Skip to content

How we operate

Governance

How decisions get made at Corag, how a leader is validated, how evidence is moderated, and what happens when something goes wrong.

Last updated

What this document covers

Corag moves real resources between real people. That requires saying out loud who decides what, within what limits, and what happens when someone fails to deliver.

This document describes what is defined today. Where a process is still being built, we say so rather than inventing a structure that does not exist.

The three levels

Person            →  publishes a need, offers help, contributes
Leader            →  coordinates, executes, records and accounts for resources
Administration    →  validates, moderates and verifies

None of these is a social rank. They are different responsibilities with different obligations.

Leaders

The leader system is the platform’s critical trust dependency. If that validation fails, nothing else matters.

How someone becomes one

  1. Application, which is private.
  2. Validation of identity and of the connection to the territory or organization.
  3. Approval, which enables the role.

What a leader takes on

  • Coordinating aid within a front or a specific delivery.
  • Receiving contributions into a verified account in their own name.
  • Recording what was delivered and uploading the evidence within the window.
  • Keeping the status of requests current.

What happens when they do not

Failing to provide evidence is the most serious lapse, because it breaks exactly what makes Corag verifiable. The response is proportionate and staged: a reminder, then suspension of the ability to receive contributions, then removal from the role.

The specific windows and the appeals process are still being defined. They will be published here once settled.

Evidence moderation

Evidence is not published automatically. The path is:

Contribution → Responsable → Execution → Evidence uploaded
             → Administrative review → Approval → Publication

Only after review does the amount count as used with evidence. That is why that number differs from received, and why it is the one worth looking at.

Decisions about the platform

  • What gets built is decided with partner organizations and the people coordinating on the ground, prioritising whatever unblocks real deliveries.
  • The site’s code is open: proposals arrive as pull requests and are reviewed like any other change.
  • Changes that affect people — how data is displayed, what is published, what is stored — are discussed before they are implemented, not after.

Conflicts of interest

Someone coordinating resources must not direct them toward an organization, company or person they have a financial or family interest in without declaring it first. Declaring it does not disqualify anyone; hiding it does.

Complaints

Conduct complaints go through the Code of Conduct. Complaints about the use of resources — a contribution with no evidence, a delivery that did not happen, a suspicious account — go through contact and are reviewed by administration.

A report about resources is always reviewed, even when it arrives anonymously.

What is not defined yet

Saying so is part of the transparency:

  • The formal appeals process when a role is removed.
  • The maximum resources a leader may administer without an additional review.
  • The composition of a standing moderation committee.

These are resolved as the network grows, and published here once settled.