OPENRGD COMMUNITY

Challenge the model, contribute evidence and keep authority explicit.

OpenRGD welcomes questions, competing implementations, negative results and critical review. Different kinds of participation use different channels so discussion, bugs, normative proposals, security reports and community conduct do not collapse into one queue.

MATURITYPUBLIC COMMUNITY ROUTER
LAST VERIFIED27 Sep 2026
SOURCE VERSIONGOVERNANCE.md + CONTRIBUTING.md + CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
EVIDENCE BOUNDARYCommunity routing and conduct summary; canonical repository policy remains authoritative.

PARTICIPATE

Choose the channel that matches the kind of change.

TECHNICAL CULTURE

Strong disagreement is allowed.

Evidence, architecture, benchmarks and OpenRGD itself can be criticized directly. The Code of Conduct protects people and the integrity of the technical record; it is not a mechanism for suppressing good-faith engineering disagreement.

CURRENT STEWARDSHIP

Human accountability remains explicit.

The canonical governance record names Pasquale Ranieri (@phate6872) as current project steward. AI systems may assist with drafting, review and analysis, but a human maintainer remains accountable for normative acceptance, merge and release.

MATURITY IS PART OF THE COMMUNITY CONTRACT

Candidate, experimental and historical work must not be presented as accepted authority.

The project encourages experimentation, but contribution and discussion must preserve the declared maturity, provenance and evidence boundary of the artifact being discussed.