The chapter by Roger Mac Ginty argues that the stark rubric of a success/failure benchmark for international peace-support interventions is inconsistent with the messy nature of peace processes and peace accord implementation, and may be a poor guide to making assessments on the quality of peace. In response to this dilemma, the author advances the notion of hybridity as a way of understanding the dynamic nature of peace processes and implementation environments. Since peace processes are often an amalgam of top-down and bottom-up, as well as formal and informal, forces that produce a conflicting context, hybridity thus helps transcend the success/failure rubric. The chapter makes the point that the governance skills and environment surrounding peace process negotiations are often different from those surrounding peace accord implementation and acceptance. While peace negotiations may operate according to formalized rules of governance, the acceptance or rejection of a peace accord often relies on informal negotiation and governance that occurs at the individual, family and community levels. This informal governance, of internalizing a peace process or accord by individuals and communities, is an under-studied yet crucial aspect of the quality of peace. Formal methods of monitoring and evaluation that focus solely on a particular project or program, or on the strict observance of a peace accord, may fail to see the complex ways in which local communities may interact with a peace initiative or aspects of a peace accord. Using examples from Afghanistan and Nepal among others, this chapter recommends a measured perspective on what constitutes success, failure, and quality with regards to governance and negotiations in peace processes, and thus in quality peace.