Project and Community Governance
Establish trusted governance, contributor guidelines, and decision-making processes for technology choices, funding, and AI/alignment
Sponsor and Ecosystem Impact
Governance provides the structure and clarity needed for consistent decision-making, legal confidence, and operational continuity across critical open source dependencies.
Project and Community Governance
Governance in the context of healthy open communities, simply means that the leadership of a project and the community understand and are aligned on important aspects required for the project to operate effeciently, effectively and with the trust. Trust being the most important in ensuring long-term sustainability, trusted governance ensures that everyone understands:
- Who project decision makers are
- What roles of influence exist, and the process to ascend into such roles
- How, if possible, to influence decisions regardless of authority
- Processes for making decisions
- Technology choices
- Operational processes
- Funding and resource distribution
- AI/Alignment
Ultimately, the goal of this playbook is to ensure that governance is public, and includes milestones for community input.
Resources
In addition to their own, we recommen recommend pracitioners consult and leverage these resourecs on governance topics:
- Minimal Viable Governance : Minimum Viable Governance allows you to start an (project/GitHub) organization and sub-projects with simple governance in place at the outset - including legal terms, licensing and trademark issues, and due process. Having this governance in place early helps avoid disputes among participants down the road.
- Contribution Leadder (CNCF example): Contribution ladders are transparent ways in which a project can document pathways for contribution, which may or may not progress towards greater responsiblity.
- Inclusive Leadership (CHAOSS metric): Outlines the way in which a project can invite diverse participation, with examples and templates.
- Project Code of Conduct (CHAOSS): Ensure that processes for reporting behaviors is clear, created with community input and trusted.
- Psychological Safety: A focus on trust in all the above.
Open Source Governance – Peer Review Rubric
At the end of the wish effort, we will review success according to this rubric.
Scoring Scale (per criterion):
- 0 = Missing / Not Evident
- 1 = Weak / Ambiguous
- 2 = Adequate but Limited
- 3 = Strong and Effective
- 4 = Excellent / Exemplary (Model Standard)
A. Governance Structure (0–16 pts)
| Criterion | Indicators of Excellence | Score |
|---|---|---|
| A1. Identification of Decision Makers | Clear role description, names and affiliiations with scope of autorithy (what decisions). | 0–4 |
| A2. Documented Roles & Influence Pathways | All roles defined, criteria for each; transparent, equitable access. | 0–4 |
| A3. Influence Without Formal Authority | Mechanisms exist for proposals & debate beyond gatekeepers. | 0–4 |
| A4. Decision Processes | Technology choices, licensing, AI use, operations, funding approval. Includes escalation paths. | 0–4 |
B. Community Legitimacy & Trust (0–12 pts)
| Criterion | Indicators of Excellence | Score |
|---|---|---|
| B1. Community Input to Governance | Evidence governance was co-created: RFCs, polls, comment resolution. | 0–4 |
| B2. Inclusiveness & Accessibility | Representation, clear language, accessible formatting. | 0–4 |
| B3. Transparency & Accountability | Governance followed in practice; reporting on decisions exists. | 0–4 |
C. Sustainability & Adaptiveness (0–8 pts)
| Criterion | Indicators of Excellence | Score |
|---|---|---|
| C1. Renewal Mechanisms | Governance versioning, review cycles, continuous improvement. | 0–4 |
| C2. Operational Integration | Governance used in workflows; templates/tools support decision lifecycle. | 0–4 |
D. Licensing, Responsible Tech & Ethics (0–8 pts)
| Criterion | Indicators of Excellence | Score |
|---|---|---|
| D1. Licensing Strategy | Clear, compatible license; expectations for contributions defined. | 0–4 |
| D2. Responsible AI / Ethical Tech Use | Transparency, attributions, safety, rights protections. | 0–4 |
E. Code of Conduct & Safety (0–8 pts)
| Criterion | Indicators of Excellence | Score |
|---|---|---|
| E1. Code of Conduct | Behavioral expectations and unacceptable conduct clearly guided as by ecosystem standard like Contributor Covenant. | 0–4 |
| E2. Reporting & Enforcement | Multiple safe reporting channels; consistent, documented enforcement; anti-retaliation protections. | 0–4 |
✅ Total Score: / 52 pts
| Rating | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 48–52 | Excellent — Model for open governance |
| 40–47 | Strong — Minor improvements needed |
| 30–39 | Adequate — Needs refinement & validation |
| 20–29 | Weak — Missing key elements |
| 0–19 | Not Viable — Governance not implementable |
Reviewer Notes:
- Evidence of community input:
- Risks or gaps identified:
- Recommended changes: