Code of Conduct¶
This repository and the work it documents are maintained by a small private company. This code of conduct applies to anyone contributing to or interacting with this repository — employees, contractors, collaborators, and any AI agents acting on their behalf.
Expected behavior¶
- Treat collaborators with respect, regardless of role, experience level, or how a disagreement is going.
- Give feedback on the work, not the person. Critique documents, decisions, and code — not people.
- Assume good faith. Most disagreements here are about tradeoffs, not values.
- Be honest about uncertainty, mistakes, and limitations rather than papering over them. This repository explicitly values transparent assumptions over confident-sounding guesses.
- Keep disagreements about policy or architecture in the open (recorded in ADRs, open questions, or review comments) rather than resolved silently or off the record.
Unacceptable behavior¶
- Harassment, discriminatory remarks, or personal attacks of any kind.
- Deliberately misrepresenting evidence, data, or the state of a task (including having an AI agent fabricate results and presenting them as real).
- Retaliation against someone for raising a concern in good faith.
- Circumventing review or approval processes for material policy or architecture changes.
Scope¶
This applies to all interactions connected to this repository: commits, commit messages, documentation content, code review discussion, and any related communication channels used for company work.
Reporting concerns¶
If you experience or witness behavior that violates this code of conduct, report it to the Founder role. As with other role-based ownership in this repository (see docs/company/terminology.md), this is a function, not a fixed individual — but at the time of writing, reports can be sent to brokenlyre@gmail.com.
Reports will be handled discreetly. Retaliation against a good-faith reporter is itself a violation of this code of conduct.
Enforcement¶
Because this is a small private company repository rather than a large open community, enforcement is handled directly by the Founder role on a case-by-case basis, proportionate to the situation. There is no separate community moderation body at this stage.