# Governance

The PromptPack specification is developed and maintained through an open governance model that encourages community participation while ensuring quality and consistency.

## Project Organization

### Maintainers

**Core Maintainers** have administrative access and make final decisions on:

- Specification changes and releases
- Project direction and roadmap
- Governance process updates
- Maintainer appointments

Current Core Maintainers:
- **AltairaLabs Team** - Primary specification authors and stewards

### Contributors

**Contributors** participate through:

- RFC proposals and reviews
- Implementation feedback
- Documentation improvements  
- Community support and advocacy

### Working Groups

**Working Groups** focus on specific areas:

- **Core Specification** - Schema, validation, and core features
- **Tooling & Runtimes** - Implementation guidance and tooling
- **Documentation** - User guides, examples, and tutorials
- **Community** - Outreach, events, and ecosystem development

## Decision Making Process

### Consensus Building

Most decisions are made through **rough consensus**:

1. **Open discussion** in issues, RFCs, or community calls
2. **Consider all perspectives** and technical concerns
3. **Iterate on proposals** based on feedback
4. **Achieve general agreement** (not necessarily unanimous)

### Escalation Process

When consensus cannot be reached:

1. **Working Group Review** - Relevant working group makes recommendation
2. **Maintainer Discussion** - Core maintainers discuss and decide
3. **Community Communication** - Decision rationale shared publicly
4. **Appeal Process** - Community can request reconsideration with new information

### Voting (Rare)

In exceptional cases where consensus fails:

- **Maintainer Vote** - Simple majority of core maintainers
- **Public Ballot** - For governance changes affecting community
- **Quorum Requirements** - Minimum participation thresholds

## Contribution Guidelines

### Code of Conduct

All participants must follow our Code of Conduct:

- **Be respectful** and inclusive in all interactions
- **Focus on technical merit** rather than personal preferences  
- **Welcome newcomers** and help them contribute successfully
- **Report violations** to maintainers for resolution

### Technical Standards

- **Quality first** - Prioritize correctness and clarity over speed
- **Documentation required** - All changes must include documentation
- **Backwards compatibility** - Breaking changes require strong justification
- **Test coverage** - Examples and test cases for all features

### Review Process

1. **Author submission** - RFC, issue, or pull request
2. **Initial review** - Maintainer or working group member review
3. **Community feedback** - Public comment period (minimum 1 week)
4. **Revision cycle** - Address feedback and iterate
5. **Final approval** - Maintainer approval and merge

## Release Process

### Version Planning

- **Roadmap discussions** at quarterly community meetings
- **Feature prioritization** based on community needs and RFC proposals  
- **Timeline estimates** with flexibility for quality assurance
- **Breaking change coordination** with advance notice

### Release Cadence

- **Major releases** - Annually or when significant breaking changes needed
- **Minor releases** - Quarterly for new features and improvements
- **Patch releases** - As needed for bug fixes and clarifications

### Release Steps

1. **Feature freeze** - No new features added to release branch
2. **Testing period** - Community testing of release candidates
3. **Documentation update** - Ensure all changes documented
4. **Final review** - Maintainer sign-off on release
5. **Publication** - Release to community with announcement
6. **Post-release support** - Address urgent issues and feedback

## Community Participation

### Regular Activities

- **Monthly Community Calls** - Open discussion of current topics
- **Quarterly Planning** - Roadmap review and priority setting
- **Annual Conference** - In-person or virtual community gathering
- **RFC Review Sessions** - Focused review of active proposals

### Communication Channels

- **GitHub Discussions** - Asynchronous technical discussions
- **Mailing List** - Important announcements and release notes
- **Blog** - Regular updates on project progress and highlights

### Getting Involved

#### For Users
- **Provide feedback** on specification usability
- **Share use cases** and requirements  
- **Report issues** with documentation or examples
- **Participate in discussions** about future features

#### For Implementers  
- **Share implementation experiences** and challenges
- **Contribute tooling** and runtime implementations
- **Provide compatibility feedback** across different platforms
- **Help define testing requirements** and validation rules

#### For Contributors
- **Submit RFCs** for new features and improvements
- **Review proposals** and provide technical feedback
- **Improve documentation** and examples
- **Mentor new contributors** and answer questions

## Intellectual Property

### License

- **Specification** - Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
- **Reference implementations** - MIT License
- **Documentation site** - MIT License

### Contributions

By contributing, you agree that:

- **Your contributions** are your original work or properly licensed
- **You grant rights** for your contributions to be used under project licenses
- **Patent rights** are granted for implementing the specification
- **No warranty** is provided with your contributions

### Trademark

"PromptPack" is a trademark of AltairaLabs:

- **Specification compliance** - May use trademark when implementing full specification
- **Partial implementations** - Must clearly indicate limitations and deviations  
- **Commercial use** - Requires permission for standalone trademark usage
- **Community events** - May use trademark for community-organized events

## Conflict Resolution

### Process

1. **Direct discussion** - Encourage parties to resolve directly
2. **Working group mediation** - Relevant working group facilitates resolution
3. **Maintainer intervention** - Core maintainers make binding decision
4. **Community appeal** - Community can request review of maintainer decisions

### Guidelines

- **Assume good faith** - Believe contributors have good intentions
- **Focus on behavior** - Address actions, not personalities
- **Seek understanding** - Try to understand different perspectives  
- **Document decisions** - Record rationale for future reference

### Enforcement

- **Warnings** for minor violations of community standards
- **Temporary restrictions** for repeated or serious violations
- **Permanent bans** for severe violations or threats to community safety
- **Appeal process** for all enforcement actions