A peer support-informed code of conduct for the Creative Determinant community.
This project emerges from work at the intersection of mathematics, cognitive science, and the lived experience of recovery. We recognize that how we work together matters as much as what we build. This covenant draws on trauma-informed care principles and peer support values—not because we assume everyone here is in recovery, but because these principles create conditions where all people can do their best work.
The Creative Determinant framework itself models how coherent presence emerges when care, coherence, and engagement with contradiction come together. Our community practices should embody the same dynamics.
In practice:
- We prioritize creating spaces where people can participate without fear of ridicule, dismissal, or retaliation
- We recognize that intellectual environments can be sites of harm—gatekeeping, credentialism, and aggressive debate styles exclude people with valuable perspectives
- We distinguish between challenging ideas (welcome) and attacking people (not welcome)
- We acknowledge that "just asking questions" and "playing devil's advocate" can be forms of harm when directed at people's identity or lived experience
What this looks like:
- Critique the mathematics, not the mathematician
- Assume competence until shown otherwise
- If someone says they feel unsafe, believe them first, investigate second
In practice:
- We make decisions openly and explain our reasoning
- We acknowledge uncertainty rather than performing false confidence
- We credit contributions accurately and generously
- We are honest about limitations—of the framework, of our knowledge, of ourselves
What this looks like:
- Maintainers explain why PRs are accepted or rejected
- We say "I don't know" when we don't know
- Attribution is never optional
- The OPEN_PROBLEMS.md exists because we're honest about gaps
In practice:
- We recognize that everyone here has something to teach and something to learn
- Credentials matter less than contribution quality
- We actively work against hierarchies that privilege some voices over others
- We understand that the person asking "basic" questions may see something experts miss
What this looks like:
- A first-time contributor's insight is evaluated on its merits, not their CV
- Senior contributors model curiosity, not just expertise
- We explain jargon rather than using it to exclude
- "That's a great question" is never condescending—it's genuine
In practice:
- We invite participation rather than demanding it
- We respect that people have different capacities at different times
- We offer options rather than ultimatums
- We recognize that "no" is a complete sentence
What this looks like:
- Contributors choose their level of involvement
- We don't shame people for stepping back
- Multiple paths to contribution exist (code, docs, discussion, critique)
- Deadlines are real but not weaponized
In practice:
- We focus on what people can contribute, not what they lack
- We help people develop their capacities rather than doing things for them
- We celebrate growth and learning, not just polished outputs
- We recognize that struggle is part of the process, not a sign of failure
What this looks like:
- Code review teaches, not just judges
- We point people toward resources rather than gatekeeping knowledge
- Partial contributions are valued—someone else can build on them
- "This is a good start" is honest encouragement, not faint praise
- Questions at any level of expertise
- Challenges to the framework's claims (this is how science works)
- Contributions from people outside traditional academic paths
- Honest disagreement expressed respectfully
- Requests for clarification, explanation, or accommodation
- People who are figuring things out as they go
- Personal attacks, insults, or demeaning language
- Harassment of any kind, including unwanted attention or contact
- Discrimination based on identity, background, or credentials
- Dismissing people's concerns without engagement
- "Well, actually" corrections that serve ego rather than clarity
- Gatekeeping that excludes rather than educates
- Using technical complexity as a weapon
Conflict is inevitable in collaborative work. Healthy conflict—disagreement about ideas, approaches, or priorities—can strengthen the work. Harmful conflict—attacks on people, bad faith engagement, or power plays—damages the community.
When conflict arises:
- Assume good faith until clearly shown otherwise
- Seek to understand before seeking to be understood
- Name the issue specifically rather than attacking generally
- Take breaks when emotions run high—it's okay to say "I need to step away"
- Involve a third party if direct resolution isn't working
If someone causes harm—intentionally or not—our goal is repair, not punishment. This means:
- The person harmed gets to define what repair looks like
- The person who caused harm is invited to take responsibility
- We distinguish between impact (what happened) and intent (what was meant)
- Repeated harm after feedback may result in removal from the community
- We don't require forgiveness, but we do require respect
This covenant applies to:
- All project spaces (GitHub, forums, chat, mailing lists)
- Project-related events (meetups, conferences, workshops)
- One-on-one communications in project contexts
- Public statements representing the project
It does not govern your behavior outside project contexts, but patterns of harmful behavior elsewhere may be relevant if they affect community safety.
If you experience or witness behavior that violates this covenant:
Email: nelson@projectnavi.ai
Reports will be:
- Acknowledged within 48 hours
- Kept confidential to the extent possible
- Investigated fairly, hearing all perspectives
- Resolved with transparency about process (not necessarily details)
Depending on severity and pattern, responses may include:
- Private conversation and request for behavior change
- Public acknowledgment and apology
- Temporary suspension from project spaces
- Permanent removal from the community
We aim for the minimum intervention that restores safety. We are not interested in punishment for its own sake.
Anyone subject to enforcement action may appeal by emailing nelson@projectnavi.ai with "APPEAL" in the subject line. Appeals will be reviewed by someone not involved in the original decision if possible.
This covenant draws on:
- SAMHSA's Six Principles of Trauma-Informed Care: Safety, Trustworthiness, Peer Support, Collaboration, Empowerment, Cultural Sensitivity
- Peer Support Values: Mutuality, shared experience, hope, self-determination
- Recovery-Oriented Systems of Care: Person-centered, strengths-based, many pathways
- The Contributor Covenant: For structural inspiration (though we diverge significantly in philosophy)
- Lived experience: Seven years of peer support work taught me that how we treat each other determines what we can build together
This covenant is version 1.0. Like the framework it governs, it is subject to revision as we learn. Suggestions for improvement are welcome via the same channels as any other contribution.
"I've carried this as far as I could alone. African wisdom provides our community principle: 'If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.' Let's go far."
— Nelson Spence, January 2026