Translation
Translated from the Spanish source, which is the normative text. Status: draft pending human review. Differences are resolved in the Spanish text.
Governance and decisions¶
Governance distinguishes participation, review, repository maintenance and acceptance of
methodological changes. Initial administration operates under Kasai Labs, in the
kasailabs space on Codeberg. José Adrián Ruiz-Carmona is credited as the documentation's
initial author. Authorship, administration and review responsibility are different roles.
Maintenance starts with that initial administration. The addition of other people is recorded publicly; this policy presumes neither a board, a completed vote nor an established reviewer team. Its aim is to distribute responsibility through traceable appointments and enable contributions without commercial affiliation.
Roles and scope¶
| Role | Responsibility | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Contributor | Submits text, evidence or comments and is responsible for the contribution. | Can propose and request review; a proposal does not change an accepted edition. |
| Reviewer | Checks clarity, sources, translation, compatibility or a declared specialty. | Records observations and a recommendation within scope; reviewing grants no merge permission. |
| Maintainer | Coordinates review, records decisions and prepares or integrates changes. | Acts within public delegation and actual repository permissions. |
| Methodological owner | Decides normative changes within the assigned methodology scope. | Accepts an identified edition through a recorded human decision. |
| Repository administrator | Manages access and operational continuity. | Configures permissions; administrative access does not demonstrate methodological approval. |
Current designations are published in MAINTAINERS.md. A person can occupy several roles if their scopes are declared. Initial authorship does not require exclusive founder approval of every editorial correction. A maintainer with recorded delegation can resolve these changes within their competence.
Assign or change responsibilities¶
A proposed appointment is discussed in an Issue or PR. It identifies the public account, role, covered methodologies or folders, permitted decisions, declared conflicts of interest, and review or withdrawal conditions. The person accepts the role and the administration records who authorised the assignment and its effective date.
Changing Codeberg permissions implements that assignment; it does not replace the record. A responsibility review can be requested because of availability, scope changes or conflicts. The same record identifies withdrawal or replacement and how pending work continues. Personal information unnecessary for explaining a role is not published.
Gradually appointing maintainers and methodological owners allows review and decisions to be distributed. Administrative transition is documented when it happens; operational control is not described as already transferred to an autonomous community.
Decide according to the change¶
| Change | Review and decision |
|---|---|
| Typo, link or presentation | Editorial review and a decision by the competent maintainer. |
| Explanation, example, source or translation | Meaning and source review; record differences and limits before integration. |
| Requirement, exception or normative scope | Reasoned proposal, impact analysis and a methodological owner decision; a modification requires a new identified edition. |
| Governance or authority assignment | Public proposal, objections and response; a decision by whoever currently holds authority for that change, with explicit scope and date. |
A normative proposal identifies the affected edition, requirement, alternatives, evidence, compatibility and transition. Accepted editions retain their historical text, IDs and integrity records; they are not rewritten to present a proposal as already accepted. SCAFFOLD-R-017 remains pending outside SCAFFOLD 0.1, according to its acceptance record.
Discussion seeks testable reasoning and responses to objections. Comment, reaction or PR counts do not replace a competent decision. This policy sets neither a quorum nor an automatic acceptance deadline; an unresolved question remains identified as such, with a next action and a responsible person when one has been assigned.
Decision record¶
The Issue or PR retains a linked public record with these fields:
- Problem, proposal and links to the discussion and PR, when one exists.
- Date and time, and the public account of the person responsible for deciding.
- Role and authority scope used for that decision.
- Outcome: accept, request changes, reject or withdraw, with its reason.
- Affected pages, requirements and versions; impact and transition where relevant.
- Evidence and checks performed, with pending work disclosed.
- Material objections, response and remaining disagreements.
The maintainer links that record from the relevant change or history. Integrating a PR and publishing a release are different effects from accepting a methodological edition. Public messages and records contain no sensitive material; a sanitised description is retained when detail needs confidential handling.
Reconsideration and continuity¶
To request reconsideration, link the decision, explain the disagreement and provide new evidence or a verifiable process error. Another maintainer or reviewer with suitable scope is asked to review when available. If no other person is appointed, that limitation is disclosed and the reviewer is recorded; it is not presented as independent review.
A technical controversy is handled through content review. Conduct problems follow the participation policy. Decisions about integration into this repository do not limit uses and forks permitted by the documentation licence.