Translation

Translated from the Spanish source, which is the normative text. Status: draft pending human review. Differences are resolved in the Spanish text.

Conduct and reports

Informative translation of the Spanish source.

These guidelines apply to Issues, PRs, reviews and collaboration spaces managed by the project. They support technical criticism, respectful participation and careful handling of problems. Anyone can contribute without belonging to Kasai Labs.

Participate respectfully

Discuss the claim, requirement or evidence and explain the difference you identify. Preserve context when quoting, listen to questions and accept justified corrections. A translation, example or different experience can reveal a previously undocumented limit.

Harassment, threats, personal attacks, discrimination, disclosure of private data and persistent contact after being asked to stop are unacceptable. A technical objection or disagreement with a decision is not, by itself, misconduct. Moderation does not replace methodological review.

Report a problem

For an ambiguity, error or content disagreement, use an Issue or the relevant PR. Identify the page, ID or comment, describe the effect and provide fictional examples or already public excerpts needed to understand it.

If the problem involves personal data, credentials, case files, harassment or a vulnerability with sensitive details, publish only a sanitised signal: for example, “I need to arrange a confidential channel with a maintainer for a sensitive report.” Omit values, images, identities and exploitation steps that expose people or systems.

Maintainers agree on a suitable means with you before receiving details outside the public space. This page promises neither an email address nor an existing private channel. Until one is agreed, retain the details without attaching them to an Issue, PR or public chat.

A useful report describes observed facts, minimal context, impact and the requested remedy. Facts and inferences are distinguished; personal intent is not presumed. The public response includes only what is necessary to explain the process and decision.

Handling and moderation

The maintainer receiving a report identifies its scope and any conflict of interest. When another suitably responsible person exists, their involvement is requested if the report directly concerns the recipient. Who handles it is recorded; independent impartiality is not promised when administration consists of one person.

Handling follows these steps, adapted to the situation:

1. Review context and data exposure. Where appropriate, request removal or sanitisation of content and use available tools to reduce exposure.
2. Hear the people involved through the agreed means and clarify the problem.
3. Choose a proportionate response: clarification, a correction request, a warning, pausing a conversation or restricting participation within the project's permissions.
4. Record reason, scope and, for temporary measures, duration or review condition. Explain which change allows collaboration to continue.
5. Communicate a sanitised outcome and preserve the possibility of reconsideration.

Action depends on facts and impact, rather than an automatic sequence of sanctions. Removing a publication can reduce exposure but does not guarantee removal of earlier copies. Confidential records contain only what is needed to handle the problem and are not included in the site or the repository's public history.

Request reconsideration

You can explain why a measure or conclusion needs review and provide relevant information through the agreed channel. Another maintainer is asked to review when available; otherwise, the limitation is disclosed and the response recorded.

Reconsideration identifies the original decision, new information, reviewer and outcome. A sanitised summary is published when relevant to the community. Requirement disagreements follow governance; conduct criteria confer no authority to accept normative changes.