diff --git a/Governance/processes/CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md b/Governance/processes/CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..ca47d1f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/Governance/processes/CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md @@ -0,0 +1,162 @@ +# Conflict-Resolution Process + +| Field | Value | +| --- | --- | +| Status | Active | +| Version | 1.0.0 | +| Last Updated | 2026-09-28 | +| Applies to | Contributors, maintainers, and project participants | +| Related | [`COMMUNICATION_NORMS.md`](../policies/COMMUNICATION_NORMS.md), [`OBJECTION_HANDLING.md`](OBJECTION_HANDLING.md), [`CHARTER.md`](../CHARTER.md) | + +## Purpose + +This process provides a fair, transparent, and consistent way to resolve +disagreements before they harm collaboration, delay project work, or undermine +trust. It gives contributors and maintainers a clear path to raise concerns, +be heard, and reach a proportionate resolution while preserving the project's +respectful, constructive, and professional standards. + +## Scope + +This process covers interpersonal or working disagreements involving project +participants, including disagreements about contribution or review practices, +project-process expectations, communication, collaboration, and maintainer or +working-group decisions. It may also be used when a disagreement has moved +beyond ordinary discussion on an issue, pull request, or governance thread. + +It does not replace the normal pull-request review flow, the objection-handling +process for a proposed governance decision, security reporting, or urgent +incident response. Use the applicable existing process first where it governs +the matter; this process provides support when the disagreement itself remains +unresolved. Conduct concerns may require a private maintainer response under +[`COMMUNICATION_NORMS.md`](../policies/COMMUNICATION_NORMS.md). + +## Guiding Principles + +- **Respectful communication.** Discuss conduct, work, and evidence without + personal attacks, dismissiveness, or discriminatory language. +- **Good-faith participation.** Participants should seek understanding and a + workable resolution, rather than assume improper intent. +- **Transparency.** Project-related reasoning and outcomes should be visible + in the appropriate repository record unless confidentiality is needed. +- **Neutrality.** Facilitation and decisions must be free from actual or + perceived conflicts of interest where possible. +- **Project and community interests.** Resolutions should advance the health, + safety, and sustainable operation of the project and its community. +- **Protection from harm.** No participant may be retaliated against for + raising a concern in good faith or participating in this process. + +## Resolution Steps + +1. **Direct discussion.** The involved parties should first discuss the + disagreement respectfully in the relevant issue, pull request, or other + appropriate project forum. They should state their concerns, evidence, and + the outcome they seek. A participant may skip this step when direct contact + would be unsafe, inappropriate, or unlikely to be productive. +2. **Written clarification.** If direct discussion does not resolve the matter, + either party documents a concise, factual summary: the issue, relevant + context, points of agreement and disagreement, and proposed resolution. + Use the existing public record where suitable; use a private maintainer + route for sensitive information. +3. **Neutral facilitation.** Either party may ask an uninvolved maintainer or + other suitable neutral project participant to facilitate. The facilitator + helps the parties clarify facts, communicate constructively, and identify + options; they do not decide the outcome at this stage. +4. **Maintainer or community review.** If facilitation does not resolve the + matter, it moves to maintainers for review. Where the matter falls within a + working group's authority, maintainers may seek that group's input. A + disagreement about a proposal or governance decision follows + [`OBJECTION_HANDLING.md`](OBJECTION_HANDLING.md) and, when required, the + formal voting process. +5. **Final decision.** If maintainers cannot reach consensus, the Lead + Maintainer uses the deciding role described in the + [`CHARTER.md`](../CHARTER.md). The final decision should state its basis, + any actions, and how it will be recorded or communicated. + +## Neutral Facilitator + +A neutral facilitator is an uninvolved person trusted to help the parties have +a productive conversation. The facilitator: + +- keeps discussion focused on the stated disagreement, evidence, and possible + resolution; +- gives each party a reasonable opportunity to be heard and checks that their + views are understood accurately; +- sets respectful communication expectations and may pause or redirect an + unproductive discussion; and +- identifies common ground, clarifying questions, and next steps without + favoring a party or preferred result. + +The facilitator must remain impartial. They must not investigate privately, +make findings of misconduct, impose a decision, advocate for either party, or +share sensitive information beyond those who need it to resolve the matter. + +Before accepting the role, a facilitator must disclose any conflict of interest +that could reasonably call their neutrality into question. A facilitator with a +material conflict, including direct involvement in the disagreement, must step +aside. The parties may request another facilitator; if none is available, the +matter proceeds directly to maintainer review with conflicted decision-makers +recused where practical. + +## Escalation Path + +Either involved party may move the matter to the next step when a reasonable, +good-faith attempt at the current step has not resolved it, when the other +party does not engage, or when the current step is unsafe or inappropriate. +The written clarification accompanies each escalation so reviewers do not have +to reconstruct the disagreement from scattered discussion. + +Maintainer review is the normal final review level. A matter requiring a +binding governance decision follows the established objection-handling and +formal-voting processes. If maintainers cannot settle a matter within their +authority, it is escalated to the Lead Maintainer under the charter. Participants +must not use escalation merely to relitigate a resolved matter without material +new information. + +## Documentation and Confidentiality + +Document the concern, relevant context and evidence, steps taken, participants +in any facilitation or review, decisions, reasoning, and follow-up actions. +For project-process or technical disagreements, the default is a public issue, +pull request, or governance record, consistent with the communication norms. + +Keep documentation private when public disclosure could expose personal, +sensitive, security-related, or otherwise confidential information, or could +create a safety risk. Share sensitive information only with people who need it +to resolve the matter, and do not include secrets, private contact details, or +unnecessary personal information in the record. + +When a decision affects project policy, governance, access, or future +contributors, maintainers should record an appropriately redacted outcome and +reasoning publicly. Significant decisions are recorded in +[`DECISION_LOG.md`](../DECISION_LOG.md) in accordance with that document; the +public record must not reveal confidential details. + +## Outcomes + +Possible outcomes include: + +- an agreement between the parties, with any commitments recorded; +- clarification of project expectations, responsibilities, or communication + practices; +- a maintainer decision, including a decision to uphold or change an existing + project action; +- a proposal to clarify or update a process or policy through the normal + governance process; or +- other proportionate project actions consistent with existing governance and + communication norms. + +## Retaliation and Bad-Faith Behavior + +Retaliation, harassment, intimidation, or deliberate misuse of this process is +not acceptable. This includes punishing a person for raising a concern in good +faith, attempting to silence participation, knowingly making false claims, or +using the process to harass another participant. Such behavior may be handled +by maintainers under the applicable project policies. + +## Review and Maintenance + +Maintainers own this process and may review and update it as the project +evolves, particularly when related communication, decision-making, or conduct +processes change. Amendments follow the normal governance process in +[`README.md`](../README.md) and take effect when merged.