Skip to content

docs(governance): add Code of Conduct, reporting process, enforcement ladder and stale issue policy #1738

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
RUKAYAT-CODER merged 1 commit into from
Sep 29, 2026
Merged

docs(governance): add Code of Conduct, reporting process, enforcement ladder and stale issue policy #1738

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
189 changes: 189 additions & 0 deletions Governance/COC_ENFORCEMENT.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
# Code of Conduct Enforcement Ladder

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Document | `Governance/COC_ENFORCEMENT.md` |
| Status | Active |
| Version | 1.0.0 |
| Owner | Maintainer Team |
| Last reviewed | 2026-09-29 |
| Review cadence | Every 6 months, or after any enforcement decision |
| Applies to | Everyone covered by [`CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md`](CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) §3 |

This document defines **what happens once a Code of Conduct report is upheld**:
the graduated steps available, the criteria that select between them, and who
may apply each.

It exists so that enforcement is predictable. A project that can impose any
sanction for any violation is one where the outcome depends on who is handling
the report and what sort of day they are having. A stated ladder makes a
decision reviewable — and [`COC_APPEALS.md`](COC_APPEALS.md) §5.1 lets a sanction
be appealed as *disproportionate*, which is only meaningful against a published
scale.

It is governance only. It changes no application behaviour, adds no runtime
dependency, and is scoped entirely to the `Governance/` folder.

## 1. Scope

This document applies where a report made under
[`COC_REPORTING.md`](COC_REPORTING.md) has been reviewed and a violation of
[`CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md` §4](CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) established.

It does **not** apply to:

- provisional protective measures taken while a review is still open, which are
governed by [`COC_REPORTING.md` §5](COC_REPORTING.md) and are not findings;
- revocation of a governance privilege on non-conduct grounds, which is governed
by [`policies/REVOCATION.md`](policies/REVOCATION.md);
- ordinary review outcomes, which are not enforcement at all
([`CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md` §5](CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md)).

## 2. Principles

| Principle | What it means in practice |
| --- | --- |
| **Graduated by default** | Start at the lowest step that credibly addresses the conduct. Escalate for repetition or severity, not for annoyance. |
| **Proportionate** | The response matches the conduct, not the status of either party. |
| **Reasoned in writing** | Every sanction states the conduct, the provision applied, the step chosen, and its duration. |
| **Correction over punishment** | The aim is that the behaviour stops and the affected person can keep participating. A sanction that achieves that is sufficient. |
| **Consistent** | Comparable conduct receives comparable responses. Departures are explained in the decision. |
| **Always appealable** | Every step on this ladder carries the appeal right in [`COC_APPEALS.md`](COC_APPEALS.md). |
| **Never retaliatory** | A sanction imposed because someone reported, appealed, or participated in a process is itself a violation ([`CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md` §4.5](CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md)). |

Starting low is the default, not a requirement. Conduct that is severe on a
first occurrence is met at the step it warrants — §4.

## 3. The ladder

### Step 1 — Private correction

| | |
| --- | --- |
| **What** | A private, written note naming the conduct and the provision it engages, with a clear statement of what must change. Not recorded as a sanction. |
| **When** | A first, isolated lapse: a sharp review comment, a dismissive reply, a joke that landed badly. Conduct that most likely reflects carelessness rather than intent. |
| **Applied by** | Any maintainer. |
| **Duration** | None. It is a correction, not a restriction. |
| **Recorded** | Not logged in [`DECISION_LOG.md`](DECISION_LOG.md). Retained privately by the handler so repetition can be recognised. |

### Step 2 — Formal warning

| | |
| --- | --- |
| **What** | A written warning stating the conduct, the provision breached, and that a further violation will escalate. May require a specific action: editing or withdrawing a comment, or ceasing contact with a named person. |
| **When** | Repeated conduct after a step 1 correction, or a first violation too substantial for a private note — a personal attack, a discriminatory remark, sustained dismissiveness toward a contributor. |
| **Applied by** | Any maintainer, after consulting one other unconflicted maintainer. |
| **Duration** | The warning stands on the record for **12 months**. Conditions attached to it (such as no contact) continue until lifted in writing. |
| **Recorded** | Logged in [`DECISION_LOG.md`](DECISION_LOG.md) by outcome category and date, with the person not identified. |

### Step 3 — Temporary restriction

| | |
| --- | --- |
| **What** | Time-boxed removal of a specific ability: interaction with one thread or repository area, posting in a community channel, or reviewing. Other participation continues. |
| **When** | A violation continuing after a formal warning, or a single violation serious enough that leaving the interaction unchanged would expose someone to further harm. |
| **Applied by** | Two maintainers acting together, at least one unconflicted. |
| **Duration** | Stated at the outset, **7 to 90 days**. An open-ended restriction is not a step 3 measure. |
| **Recorded** | Logged in [`DECISION_LOG.md`](DECISION_LOG.md). |

### Step 4 — Suspension

| | |
| --- | --- |
| **What** | Time-boxed removal from **all** project spaces: repository, community channels, and calls. Any governance privilege is suspended for the same period. |
| **When** | A pattern established across previous steps; or serious conduct on a first occurrence — targeted harassment, doxxing, a threat, or retaliation against a reporter. |
| **Applied by** | The maintainer team, by the quorum in [`policies/QUORUM.md`](policies/QUORUM.md). The project lead may impose it alone where delay would leave someone at risk, and it is confirmed by quorum within **5 business days** or lapses. |
| **Duration** | Stated at the outset, **30 days to 12 months**. |
| **Recorded** | Logged in [`DECISION_LOG.md`](DECISION_LOG.md). Where a governance privilege is affected, [`policies/REVOCATION.md`](policies/REVOCATION.md) applies in parallel. |

### Step 5 — Permanent ban

| | |
| --- | --- |
| **What** | Permanent removal from every project space, with no route back except through appeal. |
| **When** | Reserved. Appropriate only where the conduct is grave — a credible threat of violence, sexual harassment, sustained targeted harassment, deliberate introduction of a vulnerability or backdoor — or where the pattern through steps 2 to 4 shows the behaviour will not change. |
| **Applied by** | The maintainer team by quorum, with the decision and its reasons recorded in full. Never by one person. |
| **Duration** | Indefinite. |
| **Recorded** | Logged in [`DECISION_LOG.md`](DECISION_LOG.md), and in the transparency reporting under [`policies/TRANSPARENCY_REPORTS.md`](policies/TRANSPARENCY_REPORTS.md) in aggregate form. |

## 4. Choosing a step

The starting point is step 1 and escalation is one step at a time — **unless**
one of the following applies, each of which permits entry higher on the ladder:

| Factor | Effect |
| --- | --- |
| **Severity** | Conduct under [`CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md` §4.1](CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) involving threats, sexual harassment, or targeted harassment enters at step 4 or 5, first occurrence or not. |
| **Repetition** | A further violation while a step 2 warning stands (12 months) escalates by at least one step. |
| **Ongoing risk** | Where leaving the person in place would expose someone to further harm, enter at the lowest step that removes the risk. |
| **Abuse of position** | A violation using a maintainer or reviewer role ([`CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md` §4.3](CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md)) escalates by one step, because the power imbalance makes the conduct harder to resist and harder to report. |
| **Retaliation** | Retaliation against a reporter or appellant enters at **step 4 minimum**. It attacks the reporting process itself, which everything else here depends on. |
| **Impact on a newer contributor** | Aggravating. Conduct that drives away someone who has not yet established themselves does disproportionate damage. |

Mitigating factors, which may hold a response at a lower step:

- **Prompt, unprompted acknowledgement** and a genuine effort to repair.
- **A single lapse** against a long record of constructive participation.
- **Ambiguity** — where a reasonable person could have read the exchange
differently, or where context was genuinely missing.

Mitigation does not apply to the conduct listed under **Severity** above.

## 5. Who applies what

| Step | Decided by | Second person required |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 — Private correction | Any maintainer | No |
| 2 — Formal warning | Any maintainer | Yes — one other unconflicted maintainer consulted |
| 3 — Temporary restriction | Two maintainers | Yes — at least one unconflicted |
| 4 — Suspension | Maintainer team by quorum | Yes — quorum per [`policies/QUORUM.md`](policies/QUORUM.md) |
| 5 — Permanent ban | Maintainer team by quorum | Yes — never a single decision-maker |

Applying at every step:

- **Nobody decides a matter they are party to.** A maintainer who is the subject
of the report, who reported it, or who is directly involved takes no part in
deciding it.
- **Nobody decides their own appeal.** Whoever takes the decision is excluded
from the appeal panel ([`COC_APPEALS.md` §4](COC_APPEALS.md)).
- **Every decision is communicated in writing** to the person sanctioned,
stating the conduct, the provision, the step, the duration, and the appeal
route and its 14-day deadline.

## 6. Expiry and return

A time-boxed sanction ends on its stated date without anyone needing to act. It
is not extended silently; extending it requires a fresh decision at the
appropriate step, with its own appeal right.

**Return after a suspension.** A person returning at step 4 resumes ordinary
participation. Governance privileges suspended alongside are restored unless
they were separately revoked under
[`policies/REVOCATION.md`](policies/REVOCATION.md), in which case that document
governs their return.

**Record expiry.** A step 2 warning ceases to count toward escalation after 12
months. Steps 3 and 4 count for **24 months**. After those windows, the conduct
is not treated as a prior violation when selecting a step — though the log entry
itself is retained.

**A permanent ban** is lifted only by a successful appeal, or by a decision of
the maintainer team by quorum on fresh evidence.

## 7. Relationship to other documents

| Document | Relationship |
| --- | --- |
| [`CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md`](CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) | The standard being enforced; §4 defines the violations this ladder responds to. |
| [`COC_REPORTING.md`](COC_REPORTING.md) | How a matter reaches this ladder, and the provisional measures that precede a finding. |
| [`COC_APPEALS.md`](COC_APPEALS.md) | The appeal right attaching to every step, and the independent panel that hears it. |
| [`policies/REVOCATION.md`](policies/REVOCATION.md) | Governance privileges: applies in parallel at steps 4 and 5, and governs return. |
| [`policies/QUORUM.md`](policies/QUORUM.md) | The quorum required at steps 4 and 5. |
| [`policies/TRANSPARENCY_REPORTS.md`](policies/TRANSPARENCY_REPORTS.md) | Aggregate reporting of enforcement activity. |
| [`DECISION_LOG.md`](DECISION_LOG.md) | Where outcomes from step 2 upward are recorded, in minimised form. |

## 8. Change log

| Date | Version | Change |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2026-09-29 | 1.0.0 | **Initial release.** Defines the enforcement principles (§2), the five-step ladder from private correction to permanent ban with criteria, authority and duration for each (§3), the aggravating and mitigating factors that select a step (§4), who may apply each step and the conflict rules (§5), and expiry, return and record windows (§6). |
Loading
Loading