You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
|[project-vetting-criteria.md](./project-governance/project-vetting-criteria.md)|**Policy**| The foundational 8 criteria for any CDCF project, with AI domain extensions integrated inline. |
41
-
|[lifecycle.md](./project-governance/lifecycle.md)| Procedure | Definition of the stages from proposal through incubation, graduation, and retirement. |
42
-
|[committees.md](./project-governance/committees.md)| Structure | Governance bodies: Board of Directors, TCSC, and PMCs. |
43
-
|[project-types.md](./project-governance/project-types.md)| Policy | Distinction between Foundation Projects and Community Projects. |
44
-
|[definitions.md](./project-governance/definitions.md)| Glossary | Shared vocabulary for CDCF governance and vetting. |
|[project-vetting-criteria.md](./project-governance/project-vetting-criteria.md)|**Policy**| The foundational 8 criteria for any CDCF project, with AI domain extensions integrated inline. |
41
+
|[lifecycle.md](./project-governance/lifecycle.md)| Procedure | Definition of the stages from proposal through incubation, graduation, and retirement. |
42
+
|[committees.md](./project-governance/committees.md)| Structure | Governance bodies: Board of Directors, TCSC, and PMCs. |
43
+
|[project-types.md](./project-governance/project-types.md)| Policy | Distinction between Foundation Projects and Community Projects. |
44
+
|[definitions.md](./project-governance/definitions.md)| Glossary | Shared vocabulary for CDCF governance and vetting. |
45
45
46
46
---
47
47
48
48
### Research
49
49
50
50
Supplementary research memos informing the design of the vetting criteria.
|[fragmented-catholic-digital-governance.md](./research/fragmented-catholic-digital-governance.md)| Research memo | The urgency of shared digital governance standards. |
55
-
|[governance-as-code-catholic-technology.md](./research/governance-as-code-catholic-technology.md)| Research memo | Machine-enforceable deployment governance architecture.|
56
-
|[trusted-data-infrastructure-catholic-ministry.md](./research/trusted-data-infrastructure-catholic-ministry.md)| Research memo | Trusted data infrastructure for Catholic ministry.|
|[fragmented-catholic-digital-governance.md](./research/fragmented-catholic-digital-governance.md)| Research memo | The urgency of shared digital governance standards.|
55
+
|[governance-as-code-catholic-technology.md](./research/governance-as-code-catholic-technology.md)| Research memo | Machine-enforceable deployment governance architecture. |
56
+
|[trusted-data-infrastructure-catholic-ministry.md](./research/trusted-data-infrastructure-catholic-ministry.md)| Research memo | Trusted data infrastructure for Catholic ministry. |
| Human review triggers | Thresholds at which outputs require human examination before action |
202
202
| Appeal process | Process by which affected persons can contest a project-influenced decision |
203
203
204
204
The canonical grounding for these requirements is specific. Canon 1609 dictates that judges in a collegiate tribunal must submit written conclusions with reasons in law and in
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: research/fragmented-catholic-digital-governance.md
+7-7Lines changed: 7 additions & 7 deletions
Display the source diff
Display the rich diff
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -86,13 +86,13 @@ diocese may be blocked in a neighboring one under criteria that were never desig
86
86
87
87
The same pattern of fragmentation is visible — and in some cases far more entrenched — in the digital representation of realities that belong to the universal Church.
|**Liturgy**| The Roman Rite, the General Roman Calendar, proper calendars | Every app defines its own feast identifiers, calendar logic, and data structures|
92
-
|**Sacred Scripture**| The approved texts and editions of the Catholic Bible | Every platform references editions, books, and verses in its own schema|
93
-
|**Magisterial Documents**| Encyclicals, apostolic constitutions, decrees of the Magisterium | No shared digital identifiers for document types, issuers, or authority levels|
94
-
|**Canonical Structures**| Dioceses, parishes, religious institutes, ecclesial movements | Every database uses its own numbering; no canonical digital directory exists|
95
-
|**Sacramental Records**| The Church's sacramental register system | Diocesan databases are mutually incompatible; no data exchange standard exists|
|**Liturgy**| The Roman Rite, the General Roman Calendar, proper calendars | Every app defines its own feast identifiers, calendar logic, and data structures |
92
+
|**Sacred Scripture**| The approved texts and editions of the Catholic Bible | Every platform references editions, books, and verses in its own schema |
93
+
|**Magisterial Documents**| Encyclicals, apostolic constitutions, decrees of the Magisterium | No shared digital identifiers for document types, issuers, or authority levels |
94
+
|**Canonical Structures**| Dioceses, parishes, religious institutes, ecclesial movements | Every database uses its own numbering; no canonical digital directory exists |
95
+
|**Sacramental Records**| The Church's sacramental register system | Diocesan databases are mutually incompatible; no data exchange standard exists |
96
96
97
97
These are not peripheral concerns. The Liturgy, the Bible, Canon Law, and the Magisterium constitute the shared patrimony of the universal Church. Their digitization is not
98
98
optional — it is already happening, in hundreds of independent projects worldwide. The question is whether that digitization proceeds under shared standards that preserve the
0 commit comments