The Complete Linux Internet Repair Tool uses the Tri-Perimeter Contribution Framework (TPCF) for graduated trust and contribution management. TPCF recognizes that not all contributions carry equal risk, and contributors earn trust over time through demonstrated competence and community alignment.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ PERIMETER 1 │
│ Maintainer Core │
│ (Highest Trust, Full Access) │
│ │
│ ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ PERIMETER 2 │ │
│ │ Trusted Contributors │ │
│ │ (Elevated Trust, Expanded Access) │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ PERIMETER 3 │ │ │
│ │ │ Community Sandbox │ │ │
│ │ │ (Open Access, Protected Environment) │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ All Contributors Start Here! │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │
│ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Who: All new contributors, anyone can join Trust Level: Public trust (assume good intent, verify actions) Access: Full read, pull requests for write
- ✅ Fork the repository
- ✅ Submit pull requests (docs, code, tests)
- ✅ Open issues and feature requests
- ✅ Comment on issues and PRs
- ✅ Participate in discussions
- ✅ Run and test the tool
- ✅ Report bugs and security issues
- ✅ Improve documentation
- ✅ Add examples and tutorials
- ✅ Translate documentation (i18n/l10n)
- Automatic: CI/CD runs tests on your PR
- Review: Perimeter 2/1 contributors review
- Feedback: Get constructive feedback
- Iteration: Make requested changes
- Approval: At least one P2/P1 approval required
- Merge: P1 maintainer merges after approvals
- PRs cannot be merged without approval
- Automated tests must pass
- Code review by trusted contributors
- Reversible changes (git revert available)
- No direct access to main branch
- Security scans on all PRs
Demonstrated through:
- Quality: 10+ meaningful contributions
- Consistency: 3+ months of participation
- Community: Positive interactions, CoC alignment
- Technical: Understanding of codebase architecture
- Trust: Pattern of helpful, correct contributions
Who: Contributors with demonstrated competence and trust Trust Level: Elevated trust (trusted but verified) Access: Review/approve PRs, issue triage, some commit access
- ✅ Review and approve pull requests
- ✅ Triage and label issues
- ✅ Close duplicate/invalid issues
- ✅ Mentor new contributors (P3)
- ✅ Participate in roadmap discussions
- ✅ Make non-breaking changes with review
- ✅ Update documentation directly
- ✅ Manage project boards
- ✅ Run release candidates testing
- Code review for quality, security, style
- Mentoring P3 contributors
- Upholding Code of Conduct
- Testing pre-release versions
- Documentation maintenance
- Community engagement
- Cannot merge own PRs (requires P1)
- Cannot make breaking changes alone
- Cannot modify security-critical code without P1
- Cannot publish releases
- Cannot change repository settings
Demonstrated through:
- Expertise: Deep knowledge of entire codebase
- Leadership: Mentoring others, driving features
- Reliability: 12+ months of consistent contribution
- Security: Understanding of security implications
- Community: Positive force in community health
- Judgment: Sound technical decision-making
- Nomination: Unanimous vote by existing P1 members
Who: Core maintainers with full authority Trust Level: Full trust (trusted, verified, accountable) Access: Full commit access, release authority, security
- ✅ Merge pull requests to main
- ✅ Create and publish releases
- ✅ Respond to security reports
- ✅ Modify repository settings
- ✅ Add/remove collaborators
- ✅ Make breaking changes (with consensus)
- ✅ Final decision authority on contentious issues
- ✅ Enforce Code of Conduct
- ✅ Manage secrets and credentials
- Project vision and direction
- Release management
- Security incident response
- Final code review and approval
- Community health and CoC enforcement
- Maintainer meetings and coordination
- Sustainable project stewardship
- Transparent decision-making
- Regular communication with community
- Following project governance
- Leading by example
- Mentoring P2 and P3 contributors
- Managing conflicts of interest
- Clear Path: Know what's needed to progress
- Safety: Experiment freely in P3 sandbox
- Recognition: Formal recognition of trust
- Growth: Develop skills through mentorship
- Ownership: Earn real responsibility
- Risk Management: Graduated access = reduced risk
- Sustainability: Grow maintainer pool over time
- Quality: Multiple review layers ensure quality
- Community: Healthy pipeline of contributors
- Transparency: Clear roles and expectations
- Security: Defense in depth through layers
- Velocity: More trusted reviewers = faster merges
- Resilience: Bus factor > 1 through P1 growth
- Quality: Peer review at every level
- Inclusivity: Clear, fair path for all
1. Fork repository
2. Create feature branch
3. Make changes (add dry-run mode flag)
4. Run tests locally: ./tests/run-tests.sh
5. Push and open PR
6. CI runs tests automatically
7. P2 reviewer provides feedback
8. Address feedback, push changes
9. P2 approves PR
10. P1 maintainer merges
1. Create feature branch in main repo
2. Make changes (refactor logging)
3. Self-review first
4. Open PR, tag P1 for review
5. P1 reviews, approves
6. P1 merges (or P2 merges after approval)
7. Monitor for issues
1. Create feature branch or commit directly
2. Make changes (security fix)
3. Review own code carefully
4. Merge to main (if urgent) or PR for non-urgent
5. Tag and release if needed
6. Announce to community
7. Monitor for issues
- P3: Report via SECURITY.md, do not publicize
- P2: May be consulted on fixes, under NDA
- P1: Full access to reports, coordinate response
- P3: Propose in issue first, get buy-in
- P2: Discuss with P1, requires approval
- P1: Can approve, but seek consensus
- P3: PR for any docs
- P2: Can commit directly to docs/
- P1: Can commit anywhere
- P3: Add tests with code
- P2: Can improve test infrastructure
- P1: Can modify test framework
TPCF enforcement of Code of Conduct:
- P3 violations: Warning → temporary ban → permanent ban
- P2 violations: Same, but may lose P2 status
- P1 violations: Same, plus immediate P1 revocation
Trust is earned, and can be lost. We prioritize community health over individual contributor access at all levels.
This TPCF policy can be amended by:
- Proposal by any contributor (issue/PR)
- Discussion period (minimum 2 weeks)
- P1 vote (supermajority 2/3+ required)
- Update this document
- Announce to community
Perimeter 1 Maintainers: 1 (founding maintainer) Perimeter 2 Contributors: 0 (new project) Perimeter 3 Contributors: All are welcome!
We're actively looking for contributors at all levels. Start in Perimeter 3 today by:
- Opening an issue with questions or ideas
- Improving documentation
- Adding tests
- Fixing bugs
- Adding features
See CONTRIBUTING.md for detailed contribution guide.
TPCF Version: 1.0 Last Updated: 2025-01-22 Governance: See MAINTAINERS.md Related: CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, SECURITY.md