Accountability Protocol
Download this template
Generated 2026-08-31 · Download all templates
Triggers
What has to happen before the accountability process starts, and who can start it?
RCOS clauses 6.4.1, 6.5.4
Why enumerate what starts an accountability check?
If accountability checks only happen when someone feels strongly enough to push, they become political. Naming the exact triggers — inactivity, breach, invariant violation, referral — means the process starts from a condition anyone can verify, not from a judgement about a person.
How to fill this in
List the specific, verifiable triggers that initiate an accountability check. Each trigger should be observable from records or a direct referral.
An accountability check is initiated when:
- <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).>
What to cover
- 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.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Investigation and Review
Who looks into what happened, and how do they do it without taking sides?
RCOS clauses 6.4.2, 6.4.3, 6.4.6, 6.5.4
Why graduate the response by severity?
Treating a missed contribution the same as an invariant violation either crushes minor cases with heavy process or lets serious ones slip through a private chat. Graduated pathways — soft check-in, medium written notice, direct escalation for serious breaches — match response weight to breach weight and keep repair the default where repair is still possible.
How to fill this in
Define soft (inactivity), medium (obligation breach), and serious (invariant violation, safety) pathways. State who initiates, the response window, and the escalation route for each.
> Breach severity guidance: <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.>
- Inactivity (soft breach): <who contacts the member; response window; outcome paths.>
- Obligation breach (medium): <written notice; response window; resolution / escalation paths.>
- Serious breach / invariant violation: <direct escalation to the appropriate Conflict Resolution Ladder step.>
What to cover
- 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.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Due Process Guarantees
What is someone accused of something entitled to, before anything is decided?
RCOS clauses 6.4.2, 6.4.4, 6.5.4
Why spell out notice, response, and appeal rights?
Accountability without due process is just punishment with paperwork. A member facing a sanction needs to know the concern, have real time to respond, and have somewhere to appeal to — otherwise the deciding body's word is final by default, which concentrates power exactly where it should not concentrate.
How to fill this in
State the right to written notice, a minimum response window, and an explicit appeal path to Full Members.
- Right to notice: <member is notified in writing of the concern before any review or sanction begins.>
- Right to respond: <minimum response window — e.g. 30 days.>
- Right to appeal: <any decision may be appealed via the governance process (Strategic vote).>
What to cover
- 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.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Anti-Retaliation Protections
How do we protect someone who raises a concern from paying for it later?
RCOS clauses 6.3.2
- 6.3.2 Safeguards MUST include protections against retaliation for:
Why protect participants explicitly?
If raising a concern or giving information can cost a member standing, relationships, or access, people will stay silent and the accountability system collapses in practice. Naming retaliation as itself a trigger makes the cost of suppression higher than the cost of reporting.
How to fill this in
State that retaliation against any member who raises, participates in, or gives information to an accountability process is itself an accountability trigger.
<Retaliation against a member for participating in any part of this process is itself an accountability trigger.>
What to cover
- 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.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Sanction and Repair Options
What consequences can follow, how are they kept proportionate and open to appeal — and how does repair come before punishment?
RCOS clauses 6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.4.3, 6.4.5, 6.4.6, 6.5.4, 6.6.3
- 6.4.1 The community MUST define an explicit sanctions and repair framework.
- 6.4.2 Sanctions and repair actions MUST be:
- 6.4.3 The framework MUST define, at minimum:
- 6.4.5 Sanctions MUST NOT be applied through informal exclusion, social pressure, silence, or implicit withdrawal of rights.
- 6.4.6 Repair-oriented actions MUST be prioritized over punitive actions except in safety-critical cases.
- 6.5.4 The Accountability Protocol MUST define, at minimum:
- 6.6.3 Repair and restoration MUST precede punishment except where immediate safety is at risk.
Why pre-define the menu of sanctions?
Ad-hoc sanctions invented mid-process reflect whoever is loudest in the room, not what the breach warrants. A fixed menu — with preconditions, authorized body, and appeal path for each — keeps responses proportional, prevents informal exclusion from becoming the default punishment, and makes it obvious when a sanction is out of scope for the body applying it.
How to fill this in
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.
> Repair-oriented responses are preferred over punitive ones except in safety-critical cases. > Sanctions must be proportional, time-bounded where applicable, documented, and never applied through informal exclusion or social pressure.
| Type | Preconditions | Authorized body | Appealable? |
|---|---|---|---|
| <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> |
What to cover
- 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.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Conditions for Restoring Rights
How does someone get their standing back once a sanction has run its course?
RCOS clauses 6.4.4
- 6.4.4 Separation, suspension, or removal actions MUST follow due process and MUST align with exit and separation rules defined in Layer 1.
Why make restoration conditions explicit?
If there is no defined path back, every sanction becomes effectively permanent and every exit becomes a life sentence. Explicit restoration conditions signal that accountability is about repair where repair is possible, and they prevent post-hoc gatekeeping about whether someone is "really" welcome back.
How to fill this in
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.
- After voluntary exit: <re-application via Onboarding Protocol; no automatic restoration.>
- After forced exit: <minimum re-application block; standard admission process applies.>
- After temporary access restriction: <rights restored upon confirmation of resolution within review window.>
What to cover
- 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.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Coordination with Layer 1
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?
RCOS clauses 6.4.4
- 6.4.4 Separation, suspension, or removal actions MUST follow due process and MUST align with exit and separation rules defined in Layer 1.
Why tie this to the Exit & Separation Protocol?
Exit rules live in Layer 1 for a reason — they govern who is and is not a member. If accountability actions created their own parallel exit path, there would be two sets of rules, two sets of records, and a loophole for skipping due process. One canonical exit protocol closes that gap.
How to fill this in
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.
<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.>
What to cover
- 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.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Ratification Record
- Adopted: <YYYY-MM-DD>
- Decision type: Strategic
- Version: <version>
- Decision record: <link to decision record>