Code of conduct¶
This policy supports a respectful community in which people can challenge capacity assumptions and technical proposals without personal attacks.
Expected participation¶
Be specific, constructive, and open to different organizational contexts. Critique ideas, not identities. Distinguish evidence from opinion, acknowledge corrections, and credit contributions. Respect the confidentiality and privacy boundaries in CONTRIBUTING.md.
Harassment, discrimination, threats, sexualized conduct, impersonation, deliberate misinformation, and disclosure of private information are unacceptable. These expectations apply to repository issues, pull requests, reviews, and project-managed discussions.
Reporting concerns¶
Do not post sensitive incident details publicly. Use GitHub's platform reporting controls for abusive content. If a private maintainer contact is not published, a minimal request for a private contact may be made without identifying the affected person or describing the incident. Wait for a private channel before sending details; a public issue is not confidential.
Accidentally exposed credentials or other repository security material follow SECURITY.md. Private vulnerability reporting is not a substitute for a general conduct-reporting service.
Maintainer response¶
Maintainers should acknowledge reports when a response channel is available, gather only necessary information, and avoid disclosing identities unnecessarily. A maintainer involved in a complaint should not be its sole decision-maker. Where no uninvolved maintainer is available, GitHub platform reporting remains an independent route for platform policy violations.
Responses may include clarification, a warning, removal of content, a temporary participation restriction, or a ban for serious or repeated behavior. The action should reflect severity, context, and recurrence. No response-time guarantee is promised.
Review and appeal¶
A participant may request reconsideration with relevant context through the established private channel. Maintainers should record the reason for their decision and review new evidence. Public summaries, when useful, must omit private details.