Skip to main content

Conflict Resolution

Last updated: 21.08.2026

Conflict should be handled in a way that supports the people and work involved without unnecessarily centralizing authority.

The core principles are:

Conflict should be resolved at the lowest level where it can reasonably be addressed.

Escalation is for support, not punishment.

Disagreement is not misconduct.

Differences of opinion, disagreement about decisions, unclear roles, or disputes about responsibility should normally be handled through governance and conflict-resolution processes.

Potential violations of the Code of Conduct should follow the separate Code of Conduct process.

Direct resolution​

Where appropriate, people directly involved in a disagreement should first try to resolve it together.

This may include:

  • clarifying misunderstandings
  • discussing different expectations
  • clarifying roles and responsibilities
  • reviewing the relevant decision-making process
  • identifying what each person needs in order to move forward

This step should remain informal and practical.

Nobody is required to confront another person directly where they do not feel safe or comfortable doing so.

Neutral facilitation or mediation​

If direct resolution does not work, the people involved may ask a neutral person to help.

The facilitator or mediator may:

  • support communication
  • clarify misunderstandings
  • identify interests and needs
  • help clarify responsibility
  • help the parties develop possible solutions

The facilitator does not automatically gain authority to decide the dispute.

Suitable facilitators may come from another Stewardship Area, the Advisory Team, another trusted person within the network, or an external neutral person where appropriate.

Stewardship Area support​

If a conflict concerns work, roles, responsibilities, or collaboration within a Stewardship Area, the active contributors within that area may help resolve it.

Typical questions may include:

  • who is carrying responsibility
  • whether the division of roles is unclear
  • whether responsibilities should be redistributed
  • whether a decision belongs to one person, project, or area
  • whether a project needs a clearer internal structure
  • whether the Stewardship Area should change its representative

The Stewardship Area should focus primarily on clarifying structure and responsibility rather than judging personal disputes.

Conflicts between Stewardship Areas​

Where a conflict involves several Stewardship Areas, those areas should first try to resolve the issue together.

They may use neutral facilitation where helpful.

The matter should not automatically be escalated to the Network Circle.

The Network Circle should normally become involved only where:

  • responsibility cannot be clarified
  • the conflict is seriously blocking work across several areas
  • the affected areas cannot reasonably resolve the matter themselves
  • the issue concerns network-wide governance

The Network Circle should clarify governance and responsibility rather than judge personal disputes.

Role of the Network Circle​

For unresolved governance conflicts, the Network Circle may:

  • clarify the scope of responsibility
  • interpret network-wide governance rules
  • clarify boundaries between Stewardship Areas
  • identify which area or project should own a decision
  • amend governance structures or policies where recurring conflicts reveal a structural problem

The Network Circle should not become a general tribunal for interpersonal disputes.

Where the underlying problem is primarily relational or interpersonal, further facilitation or mediation should normally be preferred.

Distinction from the Code of Conduct​

Disagreement and governance conflict are handled through the conflict-resolution process.

Potential misconduct is handled through the Code of Conduct process.

Examples of governance conflict may include:

  • disagreements about decisions
  • unclear authority
  • unclear project ownership
  • conflicting priorities
  • overlapping responsibilities
  • disagreements between Stewardship Areas

Examples of potential misconduct may include behaviour covered by the Code of Conduct, such as:

  • harassment
  • threats
  • discrimination
  • repeated personal attacks
  • abuse of power
  • serious privacy violations
  • other serious breaches of the Code of Conduct

Nobody is required to confront another person directly before reporting a potential Code of Conduct violation.

Safety and confidentiality take priority over the ordinary conflict-resolution sequence in potential misconduct cases.

Preventing hidden vetoes​

The conflict-resolution process should not be used to indefinitely delay decisions or work.

Simply declaring that a conflict exists should not automatically suspend a valid decision.

A decision may need to pause where there is:

  • a serious unresolved risk
  • unclear authority
  • a valid consent objection
  • a potential Code of Conduct issue requiring intervention
  • another substantial reason

Ordinary disagreement alone should not create an automatic veto.