feat: add Code of Conduct appeals process

Governance/COC_APPEALS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,197 @@
+# Code of Conduct Appeals Process
+
+| Field | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| Document | `Governance/COC_APPEALS.md` |
+| Status | Active |
+| Version | 1.0.0 |
+| Owner | Maintainer Team |
+| Last reviewed | 2026-09-28 |
+| Review cadence | Every 6 months, or after any conduct appeal |
+| Applies to | Everyone covered by the project's Code of Conduct |
+
+This document defines how a person may **appeal** an enforcement decision taken
+under the project's Code of Conduct. It exists because the Code of Conduct is
+only credible if it is also *contestable*: a decision that cannot be reviewed is
+indistinguishable from a decision that was never checked.
+
+It is governance only. It changes no application behaviour, adds no runtime
+dependency, and is scoped entirely to the `Governance/` folder.
+
+## 1. Scope
+
+The Code of Conduct — as stated in [`CONTRIBUTING.md` §1](../CONTRIBUTING.md) and
+as applied through the project's enforcement practice — covers harassment,
+discrimination, personal attacks, dismissive comments, and retaliation. This
+process applies to any decision that *enforces* those standards, including:
+
+- a warning, formal or informal;
+- a requirement to edit or delete content;
+- removal or muting from a repository, discussion, or community channel;
+- a temporary suspension;
+- a permanent ban;
+- revocation of a governance privilege where the ground was a conduct violation
+  (see [`policies/REVOCATION.md`](policies/REVOCATION.md) §1.2).
+
+It does **not** cover ordinary technical disagreement or review feedback. A
+rejected pull request, a closed issue, a `-1` on a proposal, or a reviewer asking
+for changes is not an enforcement decision and is not appealable here. Use
+[`processes/CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md`](processes/CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md) for
+working disagreements and
+[`processes/OBJECTION_HANDLING.md`](processes/OBJECTION_HANDLING.md) for
+objections to a proposed governance decision.
+
+## 2. Aims and principles
+
+| Principle | What it means in practice |
+| --- | --- |
+| **Decisions are reasoned** | A sanction is accompanied by the conduct it responds to and the rule it applies. |
+| **Appeals are heard by someone new** | No person who made, recommended, or investigated the original decision participates in deciding the appeal. |
+| **No retaliation** | Raising an appeal, or participating in one in good faith, is never itself a conduct violation. |
+| **Proportionality is reviewable** | An appeal may succeed on scope or duration even when the finding of fact stands. |
+| **Confidentiality is the default** | Appeal materials are shared only with the people listed in §4 and §6. |
+| **Timely** | Every stage carries a stated deadline (§5); a missed deadline by the project does not disadvantage the appellant. |
+
+## 3. Who may appeal
+
+**Any person subject to an enforcement decision may appeal that decision.** This
+includes contributors, maintainers, reviewers, triagers, and community members
+who are not contributors. Standing does **not** depend on role, tenure, or
+whether the person is still active in the project.
+
+Specifically:
+
+- **The subject of the sanction** has standing, always.
+- **A reporter** who believes a decision failed to address the conduct they
+  reported may request review under §7 (Review of a no-action decision). The
+  reporter is not a party to the subject's appeal and learns only the outcome
+  category, not the reasoning or evidence in it.
+- **A third party** has no standing to appeal a decision that concerns someone
+  else. They may raise a *new* concern about their own experience through the
+  normal reporting channel.
+
+An appeal may be filed by the subject directly, or through a single named
+advocate if the subject prefers not to correspond with the project directly.
+
+## 4. The independent review requirement
+
+This is the load-bearing rule of this document. Every appeal must be decided by
+a panel that satisfies **all** of the following:
+
+1. **No prior involvement.** No panel member may have made the original
+   decision, recommended it, or investigated the underlying report.
+2. **No reporting relationship to the appellant or the original decision-maker.**
+   A panel member may not be the appellant's or the decision-maker's manager,
+   mentee, or close collaborator on the project.
+3. **No direct interest in the outcome.** A panel member who is a party to the
+   underlying dispute, or who has publicly taken a firm position on it, is
+   conflicted out.
+4. **Three members where available.** The panel is three people: at least one
+   maintainer who was not involved, and at least one community member who holds
+   no governance privilege. Where the project cannot field three unconflicted
+   people, the panel is two, and the shortfall is recorded in the decision.
+5. **A declared recusal path.** Any panel member may recuse, and the appellant
+   may request a recusal with a stated reason. A recusal request is granted
+   unless the panel unanimously finds the reason does not go to independence;
+   the finding is recorded.
+6. **No panel member decides alone.** Every outcome requires agreement from
+   every sitting panel member. A panel that cannot reach agreement escalates to
+   the steering group under §5, step 6.
+
+If no unconflicted panel can be assembled from within the project — for example,
+a dispute between the only two maintainers — the appeal is reviewed by the
+project lead and one external reviewer drawn from the wider Stellar/TeachLink
+community, and that fact is recorded in the decision.
+
+## 5. Appeal steps
+
+| Step | Action | Owner | Deadline |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | **File the appeal.** Submit it in writing to the project lead by private email (the address in [`CONTRIBUTING.md` §13](../CONTRIBUTING.md)) or by direct message to `@rinafcode`. State: the decision being appealed, the date it was communicated, the grounds (§5.1), and the outcome sought. | Appellant | **14 days** from notification |
+| 2 | **Acknowledge.** The project lead confirms receipt, states the deadline for the decision, and names the panel (§4) or explains why a panel could not be formed. | Project lead | **5 business days** of receipt |
+| 3 | **Assemble the panel and disclose the record.** The panel receives the original decision, the evidence it rested on, and the appellant's filing. The appellant receives everything the panel receives, minus material that would identify or endanger a reporter. | Project lead | **10 business days** of acknowledgement |
+| 4 | **Panel review.** The panel reads the record and may ask either side written questions. Each side may answer once. No hearings, no cross-examination of the reporter. | Panel | **21 days** of acknowledgement |
+| 5 | **Written decision.** The panel issues a written decision to the appellant that states the outcome (§5.2), the reasons, and any dissent. | Panel | **21 days** of acknowledgement |
+| 6 | **Final escalation.** If the panel cannot agree, or if the appellant believes the process in §4 was not followed, the steering group decides. Its decision is final. | Steering group | **21 days** of escalation |
+
+Deadlines are counted in calendar days unless stated as business days. A
+deadline may be extended once by up to 14 days, with written notice to the
+appellant and a stated reason. Where a legal, security, or safeguarding
+constraint prevents disclosure, the notice says that a constraint applies.
+
+### 5.1 Grounds for appeal
+
+An appeal must rely on at least one of:
+
+- **Not established** — the conduct did not occur, or the evidence does not
+  support the finding.
+- **Wrong provision** — the conduct does not fall within the rule applied.
+- **Disproportionate** — the sanction is heavier than comparable decisions for
+  comparable conduct, or heavier than the policy provides.
+- **Procedural unfairness** — the appellant was not told the substance of the
+  allegation, was not given a chance to respond, or the decision-maker was not
+  independent.
+- **New evidence** — material facts that were not available at the time of the
+  original decision.
+- **Retaliation** — the sanction was imposed, in whole or part, because the
+  appellant raised a concern, appealed, or participated in a prior process.
+
+Disagreement with the outcome alone, without one of the above, is not a ground.
+
+### 5.2 Outcomes
+
+The panel issues exactly one of:
+
+| Outcome | Effect |
+| --- | --- |
+| **Upheld** | The decision stands as issued. |
+| **Modified** | The finding stands, but the scope or duration is reduced — a permanent ban may become a time-boxed suspension, a channel removal may become a warning. |
+| **Overturned** | The decision is void. Any removed access, content, or privilege is restored as soon as practicable, and the record is annotated to say so. |
+| **Remitted** | The decision is set aside and returned for a fresh decision by a different, unconflicted decision-maker because the process in §5.1 was not followed. |
+
+### 5.3 Effect on the original decision
+
+Filing an appeal does **not** suspend the sanction. A permanent ban, a security
+removal, or a channel mute stays in force while the appeal is pending. If the
+appeal is overturned or modified, the project acts promptly to undo the parts
+that no longer apply, and states in the decision what has been undone.
+
+## 6. Confidentiality and records
+
+- The appellant, the panel, the project lead, and — where relevant — the
+  reporter are the only people who see the appeal record.
+- The decision is logged in [`DECISION_LOG.md`](DECISION_LOG.md) as an entry
+  naming the outcome category and the date, with personal details minimised and
+  the appellant not identified unless they ask to be.
+- Evidence is retained only as long as needed to decide the appeal and any
+  escalation, then deleted — except where a legal or security obligation
+  requires retention, which is recorded.
+- Retaliation against an appellant or a panel member is itself a Code of
+  Conduct violation.
+
+## 7. Review of a no-action decision
+
+A person who reported conduct and was told that no action would be taken may ask
+for that decision to be reviewed once. The review is conducted by the same
+independent panel described in §4 and answers one question only: *was the
+decision not to act reasonable on the evidence available?* The reporter receives
+the outcome category and a short explanation, not the underlying evidence or the
+other party's account. A no-action review may not be used to reopen a matter that
+has already been decided on the merits against the reporter.
+
+## 8. Relationship to other documents
+
+| Document | Relationship |
+| --- | --- |
+| [`CONTRIBUTING.md` §1](../CONTRIBUTING.md) | States the conduct standard this process enforces. |
+| [`policies/REVOCATION.md`](policies/REVOCATION.md) | §4 appeal path applies where the revocation ground was conduct; this document supplies the independent-review detail for that path. Where the two differ, the stricter independence requirement applies. |
+| [`processes/CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md`](processes/CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md) | The route for working disagreements, which are not enforcement decisions. |
+| [`processes/OBJECTION_HANDLING.md`](processes/OBJECTION_HANDLING.md) | The route for objections to a proposed governance decision. |
+| [`policies/COMMUNICATION_NORMS.md`](policies/COMMUNICATION_NORMS.md) | Conduct grounds for removal, and the mutually respectful tone expected of an appeal. |
+| [`DECISION_LOG.md`](DECISION_LOG.md) | Where appeal outcomes are recorded. |
+
+## 9. Change log
+
+| Date | Version | Change |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-09-28 | 1.0.0 | **Initial release.** Defines who may appeal (§3), the independent review requirement (§4), the appeal steps and deadlines (§5), confidentiality and records (§6), and review of a no-action decision (§7). |