feat: add Code of Conduct appeals process

[pelumixxril]

Overview

Adds Governance/COC_APPEALS.md, the missing versioned reference for how a Code of Conduct enforcement decision may be appealed.

Today the project's conduct standard is the three-line summary in CONTRIBUTING.md §1, and the only appeal language anywhere in Governance/ is policies/REVOCATION.md §4 — which covers privilege revocation only. A warning, a content removal, a channel mute, or a suspension had no stated appeal path, no stated reviewer, and no stated deadline. This change closes that gap.

Related Issue

Issue #1594 — "Add a Code of Conduct appeals process for TeachLink Backend".

Changes

New governance document

• [ADD] Governance/COC_APPEALS.md
  • §1 Scope — which enforcement decisions are appealable (warning, content removal, mute, suspension, ban, and conduct-based privilege revocation) and the explicit boundary against ordinary review disagreement, which belongs in processes/CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md.
  • §2 Aims and principles — reasoned decisions, independent review, no retaliation, reviewable proportionality, confidentiality by default, and stated deadlines.
  • §3 Who may appeal — the subject of a sanction always has standing regardless of role or tenure; a reporter has a distinct and narrower no-action review under §7; a third party has none.
  • §4 Independent review requirement — the load-bearing section. Six binding conditions: no prior involvement in the decision, no reporting relationship to either side, no direct interest in the outcome, three members where available, a declared recusal path, and no single-member decisions. It also states what happens when no unconflicted panel can be assembled internally.
  • §5 Appeal steps — six stages with an owner and a deadline each (file → acknowledge → assemble and disclose the record → panel review → written decision → final escalation), the closed list of appeal grounds, the four outcomes (Upheld / Modified / Overturned / Remitted), and the rule that filing does not suspend the sanction.
  • §6 Confidentiality and records — who sees the appeal record, what is logged in DECISION_LOG.md, retention, and retaliation as itself a violation.
  • §7 Review of a no-action decision — the reporter's one-shot review, confined to whether the decision not to act was reasonable on the evidence.
  • §8–§9 — relationship to other governance documents, and a change log.

Verification Results

Scope check
------------
Files added:      1  (Governance/COC_APPEALS.md)
Files modified:   0
Paths outside Governance/: none

Link check
----------
All 12 relative links in the new document were resolved against the working
path and exist on disk:
  ../CONTRIBUTING.md                          OK
  DECISION_LOG.md                             OK
  policies/COMMUNICATION_NORMS.md             OK
  policies/REVOCATION.md                      OK
  processes/CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md            OK
  processes/OBJECTION_HANDLING.md             OK

Build impact
------------
Documentation only. Governance/ is outside the Jest root (jest.config.js sets
rootDir: 'src' and testRegex '.*\.spec\.ts$'), outside both TypeScript
programs (tsconfig.json includes only src/** and test/**), and already matched
by the '*.md' rule in .dockerignore. No code, config, schema, or dependency is
touched, so no existing test or build step is affected.

Regression tests
----------------
Not applicable: this is a documentation-only change and adds no executable code.

Acceptance Criteria	Status
Governance/COC_APPEALS.md created	✅ Added
Who may appeal is documented	✅ §3, including reporter standing and the absence of third-party standing
Appeal steps are specified	✅ §5 — six stages, each with an owner and a deadline
Independent review requirement is defined	✅ §4 — six binding conditions plus the no-internal-panel fallback
Scope limited to at most two files	✅ One file added, none modified
No changes outside the Governance/ folder	✅ Verified above
No regression in existing functionality	✅ Documentation only; Governance/ is outside the build and test roots
Change is documented	✅ §8 maps the document against the other governance references; §9 records the v1.0.0 change

Closes #1594

[drips-wave]

@pelumixxril Great news! 🎉 Based on an automated assessment of this PR, the linked Wave issue(s) no longer count against your application limits.

You can now already apply to more issues while waiting for a review of this PR. Keep up the great work! 🚀

Learn more about application limits

[RUKAYAT-CODER]

Thank you for contributing to the project