Docs: add C4 to contributing guide

1 files changed, 111 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md
index 78d78f7bf..29cf97aee 100644
--- a/CONTRIBUTING.md
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md
@@ -38,3 +38,114 @@ are conflicts (even trivially resolvable ones).
 
 PGP signing commits is strongly encouraged. That should explain why
 the previous paragraph is here.
+
+# [Code of Conduct (22/C4.1)](http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:22)
+
+## License
+
+Copyright (c) 2009-2015 Pieter Hintjens.
+
+This Specification is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
+
+This Specification is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.
+
+You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses>.
+
+## Language
+
+The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
+
+## Goals
+
+C4 is meant to provide a reusable optimal collaboration model for open source software projects. It has these specific goals:
+
+- To maximize the scale and diversity of the community around a project, by reducing the friction for new Contributors and creating a scaled participation model with strong positive feedbacks;
+- To relieve dependencies on key individuals by separating different skill sets so that there is a larger pool of competence in any required domain;
+- To allow the project to develop faster and more accurately, by increasing the diversity of the decision making process;
+- To support the natural life cycle of project versions from experimental through to stable, by allowing safe experimentation, rapid failure, and isolation of stable code;
+- To reduce the internal complexity of project repositories, thus making it easier for Contributors to participate and reducing the scope for error;
+- To enforce collective ownership of the project, which increases economic incentive to Contributors and reduces the risk of hijack by hostile entities.
+
+## Design
+
+### Preliminaries
+
+- The project SHALL use the git distributed revision control system.
+- The project SHALL be hosted on github.com or equivalent, herein called the "Platform".
+- The project SHALL use the Platform issue tracker.
+- The project SHOULD have clearly documented guidelines for code style.
+- A "Contributor" is a person who wishes to provide a patch, being a set of commits that solve some clearly identified problem.
+- A "Maintainer" is a person who merges patches to the project. Maintainers are not developers; their job is to enforce process.
+- Contributors SHALL NOT have commit access to the repository unless they are also Maintainers.
+- Maintainers SHALL have commit access to the repository.
+- Everyone, without distinction or discrimination, SHALL have an equal right to become a Contributor under the terms of this contract.
+
+### Licensing and Ownership
+
+- The project SHALL use a share-alike license, such as the GPLv3 or a variant thereof (LGPL, AGPL), or the MPLv2.
+- All contributions to the project source code ("patches") SHALL use the same license as the project.
+- All patches are owned by their authors. There SHALL NOT be any copyright assignment process.
+- The copyrights in the project SHALL be owned collectively by all its Contributors.
+- Each Contributor SHALL be responsible for identifying themselves in the project Contributor list.
+
+### Patch Requirements
+
+- Maintainers and Contributors MUST have a Platform account and SHOULD use their real names or a well-known alias.
+- A patch SHOULD be a minimal and accurate answer to exactly one identified and agreed problem.
+- A patch MUST adhere to the code style guidelines of the project if these are defined.
+- A patch MUST adhere to the "Evolution of Public Contracts" guidelines defined below.
+- A patch SHALL NOT include non-trivial code from other projects unless the Contributor is the original author of that code.
+- A patch MUST compile cleanly and pass project self-tests on at least the principle target platform.
+- A patch commit message SHOULD consist of a single short (less than 50 character) line summarizing the change, optionally followed by a blank line and then a more thorough description.
+- A "Correct Patch" is one that satisfies the above requirements.
+
+### Development Process
+
+- Change on the project SHALL be governed by the pattern of accurately identifying problems and applying minimal, accurate solutions to these problems.
+- To request changes, a user SHOULD log an issue on the project Platform issue tracker.
+- The user or Contributor SHOULD write the issue by describing the problem they face or observe.
+- The user or Contributor SHOULD seek consensus on the accuracy of their observation, and the value of solving the problem.
+- Users SHALL NOT log feature requests, ideas, suggestions, or any solutions to problems that are not explicitly documented and provable.
+- Thus, the release history of the project SHALL be a list of meaningful issues logged and solved.
+- To work on an issue, a Contributor SHALL fork the project repository and then work on their forked repository.
+- To submit a patch, a Contributor SHALL create a Platform pull request back to the project.
+- A Contributor SHALL NOT commit changes directly to the project.
+- If the Platform implements pull requests as issues, a Contributor MAY directly send a pull request without logging a separate issue.
+- To discuss a patch, people MAY comment on the Platform pull request, on the commit, or elsewhere.
+- To accept or reject a patch, a Maintainer SHALL use the Platform interface.
+- Maintainers SHOULD NOT merge their own patches except in exceptional cases, such as non-responsiveness from other Maintainers for an extended period (more than 1-2 days).
+- Maintainers SHALL NOT make value judgments on correct patches.
+- Maintainers SHALL merge correct patches from other Contributors rapidly.
+- The Contributor MAY tag an issue as "Ready" after making a pull request for the issue.
+- The user who created an issue SHOULD close the issue after checking the patch is successful.
+- Maintainers SHOULD ask for improvements to incorrect patches and SHOULD reject incorrect patches if the Contributor does not respond constructively.
+- Any Contributor who has value judgments on a correct patch SHOULD express these via their own patches.
+- Maintainers MAY commit changes to non-source documentation directly to the project.
+
+### Creating Stable Releases
+
+- The project SHALL have one branch ("master") that always holds the latest in-progress version and SHOULD always build.
+- The project SHALL NOT use topic branches for any reason. Personal forks MAY use topic branches.
+- To make a stable release someone SHALL fork the repository by copying it and thus become maintainer of this repository.
+- Forking a project for stabilization MAY be done unilaterally and without agreement of project maintainers.
+- A stabilization project SHOULD be maintained by the same process as the main project.
+- A patch to a stabilization project declared "stable" SHALL be accompanied by a reproducible test case.
+
+### Evolution of Public Contracts
+
+- All Public Contracts (APIs or protocols) SHALL be documented.
+- All Public Contracts SHOULD have space for extensibility and experimentation.
+- A patch that modifies a stable Public Contract SHOULD not break existing applications unless there is overriding consensus on the value of doing this.
+- A patch that introduces new features to a Public Contract SHOULD do so using new names.
+- Old names SHOULD be deprecated in a systematic fashion by marking new names as "experimental" until they are stable, then marking the old names as "deprecated".
+- When sufficient time has passed, old deprecated names SHOULD be marked "legacy" and eventually removed.
+- Old names SHALL NOT be reused by new features.
+- When old names are removed, their implementations MUST provoke an exception (assertion) if used by applications.
+
+### Project Administration
+
+- The project founders SHALL act as Administrators to manage the set of project Maintainers.
+- The Administrators SHALL ensure their own succession over time by promoting the most effective Maintainers.
+- A new Contributor who makes a correct patch SHALL be invited to become a Maintainer.
+- Administrators MAY remove Maintainers who are inactive for an extended period of time, or who repeatedly fail to apply this process accurately.
+- Administrators SHOULD block or ban "bad actors" who cause stress and pain to others in the project. This should be done after public discussion, with a chance for all parties to speak. A bad actor is someone who repeatedly ignores the rules and culture of the project, who is needlessly argumentative or hostile, or who is offensive, and who is unable to self-correct their behavior when asked to do so by others.