspondiente en un plazo de Y días, o revertidos automáticamente. fr: title: Changements d'urgence whyItMatters: >- Certains dommages se produisent plus vite qu'un vote ne peut être convoqué. Un chemin d'urgence étroit et bien encadré permet à la communauté de répondre à de véritables problèmes de sécurité ou défaillances de plateforme sans accorder à quiconque un pouvoir de dérogation général. Le cycle obligatoire de signalement, examen et ratification-ou-retour-en-arrière est ce qui empêche les pouvoirs d'urgence de devenir des pouvoirs ordinaires. whatToDefine: >- Définis les conditions dans lesquelles un changement d'urgence peut être effectué, qui peut le faire, et le cycle obligatoire de signalement-examen-ratification-ou-retour-en-arrière. placeholders: - rôle - >- Action immédiate requise pour prévenir un préjudice à la sécurité ou une défaillance de plateforme. - Un vote des Membres de plein droit ne peut pas être convoqué à temps. - Le changement ne contrevient pas à un invariant de la Couche 0. - Signalés à tous les Membres de plein droit dans un délai de X heures. - Examinés lors de la prochaine réunion communautaire. - >- Ratifiés via le type de décision approprié dans un délai de Y jours, ou automatiquement annulés. pt-br: title: Mudanças de Emergência whyItMatters: >- Alguns danos se desenrolam mais rápido do que uma votação pode ser convocada. Um caminho de emergência estreito e bem protegido permite que a comunidade responda a falhas genuínas de segurança ou de plataforma sem entregar a ninguém um mecanismo geral de override. O ciclo obrigatório de relato, revisão e ratificação-ou-reversão é o que impede que poderes emergenciais se tornem poderes ordinários. whatToDefine: >- Defina as condições sob as quais uma mudança de emergência pode ser feita, quem pode fazê-la e o ciclo obrigatório de relatar-revisar-ratificar-ou-reverter. placeholders: - papel - Ação imediata necessária para prevenir dano à segurança ou falha de plataforma. - Uma votação dos Membros Plenos não pode ser convocada a tempo. - A mudança não anula um invariante da Camada 0. - Relatadas a todos os Membros Plenos em até X horas. - Revisadas na próxima reunião comunitária. - >- Ratificadas por meio do tipo de decisão apropriado em até Y dias, ou revertidas automaticamente. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 8.5.3 - key: change-protocol.experiments artifact: change-protocol order: 8 clauseRefs: - 8.3.1 - 8.3.2 - 8.3.3 - 8.3.4 - 8.3.5 - 8.7.3 i18n: en: title: Experiments whyItMatters: >- The community needs a way to try new things without having to permanently adopt them to test them. Experiments create that space — but only if they are time-bounded, labeled, and auto-expiring. Without those guardrails, an "experiment" becomes the fastest way to install a permanent rule with no real deliberation. whatToDefine: >- Define the rules every experiment must satisfy. Reference the Experiment Template for the full submission shape. placeholders: - >- Any Full Member may propose a time-bounded experiment via Strategic decision. See the Experiment Template for the required fields. - >- Experiments expire automatically at the end of their defined duration unless explicitly renewed via a new proposal. - >- All artifacts affected by an experiment must be explicitly labeled as experimental for the duration. - >- Safety suspension: if an experiment introduces a credible safety risk, coercion, or sustained harm, an emergency suspension may be invoked per Emergency Changes above. - Results and learnings are recorded in the Learning Log. question: How do we try something for a while without it quietly becoming permanent? prompts: - Who may propose an experiment, and which decision starts, extends, changes or ends one? - >- What must every experiment state — what changes and what stays the same, how long it runs, its check-in points, and the signs of success or failure? - What triggers a rollback, and how is it carried out? - >- What may an experiment never touch, such as our core commitments or the way decisions are made? - >- How is an experiment labelled in every document it affects, and what fixed end date does it carry? - >- If an experiment causes harm, pressure on people or a safety risk, who may stop it at once, and how is that reviewed afterwards? examples: - >- Any Full Member may propose an experiment of up to 12 months; starting, extending or changing one takes a Strategic decision. The proposal states what changes and what does not, a midpoint check-in, signs of success and failure, and how to roll back. Every affected document is labelled "Experimental until" its end date. Experiments cannot change our core commitments or skip our decision rules, and they end on their date unless renewed by a new decision. Any two stewards may halt one immediately if it causes harm, with a review within 14 days. de: title: Experimente whyItMatters: >- Die Gemeinschaft braucht eine Möglichkeit, Neues auszuprobieren, ohne es dauerhaft übernehmen zu müssen, um es zu testen. Experimente schaffen diesen Raum — aber nur, wenn sie zeitlich begrenzt, gekennzeichnet und automatisch ablaufend sind. Ohne diese Leitplanken wird ein „Experiment" zum schnellsten Weg, eine dauerhafte Regel ohne echte Beratung einzuführen. whatToDefine: >- Definiert die Regeln, die jedes Experiment erfüllen muss. Verweist auf die Experimentvorlage für die vollständige Einreichungsform. placeholders: - >- Jedes Vollmitglied darf ein zeitlich begrenztes Experiment per strategischer Entscheidung vorschlagen. Siehe die Experimentvorlage für die erforderlichen Felder. - >- Experimente laufen automatisch am Ende ihrer festgelegten Dauer ab, sofern sie nicht ausdrücklich durch einen neuen Vorschlag verlängert werden. - >- Alle von einem Experiment betroffenen Artefakte müssen für die Dauer ausdrücklich als experimentell gekennzeichnet sein. - >- Sicherheitsaussetzung: Wenn ein Experiment ein glaubhaftes Sicherheitsrisiko, Zwang oder anhaltenden Schaden verursacht, kann eine Notfallaussetzung gemäß den obigen Notfalländerungen eingeleitet werden. - Ergebnisse und Erkenntnisse werden im Lernprotokoll festgehalten. es: title: Experimentos whyItMatters: >- La comunidad necesita una forma de probar cosas nuevas sin tener que adoptarlas permanentemente para poder evaluarlas. Los experimentos crean ese espacio — pero solo si tienen una duración limitada, están etiquetados y expiran automáticamente. Sin esas salvaguardas, un "experimento" se convierte en la forma más rápida de instalar una regla permanente sin deliberación real. whatToDefine: >- Define las reglas que cada experimento DEBE cumplir. Haz referencia a la Plantilla de Experimento para la estructura completa de envío. placeholders: - >- Cualquier Miembro Pleno puede proponer un experimento con duración limitada mediante decisión Estratégica. Consulta la Plantilla de Experimento para los campos requeridos. - >- Los experimentos expiran automáticamente al final de su duración definida a menos que se renueven explícitamente mediante una nueva propuesta. - >- Todos los artefactos afectados por un experimento DEBEN estar explícitamente etiquetados como experimentales durante su vigencia. - >- Suspensión de seguridad: si un experimento introduce un riesgo de seguridad creíble, coerción o daño sostenido, se puede invocar una suspensión de emergencia conforme a los Cambios de emergencia descritos arriba. - Los resultados y aprendizajes se registran en el Registro de Aprendizajes. fr: title: Expérimentations whyItMatters: >- La communauté a besoin d'un moyen d'essayer de nouvelles choses sans devoir les adopter définitivement pour les tester. Les expérimentations créent cet espace — mais seulement si elles sont limitées dans le temps, étiquetées et à expiration automatique. Sans ces garde-fous, une « expérimentation » devient le moyen le plus rapide d'installer une règle permanente sans véritable délibération. whatToDefine: >- Définis les règles que chaque expérimentation doit satisfaire. Réfère-toi au Modèle d'expérimentation pour la structure complète de soumission. placeholders: - >- Tout Membre de plein droit peut proposer une expérimentation limitée dans le temps via une décision stratégique. Voir le Modèle d'expérimentation pour les champs obligatoires. - >- Les expérimentations expirent automatiquement à la fin de leur durée définie, sauf renouvellement explicite via une nouvelle proposition. - >- Tous les artefacts affectés par une expérimentation doivent être explicitement étiquetés comme expérimentaux pendant toute la durée. - >- Suspension de sécurité : si une expérimentation introduit un risque crédible pour la sécurité, de la coercition ou un préjudice durable, une suspension d'urgence peut être invoquée conformément aux Changements d'urgence ci-dessus. - Les résultats et enseignements sont consignés dans le Journal d'apprentissage. pt-br: title: Experimentos whyItMatters: >- A comunidade precisa de uma forma de testar coisas novas sem ter que adotá-las permanentemente para testá-las. Experimentos criam esse espaço — mas só se forem limitados no tempo, rotulados e com expiração automática. Sem essas salvaguardas, um "experimento" se torna a forma mais rápida de instalar uma regra permanente sem deliberação real. whatToDefine: >- Defina as regras que todo experimento deve satisfazer. Faça referência ao Modelo de Experimento para o formato completo de submissão. placeholders: - >- Qualquer Membro Pleno pode propor um experimento com prazo definido por meio de decisão Estratégica. Veja o Modelo de Experimento para os campos obrigatórios. - >- Experimentos expiram automaticamente ao final de sua duração definida, a menos que sejam explicitamente renovados por uma nova proposta. - >- Todos os artefatos afetados por um experimento devem ser explicitamente rotulados como experimentais durante o período. - >- Suspensão por segurança: se um experimento introduzir um risco credível de segurança, coerção ou dano contínuo, uma suspensão de emergência pode ser invocada conforme Mudanças de Emergência acima. - Resultados e aprendizados são registrados no Registro de Aprendizado. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 8.3.1 - 8.3.2 - 8.3.3 - 8.3.4 - 8.3.5 - 8.7.3 - key: change-protocol.ratification-record artifact: change-protocol order: 9 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Ratification Record whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] de: title: Ratifizierungsprotokoll whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: Registro de ratificación whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: Registre de ratification whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Registro de Ratificação whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: filled_from_decision dispositionNote: >- Written from the decision that adopted this artifact: reference, date, mechanism, tally and attendance as recorded at freeze time. ownsClauses: [] - key: experiment-template.required-fields artifact: experiment-template order: 0 clauseRefs: - 8.3.1 - 8.3.2 - 8.3.3 - 8.3.4 - 8.3.5 - 8.7.3 i18n: en: title: Required Fields whyItMatters: >- Without scope, duration, success criteria, and rollback, an "experiment" is just a permanent change with friendlier branding. Forcing every proposal to specify what it changes, when it ends, how it will be reviewed, and how it will be rolled back keeps experimentation reversible — and prevents the experiment label from being used to bypass deliberation. whatToDefine: >- Fill each field. Maximum duration is set by your Change Protocol. The decision authority must come from the Decision Matrix. placeholders: - short experiment name. - member name. - exactly what is being tried; which artifacts and behaviors are affected. - start date — end date; maximum duration as set by the Change Protocol. - at minimum one midpoint check-in; specify dates and what is reviewed. - observable conditions that would justify making the change permanent. - observable conditions that would terminate the experiment early. - what triggers rollback and how it is executed. - who may start, extend, modify, or terminate the experiment, per the Decision Matrix. - >- all artifacts affected by the experiment must be explicitly labelled as experimental for the duration. - >- acknowledge that an emergency suspension may be invoked under the Change Protocol if a credible safety risk emerges. question: What does somebody have to write down before we agree to try something? prompts: - >- Which fields does every experiment proposal form contain, and which may never be left blank? - >- How does the proposer show that the signs of success and of early stopping are things we can actually observe? - >- Who checks that a form is complete before it goes to a decision, and what happens to an incomplete one? - >- Where is the filled-in form kept while the experiment runs, so members can check it against what is happening? (What happens when it ends is its own question.) examples: - >- Every experiment uses one form with these fields: name, proposer, what changes and which documents are affected, what stays the same, start and end date, at least one midpoint check-in, observable signs of success, observable signs that mean we stop early, what triggers rollback and how, who may extend or end it, and a line accepting that it may be suspended in an emergency. The facilitator returns any form with an empty field before it is scheduled for a decision. de: title: Pflichtfelder whyItMatters: >- Ohne Umfang, Dauer, Erfolgskriterien und Rollback ist ein „Experiment" nur eine dauerhafte Änderung mit freundlicherem Etikett. Indem jeder Vorschlag angeben muss, was er ändert, wann er endet, wie er überprüft wird und wie er rückgängig gemacht wird, bleibt Experimentieren umkehrbar — und das Experiment-Label kann nicht dazu verwendet werden, die Beratung zu umgehen. whatToDefine: >- Fülle jedes Feld aus. Die maximale Dauer wird durch dein Änderungsprotokoll festgelegt. Die Entscheidungsbefugnis muss aus der Entscheidungsmatrix stammen. placeholders: - kurzer Experimentname. - Name des Mitglieds. - was genau ausprobiert wird; welche Artefakte und Verhaltensweisen betroffen sind. - Startdatum — Enddatum; maximale Dauer gemäß Änderungsprotokoll. - mindestens ein Zwischencheck; gib Termine und Prüfgegenstände an. - beobachtbare Bedingungen, die eine dauerhafte Übernahme der Änderung rechtfertigen würden. - beobachtbare Bedingungen, die das Experiment vorzeitig beenden würden. - was ein Rollback auslöst und wie es durchgeführt wird. - >- wer das Experiment gemäß der Entscheidungsmatrix starten, verlängern, ändern oder beenden darf. - >- alle vom Experiment betroffenen Artefakte müssen für die Dauer des Experiments ausdrücklich als experimentell gekennzeichnet werden. - >- bestätige, dass eine Notaussetzung gemäß Änderungsprotokoll eingeleitet werden kann, wenn ein glaubhaftes Sicherheitsrisiko entsteht. es: title: Campos Requeridos whyItMatters: >- Sin alcance, duración, criterios de éxito y reversión, un "experimento" es simplemente un cambio permanente con un nombre más amigable. Obligar a cada propuesta a especificar qué cambia, cuándo termina, cómo se evaluará y cómo se revertirá mantiene la experimentación reversible — e impide que la etiqueta de experimento se use para eludir la deliberación. whatToDefine: >- Completa cada campo. La duración máxima la establece tu Protocolo de Cambios. La autoridad de decisión DEBE provenir de la Matriz de Decisiones. placeholders: - nombre breve del experimento. - nombre del miembro. - exactamente qué se está probando; qué artefactos y comportamientos se ven afectados. - >- fecha de inicio — fecha de fin; duración máxima según lo establecido por el Protocolo de Cambios. - al menos una revisión intermedia; especifica fechas y qué se revisa. - condiciones observables que justificarían hacer el cambio permanente. - condiciones observables que terminarían el experimento anticipadamente. - qué activa la reversión y cómo se ejecuta. - >- quién puede iniciar, extender, modificar o terminar el experimento, según la Matriz de Decisiones. - >- todos los artefactos afectados por el experimento DEBEN estar explícitamente etiquetados como experimentales durante toda su duración. - >- reconoce que se PUEDE invocar una suspensión de emergencia bajo el Protocolo de Cambios si surge un riesgo de seguridad creíble. fr: title: Champs obligatoires whyItMatters: >- Sans périmètre, durée, critères de succès et procédure de retour arrière, une « expérimentation » n'est qu'un changement permanent avec un habillage plus sympathique. Obliger chaque proposition à préciser ce qu'elle modifie, quand elle se termine, comment elle sera évaluée et comment elle sera annulée garantit que l'expérimentation reste réversible — et empêche l'étiquette « expérimentation » d'être utilisée pour contourner la délibération. whatToDefine: >- Remplis chaque champ. La durée maximale est définie par ton Protocole de changement. L'autorité de décision doit provenir de la Matrice de décision. placeholders: - nom court de l'expérimentation. - nom du membre. - ce qui est exactement testé ; quels artefacts et comportements sont concernés. - >- date de début — date de fin ; durée maximale telle que définie par le Protocole de changement. - au minimum un bilan à mi-parcours ; précise les dates et ce qui est évalué. - conditions observables qui justifieraient de rendre le changement permanent. - conditions observables qui mettraient fin à l'expérimentation de manière anticipée. - ce qui déclenche le retour arrière et comment il est exécuté. - >- qui peut démarrer, prolonger, modifier ou terminer l'expérimentation, selon la Matrice de décision. - >- tous les artefacts concernés par l'expérimentation DOIVENT être explicitement étiquetés comme expérimentaux pendant toute la durée. - >- reconnaître qu'une suspension d'urgence PEUT être invoquée en vertu du Protocole de changement si un risque crédible pour la sécurité apparaît. pt-br: title: Campos Obrigatórios whyItMatters: >- Sem escopo, duração, critérios de sucesso e rollback, um "experimento" não passa de uma mudança permanente com uma roupagem mais simpática. Exigir que toda proposta especifique o que muda, quando termina, como será revisada e como será revertida mantém a experimentação reversível — e impede que o rótulo de "experimento" seja usado para contornar a deliberação. whatToDefine: >- Preencha cada campo. A duração máxima é definida pelo seu Protocolo de Mudança (Change Protocol). A autoridade de decisão deve vir da Matriz de Decisão (Decision Matrix). placeholders: - nome curto do experimento. - nome do membro. - exatamente o que está sendo testado; quais artefatos e comportamentos são afetados. - >- data de início — data de término; duração máxima conforme definida pelo Protocolo de Mudança. - no mínimo um check-in no meio do percurso; especifique as datas e o que será revisado. - condições observáveis que justificariam tornar a mudança permanente. - condições observáveis que encerrariam o experimento antes do prazo. - o que dispara o rollback e como ele é executado. - >- quem pode iniciar, estender, modificar ou encerrar o experimento, conforme a Matriz de Decisão. - >- todos os artefatos afetados pelo experimento DEVEM ser explicitamente rotulados como experimentais durante toda a duração. - >- reconheça que uma suspensão de emergência PODE ser invocada nos termos do Protocolo de Mudança caso surja um risco de segurança crível. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: [] - key: experiment-template.expiry-and-renewal artifact: experiment-template order: 1 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Expiry and Renewal whyItMatters: >- The community needs the option to revert. Auto-expiry forces a deliberate decision to make the change permanent — not a slow drift in which nobody remembers it was ever conditional. whatToDefine: >- State the auto-expiry rule, the renewal mechanism, and the obligation to record results in the Learning Log. placeholders: - >- Experiments expire automatically at the end of their defined duration unless explicitly renewed via a new proposal. Renewal requires a new Strategic vote. - Results and learnings are recorded in the Learning Log. question: When does an experiment end by itself, and what does it take to keep it going? prompts: - What happens on the end date if nobody has acted? - What does it take to renew an experiment, and how many times may it be renewed? - How does a successful experiment become a permanent rule? - Who records the results in the Learning Log, and by when? examples: - >- An experiment ends on its end date even if nobody acts, and the previous rule applies again from the next day. Keeping it going takes a new proposal and a new Strategic decision before the end date; it can be renewed once, after which it must be adopted as a permanent change or stopped. Within 30 days of the end, the proposer writes the results and what we learned into the Learning Log. de: title: Ablauf und Verlängerung whyItMatters: >- Die Gemeinschaft braucht die Möglichkeit, Änderungen rückgängig zu machen. Automatisches Ablaufen erzwingt eine bewusste Entscheidung, die Änderung dauerhaft zu übernehmen — statt eines schleichenden Drifts, bei dem sich niemand mehr erinnert, dass sie jemals vorläufig war. whatToDefine: >- Halte die Regel zum automatischen Ablauf, den Verlängerungsmechanismus und die Pflicht zur Ergebniserfassung im Lernprotokoll fest. placeholders: - >- Experimente laufen automatisch am Ende ihrer festgelegten Dauer ab, sofern sie nicht ausdrücklich durch einen neuen Vorschlag verlängert werden. Eine Verlängerung erfordert eine neue strategische Abstimmung. - Ergebnisse und Erkenntnisse werden im Lernprotokoll festgehalten. es: title: Expiración y Renovación whyItMatters: >- La comunidad necesita la opción de revertir. La expiración automática obliga a tomar una decisión deliberada para hacer el cambio permanente — en lugar de una deriva lenta en la que nadie recuerda que alguna vez fue condicional. whatToDefine: >- Indica la regla de expiración automática, el mecanismo de renovación y la obligación de registrar los resultados en el Registro de Aprendizajes. placeholders: - >- Los experimentos expiran automáticamente al final de su duración definida, a menos que se renueven explícitamente mediante una nueva propuesta. La renovación requiere una nueva votación Estratégica. - Los resultados y aprendizajes se registran en el Registro de Aprendizajes. fr: title: Expiration et renouvellement whyItMatters: >- La communauté a besoin de pouvoir revenir en arrière. L'expiration automatique impose une décision délibérée pour rendre le changement permanent — plutôt qu'une dérive lente où plus personne ne se souvient que c'était conditionnel. whatToDefine: >- Indique la règle d'expiration automatique, le mécanisme de renouvellement et l'obligation de consigner les résultats dans le Journal d'apprentissage. placeholders: - >- Les expérimentations expirent automatiquement à la fin de leur durée définie, sauf renouvellement explicite via une nouvelle proposition. Le renouvellement nécessite un nouveau vote Stratégique. - Les résultats et enseignements sont consignés dans le Journal d'apprentissage. pt-br: title: Expiração e Renovação whyItMatters: >- A comunidade precisa ter a opção de reverter. A expiração automática obriga uma decisão deliberada para tornar a mudança permanente — em vez de uma deriva lenta na qual ninguém lembra que ela já foi condicional. whatToDefine: >- Declare a regra de expiração automática, o mecanismo de renovação e a obrigação de registrar os resultados no Registro de Aprendizados. placeholders: - >- Os experimentos expiram automaticamente ao final da duração definida, a menos que sejam explicitamente renovados por meio de uma nova proposta. A renovação requer uma nova votação Estratégica. - Os resultados e aprendizados são registrados no Registro de Aprendizados. disposition: authored dispositionNote: >- A real definition a community should write — the auto-expiry rule, the renewal mechanism, the obligation to record results in the Learning Log. It carries no clause reference only because the experiment MUSTs were moved to the Change Protocol (see rule 2 above), so it is written but counts toward nothing. ownsClauses: [] - key: experiment-template.outcome-record-filled-in-at-experiment-end artifact: experiment-template order: 2 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: Outcome Record (filled in at experiment end) whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: - Adopted permanently / Rolled back / Modified and re-run / Terminated early - link to vote or decision - link - two to four sentences on what was tried, what was observed, and what was decided. de: title: Ergebnisprotokoll (wird am Ende des Experiments ausgefüllt) whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: - >- Dauerhaft übernommen / Rückgängig gemacht / Angepasst und erneut durchgeführt / Vorzeitig beendet - Link zur Abstimmung oder Entscheidung - Link - >- zwei bis vier Sätze darüber, was ausprobiert wurde, was beobachtet wurde und was entschieden wurde. es: title: Registro de Resultado (se completa al finalizar el experimento) whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: - >- Adoptado permanentemente / Revertido / Modificado y ejecutado de nuevo / Terminado anticipadamente - enlace a la votación o decisión - enlace - dos a cuatro oraciones sobre qué se probó, qué se observó y qué se decidió. fr: title: Compte rendu de résultat (rempli à la fin de l'expérimentation) whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: - >- Adopté définitivement / Retour arrière effectué / Modifié et relancé / Terminé de manière anticipée - lien vers le vote ou la décision - lien - deux à quatre phrases sur ce qui a été testé, ce qui a été observé et ce qui a été décidé. pt-br: title: Registro de Resultados (preenchido ao final do experimento) whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: - Adotado permanentemente / Revertido / Modificado e refeito / Encerrado antecipadamente - link para a votação ou decisão - link - duas a quatro frases sobre o que foi testado, o que foi observado e o que foi decidido. disposition: instance_record dispositionNote: >- Filled in per experiment, at its end — the template says so in its own title. Not a one-time community definition. ownsClauses: [] - key: learning-log.what-constitutes-a-learnable-event artifact: learning-log order: 0 clauseRefs: - 8.4.1 - 8.4.4 - 8.6.5 - 8.7.4 i18n: en: title: What Constitutes a Learnable Event whyItMatters: >- If "we should learn from this" is left to individual judgement, the hardest lessons — the ones involving conflict, failure, or embarrassment — are the ones most likely to go unrecorded. Naming the specific events that MUST produce an entry takes the question out of the moment, and makes sure uncomfortable learnings are captured rather than quietly dropped. whatToDefine: >- List the specific events that obligate a Learning Log entry. State who owns the log and the synthesis cadence. placeholders: - >- A governance decision is reversed, rolled back, or found to contradict another adopted rule. - An experiment concludes (success, failure, or early termination). - A conflict escalates to the governance step of the Conflict Resolution Ladder. - >- A structural or systemic failure is identified that caused harm, confusion, or repeated process breakdown. - >- A major adaptation to community operations is adopted that significantly changes how a layer functions. - >- A near-miss: a situation that could have caused significant harm but was caught before it did. - Any event the community collectively identifies as worth learning from. - >- Minor operational adjustments, routine decisions, and individual issues fully resolved at the early steps of the Conflict Resolution Ladder do not require a Learning Log entry. - role responsible for ensuring entries are created and maintained. - >- the Learning Log is reviewed at the Reflection & Learning meeting; named role prepares a brief synthesis of entries since the last review, noting recurring patterns. question: What kind of thing going wrong is worth writing down and learning from? prompts: - >- Which events always require a Learning Log entry — such as a reversed decision, an ended experiment, an escalated conflict, a failure that caused harm, a major change in how we work, or a near-miss? - What does not need an entry? - >- Who owns the log and makes sure entries are written? (What an entry contains is its own question.) - How often is the log reviewed, and who prepares a summary of patterns? - >- When the same kind of failure keeps happening, how do we review the structure behind it instead of blaming a person? - How do we make sure uncomfortable failures are recorded and never deleted or hidden later? examples: - >- An entry is required when a decision is reversed, an experiment ends, a conflict reaches the governance step, a failure causes harm or repeated breakdown, a major change in how we work is adopted, or a near-miss happens. Routine decisions and conflicts settled early do not need one. The learning steward makes sure entries are written and never removed. Each quarter the steward summarises new entries; if the same kind of failure appears twice, we review the structure behind it rather than looking for someone to blame. de: title: Was ein lernrelevantes Ereignis ausmacht whyItMatters: >- Wenn „daraus sollten wir lernen" dem individuellen Ermessen überlassen wird, sind die härtesten Lektionen — jene, die mit Konflikten, Scheitern oder Peinlichkeit verbunden sind — am ehesten diejenigen, die undokumentiert bleiben. Die konkreten Ereignisse zu benennen, die einen Eintrag erzeugen MÜSSEN, nimmt die Frage aus dem Moment heraus und stellt sicher, dass unbequeme Erkenntnisse festgehalten werden, anstatt stillschweigend unter den Tisch zu fallen. whatToDefine: >- Liste die konkreten Ereignisse auf, die einen Eintrag im Lernprotokoll verpflichtend machen. Benenne, wer das Protokoll pflegt, und den Rhythmus der Zusammenfassung. placeholders: - >- Eine Governance-Entscheidung wird rückgängig gemacht, zurückgenommen oder steht im Widerspruch zu einer anderen verabschiedeten Regel. - Ein Experiment wird abgeschlossen (Erfolg, Misserfolg oder vorzeitiger Abbruch). - Ein Konflikt eskaliert bis zur Governance-Stufe der Konfliktlösungsleiter. - >- Ein strukturelles oder systemisches Versagen wird identifiziert, das Schaden, Verwirrung oder wiederholten Prozesszusammenbruch verursacht hat. - >- Eine wesentliche Anpassung der Gemeinschaftsabläufe wird verabschiedet, die die Funktionsweise einer Schicht erheblich verändert. - >- Ein Beinahe-Vorfall: eine Situation, die erheblichen Schaden hätte verursachen können, aber rechtzeitig erkannt wurde. - Jedes Ereignis, das die Gemeinschaft gemeinsam als lernwürdig einstuft. - >- Kleinere betriebliche Anpassungen, Routineentscheidungen und individuelle Probleme, die in den frühen Stufen der Konfliktlösungsleiter vollständig gelöst werden, erfordern keinen Eintrag im Lernprotokoll. - Rolle, die dafür verantwortlich ist, dass Einträge erstellt und gepflegt werden. - >- Das Lernprotokoll wird beim Reflexions- & Lerntreffen überprüft; die benannte Rolle bereitet eine kurze Zusammenfassung der Einträge seit der letzten Überprüfung vor und weist auf wiederkehrende Muster hin. es: title: Qué constituye un evento de aprendizaje whyItMatters: >- Si "deberíamos aprender de esto" queda a criterio individual, las lecciones más difíciles — las que implican conflicto, fracaso o vergüenza — son las que más probablemente quedarán sin registrar. Nombrar los eventos específicos que DEBEN producir una entrada elimina la pregunta del momento, y asegura que los aprendizajes incómodos se capturen en lugar de dejarse pasar en silencio. whatToDefine: >- Enumera los eventos específicos que obligan a crear una entrada en el Registro de Aprendizajes. Indica quién es responsable del registro y la cadencia de síntesis. placeholders: - >- Una decisión de gobernanza se revierte, se deshace, o se descubre que contradice otra regla adoptada. - Un experimento concluye (éxito, fracaso o terminación anticipada). - Un conflicto escala al paso de gobernanza de la Escalera de Resolución de Conflictos. - >- Se identifica un fallo estructural o sistémico que causó daño, confusión o quiebres repetidos del proceso. - >- Se adopta una adaptación importante de las operaciones comunitarias que cambia significativamente el funcionamiento de una capa. - >- Un cuasi-incidente: una situación que podría haber causado daño significativo pero fue detectada antes de que ocurriera. - Cualquier evento que la comunidad identifique colectivamente como digno de aprendizaje. - >- Los ajustes operativos menores, las decisiones rutinarias y los asuntos individuales resueltos completamente en los primeros pasos de la Escalera de Resolución de Conflictos no requieren una entrada en el Registro de Aprendizajes. - rol encargado de asegurar que las entradas se creen y mantengan. - >- el Registro de Aprendizajes se revisa en la reunión de Reflexión y Aprendizaje; el rol designado prepara una síntesis breve de las entradas desde la última revisión, señalando patrones recurrentes. fr: title: Ce qui constitue un événement apprenant whyItMatters: >- Si « on devrait tirer des leçons de ceci » est laissé au jugement individuel, les leçons les plus difficiles — celles qui impliquent un conflit, un échec ou un embarras — sont celles qui ont le plus de chances de ne jamais être consignées. Nommer les événements spécifiques qui DOIVENT produire une entrée retire la question du moment présent et garantit que les apprentissages inconfortables sont capturés plutôt que discrètement oubliés. whatToDefine: >- Liste les événements spécifiques qui obligent à créer une entrée dans le Journal d'apprentissage. Indique qui est responsable du journal et la cadence de synthèse. placeholders: - >- Une décision de gouvernance est annulée, révoquée, ou s'avère en contradiction avec une autre règle adoptée. - Une expérimentation se conclut (succès, échec ou arrêt anticipé). - >- Un conflit escalade jusqu'à l'étape de gouvernance de l'Échelle de résolution des conflits. - >- Une défaillance structurelle ou systémique est identifiée, ayant causé un préjudice, de la confusion ou des dysfonctionnements récurrents. - >- Une adaptation majeure des opérations communautaires est adoptée et modifie significativement le fonctionnement d'une couche. - >- Un quasi-incident : une situation qui aurait pu causer un préjudice significatif mais a été détectée à temps. - >- Tout événement que la communauté identifie collectivement comme méritant d'en tirer des enseignements. - >- Les ajustements opérationnels mineurs, les décisions de routine et les problèmes individuels entièrement résolus aux premières étapes de l'Échelle de résolution des conflits ne nécessitent pas d'entrée dans le Journal d'apprentissage. - rôle chargé de s'assurer que les entrées sont créées et maintenues. - >- le Journal d'apprentissage est examiné lors de la réunion Réflexion et apprentissage ; le rôle désigné prépare une brève synthèse des entrées depuis la dernière revue, en relevant les schémas récurrents. pt-br: title: O Que Constitui um Evento Passível de Aprendizado whyItMatters: >- Se "deveríamos aprender com isso" for deixado ao critério individual, as lições mais difíceis — aquelas que envolvem conflito, fracasso ou constrangimento — são justamente as que têm maior probabilidade de não serem registradas. Nomear os eventos específicos que DEVEM gerar uma entrada tira essa decisão do calor do momento e garante que aprendizados desconfortáveis sejam capturados, em vez de silenciosamente descartados. whatToDefine: >- Liste os eventos específicos que obrigam uma entrada no Registro de Aprendizado. Indique quem é responsável pelo registro e a cadência de síntese. placeholders: - >- Uma decisão de governança é revertida, desfeita ou identificada como contraditória a outra regra adotada. - Um experimento é concluído (sucesso, fracasso ou encerramento antecipado). - Um conflito escala para a etapa de governança da Escada de Resolução de Conflitos. - >- Uma falha estrutural ou sistêmica é identificada e causou dano, confusão ou quebras repetidas de processo. - >- Uma adaptação importante das operações da comunidade é adotada e altera significativamente o funcionamento de uma camada. - >- Um quase acidente: uma situação que poderia ter causado dano significativo, mas foi detectada antes que isso acontecesse. - Qualquer evento que a comunidade identifique coletivamente como digno de aprendizado. - >- Ajustes operacionais menores, decisões rotineiras e questões individuais totalmente resolvidas nas etapas iniciais da Escada de Resolução de Conflitos não exigem uma entrada no Registro de Aprendizado. - papel responsável por garantir que as entradas sejam criadas e mantidas. - >- o Registro de Aprendizado é revisado na reunião de Reflexão e Aprendizado; o papel nomeado prepara uma breve síntese das entradas desde a última revisão, destacando padrões recorrentes. disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 8.4.1 - 8.4.4 - 8.6.5 - 8.7.4 - key: learning-log.entry-format artifact: learning-log order: 1 clauseRefs: - 8.4.2 - 8.4.3 - 8.6.5 i18n: en: title: Entry Format whyItMatters: >- Free-form reflection is valuable, but it does not aggregate. A consistent schema — trigger, signals, what changed, outcome, follow-up owner — makes it possible to scan years of entries for recurring patterns and to turn isolated incidents into structural evidence. It also forces each entry to name an owner, so learning does not stop at "we noticed." whatToDefine: >- Use the template below for every entry. Each field forces a different lens on the event; do not skip the follow-up owner. placeholders: [] question: What do we record about something we learned, so it is still useful in three years? prompts: - What happened, and why did it matter? - Which rules, roles or documents were involved? - What signs, evidence or thresholds made us act? - What did we change, try or stop, and what came of it? - Who owns the follow-up, and by when? - >- Who can read entries under our information access rules, and what is left out to protect the people involved? examples: - >- Each entry records the date, what happened and why it mattered, which rules or documents were involved, what signs or thresholds made us act, what we changed, tried or stopped, what came of it, and who follows up by when. Entries have the same access level as meeting minutes, so all members can read them; names of the people involved are left out unless they agree. de: title: Eintragsformat whyItMatters: >- Freie Reflexion ist wertvoll, lässt sich aber nicht aggregieren. Ein einheitliches Schema — Auslöser, Signale, was sich geändert hat, Ergebnis, Verantwortliche*r für die Nachverfolgung — ermöglicht es, Einträge über Jahre hinweg nach wiederkehrenden Mustern zu durchsuchen und einzelne Vorfälle in strukturelle Erkenntnisse umzuwandeln. Es zwingt außerdem jeden Eintrag, eine verantwortliche Person zu benennen, damit Lernen nicht bei „wir haben es bemerkt" endet. whatToDefine: >- Verwende die unten stehende Vorlage für jeden Eintrag. Jedes Feld erzwingt einen anderen Blickwinkel auf das Ereignis; überspringe nicht die verantwortliche Person für die Nachverfolgung. placeholders: [] es: title: Formato de entrada whyItMatters: >- La reflexión libre es valiosa, pero no se agrega. Un esquema consistente — detonante, señales, qué cambió, resultado, responsable de seguimiento — permite recorrer años de entradas buscando patrones recurrentes y convertir incidentes aislados en evidencia estructural. También obliga a cada entrada a nombrar un responsable, para que el aprendizaje no se detenga en "lo notamos". whatToDefine: >- Usa la plantilla de abajo para cada entrada. Cada campo impone una perspectiva distinta sobre el evento; no omitas el responsable de seguimiento. placeholders: [] fr: title: Format des entrées whyItMatters: >- La réflexion libre a de la valeur, mais elle ne s'agrège pas. Un schéma cohérent — déclencheur, signaux, ce qui a changé, résultat, responsable du suivi — permet de parcourir des années d'entrées à la recherche de schémas récurrents et de transformer des incidents isolés en preuves structurelles. Il oblige aussi chaque entrée à nommer un responsable, pour que l'apprentissage ne s'arrête pas à « on a remarqué ». whatToDefine: >- Utilise le modèle ci-dessous pour chaque entrée. Chaque champ impose un angle différent sur l'événement ; ne saute pas le responsable du suivi. placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Formato da Entrada whyItMatters: >- A reflexão em formato livre é valiosa, mas não se agrega. Um esquema consistente — gatilho, sinais, o que mudou, resultado, responsável pelo acompanhamento — permite revisar anos de entradas em busca de padrões recorrentes e transformar incidentes isolados em evidência estrutural. Também obriga cada entrada a nomear um responsável, para que o aprendizado não pare em "nós percebemos". whatToDefine: >- Use o modelo abaixo para cada entrada. Cada campo impõe uma lente diferente sobre o evento; não pule o responsável pelo acompanhamento. placeholders: [] disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 8.4.2 - 8.4.3 - key: learning-log.yyyy-mm-dd-short-title artifact: learning-log order: 2 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: — whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] de: title: — whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: — whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: — whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: — whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: instance_record dispositionNote: >- A specimen learning-log entry, not a definition. One is written per learnable event; the format itself is defined in `entry-format`. ownsClauses: [] - key: version-history.entry-format artifact: version-history order: 0 clauseRefs: - 8.2.1 - 8.2.2 - 8.2.3 - 8.2.4 - 8.2.5 - 8.6.4 - 8.7.2 i18n: en: title: Entry Format whyItMatters: >- Governance that cannot point to "what changed, when, and why" is indistinguishable from governance by whoever speaks loudest. A single append-only ledger of adopted changes — with the superseded versions preserved in version control — makes the current state of the rules unambiguous and gives members, auditors, and future stewards a way to reconstruct the path that got us here. whatToDefine: >- Use the entry template below for every adopted change. New entries are prepended above the most recent. Do not edit historical entries — corrections are recorded as new entries. placeholders: [] question: What do we record about each version of our rules, so anybody can trace what changed? prompts: - How are versions numbered, and what makes the number change? - >- What does every entry record — version, adoption date, effective date, the decision it came from, a summary, and any migration notes? - >- How can anyone tell which version is in force today, and which documents count as the official ones? - Where are earlier versions kept, and how can someone see the dates each one applied? - How is a mistake in an old entry corrected without editing it? examples: - >- Each version gets a number like 2.3: the first number goes up for Constitutional changes, the second for all others. Every entry records the version, adoption and effective dates, the decision reference with its mechanism and threshold, a short summary and any migration notes, newest first. The top entry is the version in force, and only documents in the "current" folder count. Earlier versions stay in the archive with the dates they applied, and mistakes are corrected with a new entry, never by editing an old one. de: title: Eintragsformat whyItMatters: >- Governance, die nicht auf „was hat sich wann und warum geändert" verweisen kann, ist nicht von Governance durch diejenigen zu unterscheiden, die am lautesten reden. Ein einziges, nur fortschreibbares Protokoll übernommener Änderungen — wobei die abgelösten Versionen in der Versionskontrolle erhalten bleiben — macht den aktuellen Stand der Regeln eindeutig und gibt Mitgliedern, Prüfenden und zukünftigen Verantwortlichen die Möglichkeit, den Weg nachzuvollziehen, der uns hierhergeführt hat. whatToDefine: >- Nutzt die Eintragsvorlage unten für jede übernommene Änderung. Neue Einträge werden über dem jeweils neuesten eingefügt. Ändert keine historischen Einträge — Korrekturen werden als neue Einträge erfasst. placeholders: [] es: title: Formato de Entrada whyItMatters: >- Una gobernanza que no puede señalar "qué cambió, cuándo y por qué" es indistinguible de una gobernanza donde manda quien más alto habla. Un único registro de solo-anexión de cambios adoptados — con las versiones sustituidas preservadas en el control de versiones — hace que el estado actual de las reglas sea inequívoco y ofrece a los miembros, auditores y futuros responsables una forma de reconstruir el camino que nos trajo hasta aquí. whatToDefine: >- Usa la plantilla de entrada a continuación para cada cambio adoptado. Las nuevas entradas se anteponen por encima de la más reciente. No edites entradas históricas — las correcciones se registran como nuevas entradas. placeholders: [] fr: title: Format des entrées whyItMatters: >- Une gouvernance qui ne peut pas indiquer « ce qui a changé, quand et pourquoi » est indiscernable d'une gouvernance par celui qui parle le plus fort. Un registre unique en ajout seul des changements adoptés — avec les versions remplacées conservées dans le contrôle de version — rend l'état actuel des règles sans ambiguïté et donne aux membres, aux auditeurs et aux futurs responsables un moyen de reconstituer le chemin qui nous a menés ici. whatToDefine: >- Utilise le modèle d'entrée ci-dessous pour chaque changement adopté. Les nouvelles entrées sont ajoutées au-dessus de la plus récente. Ne modifie pas les entrées historiques — les corrections sont enregistrées comme de nouvelles entrées. placeholders: [] pt-br: title: Formato da Entrada whyItMatters: >- Uma governança que não consegue apontar "o que mudou, quando e por quê" é indistinguível de uma governança ditada por quem fala mais alto. Um único livro-razão apenas-acréscimo de mudanças adotadas — com as versões substituídas preservadas no controle de versão — torna o estado atual das regras inequívoco e dá aos membros, auditores e futuros administradores uma forma de reconstruir o caminho que nos trouxe até aqui. whatToDefine: >- Use o modelo de entrada abaixo para cada mudança adotada. Novas entradas são adicionadas acima da mais recente. Não edite entradas históricas — correções são registradas como novas entradas. placeholders: [] disposition: authored dispositionNote: null ownsClauses: - 8.2.1 - 8.2.2 - 8.2.3 - 8.2.4 - 8.6.4 - 8.7.2 - key: version-history.version-short-title artifact: version-history order: 1 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: — whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] de: title: — whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: — whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: — whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: — whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: instance_record dispositionNote: A specimen version-history entry. One per adopted version. ownsClauses: [] - key: version-history.current-version-v0-0-repository-initialized artifact: version-history order: 2 clauseRefs: [] i18n: en: title: 'Current Version: v0.0 — Repository Initialized' whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] de: title: 'Aktuelle Version: v0.0 — Repository initialisiert' whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] es: title: 'Versión Actual: v0.0 — Repositorio Inicializado' whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] fr: title: 'Version actuelle : v0.0 — Dépôt initialisé' whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] pt-br: title: 'Versão Atual: v0.0 — Repositório Inicializado' whyItMatters: null whatToDefine: null placeholders: [] disposition: instance_record dispositionNote: >- The template's own seed entry (v0.0, repository initialised). It describes the starting state of a fresh repository, not something to define. ownsClauses: []