Skip to content

Governance Policy — SCE (Semantic Communication Encoding)

This document defines the governance structure, decision model, and stewardship responsibilities for the SCE standard, specification artifacts, ontology, and supporting tooling.

This governance policy is effective as of the Foundational Phase and SHALL evolve in accordance with the transition rules defined herein.

1. Purpose

The purpose of governance is to ensure that:

  • The SCE standard remains interoperable, stable, and maintainable.
  • Changes are evaluated through clear, impartial, and documented processes.
  • Ethical intent as defined in the SCE Ethical License is preserved.
  • Stakeholders have defined pathways for proposal, review, and decision-making.

Governance exists to maintain consistency and prevent fragmentation.

2. Governance Model

SCE operates under a Hybrid Transition Governance Model consisting of three maturity phases:

Phase Authority Model Decision Scope
Phase 1 — Foundational Maintainer-led Full decision authority
Phase 2 — Transitional Maintainer + Working Group Shared authority
Phase 3 — Stewardship Working Group governance Maintainer advisory only

Transitions between phases SHALL occur based on objective criteria defined in Section 5.

3. Roles and Responsibilities

3.1 Maintainer

During the Foundational Phase, the Maintainer:

  • Possesses final decision authority.
  • Reviews and accepts or rejects contributions.
  • Approves and publishes releases.
  • Initiates formation of the Working Group upon trigger conditions.
  • Ensures adherence to ethical licensing constraints.

The Maintainer MAY delegate tasks but not authority until Phase 2.

3.2 Contributors

Contributors MAY:

  • Submit issues, corrections, extensions, or proposals.
  • Participate in discussion and RFC review.

Contributors MUST:

  • Follow contribution requirements defined in CONTRIBUTING.md.
  • Acknowledge the ethical licensing constraints.

Contributor status DOES NOT imply decision authority.

3.3 Working Group (Established in Phase 2)

The Working Group SHALL:

  • Review RFCs beginning in the Transitional Phase.
  • Vote on substantive or backward-incompatible changes.
  • Define procedural amendments and expansion rules.
  • Steward the long-term direction of the standard.

The Working Group MUST include:

  • At least one domain expert in compliance, safety, or legal frameworks.
  • At least one technical implementation steward.
  • At least one neutral reviewer representing user interests.

Representation MAY expand as needed.

3.4 Independent Implementers

Implementers developing third-party tooling MAY provide feedback, compliance reports, or proposals.

Implementers MUST NOT redefine or fork the standard without attribution and justification.

4. Decision Framework

Decisions SHALL follow the process:

  1. Proposal submission (issue or SCE-RFC)
  2. Public discussion period
  3. Review by Maintainer or Working Group
  4. Resolution outcome:
Possible Outcome Applies In Phases Meaning
Accept All Phases Proposal approved
Reject All Phases Proposal dismissed
Request Revision All Phases Modification required before reconsideration
Defer Phases 2–3 Proposal postponed pending dependency or maturity
Escalate Phase 3 Requires full Working Group vote

RFCs SHALL record resolution and rationale.

5. Transition Conditions Between Phases

5.1 Transition from Phase 1 → Phase 2

The transition SHALL occur when all the following conditions are met:

  • At least two independent implementations exist publicly.
  • At least five unique contributors have participated meaningfully.
  • Ontology stability is observed through at least one minor version release without change.

Upon meeting these conditions, the Maintainer SHALL initiate formation of the Working Group.

5.2 Transition from Phase 2 → Phase 3

Transition SHALL occur when:

  • The Working Group has been active for at least 12 months.
  • At least one release has been approved without Maintainer override.
  • Community adoption includes at least one institutional or organizational implementation.

Upon transition, Maintainer authority becomes advisory.

6. Conflict Resolution

If disagreement arises:

  • Phase 1: Maintainer decision is final.
  • Phase 2: Working Group simple majority.
  • Phase 3: Two-thirds supermajority for changes affecting interoperability.

Deadlock resolution MAY trigger a mediation RFC.

7. Ethical Compliance Enforcement

All decisions MUST comply with ethical restrictions defined in the project license.

If a proposed change introduces risk of misuse or weakens safeguards:

  • The proposal MUST be rejected or revised.
  • The Working Group MAY issue a Security and Ethics Advisory.

8. Transparency Requirements

All changes, proposals, discussions, and governance actions MUST be publicly documented.

Meeting notes, votes, and release approvals SHALL be recorded.

9. Amendments to This Policy

Changes to this governance document MUST:

  • Be submitted as an RFC.
  • Receive approval as defined by the active governance phase.
  • Be versioned and published.

10. Status

Current Governance Phase: Phase 1 — Foundational