# Project Governance

## Overview

This project balances **individual autonomy** with **collective coordination**. We aim for a workflow that supports rapid iteration while maintaining strict guardrails for safety and architectural integrity.

## Roles

### Contributors

Anyone who submits code, documentation, or participates in discussions. Contributors are expected to exercise **Direct Action**—taking ownership of problems they identify—while adhering to our quality standards.

### Maintainers (Human Oversight)

Maintainers are responsible for:

1.  **Strategic Judgment:** Defining scope and architectural direction.

2.  **Review:** verifying that contributions (human or automated) meet security and logic standards.

3.  **Consensus Building:** Facilitating decisions when the community is divided.

## Decision Making process

### Lazy Consensus

For most routine changes, we operate on "lazy consensus." If a proposal is made and no objections are raised within two weeks, it is considered approved.

### Strategic Alignment

Major architectural changes, high-risk automation integrations, or changes that affect business logic require explicit approval from the Maintainers. We prioritize **substance over performance**—a change must solve a real problem, not just appear polished.