Institutional-design proposal · Public edition

Standards Body Contributor Framework

Version 1.0 · Released July 17, 2026 · Current

Research basis reviewed through July 16, 2026

Document status: Approved foundational source

This is the public edition of a canonical Standards Body institutional-design document. It is research and a design proposal for a possible future institution. It governs Standards Body’s own conduct where applicable, but it is not a description of a current operating standards, assurance, accreditation, certification, partnership, or contributor program, and Standards Body does not currently operate one.

Document record and authority notice

Project: Standards Body
Primary domain: standardsbody.ai
Core line: Foundations for Frontier AI
Document type: Canonical contributor participation, role, access, credit, conduct, intellectual-property, security, accountability, and community-governance framework
Version: 1.0
Status: Approved foundational source
Document owner: Standards Body
Present institutional stage: Foundational research and institutional design
Applies to: Individual contributors, institutional representatives, researchers, authors, reviewers, editors, maintainers, standards participants, evaluators, domain experts, public-interest participants, translators, software contributors, data contributors, advisors, fellows, volunteers, contractors, working-group members, community participants, and future members
Related canonical sources: PROJECT_IDENTITY.md, PROJECT_MANIFESTO.md, INSTITUTION_DESIGN.md, GOVERNANCE_FRAMEWORK.md, STANDARDS_DEVELOPMENT_PROCESS.md, TRANSPARENCY_FRAMEWORK.md, FOUNDATIONS.md, FOUNDATIONS_APPENDIX.md, TERMINOLOGY.md, EVIDENCE_STANDARDS.md, RESEARCH_METHODOLOGY.md, TAXONOMY.md, EVALUATION_PHILOSOPHY.md, and the eight foundation papers
Research basis reviewed through: July 16, 2026
Review cycle: Annual review, with event-triggered revision after a material contributor dispute, misconduct case, security incident, intellectual-property issue, participation failure, institutional-stage transition, or change in applicable law or standards practice

Authority Note

This document defines how Standards Body should invite, recognize, govern, protect, and hold accountable people and organizations that contribute to its work.

It does not establish that every person who interacts with Standards Body is:

An employee
A member
A fiduciary
An authorized spokesperson
A governing representative
A standards voter
An accredited evaluator
A certified expert
An agent of Standards Body
A representative of a country, institution, community, industry, or public
Entitled to confidential access
Entitled to authorship
Entitled to compensation
Entitled to continued participation
Authorized to bind Standards Body

Contributor status creates only the rights and responsibilities explicitly assigned to the person's role.

A contribution does not automatically create:

Employment
partnership
joint ownership
certification
accreditation
endorsement
governance authority
legal representation
decision rights
publication rights
access rights
future appointment

Nothing in this framework overrides applicable law, employment obligations, confidentiality duties, research ethics, intellectual-property rights, export controls, sanctions, privacy law, or binding institutional agreements.

Document Purpose

This document establishes the complete contributor framework for Standards Body.

It defines:

Who qualifies as a contributor
Which contributor roles exist
How roles are assigned
Which rights and responsibilities attach to each role
How contributors enter, participate, advance, pause, and leave
How contributions are proposed, reviewed, accepted, revised, rejected, credited, licensed, archived, and corrected
How authorship, attribution, acknowledgement, and contributor-role records are determined
How maintainers, editors, reviewers, chairs, stewards, and decision makers are selected
How conflicts of interest are disclosed and governed
How confidentiality, security, and protected evidence are handled
How intellectual property, copyright, patents, code, data, and model-generated material are managed
How contributors may use names, logos, titles, and public affiliation
How conduct expectations, complaints, enforcement, appeals, and restorative responses operate
How accessibility, international participation, translation, and financial barriers are addressed
How compensation, expenses, grants, and volunteer status are disclosed
How contributor well-being, workload, recognition, succession, and concentration risks are managed
How AI-assisted contributions are documented and reviewed
How contributors participate in research, standards, evaluations, reviews, incident work, registries, and governance
How the contributor system is audited and improved

The framework is designed to solve a central institutional problem:

Standards Body needs broad, competent, independent, and internationally diverse contribution without converting participation into unbounded authority, invisible labor, unclear ownership, or institutional capture.

Executive Summary

A frontier AI standards institution cannot be built by a founder or staff alone.

It requires contributions from:

Evaluation scientists
machine-learning researchers
domain experts
standards professionals
auditors
security specialists
public-interest organizations
legal experts
government practitioners
open-source communities
affected persons
translators
editors
software engineers
data stewards
institutional designers
international partners

Contribution creates value.

It also creates governance obligations.

A contributor system can fail when:

A small inner circle controls access
unpaid contributors perform essential work without recognition
prestigious names receive credit disproportionate to actual work
authorship is used as a political reward
contributors are presented as endorsing conclusions they opposed
institutional representatives participate without disclosing mandates
a company supplies many contributors and quietly dominates a process
confidential information is shared without sufficient controls
intellectual-property rights are unclear
maintainers accumulate unreviewable power
volunteers burn out
harassment or retaliation discourages dissent
public-interest contributors are invited after technical decisions are already fixed
participation is formally open but financially inaccessible
contributors use the Standards Body name to imply official status
AI-generated text enters the record without verification
people cannot leave without losing credit or exposing themselves to retaliation

The contributor framework therefore separates:

Contribution
authorship
credit
decision authority
governance authority
institutional representation
employment
membership
access
public endorsement

These are related but distinct.

Contributor Architecture

The framework uses seven broad contributor families.

1. Community Contributors

People who submit:

Comments
corrections
sources
proposals
examples
translations
implementation feedback
issue reports

2. Project Contributors

People assigned to a bounded research, standards, software, data, or operational project.

3. Review Contributors

People who perform:

Peer review
methodological review
technical review
public-interest review
security review
legal review
implementation review

4. Stewardship Contributors

People with continuing responsibility for:

Editing
maintenance
repositories
registries
protocols
terminology
data
releases
contributor support

5. Working-Group and Committee Contributors

People who participate in chartered institutional bodies and may receive defined decision rights.

6. Fellows, Advisors, and Institutional Contributors

People or organizations contributing through formal appointments, fellowships, secondments, grants, or liaison arrangements.

7. Staff and Contracted Contributors

Employees and contractors whose rights and obligations also arise from employment or service agreements.

Role Principle

Contributor roles should be assigned by function.

A person may hold several roles.

Each role should state:

Scope
authority
access
expected work
conflict requirements
confidentiality
credit
term
removal and appeal

Contribution Principle

A contribution enters a defined lifecycle:

Submission
identity and rights check
security and sensitivity screening
scope triage
substantive review
revision
acceptance or rejection
attribution
integration
publication or controlled use
maintenance
correction, withdrawal, or archival

Acceptance should be based on relevance, quality, evidence, safety, rights, and institutional need.

It should not depend on prestige, affiliation, or agreement with leadership.

Credit Principle

Credit should reflect actual contribution.

Standards Body should use structured contributor-role records adapted from the CRediT Contributor Role Taxonomy, which identifies 14 research-contribution roles and is intended to make diverse contributions more visible.[^credit]

Standards Body should extend this with institution-specific roles such as:

Standards drafting
standards process facilitation
public-interest consultation
evaluation administration
protocol stewardship
task custody
security review
interoperability mapping
registry maintenance
community moderation

Authorship should not be granted solely for:

Funding
seniority
title
supervision
institutional prestige
access
general advice

Acknowledgement, contributor credit, authorship, editorship, and approval should remain distinct.

Decision Principle

Merit or contribution can support eligibility for greater responsibility.

It should not create automatic authority.

Decision rights require:

Defined role
competence
independence
conflict review
appointment
term
accountability
removal
appeal

Conduct Principle

Standards Body should maintain a code of conduct across:

Meetings
repositories
email
chat
events
social channels
private project spaces
public representation

The code should support respectful, professional, and equitable participation.

Contributor Covenant and W3C provide established examples of community codes that define expected behavior, scope, reporting, and enforcement processes.[^contributor-covenant][^w3c-coc]

The institution should not simply copy a code without establishing:

Reporting channels
trained responders
conflict controls
evidence handling
proportionate consequences
appeal
nonretaliation
restorative options where appropriate

Intellectual-Property Principle

Contributors should understand the rights they grant.

For code and certain signed contributions, Standards Body may use a Developer Certificate of Origin model or a contributor license agreement, depending on the project.

The Linux Foundation's Developer Certificate of Origin provides a concise certification that the contributor has the right to submit the contribution and understands that the contribution and sign-off are public and may be redistributed under the project's license.[^dco]

IETF and W3C processes illustrate more formal approaches in which contribution rights, participant obligations, document licensing, and patent policies are defined before standards contributions are accepted.[^ietf-rights][^w3c-process]

Standards Body should not accept formal standards contributions without a published intellectual-property policy.

Access and Security Principle

Contributor access should follow:

Need
competence
role
conflict
legal eligibility
training
least privilege
logging
review
revocation

Contribution alone does not justify access to held-out tasks, vulnerabilities, personal data, model credentials, or protected evidence.

Participation Principle

Open participation requires more than an open form.

The institution should reduce barriers through:

Remote participation
asynchronous work
travel and participation support
compensation or stipends where appropriate
translation
accessible formats
orientation
mentorship
clear issue labels
response expectations
safe reporting channels

W3C's invited-expert model and support fund demonstrate one mechanism for bringing individuals with relevant expertise into formal work even when they do not participate through a member organization.[^w3c-invited][^w3c-support]

Contributor Independence

Contributors may have employers, funders, clients, political roles, or intellectual commitments.

They should disclose relevant relationships.

A contributor representing an organization should say so.

A contributor acting in personal capacity should say so.

Institutional affiliation should not be used to imply that the institution endorses the contribution unless authorization exists.

Exit Principle

Contributors should be able to:

Resign
pause
transfer work
preserve earned credit
report unresolved concerns
request correction of role records
retain applicable rights
remain protected from retaliation

The final contributor proposition is:

Contribution should be open enough to invite expertise, structured enough to preserve quality, bounded enough to protect authority and security, and fair enough that credit, responsibility, access, and accountability remain visible.

1. Foundational Contributor Propositions

1.1 Contribution Is Broader Than Authorship

Research, editing, review, maintenance, translation, software, data, facilitation, and public-interest participation may all be substantive contributions.

1.2 Contribution Does Not Equal Authority

A valuable contribution does not automatically grant decision rights.

1.3 Credit Should Track Work

Recognition should reflect actual contribution rather than status or influence.

1.4 Authority Should Track Role

Decision authority should arise through defined appointment and governance.

1.5 Access Should Track Need

Contributor status alone does not justify access to protected information.

1.6 Participation Should Be Meaningful

People should be able to influence work before decisions are fixed.

1.7 Open Does Not Mean Ungoverned

Open contribution still requires scope, review, conduct, rights, security, and maintenance.

1.8 Independence Should Be Visible

Relevant affiliations and conflicts should be disclosed.

1.9 Dissent Is a Contribution

Reasoned objection, error identification, and contrary evidence are valuable contributions.

1.10 Maintenance Is Contribution

Sustained stewardship should be credited, resourced, and reviewed.

1.11 Invisible Labor Should Be Reduced

Administrative, emotional, moderation, translation, accessibility, and community work should be recognized.

1.12 Volunteer Status Should Be Accurate

Voluntary participation should not disguise employment or uncompensated essential labor.

1.13 Protection and Accountability Should Coexist

Confidential contributors may need protection, while contribution provenance remains governed.

1.14 The Institution Owns Its Decisions

Contributors inform institutional outputs.

The accountable body remains responsible for approval.

1.15 Contributors May Leave

Exit should not erase earned credit or expose the contributor to retaliation.

1.16 Contributor Systems Should Be Correctable

Role, credit, conduct, access, and attribution decisions should support review and correction.

1.17 International Participation Requires Practical Access

A global contributor claim requires more than participants from multiple countries.

1.18 Community Growth Should Not Outrun Governance

The institution should not recruit large numbers of contributors before it can support them responsibly.

2. Scope and Non-Claims

2.1 Covered Contribution

This framework covers contributions to:

Canonical documents
research
standards
protocols
evaluations
software
data
task banks
registries
reviews
governance
incident learning
translations
communications
public consultation
community operations

2.2 Covered Participants

Volunteers
fellows
advisors
staff
contractors
members
representatives
reviewers
working-group participants
public commenters
invited experts
translators
maintainers
students
institutional partners

2.3 Employment Distinction

Employees and contractors remain subject to applicable agreements and law.

This framework supplements rather than replaces those obligations.

2.4 Membership Distinction

Membership may create participation rights.

It does not create automatic contributor credit or technical authority.

2.5 Governance Distinction

A director or council member may contribute.

Their governance authority arises from appointment, not from contribution volume.

2.6 Representation Distinction

A contributor may participate:

In personal capacity
as an authorized institutional representative
as a liaison
as an employee
as an invited expert

The capacity should be recorded.

2.7 No Employment Promise

Voluntary contribution does not promise future paid work.

2.8 No Publication Promise

Submission does not promise acceptance or publication.

2.9 No Endorsement Promise

Credit does not imply endorsement of every institutional conclusion.

3. Canonical Definitions

Definitions in TERMINOLOGY.md govern.

3.1 Contributor

A person or organization that provides a substantive input to Standards Body work.

3.2 Contribution

A documented input of knowledge, labor, evidence, review, code, data, facilitation, funding, infrastructure, or other material value.

Funding alone does not normally create authorship.

3.3 Community Contributor

A person who makes bounded contributions without a continuing formal appointment.

3.4 Project Contributor

A person assigned to a defined project with stated responsibilities.

3.5 Maintainer

A person with continuing responsibility for the quality, integration, status, and continuity of a project or artifact.

3.6 Steward

A person or body entrusted with the long-term care, governance, or maintenance of a defined resource.

3.7 Editor

A person responsible for preparing, structuring, and integrating content under defined substantive authority.

3.8 Reviewer

A person assigned to assess quality, validity, compliance, security, public interest, or implementation.

3.9 Author

A person credited with substantial intellectual responsibility for a published work under the applicable authorship criteria.

3.10 Acknowledged Contributor

A person whose contribution merits public acknowledgement but does not meet authorship or formal role criteria.

3.11 Institutional Representative

A person authorized to participate on behalf of an organization.

3.12 Invited Expert

A person invited because of relevant expertise or perspective outside ordinary membership pathways.

3.13 Liaison

A person formally authorized to maintain communication between Standards Body and another institution.

3.14 Fellow

A person appointed for a defined period to conduct research, practice, or institutional work.

3.15 Volunteer

A person who contributes without an employment relationship and without expectation of ordinary wages, subject to applicable law.

3.16 Decision Right

Authority to make or formally participate in a defined institutional decision.

3.17 Contribution Record

A structured record of a person's role, activity, output, dates, status, and credit.

3.18 Attribution

Identification of the person or organization responsible for a contribution.

3.19 Authorship

Formal credit for substantial intellectual responsibility for a published work.

3.20 Contribution Agreement

The terms governing rights, conduct, confidentiality, access, and use of a contribution.

3.21 Maintainer Capture

Concentration of practical control in maintainers without sufficient review, succession, or accountability.

3.22 Contribution Debt

Accumulated unreviewed submissions, unresolved contributor requests, incomplete credit, or unsupported maintenance obligations.

3.23 Institutional Capacity

The ability of Standards Body to review, support, secure, credit, and maintain contributions responsibly.

4. Contributor Architecture

4.1 Community Contributors

Typical contributions:

Issue reports
factual corrections
source suggestions
public comments
implementation examples
translations
usability feedback
accessibility feedback
incident leads
public-interest concerns

Default authority:

Advisory input only

Default access:

Public information

4.2 Project Contributors

Typical contributions:

Research
drafting
software
data
analysis
protocol design
standards work
implementation
testing

Authority:

Defined by project charter

Access:

Project-specific

4.3 Review Contributors

Typical contributions:

Peer review
methodology review
technical review
standards review
public-interest review
legal review
security review
translation review

Authority:

Findings and recommendations within mandate

Access:

Sufficient for assigned review

4.4 Stewardship Contributors

Typical contributions:

Repository maintenance
issue triage
editing
release management
registry administration
protocol maintenance
terminology maintenance
contributor support
archival work

Authority:

Continuing operational authority within scope

4.5 Working-Group Contributors

Typical contributions:

Deliberation
drafting
voting
consensus
objections
pilot design
comment resolution

Authority:

Defined by charter and eligibility

4.6 Advisory Contributors

Typical contributions:

Strategic advice
expert consultation
contextual review
future-work recommendations

Authority:

Advisory unless explicitly delegated

4.7 Institutional Contributors

Organizations may contribute:

Staff time
model access
data
compute
funding
facilities
expertise
implementation sites

The organization should not receive authorship merely for providing resources.

4.8 Staff and Contractors

Staff and contractors may hold contributor roles.

Their employment or service agreement governs:

Compensation
ownership
confidentiality
performance
termination

4.9 Multiple Roles

A person may be:

Author and reviewer on different work
maintainer and working-group member
staff member and institutional representative
funder representative and public commenter

Conflicting roles should be identified and controlled.

4.10 Role Register

Maintain a current register identifying:

Person
role
capacity
affiliation
project
authority
access
term
conflict status
public status

5. Contributor Role Taxonomy

Standards Body should use a structured role taxonomy.

5.1 Research and Knowledge Roles

Conceptualization

Developing core ideas, questions, objectives, or intellectual architecture.

Methodology

Designing methods, protocols, study structures, or analytic approaches.

Investigation

Conducting research, evaluation, interviews, experiments, or evidence collection.

Formal Analysis

Applying statistical, logical, computational, legal, or structured analytic methods.

Data Curation

Cleaning, documenting, preserving, governing, and making data usable.

Validation

Replicating, checking, verifying, or challenging methods and results.

Source Curation

Identifying, evaluating, organizing, and maintaining sources.

Synthesis

Integrating multiple bodies of evidence into a coherent account.

5.2 Writing and Publication Roles

Writing, Original Draft

Preparing substantive first-draft content.

Writing, Review and Editing

Providing critical revision, commentary, restructuring, or improvement.

Technical Editing

Improving precision, consistency, terminology, cross-references, and normative language.

Copy Editing

Improving grammar, spelling, formatting, and readability without changing substance.

Visualization

Creating diagrams, figures, tables, and other explanatory artifacts.

Publication Production

Preparing accessible, machine-readable, and final publication formats.

5.3 Standards Roles

Standards Proposal

Developing a new-work proposal or standards need.

Requirements Drafting

Creating normative requirements.

Standards Process Facilitation

Chairing, scheduling, recording, and enforcing standards procedure.

Comment Resolution

Reviewing and responding to public comments.

Consensus Assessment

Assessing broad agreement and substantial objections.

Implementation Testing

Piloting and evaluating the draft standard.

Standards Maintenance

Managing interpretations, errata, amendments, revisions, and retirement.

5.4 Evaluation Roles

Construct Design

Defining the capability, behavior, risk, safeguard, or property evaluated.

Task Design

Creating tasks, items, scenarios, environments, or task-generation methods.

Elicitation

Developing prompts, scaffolds, tools, fine-tuning, and capability-elicitation procedures.

Evaluation Administration

Operating the protocol.

Scoring

Applying rubrics, judges, measurements, or environment outcomes.

Result Interpretation

Connecting evidence to claims, uncertainty, risk, and decisions.

Task Custody

Protecting held-out material and chain of custody.

Evaluation Review

Reviewing validity, integrity, and interpretation.

5.5 Institutional and Public-Interest Roles

Governance Design

Developing institutional rules and decision architecture.

Public-Interest Analysis

Assessing rights, distribution, access, competition, labor, or public consequence.

Community Engagement

Organizing participation and communication.

Facilitation

Supporting constructive deliberation and conflict resolution.

Accessibility

Improving access for disabled and other participants.

Translation and Localization

Translating language and adapting context with controlled status.

International Coordination

Supporting cross-jurisdictional participation and interoperability.

5.6 Technical Infrastructure Roles

Software

Designing, coding, testing, documenting, or maintaining software.

Data Engineering

Building data pipelines, schemas, repositories, or storage systems.

Security Engineering

Protecting systems, access, evidence, and operations.

Registry Maintenance

Maintaining authoritative status records.

Release Engineering

Managing versions, artifacts, signing, packaging, and publication.

Technical Support

Helping implementers and contributors use systems and standards.

5.7 Operational Roles

Project Administration

Managing timeline, resources, meetings, documentation, and coordination.

Funding Acquisition

Obtaining support without controlling findings.

Resource Provision

Providing compute, data, access, facilities, tools, or personnel.

Supervision

Providing responsible oversight, mentoring, or leadership.

Contributor Support

Onboarding, mentoring, documentation, and participation assistance.

5.8 Accountability Roles

Independent Review

Providing conflict-screened external challenge.

Ethics Review

Assessing research, rights, conduct, and dual-use concerns.

Conflict Review

Assessing independence and recusal.

Security Review

Assessing disclosure and access risk.

Appeal Review

Reviewing eligible decisions independently.

Audit

Assessing conformity with institutional requirements.

5.9 Role Adaptation

The taxonomy should remain compatible with CRediT where practical while extending beyond scholarly publishing.

5.10 Role Specificity

A contribution record should use specific roles rather than "contributor" alone where feasible.

6. Contributor Statuses

6.1 Prospective

The person has expressed interest but has no active role.

6.2 Applicant

An application or nomination is under review.

6.3 Provisional

The person may participate during orientation, trial, or limited-access status.

6.4 Active

The person currently holds the role.

6.5 Inactive

The role remains recorded but current participation has paused.

6.6 Emeritus

A recognized former contributor with no ordinary current authority.

6.7 Suspended

Participation or access is temporarily restricted.

6.8 Resigned

The contributor voluntarily ended the role.

6.9 Removed

The institution ended the role.

6.10 Completed

A time-limited role ended successfully.

6.11 Archived

The record remains for history but is no longer current.

6.12 Status Transparency

Public role pages should distinguish current from historical status.

7. Contributor Capacity and Participation Capacity

7.1 Capacity Before Recruitment

Standards Body should recruit only when it can:

Explain the work
respond to contributions
review submissions
protect information
assign credit
address conduct
maintain outputs
support access needs

7.2 Capacity Assessment

Before opening a project, assess:

Staff or maintainer availability
review capacity
security capacity
contributor support
expected volume
response timelines
maintenance burden
compensation or stipend capacity

7.3 Contribution Debt

When contribution debt becomes material:

Pause broad recruitment
publish expected delays
prioritize safety and corrections
close stale requests
recruit maintainers
narrow scope

7.4 No Recruitment Theater

Do not invite public contribution merely to demonstrate openness when meaningful review is unavailable.

7.5 Response Expectations

Each channel should publish:

What submissions are accepted
expected response time
review criteria
current capacity
closure policy

8. Entry Pathways

8.1 Open Contribution

Suitable for:

Public issues
corrections
sources
comments
translations
implementation feedback

8.2 Application

Suitable for:

Project teams
fellowships
reviewer pools
maintainers
protected work

8.3 Nomination

Suitable for:

Expert panels
councils
chairs
appeals
advisory groups

8.4 Invitation

Suitable for:

Scarce expertise
affected-party representation
international liaison
urgent review

8.5 Organizational Appointment

Suitable for:

Authorized institutional representatives
formal liaisons
government participants
partner representatives

8.6 Employment or Contract

Suitable for:

Continuing operational work
defined deliverables
controlled access
accountable service

8.7 Fellowship or Secondment

Suitable for:

Time-limited research
capacity building
institutional exchange
regional participation

8.8 Public Comment

Public commenters are contributors to the process but do not become members or project contributors automatically.

9. Eligibility

9.1 General Eligibility

A contributor should be able to:

Perform the role
comply with conduct
disclose conflicts
respect confidentiality
provide required contribution rights
communicate sufficiently for the project

9.2 Competence

Competence requirements should match the role.

9.3 No Prestige Requirement

Institutional affiliation, degree, or public reputation should not be required unless necessary.

9.4 Institutional Representative

An institutional representative should provide evidence of authorization where formal representation matters.

9.5 Legal Eligibility

Protected or paid roles may require review of:

Employment eligibility
sanctions
export controls
contracting
age
data access
security restrictions

9.6 Age

The institution should ordinarily require adult status for roles involving:

Contracts
protected evidence
severe-risk evaluation
fiduciary decisions
personal-data access

Youth participation may occur through a separately designed safeguarding process.

9.7 Geographic Eligibility

Participation should be international where lawful.

Restrictions should be disclosed.

9.8 Conflict Eligibility

A conflict may limit a role without excluding all contribution.

9.9 Conduct History

Relevant substantiated misconduct may affect eligibility.

Unverified allegations should not be treated automatically as fact.

9.10 Accessibility

Eligibility criteria should not include avoidable barriers.

10. Application and Selection

10.1 Role Description

Publish:

Purpose
activities
authority
term
workload
compensation
access
competence
conflicts
selection
public disclosure
removal

10.2 Application Fields

Identity
contact
location and time zone
affiliation
capacity
competence
experience
motivation
expected contribution
availability
conflicts
accessibility needs
compensation need
security eligibility
references where appropriate

10.3 Selection Criteria

Use:

Role fit
competence
judgment
integrity
independence
needed perspective
capacity
collaboration
security
project balance

10.4 Selection Transparency

State the method and criteria.

10.5 No Unstructured Prestige Selection

Prominent names should not bypass conflict, competence, or availability review.

10.6 Underrepresented Expertise

Recruit actively where the project lacks:

Regional
linguistic
public-interest
small-actor
disability
implementation
domain
methodological perspectives

10.7 Applicant Privacy

Protect nonpublic application information.

10.8 Decision

Possible outcomes:

Appoint
provisional appointment
waitlist
alternative role
decline
request more information

10.9 Reasons

Provide useful feedback where feasible.

10.10 Appeal

Selection decisions ordinarily do not create a general right to appointment.

Procedural complaints concerning discrimination, conflict, or unequal treatment should remain reviewable.

11. Onboarding

11.1 Onboarding Purpose

A contributor should understand the institution before acting in its name or accessing its systems.

11.2 Core Orientation

Cover:

Mission
present stage
authority limits
governance
project scope
role
decision rights
conduct
conflicts
confidentiality
security
intellectual property
credit
public claims
complaints
exit

11.3 Role-Specific Orientation

Provide:

Technical methods
standards process
research methods
repository workflow
protected access
reviewer expectations
public-interest duties

11.4 Required Agreements

Depending on role:

Code of conduct
contribution agreement
confidentiality agreement
intellectual-property terms
security acknowledgement
conflict disclosure
data-protection terms

11.5 Access Provisioning

Grant access after:

Role confirmation
training
agreements
conflict review
security approval

11.6 Mentor or Contact

Assign a responsible contact for continuing roles.

11.7 Provisional Period

A provisional period may assess:

Contribution quality
reliability
communication
conduct
security

11.8 Onboarding Record

Maintain completion and access records.

12. Contributor Rights

Contributors should have rights proportionate to role.

12.1 Clear Role

The right to understand the role, scope, expectations, authority, and term.

12.2 Fair Consideration

The right to have contributions evaluated under stated criteria.

12.3 Attribution

The right to accurate recognition for accepted substantive work, subject to lawful privacy or security limits.

12.4 Attribution Correction

The right to request correction of inaccurate role or contribution records.

12.5 Dissent

The right to express reasoned disagreement without retaliation.

12.6 Conflict Information

The right to know material process conflicts relevant to participation.

12.7 Safe Participation

The right to a professional environment free from harassment, discrimination, intimidation, and retaliation.

12.8 Accessibility

The right to request reasonable participation support.

12.9 Privacy

The right to proportionate protection of personal information.

12.10 Notice

The right to notice of material role, access, or status changes.

12.11 Response

The right to respond before material discipline where circumstances permit.

12.12 Appeal

The right to appeal eligible disciplinary, credit, conflict, or access decisions.

12.13 Exit

The right to leave subject to continuing obligations.

12.14 Earned Credit

The right not to lose accurate historical credit solely because of resignation or disagreement.

13. Contributor Responsibilities

13.1 Mission

Act consistently with the project's defined purpose and current authority.

13.2 Accuracy

Do not knowingly submit false, fabricated, plagiarized, or misleading material.

13.3 Evidence

Distinguish evidence, inference, opinion, and proposal.

13.4 Conflicts

Disclose relevant interests and affiliations.

13.5 Conduct

Treat participants professionally and respectfully.

13.6 Confidentiality

Protect information according to classification.

13.7 Security

Follow access, device, storage, and incident rules.

13.8 Intellectual Property

Submit only material the contributor has the right to provide.

13.9 Public Claims

Do not imply authority, approval, endorsement, certification, or representation beyond role.

13.10 Records

Use official channels for material decisions and contributions.

13.11 Maintenance

Contributors accepting stewardship roles should support handoff and continuity.

13.12 Correction

Report material errors promptly.

13.13 Nonretaliation

Do not retaliate against good-faith reporting, dissent, review, or appeal.

13.14 Cooperation

Participate in reasonable integrity, security, and conduct reviews.

14. Contribution Lifecycle

14.1 Submission

A contribution should identify:

Contributor
affiliation
capacity
project
type
source
rights
sensitivity
requested outcome

14.2 Initial Screening

Check:

Scope
completeness
obvious rights issues
security
personal data
conduct
format

14.3 Triage

Possible outcomes:

Accept for review
request clarification
redirect
close as duplicate
reject as outside scope
quarantine for security
refer to complaint or incident process

14.4 Substantive Review

Assess:

Relevance
accuracy
evidence
novelty
clarity
compatibility
risk
implementation
maintenance
public interest

14.5 Revision

Contributors may be asked to revise.

14.6 Decision

Accept
accept with changes
partially accept
defer
reject
archive for future work

14.7 Integration

Accepted content should enter controlled versioning.

14.8 Attribution

Assign contributor roles and credit.

14.9 Publication

Publish or restrict according to classification.

14.10 Maintenance

Identify future owner and issue channel.

14.11 Correction

A contribution may later be corrected, superseded, or withdrawn.

14.12 No Silent Appropriation

The institution should not substantially use a rejected or unpublished contribution without appropriate rights and attribution.

15. Review Criteria

15.1 Relevance

Does the contribution address project scope?

15.2 Accuracy

Are claims supported?

15.3 Evidence Quality

Does the evidence meet the required level?

15.4 Originality and Added Value

Does the contribution improve the work?

15.5 Clarity

Can it be understood and implemented?

15.6 Compatibility

Does it align with canonical terminology, architecture, and versions?

15.7 Safety and Security

Could it create material harm or compromise?

15.8 Rights

Does the contributor have the right to submit it?

15.9 Privacy

Does it expose personal data?

15.10 Public Interest

Does it improve or weaken rights, access, competition, or accountability?

15.11 Maintenance

Can the contribution be supported over time?

15.12 Resource Burden

Is the cost of integration proportionate?

15.13 Independence

Does the contribution reflect an undisclosed interest?

15.14 Decision Record

Material acceptance and rejection decisions should be reconstructable.

16. Authorship, Attribution, and Acknowledgement

16.1 Distinct Recognition Forms

Standards Body should distinguish:

Authorship
editorship
named contributor credit
reviewer credit
acknowledgement
institutional contribution
funding acknowledgement
approval authority
maintainership
advisory participation

16.2 Authorship Criteria

Authorship should ordinarily require substantial responsibility for several of the following:

Conceptualization
methodology
analysis
interpretation
original drafting
substantive revision
approval of the final version
accountability for the work

16.3 Authorship Non-Criteria

The following alone do not establish authorship:

Funding acquisition
senior title
general supervision
institutional leadership
routine administration
access provision
ceremonial review
name recognition
attendance

16.4 Standards Authorship

A consensus standard should ordinarily be attributed to Standards Body and the responsible working group rather than treated as the personal opinion of listed authors.

The contribution record should identify:

Chairs
editors
principal drafters
working-group participants
reviewers
public commenters
institutional approvers

16.5 Research Authorship

Research publications may list individual authors when they bear substantial intellectual responsibility.

16.6 Group Authorship

Group authorship may be used when:

The group accepts collective accountability
membership is defined
individual roles are recorded
responsible contacts are identified

16.7 Reviewer Credit

Reviewers may be:

Named
anonymously recorded
confidentially recorded
acknowledged by group

The review model should be disclosed.

16.8 Anonymous Contribution

Anonymous public contribution may be accepted when:

Safety
employment risk
whistleblowing
political risk
privacy

justify it.

The institution should verify provenance internally where feasible.

16.9 Pseudonymous Contribution

Pseudonymous participation may be allowed for public work.

Protected or high-authority roles may require verified identity.

16.10 Institutional Credit

An organization may be credited for:

Resources
staff support
facilities
data
model access
funding
implementation

Institutional credit should not imply approval of conclusions.

16.11 Credit Agreement

Before publication, contributors should review role attribution where feasible.

16.12 Credit Dispute

A dispute should receive:

Record review
contributor input
conflict-screened decision
correction
appeal

16.13 Credit Removal

A contributor's name should not be removed from historical credit merely because they later disagree.

Removal may be justified for:

Misattribution
privacy
legal requirement
contributor request where feasible
proven fraudulent participation

16.14 Disclaimer of Endorsement

A contributor may request a note that participation does not imply endorsement of the final conclusion.

17. Contributor Role Records

17.1 Minimum Record

Each substantial project should record:

Contributor name
public or protected identity
affiliation
participation capacity
role
dates
output
status
credit preference
conflicts
compensation status

17.2 Contribution Granularity

Use enough detail to distinguish actual work without creating excessive administrative burden.

17.3 CRediT Mapping

For research outputs, map relevant roles to CRediT where practical.

17.4 Standards Body Extensions

Record extended roles for:

Standards drafting
process facilitation
task custody
public-interest engagement
protocol maintenance
security review
registry work
translation
accessibility
appeals

17.5 Public Record

Public contribution records should avoid unnecessary personal information.

17.6 Protected Record

Sensitive projects may use a controlled contributor register.

17.7 Verification

The project lead and contributor should confirm material role records before publication where feasible.

17.8 Historical Integrity

Preserve the role as it existed at the time.

17.9 Correction

Role records should support correction without erasing history.

18. Editors, Maintainers, and Stewards

18.1 Editor Function

Editors integrate approved changes and maintain clarity and consistency.

18.2 Maintainer Function

Maintainers manage continuing project health.

Common duties:

Review submissions
triage issues
maintain versions
make releases
enforce scope
support contributors
manage security
coordinate correction
preserve continuity

18.3 Steward Function

Stewards protect long-term integrity and institutional purpose.

18.4 Appointment

Maintainers and stewards should be appointed through:

Demonstrated competence
sustained contribution
judgment
conduct
conflict review
availability
security eligibility
defined decision

18.5 No Automatic Promotion

Contribution volume alone should not create maintainer authority.

18.6 Scope

Every maintainer role should define:

Repository or artifact
authority
merge or approval rights
release rights
access
term
reviewer
escalation
succession

18.7 Multiple Maintainers

Critical projects should ordinarily have more than one maintainer.

Linux Foundation research on open-source maintainers emphasizes the breadth of maintainer work beyond code, including review, triage, testing, security, infrastructure, and release management.[^lf-maintainers]

18.8 Maintainer Decision Review

High-consequence changes should require:

Second review
council approval
public review
security approval

as applicable.

18.9 Maintainer Capture Controls

Term review
shared access
transparent decisions
appeal
contributor pathways
rotation
conflict disclosure
succession

18.10 Inactivity

Inactive maintainers should receive notice before role status changes.

18.11 Handoff

A departing maintainer should transfer:

Credentials
open issues
release state
risks
documentation
contributor relationships

18.12 Emergency Removal

Access may be suspended immediately for a material security or integrity risk.

Due process should follow.

19. Chairs and Facilitators

19.1 Chair Role

A chair governs process rather than owning the substantive outcome.

19.2 Responsibilities

Agenda
fair participation
scope
conflict declarations
decision procedure
objection handling
records
escalation
conduct

19.3 Chair Limits

A chair should not:

Suppress dissent
manipulate meeting timing
rewrite group decisions
create hidden decisions
use procedural control for commercial advantage
claim personal ownership of group work

19.4 Selection

Review:

Facilitation
competence
neutrality
judgment
availability
conflicts
international participation ability

19.5 Co-Chairs

Co-chairs may improve continuity and balance.

19.6 Chair Review

Review periodically and after complaints.

19.7 Removal

A chair may be replaced for:

Process manipulation
misconduct
persistent bias
inactivity
conflict
failure to preserve records

20. Reviewer Framework

20.1 Reviewer Types

Editorial
technical
methodological
evidence
statistical
security
public-interest
legal
ethics
implementation
international
accessibility

20.2 Reviewer Mandate

Each review should define:

Question
scope
access
evidence
output
confidentiality
publication
deadline
compensation
conflicts

20.3 Reviewer Competence

Match expertise to the review.

20.4 Reviewer Independence

Assess:

Employment
funding
authorship
client
intellectual
reputational
future opportunity

20.5 Review Quality

A review should be:

Specific
reasoned
evidence-aware
within scope
respectful
clear about uncertainty

20.6 Reviewer Accountability

Reviewers should not use confidential access for:

Competitive benefit
publication theft
trading
employment leverage
unrelated research

20.7 Author Response

Authors or project teams should be able to respond.

20.8 Reviewer Credit

Credit should not compromise anonymity or independence.

20.9 Reviewer Dissent

Minority review findings should be preserved where material.

20.10 Reviewer Removal

A reviewer may be removed for conflict, misconduct, poor performance, or security breach.

21. Contributor Decision Rights

21.1 Decision-Right Principle

Decision rights arise from role and process.

21.2 Advisory Right

The right to provide input.

21.3 Proposal Right

The right to place a defined matter before a responsible body.

21.4 Review Right

The right to issue a formal finding within mandate.

21.5 Drafting Right

The right to prepare text or artifacts.

21.6 Approval Right

The right to approve within delegated scope.

21.7 Voting Right

The right to vote as defined by a charter.

21.8 Merge or Release Right

The right to integrate or publish changes in a repository.

21.9 Stewardship Right

The right to maintain a resource over time.

21.10 Appeal Right

The right to request review of an eligible decision.

21.11 No Implied Rights

Access to meetings, repositories, or drafts does not automatically create approval authority.

21.12 Decision Register

High-consequence contributor decision rights should be recorded.

22. Contribution, Merit, and Advancement

22.1 Merit Principle

Demonstrated contribution may support greater responsibility.

22.2 Merit Limits

Merit should not be reduced to:

Number of commits
words written
meetings attended
public visibility
employer prestige
seniority
volume of comments

22.3 Advancement Criteria

Consider:

Quality
judgment
reliability
maintenance
collaboration
evidence
security
conflict management
public-interest awareness
ability to support others

22.4 Advancement Process

Role need
nomination or application
contribution review
competence
conflicts
community or team input
appointment
term
review

22.5 Transparent Pathways

Publish pathways for:

Contributor
reviewer
editor
maintainer
chair
steward
council eligibility

22.6 No Closed Inner Circle

Critical roles should not depend solely on private invitation when broader recruitment is practical.

22.7 Recognition Without Authority

Awards, public credit, or contributor levels should not automatically create institutional authority.

22.8 Demotion or Role Reduction

Role reduction may occur after:

Inactivity
changed scope
conflict
capacity
performance
misconduct

Use fair process.

23. Code of Conduct

23.1 Purpose

The code should protect professional, equitable, and safe participation.

23.2 Scope

Apply to:

Meetings
repositories
issue trackers
email
messaging
events
calls
private project spaces
public representation
social interactions materially connected to Standards Body work

23.3 Expected Conduct

Contributors should:

Treat others with respect
discuss ideas rather than attack persons
make room for participation
disclose conflicts
preserve confidentiality
accept correction
avoid retaliation
use evidence responsibly
respect cultural and professional differences
communicate boundaries
follow facilitator instructions

23.4 Unacceptable Conduct

Harassment
discrimination
threats
stalking
unwanted sexual attention
intimidation
doxxing
deliberate humiliation
repeated disruption
retaliation
misuse of confidential information
bad-faith impersonation
corruption
evidence fabrication
discriminatory exclusion

23.5 Technical Disagreement

Strong technical disagreement is permitted.

Professional disagreement should not be misclassified as harassment merely because it is uncomfortable.

23.6 Power and Context

Conduct assessment should consider:

Role power
employment dependence
funding
cultural context
repetition
impact
intent
prior notice
safety

23.7 Public Representation

Conduct may apply when a contributor is publicly acting in an official Standards Body role.

23.8 Adoption

Standards Body may adapt a recognized code such as Contributor Covenant, but should publish its exact version and local enforcement process.

23.9 Training

Chairs, maintainers, managers, and responders should receive training.

24. Conduct Reporting and Enforcement

24.1 Reporting Channels

Provide:

General conduct channel
confidential channel
security channel
board or independent channel for leadership complaints
emergency channel

24.2 Reporter Choice

A reporter may request:

Confidentiality
no direct contact
support person
accessibility accommodation
limited interim action

24.3 Intake

Record:

Allegation
date
context
persons
evidence
immediate risk
confidentiality
retaliation concern

24.4 Conflict Screening

The accused or a close associate should not control the response.

24.5 Interim Measures

Possible measures:

Contact limitation
meeting separation
access restriction
temporary suspension
change of facilitator
evidence preservation

24.6 Investigation

Use proportionate:

Interviews
records
messages
witnesses
context
response

24.7 Standard of Decision

The applicable standard should be stated.

24.8 Outcomes

No finding
guidance
facilitated resolution
warning
training
apology or repair
role limitation
access restriction
suspension
removal
employment action
referral

24.9 Consequence Proportionality

Consider:

Severity
pattern
power
harm
intent
acceptance of responsibility
remediation
recurrence
safety

24.10 Restorative Response

Restorative processes may be offered when:

Affected persons consent
safety permits
power imbalance is addressed
accountability is genuine

24.11 Appeal

Material findings should support conflict-free appeal.

24.12 Public Reporting

Publish aggregate and systemic information while protecting privacy.

25. Nonretaliation

25.1 Protected Activity

Good-faith complaint
dissent
error reporting
conflict disclosure
appeal
whistleblowing
security reporting
participation in investigation

25.2 Retaliation Forms

Removal
access denial
credit denial
employment threat
funding threat
public disparagement
exclusion
delayed review
adverse assignment
intimidation

25.3 Report

Retaliation should have an independent reporting route.

25.4 Burden

Close timing and unexplained adverse action may require enhanced review.

25.5 Remedy

Possible remedies:

Reinstatement
credit correction
access restoration
role change
apology
compensation where lawful
discipline
governance change

26. Conflict-of-Interest Requirements

26.1 Disclosure

Contributors should disclose role-relevant:

Employment
ownership
consulting
clients
funding
board roles
patents
publications
advocacy
government roles
personal relationships
access dependencies

26.2 Matter-Specific Conflict

A general annual disclosure does not replace matter-specific review.

26.3 Capacity Disclosure

State whether participation is:

Personal
employer-directed
institutionally authorized
funded
contracted
advisory

26.4 Organizational Mandate

An institutional representative should not present a personal opinion as the organization's official view.

26.5 Conflict Responses

Disclosure
monitoring
role limitation
no vote
no review
no protected access
independent review
recusal
removal

26.6 Intellectual Conflict

Authors of a method may contribute to its evaluation.

They should not be sole reviewers or approvers.

26.7 Commercial Conflict

A contributor whose employer may sell compliance services should disclose that interest.

26.8 Funder Conflict

A funder representative should not control findings.

26.9 Conflict Transparency

Material public roles should have public conflict summaries.

27. Confidentiality

27.1 Classification

Contributor access should follow TRANSPARENCY_FRAMEWORK.md.

27.2 Confidentiality Agreement

The agreement should state:

Information covered
permitted use
access
sharing
storage
incident reporting
term
return or destruction
lawful reporting exceptions

27.3 Need to Know

Access should be limited to the work required.

27.4 No Private Advantage

Contributors should not use protected information for:

Trading
competition
publication priority
employment advantage
personal leverage
unrelated products

27.5 Discussion

Protected work should occur in approved channels.

27.6 Exit

Confidentiality may continue after role completion.

27.7 Whistleblowing

Confidentiality should not improperly prevent lawful reporting of serious wrongdoing or risk.

27.8 Breach

A suspected breach should be reported promptly.

27.9 Public Credit

A contributor may receive generalized credit when the exact work is protected.

28. Security and Access

28.1 Least Privilege

Grant the minimum access required.

28.2 Access Criteria

Role
competence
conflict
training
legal eligibility
device and account security
need
duration

28.3 Authentication

Use strong identity and authentication controls for protected roles.

28.4 Access Logging

Log access to:

Held-out tasks
restricted evidence
model credentials
incident records
personal data
security systems

28.5 Access Review

Review periodically and after role change.

28.6 Personal Devices

Protected work on personal devices should require approved controls.

28.7 Data Transfer

Use approved channels.

28.8 Incident Reporting

Contributors should report:

Lost device
unauthorized access
accidental sharing
suspicious request
phishing
task exposure
credential compromise

28.9 Access Suspension

Immediate suspension may occur when risk is material.

28.10 Access Restoration

Restore after review and remediation where appropriate.

28.11 No Prestige Exception

Prominent or senior contributors remain subject to access rules.

29. Intellectual Property

29.1 Public Policy Before Formal Contribution

Standards Body should adopt a published intellectual-property policy before accepting formal contributions to standards, software, data, or protocol repositories.

29.2 Rights Objective

The policy should ensure that Standards Body can:

Review
edit
integrate
publish
translate
maintain
archive
correct
redistribute

accepted contributions under defined terms.

29.3 Contributor Rights

Contributors should understand which rights they retain.

29.4 Contribution Models

Possible models include:

Developer Certificate of Origin
contributor license agreement
copyright assignment
institutional contribution agreement
project-specific license
public-domain dedication where lawful

29.5 Model Selection

Use a model proportionate to:

Artifact
standards status
software license
data rights
international participation
patent risk
maintenance
contributor burden

29.6 Developer Certificate of Origin

A DCO model may be suitable for open software repositories when contributors certify that they have the right to submit the work.

The sign-off process should be technically enforced and documented.

29.7 Contributor License Agreement

A CLA may be suitable when Standards Body needs broader rights or explicit patent terms.

A CLA should not demand unnecessary rights.

29.8 Employer Rights

Contributors should determine whether their employer owns or restricts the contribution.

29.9 Third-Party Content

A contributor should identify:

Quotations
code
data
images
standards text
model outputs
licensed material
confidential sources

not created solely by the contributor.

29.10 Copyright Notices

Accepted artifacts should include applicable copyright and license notices.

29.11 Moral Rights

Address moral rights where relevant and lawful.

29.12 Withdrawal of Contribution

A contributor may request withdrawal before acceptance.

After integration, withdrawal may be limited by the granted rights and institutional need.

The contributor may still request correction of attribution or privacy-sensitive information.

29.13 Infringement Claim

A claim should trigger:

Preservation
legal review
temporary restriction if necessary
contributor response
correction, replacement, or removal
downstream notice

30. Patent and Standards Contributions

30.1 Patent Disclosure

Participants in technical standards work should disclose known patent interests that may be essential to implementation, under the adopted patent policy.

30.2 Patent Policy Before Approval

Standards likely to implicate patents should not advance without:

Disclosure rules
licensing expectations
conflict treatment
records
withdrawal options

30.3 Essential Claims

The policy should define essential claims carefully.

30.4 Licensing Approaches

Possible approaches:

Royalty-free
reasonable and nondiscriminatory
exclusion of the patented feature
equivalent implementation path
case-specific commitment

30.5 No Validity Adjudication

Standards Body should not claim to determine patent validity unless lawfully authorized.

30.6 Patent Search Disclaimer

The institution cannot guarantee all relevant patents have been identified.

30.7 Contributor Duty

A contributor should not knowingly conceal a material patent interest while advocating a requirement that would create dependence.

30.8 Open Implementation

Prefer standards that can be implemented broadly and interoperably.

31. Software Contributions

31.1 Repository Rules

Each repository should publish:

Purpose
scope
license
contribution process
review
testing
security
release
maintenance
conduct

31.2 Contribution Requirements

Software submissions should include:

Description
issue
tests
documentation
dependency changes
security effect
license confirmation
sign-off where required

31.3 Code Review

Protected branches should require qualified review.

31.4 Automated Checks

Use:

Testing
linting
dependency scanning
secret scanning
license checks
security checks

31.5 Generated Code

AI-generated or machine-assisted code requires:

Human review
provenance record where material
license and training-data uncertainty consideration
security testing
no assumption of originality

31.6 Dependencies

Review:

License
maintenance
security
provenance
necessity
concentration

31.7 Security Reporting

Provide a private vulnerability channel.

31.8 Release Authority

Define who may release and sign artifacts.

31.9 Maintainer Sustainability

Critical software should have:

Multiple maintainers
documentation
backup access
funding or support
succession

31.10 Forks

Forks may use applicable open licenses.

They should not imply continued Standards Body approval or maintenance.

32. Data Contributions

32.1 Data Rights

Contributors should establish that data may be lawfully provided and used.

32.2 Data Documentation

Record:

Source
collection
consent or legal basis
license
subjects
geography
time
transformations
limitations
sensitivity
retention

32.3 Personal Data

Apply privacy, ethics, and security requirements.

32.4 Sensitive Data

Sensitive data may require:

Controlled access
use agreement
secure environment
output review
deletion
audit

32.5 Data Quality

Assess:

Accuracy
completeness
representativeness
bias
duplication
contamination
provenance
currentness

32.6 Data Correction

Provide a process to correct or remove invalid data.

32.7 Dataset Credit

Credit:

Collectors
curators
annotators
maintainers
community sources

where feasible.

32.8 Indigenous and Community Data

Use appropriate governance, consent, benefit, and sovereignty considerations.

32.9 Synthetic Data

Disclose:

Generating system
method
source relationship
validation
limitations

32.10 Evaluation Data

Protected task data should follow Foundation 2 and the security framework.

33. AI-Assisted Contributions

33.1 Human Accountability

The submitting contributor remains accountable for an AI-assisted contribution.

33.2 Disclosure

Disclose material AI assistance in:

Drafting
analysis
coding
translation
summarization
task generation
scoring
visualization
source discovery

33.3 Routine Assistance

Minor spelling, formatting, or grammar assistance may not require public item-level disclosure.

33.4 Verification

Contributors should verify:

Facts
citations
quotations
calculations
code
legal interpretations
standards references
translations

33.5 Protected Information

Do not enter protected information into unauthorized AI services.

33.6 Model Provenance

For material assistance, record:

Tool or system
version where known
purpose
date
human review
major revisions

33.7 Authorship

An AI system should not be listed as a human author or accountable contributor.

33.8 Attribution

The publication may include an AI-assistance statement when material.

33.9 Bias and Homogenization

Review for:

Repeated generic language
missing dissent
fabricated consensus
cultural bias
source distortion
style homogenization

33.10 AI Reviewers

Automated review may assist triage.

It should not independently decide high-consequence acceptance, conduct, credit, or appeal.

34. Research Contributors

34.1 Research Role

Research contributors should follow:

RESEARCH_METHODOLOGY.md
EVIDENCE_STANDARDS.md
ethics requirements
security requirements
project registration

34.2 Research Lead

The lead is responsible for:

Protocol
role assignment
records
review
publication
correction
contributor welfare

34.3 Research Independence

Contributors should disclose sponsor and provider influence.

34.4 Methods

Contributors should preserve:

Data
code
decisions
exclusions
deviations
uncertainty

34.5 Research Participants Versus Contributors

A research participant is not automatically a contributor or author.

34.6 Community-Based Research

Community contributors should receive:

Meaningful role
clear benefit
credit
support
protection
result access

34.7 Negative Findings

Contributors should not be pressured to suppress unfavorable findings.

34.8 Publication Dispute

Use the research-integrity and appeal process.

35. Standards Contributors

35.1 Standards Capacity

Participants should disclose whether they act:

Personally
for an employer
as an authorized representative
as a liaison
as an invited expert

35.2 Working-Group Rights

Rights may include:

Drafting
proposals
objections
comments
votes
consensus participation
minority statements

35.3 Standards Responsibilities

Follow charter
disclose affiliations
respect scope
address evidence
preserve records
avoid dominance
declare patents
respect public review
maintain confidentiality

35.4 Organizational Multiplication

Multiple participants from one organization may contribute.

Voting and balance rules should prevent multiplied control.

35.5 Public Comment Credit

Public commenters should be included in the comment record.

35.6 Objection Credit

A contributor whose objection materially improves or prevents a weak requirement should receive appropriate recognition where feasible.

35.7 Consensus Non-Endorsement

A participant in a consensus process may remain opposed to parts of the standard.

35.8 Editor and Chair Disclosure

Leadership roles and affiliations should be public.

36. Evaluation Contributors

36.1 Roles

Evaluation contributors may include:

Construct experts
task authors
elicitation specialists
administrators
scorers
judges
security custodians
reviewers
interpreters

36.2 Separation

High-consequence evaluation should consider separation among:

Task author
administrator
scorer
reviewer
decision owner

36.3 Task Author Credit

Exact task authorship may remain protected during active use.

A controlled record should preserve credit.

36.4 Access

Task authors do not automatically receive system-result access.

Evaluators do not automatically receive the full task bank.

36.5 Developer Contributors

Developer personnel may provide:

System information
elicitation support
factual correction
security guidance

They should not control independent conclusions.

36.6 Scorer Accountability

Scoring contributors should record:

Rubric
judge
uncertainty
conflicts
deviations

36.7 Evaluation Safety

Contributors should receive appropriate domain, security, and mental-health support for disturbing or dangerous content.

36.8 Result Credit

Credit should distinguish evaluation administration from independent review.

37. Independent Review Contributors

37.1 Reviewer Independence

Review contributors should receive sufficient independence from:

Authors
sponsor
developer
evaluator
leadership
future employment pressure

37.2 Access

The review record should state whether access was sufficient.

37.3 Confidentiality

Protected reviewers may receive generalized public credit.

37.4 Dissent

Reviewers may issue minority opinions.

37.5 Reviewer Selection Record

Preserve competence, conflicts, selection, funding, and mandate.

37.6 Factual Review

The subject may correct facts.

It should not control findings.

37.7 Withdrawal

A reviewer may withdraw if:

Access is insufficient
independence is compromised
scope changes
security is inadequate

The public record should state the limitation where material.

38. Incident and Vulnerability Contributors

38.1 Good-Faith Reporting

The institution should support good-faith reports of:

Incidents
near misses
vulnerabilities
task compromise
misconduct
privacy breach
standards failure

38.2 Safe Harbor Within Institutional Control

Standards Body should not retaliate against good-faith reporting that follows published rules.

It cannot promise immunity from external law.

38.3 Vulnerability Disclosure

Publish:

Scope
contact
encryption
expected response
testing boundaries
disclosure process
recognition

38.4 Reporter Credit

Offer:

Named credit
pseudonymous credit
anonymous credit
no public credit

according to preference and safety.

38.5 Bounties and Rewards

Any reward program should define:

Eligibility
scope
duplicate handling
severity
payment
tax
disclosure
appeal

38.6 Incident Sources

Protect confidential sources.

38.7 No Suppression Purchase

Payment should not purchase permanent silence concerning unresolved public harm.

39. Translators and Localizers

39.1 Translation Role

Translation is a substantive contribution.

39.2 Status

Translations should be labeled:

Official
approved
informative
community
machine-assisted
draft

39.3 Qualification

Normative translations require:

Language competence
domain competence
terminology access
second review

39.4 Controlling Version

State which language controls.

39.5 Credit

Credit translators and reviewers.

39.6 Cultural Localization

Localization may adapt:

Examples
institutions
context
terminology

It should not silently change normative meaning.

39.7 Machine Translation

Disclose and review material machine assistance.

39.8 Correction

Provide an accessible translation-error channel.

40. Public-Interest and Affected-Party Contributors

40.1 Role

Public-interest contributors bring evidence concerning:

Rights
labor
privacy
disability
discrimination
competition
public services
community impact
environmental impact
democratic institutions

40.2 Expertise

Lived experience and professional expertise are both relevant.

40.3 Support

Provide:

Orientation
technical explanation
compensation where appropriate
accessibility
confidentiality
anti-retaliation protection

40.4 Timing

Participation should occur before scope and requirements are fixed.

40.5 Representation Limits

One contributor should not be described as representing an entire community without mandate.

40.6 Extractive Participation

Do not request traumatic, personal, or community knowledge without:

Purpose
protection
consent
support
appropriate credit or compensation
feedback on outcome

40.7 Influence

Document how public-interest contributions affected the work.

41. Institutional Representatives and Liaisons

41.1 Authorization

A representative should identify the source and scope of authorization.

41.2 Personal Versus Institutional View

Statements should be labeled when the contributor speaks personally.

41.3 Organization Change

Update the role after employment or mandate change.

41.4 Liaison Duties

Accurate exchange
confidentiality
records
conflict disclosure
no unauthorized commitment

41.5 Liaison Limits

A liaison does not automatically vote or represent a government formally.

41.6 Replacement

The appointing institution may replace a representative subject to project eligibility.

41.7 Institutional Contribution Record

Record the organization and individual roles separately.

42. Fellows and Advisors

42.1 Fellowship

A fellowship should state:

Purpose
term
funding
deliverables
supervision
publication
rights
access
conflicts
status

42.2 Advisor

An advisor provides recommendations and does not automatically govern.

42.3 Advisory Nonclaim

Public pages should not imply that every advisor endorses every output.

42.4 Compensation

Disclose whether the role is paid, unpaid, stipend-supported, or institutionally funded.

42.5 Term

Advisory roles should be time-limited or periodically renewed.

42.6 Output

Record substantive advice and dissent.

42.7 Inactivity

Remove stale advisory listings from current-status pages after notice.

43. Compensation, Stipends, and Expenses

43.1 Compensation Principle

Compensation should reflect:

Work
expertise
burden
opportunity cost
responsibility
market and nonprofit context
equity
available resources

43.2 Role Classification

Each role should state whether it is:

Employee
contractor
fellow
stipend-supported
expense-supported
volunteer
institutionally seconded
honorarium-based

43.3 No Hidden Unpaid Core Labor

Standards Body should not rely indefinitely on unpaid contributors for critical continuing operations that should be staffed.

43.4 Volunteer Choice

Volunteer status should be genuinely voluntary and lawful.

43.5 Stipends

Stipends may support:

Public-interest participation
affected-party consultation
translation
accessibility
lower-resource regions
independent review
students and early-career contributors

43.6 Honoraria

Honoraria may compensate bounded expert contributions.

They should not purchase favorable opinions.

43.7 Expense Reimbursement

Publish rules for:

Travel
accommodation
accessibility
caregiving
connectivity
visas
local transportation
approved materials

43.8 Payment Transparency

Contributors should understand:

Amount
schedule
tax responsibility
conditions
cancellation
deliverables
rights

43.9 Compensation Conflict

Compensation should not depend on:

Positive evaluation
standards approval
favorable review
suppression of dissent
continued confidentiality beyond legitimate duties

43.10 Equity Review

Review whether uncompensated participation excludes important perspectives.

43.11 Institutional Funding

An employer may pay a contributor's time.

That support should be disclosed where material to influence.

44. Contributor Well-Being and Sustainable Participation

44.1 Sustainability Principle

Contributor systems should not depend on burnout.

44.2 Workload Transparency

Roles should state expected:

Hours
meeting load
deadlines
travel
review burden
emergency availability

44.3 Workload Monitoring

Project leads should monitor:

Contribution concentration
unresolved queues
after-hours work
emotional burden
repeated urgent requests
maintenance debt

44.4 High-Risk Content

Contributors exposed to:

Abuse
exploitation
violence
harmful biological or chemical content
cyber threats
traumatic incident records

should receive appropriate support and ability to rotate.

44.5 Leave and Pause

Continuing contributors should be able to pause without unnecessary stigma.

44.6 Backup Coverage

Critical roles should have backups.

44.7 Recognition

Maintenance and support work should receive credit.

44.8 No Hero Culture

Institutional praise should not reward unsustainable overwork.

44.9 Support Resources

Possible resources:

Peer support
supervision
professional support
debriefing
workload changes
access to counseling through employment arrangements

44.10 Burnout Exit

A contributor leaving because of workload should receive a supported handoff and retain credit.

45. Accessibility and Inclusion

45.1 Accessibility Principle

Participation should be designed for diverse contributors rather than adapted only after exclusion occurs.

45.2 Accessibility Measures

Captions
transcripts
accessible documents
screen-reader compatibility
keyboard access
interpreters
flexible communication
asynchronous participation
breaks
sensory considerations

45.3 Accommodation

Provide a confidential process for reasonable accommodations.

45.4 Meeting Design

Use:

Agendas in advance
defined decisions
accessible platforms
readable materials
multiple participation methods
clear turn-taking

45.5 Technical Access

Do not assume:

High bandwidth
expensive hardware
proprietary software
one operating system
one time zone
one communication style

45.6 Disability Expertise

Include disability and accessibility contributors in relevant design, not only compliance review.

45.7 Inclusion Metrics

Track:

Access requests
response
reported barriers
participation
retention
influence

45.8 Privacy

Accommodation records should be protected.

46. International and Regional Participation

46.1 International Principle

International contribution should involve real influence.

46.2 Barriers

Language
time zone
travel
visas
funding
legal restrictions
sanctions
technology
institutional recognition
security clearance

46.3 Mitigation

Rotating meeting times
asynchronous ballots
translation
regional meetings
travel support
local partners
lower-bandwidth tools
clear legal restrictions

46.4 Regional Expertise

Local experts should contribute to:

Language
law
institutions
risk
deployment
human baselines
public interest
implementation

46.5 No Geographic Tokenism

A participant from a region should not be treated as representing the entire region.

46.6 International Role Records

Record:

Location
capacity
institutional mandate
language
project
conflict

only to the degree appropriate and lawful.

46.7 Cross-Border Data

Protected data access should follow legal and security requirements.

46.8 Capacity Building

Contributor programs may include:

Fellowships
training
mentorship
regional evaluation support
translation grants
shared infrastructure

47. Mentorship and Contributor Development

47.1 Mentorship Purpose

Build competence and reduce dependence on established institutions.

47.2 Mentorship Models

One-to-one
cohort
project-based
reviewer apprenticeship
maintainer shadowing
regional fellowship
standards orientation

47.3 Mentor Responsibilities

Clarify expectations
provide feedback
support access
avoid exploitation
disclose conflicts
help with credit
support safe escalation

47.4 Mentee Rights

Clear goals
feedback
credit
boundaries
complaint channel
no promise of appointment unless stated

47.5 Apprenticeship Decisions

A trainee should not independently make high-consequence decisions without supervision.

47.6 Mentorship Credit

Mentorship is a substantive contribution.

47.7 Evaluation

Assess whether mentorship improves:

Contributor retention
competence
diversity
independent participation
succession

48. Meetings, Communication, and Collaboration

48.1 Official Channels

Material work should use approved channels.

48.2 Decision Capture

A decision made in an informal conversation should be recorded in the official system.

48.3 Meeting Notice

Provide:

Time
time zone
agenda
materials
access
confidentiality
decision purpose

48.4 Asynchronous Work

Use:

Repositories
issue trackers
mailing lists
documents
written ballots

to support international participation.

48.5 Private Messages

Private communication may be appropriate for:

Support
security
complaints
personal matters

Substantive project decisions should return to the record.

48.6 Communication Records

Retain records according to classification and retention rules.

48.7 Language

Communicate professionally and define jargon.

48.8 Meeting Record

Record:

Attendance
conflicts
decisions
dissent
actions
owners
deadlines

48.9 Recording

Audio or video recording should require notice and appropriate consent or legal basis.

48.10 Public Meetings

State whether attendance implies participation, observation, or contribution rights.

49. Public Representation and Use of Affiliation

49.1 Authorized Representation

Only authorized persons may speak for Standards Body.

49.2 Contributor Description

Approved descriptions may include:

Contributor to Standards Body
Working-group participant
Reviewer for a named project
Standards Body fellow
Advisor to Standards Body
Maintainer of a named project

49.3 Prohibited Implications

A contributor should not claim:

Official regulator
Standards Body-certified expert
accredited evaluator
government representative
institutional spokesperson
approval authority

unless exactly authorized.

49.4 Personal Views

Contributors should distinguish personal views from institutional positions.

49.5 Logo and Marks

Use should follow brand and mark policy.

49.6 Resume and Biography

A contributor may accurately describe completed work and status.

49.7 Media

Media participation in an official capacity requires authorization.

49.8 Social Media

Contributors should not disclose protected information or imply official conclusions prematurely.

49.9 End of Role

Historical descriptions should use past-tense or completed status.

50. Confidential and Anonymous Contribution

50.1 Purpose

Confidential or anonymous pathways may support:

Whistleblowing
incident reporting
employer-sensitive dissent
vulnerable communities
politically sensitive participation
security reports

50.2 Verification

The institution may verify identity privately without public disclosure.

50.3 Credit Options

Named
pseudonymous
anonymous
delayed
confidential institutional record

50.4 Decision Weight

Anonymous contribution should be assessed on evidence and credibility.

50.5 Due Process

Material accusations require fair handling and corroboration.

50.6 Security

Protect metadata, communication, and access.

50.7 Limits

Complete anonymity may prevent:

Access to protected systems
formal voting
legal agreements
payment
fiduciary roles

50.8 Later Disclosure

A contributor may choose later disclosure subject to rights and security.

51. Resignation, Pause, and Completion

51.1 Voluntary Resignation

A contributor may resign through notice.

51.2 Continuing Duties

Possible continuing duties:

Confidentiality
intellectual-property grants
record preservation
conflict disclosure related to unfinished work
return or deletion of protected material

51.3 Handoff

Continuing roles should provide:

Open work
decisions
credentials
risks
contacts
documentation

51.4 Pause

A role may become inactive during temporary absence.

51.5 Completion

Time-limited roles should close with:

Deliverable
credit
access removal
feedback
records
future contact permission

51.6 Exit Interview

For significant roles, discuss:

Experience
barriers
risks
unresolved concerns
maintenance
retaliation

51.7 Credit

Resignation does not erase earned credit.

51.8 Public Status

Update current-role pages promptly.

52. Suspension and Removal

52.1 Grounds

Conduct violation
security breach
confidentiality breach
fraud
plagiarism
fabrication
unmanaged conflict
retaliation
persistent process abuse
inactivity
lack of competence for role
legal restriction
role elimination

52.2 Immediate Suspension

May be necessary for:

Security
safety
evidence preservation
serious retaliation
active risk

52.3 Notice

Provide the person with:

Action
reason
scope
duration
evidence or safe summary
response route
appeal

where circumstances permit.

52.4 Investigation

Use conflict-free reviewers.

52.5 Proportionality

Role removal should be proportionate.

52.6 Inactivity Removal

Inactivity should ordinarily use:

Contact
reasonable response period
role change
archival status

rather than misconduct language.

52.7 Access

Access may be removed before final role decision when risk requires.

52.8 Public Disclosure

Publish only what accountability requires.

52.9 Credit Preservation

Historical contribution remains unless inaccurate or legally restricted.

52.10 Appeal

Material suspension and removal should support appeal.

53. Contributor Complaints and Appeals

53.1 Eligible Issues

Credit
role
access
selection procedure
conflict
conduct
retaliation
discrimination
removal
confidentiality
intellectual property
public misrepresentation

53.2 Informal Resolution

Use when safe and appropriate.

53.3 Formal Complaint

Record:

Matter
decision
grounds
evidence
requested outcome
confidentiality

53.4 Independent Review

The original decision maker should not control the appeal.

53.5 Outcomes

Affirm
modify
restore
correct
re-review
mediate
compensate where lawful
remove
outside scope

53.6 Timeliness

Publish expected timelines.

53.7 Nonretaliation

Protect the complainant and witnesses.

53.8 Public Learning

Publish aggregate and systemic lessons.

54. Contributor Privacy and Records

54.1 Data Minimization

Collect only role-relevant information.

54.2 Public Record

Possible public fields:

Name
professional affiliation
role
project
contribution
term
public conflict summary

54.3 Protected Record

Possible protected fields:

Personal contact
application
payment
identity verification
accommodation
complaint
security
detailed conflict information

54.4 Access

Limit by role.

54.5 Retention

Retain according to:

Legal duty
institutional history
contribution rights
appeals
privacy
security

54.6 Correction

Contributors may request correction of personal and role records.

54.7 Deletion

Deletion requests should be balanced against:

Public record integrity
legal requirements
intellectual property
security
research preservation
complaint evidence

54.8 Breach

Notify and remediate as required.

55. Succession and Continuity

55.1 Bus-Factor Reduction

Critical projects should not depend on one contributor.

55.2 Succession Plan

Define:

Backup
access
documentation
open issues
release process
protected custody
emergency transfer

55.3 Maintainer Rotation

Periodic rotation may improve:

Independence
learning
resilience
access
fairness

55.4 Institutional Memory

Preserve:

Decisions
rationale
issue history
role records
conflicts
versions
lessons

55.5 Emergency Succession

A designated authority may temporarily assume bounded stewardship.

55.6 No Personal Asset Control

Critical repositories, domains, credentials, and records should not remain solely in personal accounts.

55.7 Project Closure

Closing a project should preserve:

Artifacts
credit
status
security
correction channel
successor information

56. Contributor Recognition and Prestige

56.1 Recognition Purpose

Recognition should reward valuable contribution and support future participation.

56.2 Recognition Methods

Named credit
role record
contributor profile
letters
certificates of participation
awards
fellowships
speaking
maintainer status
public thanks

56.3 Recognition Limits

Recognition should not imply:

Certification
accreditation
universal expertise
institutional endorsement of outside work
governance authority

56.4 Anti-Gaming

Avoid recognition based only on:

Quantity
visibility
social influence
employer prestige
funding
meeting dominance

56.5 Maintenance Recognition

Reward sustained and often invisible work.

56.6 Correction Recognition

Recognize contributors who identify material errors or reverse weak institutional positions.

56.7 Dissent Recognition

Reasoned dissent that improves the work should not be penalized.

56.8 Equitable Recognition

Review whether credit systematically favors:

Senior participants
fluent English speakers
visible authors
technical roles
well-resourced organizations

57. Contributor Assembly and Community Voice

57.1 Assembly Purpose

The Contributor and Community Assembly provides a structured voice without replacing fiduciary or technical governance.

57.2 Eligibility

Eligibility may depend on:

Current or recent contribution
conduct compliance
verified identity for voting
defined participation period

57.3 Functions

Propose work
nominate representatives
review contributor policy
identify barriers
discuss institutional performance
request responses
surface emerging issues

57.4 Proposal Threshold

A proposal with defined support should receive a reasoned institutional response.

57.5 Elections

Any elections should prevent organizational multiplication and purchased influence.

57.6 Limits

The Assembly should not automatically:

Approve standards
access restricted evidence
appoint staff
control budget
reverse appeals
create legal obligations

57.7 Records

Publish agendas, decisions, and safe summaries.

57.8 Representation

Assembly representatives remain accountable to defined terms and do not represent all contributors automatically.

58. Contributor Metrics

58.1 Purpose

Metrics should improve participation, quality, fairness, and sustainability.

58.2 Participation Metrics

Active contributors
new contributors
returning contributors
role distribution
geographic distribution
institutional distribution
language
project participation

58.3 Contribution Metrics

Submissions
acceptance
review time
correction
maintenance
unresolved backlog
contribution types

58.4 Inclusion Metrics

Accessibility requests
stipends
translation
time-zone distribution
under-resourced participation
influence on outcomes

58.5 Credit Metrics

Role-record completion
credit disputes
correction time
seniority concentration
invisible-labor recognition

58.6 Conduct Metrics

Reports
response time
outcomes
retaliation
recurrence
appeal

58.7 Sustainability Metrics

Workload concentration
maintainer coverage
inactive critical roles
burnout departures
succession coverage

58.8 Security Metrics

Access reviews
incidents
training completion
access termination
task exposure

58.9 Anti-Metric Rule

Do not equate:

More contributors with better participation
more commits with quality
fewer complaints with safety
unanimous votes with inclusion
retention at all costs with healthy community

59. Contributor Audit

59.1 Audit Scope

Role register
selection
onboarding
conflicts
access
rights
contribution decisions
credit
intellectual property
conduct
compensation
accessibility
removal
succession

59.2 Audit Questions

Are roles clear?
Are contributors accurately classified?
Are decision rights bounded?
Are protected systems accessible only to authorized contributors?
Are credits accurate?
Are unpaid contributors performing staff functions?
Are conflicts disclosed?
Are complaints independent?
Are maintainers concentrated?
Are inactive roles current?
Are international and public-interest contributors influential?
Are AI-assisted contributions verified?

59.3 Findings

Critical
material
minor
improvement

59.4 Critical Findings

Contributor used as false endorsement
concealed controlling affiliation
protected access without authorization
retaliation
systematic credit theft
intellectual-property infringement
essential unpaid labor misclassified
maintainer with sole uncontrolled access
discriminatory exclusion
complaint controlled by accused leader

59.5 Corrective Action

Assign owner, deadline, verification, and public summary where material.

59.6 External Review

A mature contributor program should receive periodic independent review.

60. Contributor Maturity Model

Level 0: Ad Hoc Contribution

Characteristics:

Informal submissions
unclear rights
personal decisions
inconsistent credit
no conduct process

Level 1: Documented Contribution

Characteristics:

Contribution guide
code of conduct
review workflow
licenses
basic attribution

Level 2: Role-Based Participation

Characteristics:

Role taxonomy
onboarding
conflicts
access
contributor records
complaints
maintainers

Level 3: Accountable Contributor Community

Characteristics:

Transparent advancement
participation support
credit review
independent appeals
security controls
contributor assembly
succession

Level 4: International Institutional Contribution

Characteristics:

Multilingual participation
regional pathways
standards and evaluation roles
fellowships
protected-review capacity
contribution interoperability

Level 5: Adaptive Contributor Ecosystem

Characteristics:

Measured influence
sustainable maintenance
distributed stewardship
machine-readable role records
continuous audit
effective function transfer
demonstrated fairness and resilience

60.1 Maturity Rule

Controls:

Exit rights
historical records
communications rules
appeal

62. Serious Objections and Responses

Objection 1: The framework is too formal for an early project

The mature framework is comprehensive.

Present-stage implementation should be proportionate.

Even an early project still needs:

Clear roles
contribution rights
credit
conduct
conflicts
security
correction

Informality does not eliminate power.

It often makes power less visible.

Objection 2: Open contribution will reduce quality

Open contribution can increase volume and variance.

Quality remains protected through:

Scope
triage
review
evidence standards
maintainers
version control

Open input does not require automatic acceptance.

Objection 3: Contributor agreements discourage participation

Poorly designed agreements can.

Rights terms should be concise, necessary, understandable, and proportionate to the artifact.

Objection 4: Anonymous contribution undermines accountability

Some roles require verified identity.

Anonymous and pseudonymous pathways remain important for:

Whistleblowing
vulnerable contributors
employer-sensitive dissent
security reporting

Evidence and authority should determine how much anonymity is compatible with the role.

Objection 5: Compensation is impossible for every contributor

Not every contribution requires payment.

The institution should disclose status, fund high-burden and under-resourced participation where possible, and avoid building essential operations on invisible unpaid labor.

Objection 6: Meritocracy is enough

"Merit" can hide:

Access advantage
language
free time
employer support
existing relationships
subjective preference

The institution should define contribution quality and combine merit with conflict, balance, accountability, and inclusion.

Objection 7: Codes of conduct suppress frank debate

A well-designed code protects frank technical disagreement while prohibiting harassment, retaliation, and personal abuse.

Objection 8: Public credit creates security or employment risk

Credit may be:

Delayed
pseudonymous
generalized
confidentially recorded

Contributor safety may outweigh immediate public attribution.

Objection 9: Institutional representatives should vote according to their employer

Formal representation may involve an institutional mandate.

The role and conflict should be explicit.

The process should prevent any organization from multiplying control.

Objection 10: Contributors who do the work should control the project

Contributors should influence work and have transparent advancement pathways.

Some decisions require fiduciary, public-interest, security, or independent-review authority beyond contribution volume.

Objection 11: AI-assisted contributions are no different from other tools

AI systems can generate fluent but false content, reproduce protected information, and complicate provenance.

Material use deserves specific controls.

Objection 12: Credit disputes are too minor for formal process

Credit affects:

Careers
trust
accountability
institutional history
incentives

A proportionate process reduces recurring harm.

Objection 13: Contributor turnover is healthy, so succession planning is unnecessary

Turnover can be healthy.

Critical functions still require handoff, access continuity, and institutional memory.

Objection 14: Public-interest participation makes technical work political

Technical standards and evaluations already distribute risk, cost, access, and authority.

Public-interest contribution makes those consequences reviewable.

Objection 15: Institutional contributor records create privacy risk

Only role-relevant information should be public.

Sensitive application, payment, security, and complaint records should remain protected.

63. Contributor Implementation Pathway

Phase 1: Basic Contribution Controls

Publish contribution guide
publish code of conduct
establish issue and correction channels
define accepted contribution types
adopt initial attribution rules
disclose current review capacity

Phase 2: Role and Rights Infrastructure

Adopt role taxonomy
create contributor register
define public and protected roles
establish onboarding
establish conflict disclosure
define access and exit

Phase 3: Intellectual Property and Security

Adopt contribution agreement
choose DCO, CLA, or project-specific models
adopt software and data licenses
establish security training
establish protected-access process
establish vulnerability reporting

Phase 4: Credit and Review

Adopt authorship and acknowledgement criteria
implement contributor-role statements
establish credit-dispute process
create reviewer pool
establish review mandates

Phase 5: Maintainers and Working Groups

Appoint maintainers
define decision rights
create working-group charters
establish advancement pathways
create succession plans

Phase 6: Participation Support

Launch stipends or honoraria
establish accessibility support
establish translation pathways
create international participation support
create mentorship

Phase 7: Contributor Governance

Launch Contributor and Community Assembly
create nomination pathways
publish participation metrics
establish independent appeals
conduct contributor audit

Phase 8: Mature Ecosystem

Create machine-readable role records
federate contributor identities where appropriate
support regional contributor programs
measure influence and sustainability
conduct external review
revise the framework

64. First Contributor Program Pilot

64.1 Pilot Title

Frontier AI Evaluation Reporting Specification Contributor Program

64.2 Purpose

Test the complete contributor framework while developing the first Standards Body standards pilot.

64.3 Contributor Roles

Project chair
technical editor
evaluation scientist
standards expert
independent evaluator
developer representative
open-source representative
public-interest contributor
security reviewer
international contributor
translator
implementation tester
registry engineer
public commenter

64.4 Pilot Controls

Public charter
role register
conflicts
contribution agreement
code of conduct
public issue tracker
protected task channel
contributor-role credit
stipend support
appeal
exit survey

64.5 Outputs

Contribution guide
role matrix
standards draft
implementation artifacts
public comment record
contributor statement
lessons report

64.6 Success Criteria

Roles are understandable
contributors know decision rights
no single organization dominates
credit records match work
public-interest input changes the draft
protected access is controlled
review times are reasonable
maintainers have backups
contributors can exit safely
disputes are resolved fairly

64.7 Pilot Review

Commission independent review after completion.

65. Contributor Framework Scorecard

Dimension	Core question
Purpose	Is contribution tied to a real institutional need?
Capacity	Can Standards Body review and support contributors responsibly?
Roles	Are contributor roles specific and current?
Authority	Are contribution and decision rights distinct?
Entry	Are pathways open, fair, and role-appropriate?
Eligibility	Are criteria necessary and nonexclusionary?
Selection	Are competence, independence, balance, and accessibility considered?
Onboarding	Do contributors understand mission, role, conduct, rights, and security?
Rights	Are credit, dissent, privacy, notice, appeal, and exit protected?
Responsibilities	Are accuracy, conflicts, conduct, security, and correction clear?
Workflow	Are submissions triaged, reviewed, decided, and maintained?
Review	Are review criteria and decision records available?
Attribution	Does credit reflect actual work?
Authorship	Are authorship and acknowledgement distinct?
Maintenance	Are editors, maintainers, and stewards accountable?
Advancement	Are pathways transparent and not prestige-based?
Conduct	Is there a usable code and enforcement process?
Nonretaliation	Are reporting and dissent protected?
Conflicts	Are affiliations, mandates, and interests disclosed?
Confidentiality	Are protected contributions and records governed?
Security	Does access follow least privilege and role?
Intellectual property	Are rights and licenses clear?
Patents	Are standards-related patent interests governed?
Software	Are code review, licensing, security, and releases controlled?
Data	Are rights, provenance, privacy, quality, and retention addressed?
AI assistance	Is material use disclosed, verified, and secure?
Research	Are research roles, methods, and publication duties clear?
Standards	Are affiliation, balance, objections, and voting governed?
Evaluation	Are task, scoring, custody, and review roles separated?
Public interest	Are affected persons supported and influential?
Compensation	Is unpaid labor accurately classified and proportionate?
Well-being	Is workload sustainable?
Accessibility	Can diverse contributors participate?
International	Is cross-regional contribution meaningful?
Mentorship	Are new contributors supported without exploitation?
Representation	Are public titles and affiliations accurate?
Exit	Can contributors pause or leave while preserving credit?
Discipline	Are suspension and removal fair and appealable?
Privacy	Are contributor records minimized and protected?
Succession	Are critical roles and credentials transferable?
Recognition	Does prestige reward useful work without creating false authority?
Metrics	Are quality, fairness, influence, and sustainability measured?
Audit	Can the contributor system be independently reviewed?

65.1 Critical Failures

The following normally prevent a contributor program from being considered credible:

No code of conduct or reporting channel
no contribution-rights policy
no conflict disclosure
false or missing credit
retaliation
high-consequence access without authorization
one person controlling critical repositories or task banks
contributors presented as endorsers without basis
essential continuing labor misclassified as unpaid volunteering
no appeal for material discipline or credit disputes
no public role and status distinction
public-interest participation added only after decisions are fixed
AI-generated factual content published without verification
anonymous allegations treated as established fact without fair process
no maintainer succession

65.2 No Composite Contributor Score

Do not reduce the scorecard to one overall number.

A critical rights, integrity, or security failure cannot be offset by high participation volume.

66. Contributor Role Charter Template

Role title:
Role family:
Project or body:
Version:
Term:
Status:

Purpose

Responsibilities

Authority

Limits

Expected Workload

Competence

Capacity and Representation

Access

Conflicts

Confidentiality

Intellectual Property

Compensation or Volunteer Status

Public Credit

Public Description

Supervision and Review

Complaints and Appeals

Exit and Handoff

67. Contributor Application Template

Applicant:
Preferred name:
Contact:
Location and time zone:
Affiliation:
Participation capacity:

Role Requested

Relevant Competence

Experience

Motivation

Expected Contribution

Availability

Conflicts and Interests

Institutional Authorization

Accessibility Needs

Compensation or Support Needs

Security Eligibility

References or Work Samples

Public Attribution Preference

Privacy Notes

68. Contributor Onboarding Checklist

Confirm completion of:

Mission and identity orientation
authority boundaries
role charter
decision rights
code of conduct
complaint and nonretaliation process
conflict disclosure
contribution agreement
intellectual-property and patent policy
confidentiality
security training
access provisioning
record and communication channels
credit and authorship rules
AI-assistance rules
accessibility and support
review and maintenance expectations
exit and handoff
responsible contact
onboarding record

69. Contribution Submission Template

Contribution ID:
Contributor:
Affiliation and capacity:
Project:
Date:
Contribution type:

Summary

Proposed Use

Sources and Evidence

Original and Third-Party Material

Rights and License

Patent Interest

AI Assistance

Personal or Sensitive Data

Security Classification

Conflicts

Credit Preference

Maintenance Implication

Requested Decision

70. Contribution Review Record Template

Contribution ID:
Reviewer:
Date:

Scope

Relevance

Accuracy

Evidence

Rights

Security

Privacy

Public Interest

Compatibility

Maintenance

Conflicts

Decision

Accept
accept with changes
partly accept
revise
defer
reject
archive

Reasons

Attribution

Integration

Appeal or Reconsideration

71. Contributor Role Statement Template

Output:
Version:

Contributor	Affiliation or capacity	Roles	Specific contribution	Public credit status

Institutional Contributions

Funding

Reviewers

Maintainers

Approval Authority

Conflicts

AI Assistance

Nonendorsement Notes

72. Authorship and Credit Review Template

Output:
Reviewer:
Date:

Proposed Authors

Contributor Roles

Authorship Criteria Applied

Contributors Not Listed as Authors

Acknowledgements

Institutional and Funding Credit

Anonymous or Protected Credit

Disputes

Contributor Confirmation

Decision

Correction Route

73. Maintainer Appointment Template

Project or artifact:
Candidate:
Term:
Appointing body:

Competence

Contribution History

Judgment and Conduct

Conflicts

Availability

Security

Authority

Release and Merge Rights

Required Second Review

Backup Maintainer

Succession

Performance Review

Public Status

74. Reviewer Appointment Template

Review:
Candidate:
Mandate:
Date:

Competence

Independence

Conflicts

Selection

Access

Confidentiality

Compensation

Output

Publication

Dissent

Withdrawal Conditions

75. Conduct Report Template

Report ID:
Reporter:
Confidentiality request:
Date:
Persons involved:

Context

Alleged Conduct

Evidence

Immediate Safety or Retaliation Risk

Requested Support

Conflict Screening

Interim Measures

Investigation

Response

Finding

Outcome

Appeal

Corrective and Restorative Action

Systemic Lessons

76. Contributor Exit and Handoff Template

Contributor:
Role:
Project:
Exit date:
Status:

Reason, Optional

Open Work

Decisions and Risks

Credentials and Access

Records

Protected Material Return or Deletion

Successor or Backup

Credit Confirmation

Continuing Duties

Unresolved Concerns

Exit Feedback

Public Status Update

77. Contributor Audit Template

Audit period:
Auditor:
Independence:

Contributor Register

Role Clarity

Entry and Selection

Onboarding

Rights and Responsibilities

Contribution Workflow

Credit and Authorship

Maintainers and Decision Rights

Conduct and Nonretaliation

Conflicts

Security and Access

Intellectual Property

Compensation and Volunteer Status

Accessibility and International Participation

AI-Assisted Contributions

Complaints and Appeals

Exit and Succession

Metrics

Findings

Corrective Actions

Public Summary

78. Canonical Standards Body Contributor Positions

Standards Body adopts the following working positions.

Contribution, authorship, credit, authority, access, employment, membership, and endorsement are distinct.
A contributor should know their role, authority, access, term, responsibilities, credit, and exit rights.
Contribution should be evaluated by quality, relevance, evidence, safety, rights, and institutional need.
Prestige should not substitute for contribution or competence.
Funding alone does not create authorship.
Seniority alone does not create authorship.
Resource provision should be credited separately from intellectual authorship.
Standards should ordinarily be attributed institutionally while preserving individual contribution records.
Research authorship should reflect substantial intellectual responsibility and accountability.
Contributor-role statements should be used for substantial outputs.
CRediT should be used where useful and extended for standards, evaluation, security, and institutional work.
Editing, maintenance, moderation, translation, accessibility, facilitation, and contributor support are substantive contributions.
Reasoned dissent and error correction are valuable contributions.
Contributors should not lose earned historical credit because they resign or disagree.
Contributors should be able to state that participation does not imply endorsement.
Contributor status does not create external authority.
Institutional representation requires an actual mandate.
Personal and institutional views should be distinguished.
Open contribution requires governed review.
Submission does not guarantee acceptance.
Rejected contributions should not be appropriated silently.
The institution should recruit only when it has capacity to review, support, secure, credit, and maintain contributions.
Contribution debt should be measured and disclosed internally.
Critical projects should have multiple maintainers.
Maintainer authority should be scoped, reviewed, and transferable.
Contribution volume alone should not create maintainer or governance authority.
Advancement should consider quality, judgment, reliability, maintenance, collaboration, security, and public-interest awareness.
Contributor pathways should be visible.
Codes of conduct should protect frank technical disagreement while prohibiting harassment, retaliation, and abuse.
Conduct rules should apply across official online, offline, and representational spaces.
A code of conduct without reporting, trained response, due process, and appeal is incomplete.
Prestigious contributors should not receive conduct exceptions.
Unsubstantiated complaints should not automatically be treated as false.
Anonymous allegations should receive fair, evidence-based handling.
Good-faith reporting, dissent, conflict disclosure, and appeals should be protected from retaliation.
Conflicts should include financial, employment, client, funding, intellectual, political, personal, reputational, and access dependencies.
Disclosure alone may not resolve a conflict.
Contributors should disclose the capacity in which they participate.
Organizations should not multiply influence through unlimited affiliated participants.
Access should follow role, need, competence, conflict, training, and least privilege.
Contribution does not justify access to protected evidence.
Prominent contributors remain subject to security controls.
Protected access should be logged, reviewed, and revoked after role change.
Confidentiality should not prevent lawful reporting of serious risk or wrongdoing.
Contributors should not use protected information for private, competitive, financial, or publication advantage.
Contribution rights should be clear before formal standards or software contributions are accepted.
Standards Body should use a DCO, CLA, or other appropriate agreement according to artifact and risk.
Contributors should submit only material they have the right to provide.
Employer, third-party, patent, code, data, and model-generated rights should be disclosed.
Patent interests relevant to standards implementation should be governed through a published policy.
Software contributions should receive code, license, test, dependency, and security review.
Critical software should not depend on one maintainer.
Data contributions should preserve provenance, rights, quality, privacy, sensitivity, and correction.
Synthetic data should be labeled and validated.
Human contributors remain accountable for AI-assisted submissions.
Material AI assistance should be recorded and disclosed appropriately.
AI-generated citations, facts, code, standards language, and translations should be verified.
Protected information should not be submitted to unauthorized AI systems.
AI systems should not be listed as accountable human authors.
Research contributors should preserve protocol, methods, deviations, data, code, uncertainty, and correction.
Research participants are not automatically contributors or authors.
Standards contributors should disclose affiliations, mandates, patents, and conflicts.
Public commenters should be included in the standards-process record.
A contributor who prevents a weak requirement through valid objection should be recognized where feasible.
Developer personnel may support evaluation but should not control independent conclusions.
Evaluation roles should distinguish task design, administration, scoring, interpretation, custody, and review.
Exact task authorship may remain protected during active held-out use.
Independent reviewers should have sufficient access and freedom to dissent.
Reviewers should be able to withdraw when access or independence becomes inadequate.
Good-faith incident and vulnerability reporting should receive safe, defined channels.
Payment should not purchase permanent silence concerning unresolved public harm.
Translation and localization are substantive contributions.
Normative translations require linguistic and domain review.
Public-interest and affected-party contributors should participate before decisions are fixed.
Lived experience should not be extracted without purpose, protection, support, and appropriate recognition.
One contributor should not be presented as representing an entire community without mandate.
Advisors should have defined mandates, terms, conflicts, and current status.
A prominent advisor list should not substitute for active governance or contribution.
Role descriptions should state compensation, stipend, expense support, volunteer status, or institutional funding.
Standards Body should not disguise essential continuing labor as volunteering.
Compensation should not depend on favorable conclusions.
Participation support should reduce financial, linguistic, disability, travel, and time-zone barriers.
Accessibility should be designed into contributor systems.
International contribution should involve influence, not symbolic inclusion.
Regional participants should not be treated as representing entire regions automatically.
Mentorship should build competence without exploiting trainees.
Mentors and maintainers should receive credit for contributor development.
Material decisions made informally should return to official records.
Public contributor titles should be accurate and scope-specific.
Contributors should not imply certification, accreditation, regulatory status, or spokesperson authority.
Confidential and pseudonymous participation should be available where justified.
Verified identity may remain necessary for voting, contracts, payment, protected access, and fiduciary roles.
Contributors should be able to resign or pause.
Exit should include handoff, access removal, record preservation, and credit confirmation.
Suspension may precede final process when immediate security or safety risk exists.
Material suspension, removal, credit, and retaliation decisions should support appeal.
Contributor personal data should be minimized and protected.
Critical assets and credentials should be institutionally controlled.
Contributor recognition should reward maintenance, correction, support, and dissent, not only visible authorship.
Awards and recognition should not create false authority.
The Contributor and Community Assembly should create proposal and accountability pathways without replacing fiduciary or technical governance.
Contributor metrics should measure quality, influence, equity, sustainability, and security.
Low complaint volume should not automatically be interpreted as a healthy community.
High retention should not be pursued at the expense of safe exit.
A large contributor count does not establish meaningful participation.
Contributor systems should receive internal and periodic external review.
Critical contributor failures may require correction, access suspension, role change, governance reform, or public notice.
Institutional growth should not outpace contributor support and security.
Standards Body should publish material contributor-system lessons and corrections.
The ultimate purpose of the contributor framework is to make expertise and participation institutionally usable without obscuring who did the work, who had authority, who bore risk, and who can be held accountable.

79. Relationship to Other Canonical Files

`PROJECT_IDENTITY.md`

Defines the project's mission, present stage, authority limits, public descriptions, and prohibited claims.

Contributor titles and public affiliation should remain consistent with it.

`PROJECT_MANIFESTO.md`

Defines the deeper purpose that contributor participation should serve.

`INSTITUTION_DESIGN.md`

Defines the institutional ecosystem, bodies, programs, and distributed roles in which contributors may participate.

`GOVERNANCE_FRAMEWORK.md`

Defines governing authority, decision rights, councils, committees, conflicts, appeals, and the Contributor and Community Assembly.

This framework defines who may enter those systems and under which terms.

`STANDARDS_DEVELOPMENT_PROCESS.md`

Defines working groups, participation, balance, comments, consensus, voting, editing, intellectual property, and maintenance.

This framework defines contributor-level rights and responsibilities across that process.

`TRANSPARENCY_FRAMEWORK.md`

Defines public and protected contributor records, funding, conflicts, attribution, status, and disclosure.

`FOUNDATIONS.md`

Defines the eight foundations to which contributors may contribute.

`FOUNDATIONS_APPENDIX.md`

Defines cross-foundation roles, workflows, evidence passports, reviews, pilots, and institutional interfaces.

`TERMINOLOGY.md`

Defines contributor, reviewer, evaluator, auditor, author, representative, conflict, independence, standards, certification, accreditation, and related terms.

`EVIDENCE_STANDARDS.md`

Defines source and evidence expectations contributors should follow.

`RESEARCH_METHODOLOGY.md`

Defines research roles, registration, methods, ethics, security, review, publication, and correction.

`TAXONOMY.md`

Classifies actors, roles, contributions, access, status, decisions, evidence, and institutional relationships.

`EVALUATION_PHILOSOPHY.md`

Defines the evaluation principles that evaluation contributors should preserve.

Foundation 1

Creates roles for protocol designers, maintainers, change reviewers, and bridge-study contributors.

Foundation 2

Creates roles for task authors, custodians, secure administrators, compromise investigators, and protected reviewers.

Foundation 3

Creates high-competence and high-independence roles for severe-risk evaluation.

Foundation 4

Defines independent reviewer selection, access, conflict, dissent, and publication responsibilities.

Foundation 5

Creates evaluator, auditor, certification, accreditation, proficiency, and quality-system contributor roles.

Foundation 6

Creates standards, implementation, procurement, legal-recognition, and enforcement-interface roles.

Foundation 7

Requires recognition and prestige systems to reward real contribution without creating gaming or capture.

Foundation 8

Creates international, regional, translation, localization, mapping, recognition, and capacity-building roles.

`PARTNERSHIP_PRINCIPLES.md`

Will define how partner organizations provide representatives, resources, funding, data, and access.

`LONG_TERM_ROADMAP.md`

Will sequence contributor-program maturity and staffing transitions.

`WEBSITE_SOURCE_OF_TRUTH.md`

Will define approved public contributor titles, biographies, project roles, and current-status pages.

`VERSION_HISTORY.md`

Will preserve contributor-framework changes and role-policy history.

80. Final Contributor Position

Standards Body will depend on contributors for much of its intellectual and institutional value.

That dependence creates responsibility.

The institution should not treat contributors as:

Free labor
decorative names
implied endorsers
sources of legitimacy without influence
replaceable inputs without credit
holders of permanent authority because they arrived early
security exceptions because they are prominent
representatives of communities they do not have a mandate to represent

It should treat contribution as a governed relationship.

That relationship should answer:

What did the person contribute?
In which capacity?
Under which rights?
With which conflicts?
With which access?
Who reviewed the work?
Who decided whether to accept it?
How was credit assigned?
What authority did the contributor possess?
What authority did they not possess?
How can they dissent?
How can they report harm?
How can they appeal?
How can they leave?
Who maintains the contribution after they leave?

A credible contributor system should be open enough that Standards Body does not become an inward-looking institution.

It should be selective enough that contribution quality and safety remain high.

It should be transparent enough that credit, influence, and conflicts are visible.

It should be secure enough to protect people, systems, and held-out evidence.

It should be fair enough that people without institutional prestige or financial support can contribute meaningfully.

It should be durable enough that maintainers can hand off work and the institution can outlive its founding participants.

The defining contributor rule of Standards Body is:

Recognize the work, bound the authority, protect the contributor, govern the access, preserve the dissent, and maintain the contribution beyond the individual.

References and Research Basis

[^credit]: National Information Standards Organization, CRediT Contributor Role Taxonomy, a community-owned taxonomy of 14 contributor roles and ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022. https://credit.niso.org/

[^credit-roles]: National Information Standards Organization, CRediT Role Descriptors. https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles-defined/

[^credit-implementation]: National Information Standards Organization, How to Implement CRediT. https://credit.niso.org/implementing-credit/

[^contributor-covenant]: Contributor Covenant, Code of Conduct and Adoption Resources, including Version 3.0 availability in 2026 and prior Version 2.1 resources. https://www.contributor-covenant.org/adopt/ and https://www.contributor-covenant.org/

[^w3c-coc]: World Wide Web Consortium, Positive Work Environment at W3C: Code of Conduct, March 18, 2024. https://www.w3.org/policies/code-of-conduct/

[^w3c-process]: World Wide Web Consortium, W3C Process Document, August 18, 2025. https://www.w3.org/policies/process/

[^w3c-invited]: World Wide Web Consortium, Invited Experts and Invited Expert Agreement. https://www.w3.org/invited-experts/ and https://www.w3.org/invited-experts/agreement-2023/

[^w3c-support]: World Wide Web Consortium, Invited Experts Support Fund. https://www.w3.org/invited-experts/ie-support-fund/

[^dco]: Developer Certificate of Origin, Developer Certificate of Origin Version 1.1, Linux Foundation and contributors. https://developercertificate.org/

[^ietf-rights]: Internet Engineering Task Force and RFC Editor, RFC 5378, Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust, BCP 78. https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5378/ and https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78/

[^ietf-ipr]: Internet Engineering Task Force and RFC Editor, RFC 8179, Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology, BCP 79. https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8179

[^lf-maintainers]: Linux Foundation Research, Open Source Maintainers: Motivation, Challenges and Opportunities, 2023. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/hubfs/LF%20Research/Open%20Source%20Maintainers%202023%20-%20Report.pdf

[^lf-participation]: Linux Foundation, Participating in Open Source Communities. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/resources/open-source-guides/participating-in-open-source-communities

[^iso-directives]: International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission, ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1, Procedures for the Technical Work. https://www.iso.org/sites/directives/current/consolidated/index.html

[^ansi-essential]: American National Standards Institute, ANSI Essential Requirements: Due Process Requirements for American National Standards. https://www.ansi.org/american-national-standards/ans-introduction/essential-requirements

[^nist-rmf]: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/nist.ai.100-1.pdf

[^orcid]: ORCID, Contributor Identification and Researcher Records. https://info.orcid.org/

[^creative-commons]: Creative Commons, About CC Licenses. https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/

Revision Record

Version 1.0

Date: July 16, 2026

Change type: Complete foundational edition

Summary: Establishes the canonical Standards Body contributor-participation and accountability framework. Defines contributor families, role taxonomy, statuses, capacity, entry, eligibility, selection, onboarding, rights, responsibilities, contribution lifecycle, review, authorship, attribution, contributor records, editors, maintainers, stewards, chairs, reviewers, decision rights, advancement, code of conduct, enforcement, nonretaliation, conflicts, confidentiality, security, intellectual property, patents, software, data, AI-assisted contributions, research, standards, evaluation, independent review, incident reporting, translation, public-interest participation, institutional representation, fellowships, compensation, well-being, accessibility, international participation, mentorship, communications, public representation, anonymous contribution, exit, suspension, appeals, privacy, succession, recognition, contributor governance, metrics, audit, maturity, failure modes, objections, implementation, pilot design, scorecard, operational templates, canonical positions, cross-file relationships, and primary research basis.

Status: Approved foundational source.

Downloads

PDF, Version 1.0 SHA-256 905b35112d3fd0ea19402de459c8c1fef7310f4e169517de2245b794058c3f7e
Markdown, Version 1.0 SHA-256 df41b17ee467bcbc1ca32969b8249985ab35d3b32978185778914e7af6a178e9
HTML, Version 1.0 SHA-256 d046a5ef98381ba64782fcdf2e919f699144dee1f4de8bcd5970981e3ead73a5

Citation and record

Standards Body. "Standards Body Contributor Framework." Institutional-design proposal, public edition, Version 1.0, July 17, 2026. https://standardsbody.ai/library/institutional-design/contributor-framework/

Canonical page: /library/institutional-design/contributor-framework/

Immutable Version 1.0: /library/institutional-design/contributor-framework/versions/1.0/

Corrections: [email protected]. Corrections, supersession, and withdrawal are recorded; released versions are preserved without silent edits.

Standards Body Institution Design Institutional-design proposal
Authority and Nonauthority Site page
Standards Body Project Identity Foundational source
The Foundations of Frontier AI Evaluation Infrastructure Foundational source