Project governance

Current stewardship

The Horizontal Front is currently a maintainer-led project. The repository owner is the project maintainer and has final responsibility for releases, repository administration and decisions that are not settled by the project charter.

Maintainer authority is constrained by the charter. It is not authority to waive its protected commitments.

Participation

Development decisions should be inspectable and open to participation:

• Bugs, proposals and charter concerns belong in the public issue tracker.
• Material product, architecture, governance or funding changes should be proposed before implementation.
• Contributors should have a reasonable opportunity to comment before a material proposal is settled.
• Decisions should record their rationale, important trade-offs and relationship to the charter.
• Security reports and personal or legally sensitive matters may be handled privately, with a public outcome recorded when safe.

The maintainer may decide routine, reversible work directly. Silence or popularity does not determine whether a proposal complies with the charter.

Decision categories

Routine decisions

Small fixes, content edits and implementation choices within documented direction may proceed through ordinary review.

Material decisions

Changes to product behaviour, architecture, project-wide dependencies, community process, funding or controlled assets require a public proposal and an explicit maintainer decision.

Protected decisions

Any proposal that may affect free access, open distribution, privacy, monetisation, accessibility, offline operation, community accountability or anti-enclosure protections must identify the relevant charter commitments. Work pauses while a credible charter concern remains unanswered.

Raising and resolving a charter concern

1. Open an issue titled Charter concern: <short description> and cite the affected commitment.
2. Describe the proposed change, the conflict and any compatible alternatives.
3. The maintainer responds publicly and invites relevant contributors to comment.
4. A compatible proposal may proceed with the rationale recorded. An incompatible proposal is rejected.
5. If disagreement remains, preserve the current charter-compliant behaviour while gathering further evidence. Urgency is not permission to bypass the charter.

Conflicts of interest and funding

Anyone making or materially influencing a decision must disclose relevant employment, sponsorship, financial or organisational interests. Donations, grants and voluntary supporter contributions do not confer votes, vetoes, roadmap priority, exclusive access or control.

If the project begins receiving material funds, it should publish funding sources and major expenses in a simple, accessible ledger.

Roles and succession

New maintainers may be appointed after a public proposal describing their responsibilities, access and demonstrated alignment with the charter. Administrative access should be limited to what each role requires and reviewed when roles change.

A future transfer of the repository, domain, official identity, funds or other controlled assets must preserve the charter and be recorded publicly. Where practical, control should be shared so that no inactive or compromised individual can silently enclose the project.

Future institutional stewardship

The project does not currently need a legal entity or fiscal sponsor. If it later holds meaningful funds, copyrights, identity rights, infrastructure or community responsibility, an appropriate nonprofit, cooperative or fiscal steward may provide useful continuity and asset protection.

That is a future option, not a present commitment. Any arrangement must preserve community accountability, transparent finances, project autonomy and the charter's anti-enclosure protections.

Changing this document

Governance changes require a public proposal and explicit maintainer approval. They may improve participation, accountability or resilience, but cannot weaken the project charter.