# CONTRIBUTOR_FRAMEWORK.md # Standards Body Contributor Framework **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: 1. Submission 2. identity and rights check 3. security and sensitivity screening 4. scope triage 5. substantive review 6. revision 7. acceptance or rejection 8. attribution 9. integration 10. publication or controlled use 11. maintenance 12. 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 A large contributor list does not establish a mature contributor system. --- # 61. Consolidated Contributor Failure Modes ## 61.1 Founder-Centered Contribution Failure: All meaningful work depends on the founder's review, relationships, and approval. Controls: - Maintainers - delegated roles - contribution records - succession - independent review ## 61.2 Prestige Capture Failure: Well-known contributors receive authority or credit disproportionate to actual work. Controls: - Role criteria - contribution records - conflict review - transparent appointment ## 61.3 Institutional Multiplication Failure: One organization supplies many participants and controls an apparently broad process. Controls: - Affiliation records - balance analysis - voting controls - independent recruitment ## 61.4 Open-Door Theater Failure: The institution invites contribution but does not review or integrate it. Controls: - Capacity review - response targets - contribution-debt reporting - scoped calls ## 61.5 Invisible Labor Failure: Editing, facilitation, moderation, accessibility, translation, and maintenance are omitted from credit. Controls: - Expanded role taxonomy - contribution records - credit review - compensation assessment ## 61.6 Gift Authorship Failure: A senior person, funder, or advisor receives authorship without substantial contribution. Controls: - Authorship criteria - CRediT-style roles - contributor confirmation - dispute process ## 61.7 Ghost Contribution Failure: A person performs substantial work without attribution. Controls: - Role register - prepublication confirmation - anonymous-credit options - audit ## 61.8 Credit Retaliation Failure: Credit is removed because a contributor dissents or leaves. Controls: - Historical integrity - appeal - nonretaliation - correction record ## 61.9 Authority by Contribution Volume Failure: Frequent participation becomes unreviewed governance authority. Controls: - Appointment - competence - term - decision-right register - review ## 61.10 Maintainer Capture Failure: One maintainer controls access, releases, credit, and contributor advancement. Controls: - Multiple maintainers - oversight - access sharing - appeal - succession ## 61.11 Maintainer Burnout Failure: Critical work depends on sustained unpaid overwork. Controls: - Workload monitoring - funding - backup - rotation - staffing ## 61.12 Reviewer Capture Failure: Authors, sponsors, or future employers control reviewers. Controls: - Independent selection - conflict disclosure - funding disclosure - reviewer withdrawal rights ## 61.13 Advisory Theater Failure: Prominent advisors are listed but do not contribute or govern. Controls: - Term - mandate - contribution record - current-status review ## 61.14 Public-Interest Tokenism Failure: Affected persons are invited after technical decisions are complete. Controls: - Early participation - compensation - influence records - reconsideration rights ## 61.15 International Tokenism Failure: A few international names support claims of global legitimacy without influence. Controls: - Regional roles - multilingual access - participation support - decision analysis ## 61.16 Unpaid Labor Misclassification Failure: The institution treats continuing operational labor as voluntary contribution to avoid employment obligations or compensation. Controls: - Role classification - legal review - compensation audit - workload limits ## 61.17 Pay-to-Participate Exclusion Failure: Fees, travel, or unpaid time exclude critical perspectives. Controls: - Waivers - stipends - remote participation - asynchronous work - support funds ## 61.18 Confidentiality Overreach Failure: Broad agreements prevent lawful reporting or conceal institutional misconduct. Controls: - Scoped terms - whistleblower exceptions - review - public minimum ## 61.19 Confidentiality Underreach Failure: Contributors receive protected information without sufficient training or controls. Controls: - Least privilege - agreements - logging - revocation - security review ## 61.20 Intellectual-Property Ambiguity Failure: The institution cannot lawfully maintain or publish accepted work. Controls: - Published policy - DCO or CLA - rights screening - third-party material disclosure ## 61.21 Patent Ambush Failure: A contributor promotes a requirement while concealing an essential patent interest. Controls: - Patent policy - disclosure - alternative implementation - process review ## 61.22 AI-Assisted Hallucination Failure: Generated content introduces false claims, citations, code, or legal language. Controls: - Human accountability - provenance - source verification - testing ## 61.23 AI Confidentiality Breach Failure: A contributor enters restricted content into an unauthorized model. Controls: - Training - tool restrictions - access policy - incident response ## 61.24 Complaint Capture Failure: A conduct complaint is handled by the accused person's manager, sponsor, or close collaborator. Controls: - Conflict screening - independent channel - appeal - board access ## 61.25 Conduct Weaponization Failure: The code of conduct is used to suppress technical disagreement or criticism. Controls: - Clear distinction - evidence - independent review - appeal ## 61.26 Tolerance of Harassment Failure: Prestigious or technically valuable contributors receive exceptions. Controls: - Consistent enforcement - no prestige exception - public aggregate reporting - leadership accountability ## 61.27 Retaliation Failure: Contributors lose access, credit, work, or reputation after reporting concerns. Controls: - Nonretaliation - independent review - remedy - monitoring ## 61.28 Anonymous Accusation as Proof Failure: An anonymous allegation is treated as established fact without fair investigation. Controls: - Corroboration - due process - proportional interim measures - reasoned decision ## 61.29 Representation Inflation Failure: A contributor claims to speak for a government, institution, region, community, or Standards Body without mandate. Controls: - Capacity disclosure - role records - public correction - removal ## 61.30 Participation as Endorsement Failure: The institution uses contributor names to imply support for the final outcome. Controls: - Nonendorsement statement - dissent records - consent for promotional use ## 61.31 Contribution Backlog Failure: Submissions remain unresolved for long periods and contributors receive no response. Controls: - Queue reporting - closure policy - scoped recruitment - maintainer capacity ## 61.32 Project Abandonment Failure: A contributor community is recruited and the project closes without records, credit, or explanation. Controls: - Closure plan - archive - handoff - status notice - credit preservation ## 61.33 Single-Point Access Failure: One contributor controls critical credentials or task custody. Controls: - Institutional accounts - backup custodians - emergency access - audit ## 61.34 Metric Gaming Failure: People optimize commits, comments, or attendance for status. Controls: - Quality-based advancement - role-specific review - anti-metric rule ## 61.35 Contributor Monoculture Failure: Most contributors share the same professional, national, organizational, or ideological background. Controls: - Gap analysis - active recruitment - regional programs - public-interest pathways ## 61.36 Exit Punishment Failure: Departing contributors lose credit or face public disparagement. 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: 1. Mission and identity orientation 2. authority boundaries 3. role charter 4. decision rights 5. code of conduct 6. complaint and nonretaliation process 7. conflict disclosure 8. contribution agreement 9. intellectual-property and patent policy 10. confidentiality 11. security training 12. access provisioning 13. record and communication channels 14. credit and authorship rules 15. AI-assistance rules 16. accessibility and support 17. review and maintenance expectations 18. exit and handoff 19. responsible contact 20. 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. 1. Contribution, authorship, credit, authority, access, employment, membership, and endorsement are distinct. 2. A contributor should know their role, authority, access, term, responsibilities, credit, and exit rights. 3. Contribution should be evaluated by quality, relevance, evidence, safety, rights, and institutional need. 4. Prestige should not substitute for contribution or competence. 5. Funding alone does not create authorship. 6. Seniority alone does not create authorship. 7. Resource provision should be credited separately from intellectual authorship. 8. Standards should ordinarily be attributed institutionally while preserving individual contribution records. 9. Research authorship should reflect substantial intellectual responsibility and accountability. 10. Contributor-role statements should be used for substantial outputs. 11. CRediT should be used where useful and extended for standards, evaluation, security, and institutional work. 12. Editing, maintenance, moderation, translation, accessibility, facilitation, and contributor support are substantive contributions. 13. Reasoned dissent and error correction are valuable contributions. 14. Contributors should not lose earned historical credit because they resign or disagree. 15. Contributors should be able to state that participation does not imply endorsement. 16. Contributor status does not create external authority. 17. Institutional representation requires an actual mandate. 18. Personal and institutional views should be distinguished. 19. Open contribution requires governed review. 20. Submission does not guarantee acceptance. 21. Rejected contributions should not be appropriated silently. 22. The institution should recruit only when it has capacity to review, support, secure, credit, and maintain contributions. 23. Contribution debt should be measured and disclosed internally. 24. Critical projects should have multiple maintainers. 25. Maintainer authority should be scoped, reviewed, and transferable. 26. Contribution volume alone should not create maintainer or governance authority. 27. Advancement should consider quality, judgment, reliability, maintenance, collaboration, security, and public-interest awareness. 28. Contributor pathways should be visible. 29. Codes of conduct should protect frank technical disagreement while prohibiting harassment, retaliation, and abuse. 30. Conduct rules should apply across official online, offline, and representational spaces. 31. A code of conduct without reporting, trained response, due process, and appeal is incomplete. 32. Prestigious contributors should not receive conduct exceptions. 33. Unsubstantiated complaints should not automatically be treated as false. 34. Anonymous allegations should receive fair, evidence-based handling. 35. Good-faith reporting, dissent, conflict disclosure, and appeals should be protected from retaliation. 36. Conflicts should include financial, employment, client, funding, intellectual, political, personal, reputational, and access dependencies. 37. Disclosure alone may not resolve a conflict. 38. Contributors should disclose the capacity in which they participate. 39. Organizations should not multiply influence through unlimited affiliated participants. 40. Access should follow role, need, competence, conflict, training, and least privilege. 41. Contribution does not justify access to protected evidence. 42. Prominent contributors remain subject to security controls. 43. Protected access should be logged, reviewed, and revoked after role change. 44. Confidentiality should not prevent lawful reporting of serious risk or wrongdoing. 45. Contributors should not use protected information for private, competitive, financial, or publication advantage. 46. Contribution rights should be clear before formal standards or software contributions are accepted. 47. Standards Body should use a DCO, CLA, or other appropriate agreement according to artifact and risk. 48. Contributors should submit only material they have the right to provide. 49. Employer, third-party, patent, code, data, and model-generated rights should be disclosed. 50. Patent interests relevant to standards implementation should be governed through a published policy. 51. Software contributions should receive code, license, test, dependency, and security review. 52. Critical software should not depend on one maintainer. 53. Data contributions should preserve provenance, rights, quality, privacy, sensitivity, and correction. 54. Synthetic data should be labeled and validated. 55. Human contributors remain accountable for AI-assisted submissions. 56. Material AI assistance should be recorded and disclosed appropriately. 57. AI-generated citations, facts, code, standards language, and translations should be verified. 58. Protected information should not be submitted to unauthorized AI systems. 59. AI systems should not be listed as accountable human authors. 60. Research contributors should preserve protocol, methods, deviations, data, code, uncertainty, and correction. 61. Research participants are not automatically contributors or authors. 62. Standards contributors should disclose affiliations, mandates, patents, and conflicts. 63. Public commenters should be included in the standards-process record. 64. A contributor who prevents a weak requirement through valid objection should be recognized where feasible. 65. Developer personnel may support evaluation but should not control independent conclusions. 66. Evaluation roles should distinguish task design, administration, scoring, interpretation, custody, and review. 67. Exact task authorship may remain protected during active held-out use. 68. Independent reviewers should have sufficient access and freedom to dissent. 69. Reviewers should be able to withdraw when access or independence becomes inadequate. 70. Good-faith incident and vulnerability reporting should receive safe, defined channels. 71. Payment should not purchase permanent silence concerning unresolved public harm. 72. Translation and localization are substantive contributions. 73. Normative translations require linguistic and domain review. 74. Public-interest and affected-party contributors should participate before decisions are fixed. 75. Lived experience should not be extracted without purpose, protection, support, and appropriate recognition. 76. One contributor should not be presented as representing an entire community without mandate. 77. Advisors should have defined mandates, terms, conflicts, and current status. 78. A prominent advisor list should not substitute for active governance or contribution. 79. Role descriptions should state compensation, stipend, expense support, volunteer status, or institutional funding. 80. Standards Body should not disguise essential continuing labor as volunteering. 81. Compensation should not depend on favorable conclusions. 82. Participation support should reduce financial, linguistic, disability, travel, and time-zone barriers. 83. Accessibility should be designed into contributor systems. 84. International contribution should involve influence, not symbolic inclusion. 85. Regional participants should not be treated as representing entire regions automatically. 86. Mentorship should build competence without exploiting trainees. 87. Mentors and maintainers should receive credit for contributor development. 88. Material decisions made informally should return to official records. 89. Public contributor titles should be accurate and scope-specific. 90. Contributors should not imply certification, accreditation, regulatory status, or spokesperson authority. 91. Confidential and pseudonymous participation should be available where justified. 92. Verified identity may remain necessary for voting, contracts, payment, protected access, and fiduciary roles. 93. Contributors should be able to resign or pause. 94. Exit should include handoff, access removal, record preservation, and credit confirmation. 95. Suspension may precede final process when immediate security or safety risk exists. 96. Material suspension, removal, credit, and retaliation decisions should support appeal. 97. Contributor personal data should be minimized and protected. 98. Critical assets and credentials should be institutionally controlled. 99. Contributor recognition should reward maintenance, correction, support, and dissent, not only visible authorship. 100. Awards and recognition should not create false authority. 101. The Contributor and Community Assembly should create proposal and accountability pathways without replacing fiduciary or technical governance. 102. Contributor metrics should measure quality, influence, equity, sustainability, and security. 103. Low complaint volume should not automatically be interpreted as a healthy community. 104. High retention should not be pursued at the expense of safe exit. 105. A large contributor count does not establish meaningful participation. 106. Contributor systems should receive internal and periodic external review. 107. Critical contributor failures may require correction, access suspension, role change, governance reform, or public notice. 108. Institutional growth should not outpace contributor support and security. 109. Standards Body should publish material contributor-system lessons and corrections. 110. 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.