paperless-gpt/GOVERNANCE.md

4.8 KiB

Project Governance

This document outlines the governance model for the paperless-gpt project. It describes how decisions are made and how community members can participate in project development.

Project Roles

Users

  • People who use paperless-gpt
  • Can submit bug reports and feature requests
  • Can contribute to discussions
  • Can help other users

Contributors

  • Users who contribute to the project
  • Submit pull requests
  • Improve documentation
  • Help with testing
  • Participate in issue discussions

Maintainers

  • Review and merge pull requests
  • Manage issues and project boards
  • Guide technical direction
  • Ensure code quality
  • Help onboard new contributors
  • Responsibilities:
    • Respond to issues and PRs
    • Review code changes
    • Maintain documentation
    • Ensure tests pass
    • Release new versions
    • Uphold code of conduct

Project Lead

  • Final decision maker for project direction
  • Sets technical standards
  • Manages maintainer team
  • Oversees releases
  • Current lead: @icereed

Decision Making

Technical Decisions

  1. Discussion Phase

    • Open an issue for discussion
    • Gather community feedback
    • Consider alternatives
    • Document trade-offs
  2. Implementation Phase

    • Create detailed proposal
    • Submit pull request
    • Address review feedback
    • Update documentation
  3. Review Process

    • At least one maintainer review
    • Automated tests must pass
    • Documentation must be updated
    • Breaking changes require extra scrutiny

Project Direction

  1. Long-term Planning

    • Quarterly roadmap updates
    • Community feedback periods
    • Clear communication of goals
    • Published milestones
  2. Feature Acceptance

    • Must align with project goals
    • Consider maintenance burden
    • Evaluate user benefit
    • Check implementation feasibility

Release Process

  1. Version Planning

    • Follow semantic versioning
    • Document all changes
    • Update dependencies
    • Security review
  2. Release Preparation

    • Create release branch
    • Run test suite
    • Update changelog
    • Draft release notes
  3. Release Publication

    • Tag version in repository
    • Publish to registries
    • Announce to community
    • Monitor for issues

Communication

Channels

  • GitHub Issues: Bug reports, feature requests
  • GitHub Discussions: General discussion
  • Pull Requests: Code changes
  • Discord: Community chat
  • Email: Security issues

Guidelines

  • Be respectful and professional
  • Stay on topic
  • English is the working language
  • Document decisions and rationale
  • Keep security issues private

Contributing

Process

  1. Getting Started

    • Read contribution guidelines
    • Set up development environment
    • Understand code structure
    • Pick starter issues
  2. Making Changes

    • Create feature branch
    • Follow code style
    • Write tests
    • Update docs
  3. Submitting Changes

    • Create pull request
    • Fill out template
    • Respond to reviews
    • Keep changes focused

Standards

  • Follow code style guide
  • Include tests
  • Update documentation
  • Sign commits
  • One feature per PR

Code Review

Requirements

  • At least one maintainer approval
  • All tests passing
  • Documentation updated
  • Code style compliance
  • No security issues

Process

  1. Automated Checks

    • Linting
    • Tests
    • Coverage
    • Dependencies
  2. Manual Review

    • Code quality
    • Architecture
    • Security
    • Performance
  3. Final Checks

    • Merge conflicts
    • Documentation
    • Breaking changes
    • Version updates

Issue Management

Categories

  • Bug: Software defects
  • Feature: New functionality
  • Enhancement: Improvements
  • Documentation: Doc changes
  • Question: User queries

Priority Levels

  1. Critical

    • Security issues
    • Major bugs
    • Blocking issues
  2. High

    • Important features
    • User experience issues
    • Performance problems
  3. Normal

    • Regular enhancements
    • Minor bugs
    • Documentation updates
  4. Low

    • Nice-to-have features
    • Style improvements
    • Non-critical fixes

Project Changes

Governance Changes

  • Open for community discussion
  • Two week comment period
  • Maintainer consensus required
  • Project lead approval needed

Role Changes

  • Based on consistent contributions
  • Maintainer nomination
  • Community feedback
  • Project lead approval

Success Metrics

Project Health

  • Issue resolution time
  • PR merge time
  • Test coverage
  • Documentation quality
  • Community engagement

Code Quality

  • Automated metrics
  • Review thoroughness
  • Test coverage
  • Documentation completeness
  • Security standards

This governance model is a living document and may be updated as the project evolves. Changes will be proposed and discussed with the community before implementation.