HSP 006: Establishment of the HoS Ombuds Office #6
Description
HSP-006: Establishment of the HoS Ombuds Office
The original doc was outlined here https://gov.near.org/t/near-house-of-stake-dispute-appeal-process-overview/41674
Key Principles
The process is confidential and non-binding. Ombuds practitioners listen impartially, coach parties to communicate, and suggest options for resolution (reframing issues, mediation, coaching toward direct dialogue). They do not participate in formal investigations or impose binding judgments; rather, they aim to restore trust and address underlying concerns. All activities follow Ombuds best practices — independence from other governance bodies, neutrality regarding outcomes, and strict confidentiality.
Process Details
Reporting & Intake
Who can report:Any HoS community member who experiences or witnesses a potential conflict or conduct violation. Working group leads and delegates are encouraged to guide members to this process.
How to report:A central, confidential intake portal (online form or email) is provided, with an option to submit anonymously. Alternatively, members can reach out directly to the Ombuds in HoS community channels. This lowers barriers and protects reporters’ privacy.
Acknowledgement:On receiving a report, the Ombuds team sends an acknowledgement within 48 hours, explaining next steps. They then triage the case, assessing urgency (especially if safety or protocol integrity is at risk) and noting any potential conflicts of interest among the Ombuds. Reporter identities are kept confidential wherever possible. Repeated or malicious reporting is flagged as abuse.
Informal Mediation & Resolution
Once a complaint is logged, the Ombuds team (typically 3–5 trained members from diverse backgrounds) steps in to mediate. Typical steps include:
Listening Sessions: Each party meets one-on-one with a neutral Ombuds member who listens without judgment, clarifies facts, and identifies underlying concerns.
Issue Framing: The Ombuds helps reframe contentious statements into concrete interests or misunderstandings (for example, distinguishing between poor communication vs. intentional slight). This promotes empathy and solution-finding.
Guidance & Options: The Ombuds suggests ways for the parties to communicate directly — one-on-one call, facilitated chat — and may coach them on constructive dialogue. They may also point members to relevant HoS resources (Code of Conduct, working-group leads, or formal governance procedures) if escalation is needed.
Negotiated Solutions: Through discussion, the parties may agree on actions which could be clarifying miscommunications, giving credit for past work, or adjusting process. The Ombuds does not enforce outcomes, but can recommend balanced remedies or mutual agreements.
At all stages, the Ombuds team remains impartial. They do not take sides or make binding rulings. They report systemic issues, which could be recurring communication breakdowns in a working group, to the HoS governance leadership so improvements can be made. Importantly, parties are encouraged to use this channel before airing grievances publicly. As the HoS’s draft Code of Conduct advises, one should first seek clarification in private or via official channels rather than accusing on social media. This process thus acts as a safety valve, helping resolve disputes early and informally.
Enforcement & Consequences
If a mediation uncovers a clear violation of HoS’s expected norms (e.g., harassment, overtly bad-faith conduct), the Ombuds can recommend corrective actions on a graduated scale. These might include:
Private Feedback: A reminder or coaching conversation to address minor or first-time issues.
Written Warning: For serious or repeated misconduct, a written notice requesting change, possibly mediated by an Ombuds member.
Temporary Restriction: Short-term suspension from certain channels or decision-making roles (e.g., revoking moderator privileges, pausing voting delegation) while the issue is addressed.
Permanent Restriction / Ban: In the rare case of egregious or irreparable harm, removal from NEAR governance bodies or channels. On-chain penalties are out of scope for the Ombuds, but they can refer cases to core HoS governance if needed.
These actions follow the principle of proportionality and restoration. Harsher penalties are only applied after efforts at reconciliation, and always allow the affected member a chance to improve. Moderators (Ombuds members) are explicitly chosen to avoid conflicts. Those with a personal stake in a case recuse themselves, so the process is fair. The team keeps secure, privacy-respecting records of all steps, which can later inform transparency reports.
Appeals Process
A formal Appeals Panel provides a secondary review for cases involving temporary or permanent sanctions. This ensures checks and balances, as recommended by governance best practices. The appeals process works as follows:
Who can appeal:Any party sanctioned with a significant action (e.g. suspension or ban) may appeal, as long as they do so within 14 days of the decision. Appeals are also allowed if new evidence emerges or if there was a procedural error (e.g. a conflict of interest or lack of documentation).
Appeals Panel Composition:The panel consists of at least three impartial community members. These panelists must have no prior involvement in the case and disclose any conflicts. Membership rotates to keep perspectives fresh.
Review Criteria:The panel reviews the case file, evidence, and appeal arguments. They focus only on whether the original decision was justified in light of all evidence and HoS’s norms. For instance, if logs or additional testimony were not considered originally, the panel may incorporate them.
Timeline:The appellant submits a brief statement (via a secure form or direct email) within 14 days. The Appeals Panel aims to render a decision within 30 days of appeal filing. Delays should be documented.
Decision:The panel’s ruling is final and binding on the parties. In exceptional cases (e.g. if the panel itself is conflicted or if the issue affects core protocol rules), the community may subsequently ratify or override the decision via a vote. All decisions and their justifications (minus sensitive personal details) are logged in an audit trail for accountability.
If an appeal is successful (e.g. new evidence exonerates the sanctioned member), the panel can reduce or rescind the penalty. In a “good practice” scenario, new logs might significantly alter the understanding of an incident. Frivolous or serial appeals intended to delay enforcement are discouraged, and the panel may deny such appeals as abuse.
Governance & Compensation
Team Composition:The Ombuds Office will start with a small cohort (5 people) elected or appointed to one-year terms. Members should be geographically and demographically diverse, representing different HoS working groups, to ensure 24/7 coverage and broad perspectives. Candidates must agree to neutrality. They cannot adjudicate cases involving themselves or their own teams. The team should include a dedicated coordinator to manage scheduling, records, and feedback surveys.
Conflict of Interest:Team members must not have any connection to the NEAR Foundation (NF), be affiliated with the NF or any of its contractors, be affiliated with the HoS Core Team or its contractors, or be part of that team. They must also have no affiliation with the HoS Foundation Team, including its board, representatives, or related entities.
Compensation:To support their time, Ombuds team members receive a fixed monthly stipend as compensation for their time, capped at $500. This ensures they remain impartial and do not profit from conflict outcomes. The key point is to fund the team modestly while avoiding any pay-per-dispute incentives.
The detailed team composition and budget will be submitted as a separate proposal.
Pulse Access Inclusion
In addition, the Ombuds Office will be granted access to the Pulse App (houseofstake/pm#48) to monitor signals, surface governance tensions early, track dispute patterns, and assist in proactive mediation. This access is intended for transparency and early detection — not for misuse or censorship.