Description:
When disagreements occur about contribution records, validation, recognition, or reward logic, communities often default to open-ended debate or personality-driven outcomes. Without a defined dispute pathway (how to raise an issue, who reviews it, how long it takes, what evidence is used, what appeals exist), conflict becomes chronic and drains the energy needed to build the system.
Desired Outcome:
A simple, timeboxed dispute-resolution process exists (raise ? review ? decide ? publish rationale ? learn), so disagreements don’t metastasize and governance remains legitimate and trusted.
What Could Go Wrong:
Recurring conflicts become political; loud voices dominate; decisions appear arbitrary; contributors disengage; governance loses legitimacy; the system fractures into factions or becomes paralysed.
Current Situation:
AYU is entering a founding phase where rules will be iterated. That’s exactly when disputes spike. A process that protects dignity and speed is a foundational control—especially if contribution tracking is introduced alongside fiat-oriented systems.
Action Strategy:
1) Define a 4-step pathway: (a) submit dispute (structured form linked to timechunks) (b) quick triage (is it record accuracy, rule clarity, or fairness concern?) (c) review panel (role-based, rotating, small) (d) decision published with rationale. 2) Timebox: e.g., 7 days from submission to decision. 3) Evidence-first: links to timechunks, deliverables, witnesses/acknowledgements. 4) Add ‘rule update’ lane: some disputes reveal a broken rule, not a bad actor. 5) Provide an appeal mechanism that is limited (one escalation) to avoid infinite loops. 6) Track dispute metrics as a governance health indicator (volume, categories, resolution time).
Concern Category:
Location:
Analysis: Not available
No snapshots found.