Code of conduct

Status: Informative in full.

Expected conduct

This project works on a specification that independent organisations may rely on to commit money. Getting it right requires detailed, public, and sustained technical disagreement, and the standard below exists to keep that disagreement productive.

Participants are expected to:

• Address the argument. Criticise a design, a rule, or a claim. Do not criticise the person who proposed it.
• State the basis of a position. Say whether a claim is a verified fact, a reading of a document, an assumption, or a preference.
• Accept being wrong. Changing position when the evidence changes is the point of the process, not a loss in it.
• Be direct without being hostile. A blunt technical objection is welcome. A personal remark, a dismissal of someone's competence, or a pattern of belittling is not.
• Respect confidentiality. Do not publish material shared privately, including vulnerability reports under coordinated disclosure.

Participants are expected not to engage in harassment, personal attacks, discriminatory conduct or language, sustained disruption of discussion, or publication of another person's private information.

Scope

This applies to every space the project uses: pull requests, proposals, issues, reviews, and any synchronous or private discussion carried on in the project's name.

Reporting and enforcement

Report a concern privately to conduct@a202.org, or directly to any maintainer listed in MAINTAINERS.md. Reports are handled confidentially.

Maintainers may respond by asking for a correction, editing or removing content, or removing a participant's access. The response is proportionate to what happened and to whether it has happened before. A maintainer who is the subject of a report takes no part in handling it.