Governance

The Burgess Principle is an open public framework for one accountability question: "Was a human member of the team able to personally review the specific facts of my specific situation?" This governance model keeps the work open, practical, and human-first while protecting the integrity of the official standard and UK Certification Mark UK00004343685.

For contribution mechanics, see CONTRIBUTING.md. For the project overview, see README.md. There is no separate CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at present; the conduct standard is in CONTRIBUTING.md.

Project Vision & Values

Value	What it means here
Human accountability	Systems should not hide behind process language where a named human has not reviewed the specific facts.
Radical clarity	The SOVEREIGN / NULL / AMBIGUOUS test should remain simple enough for ordinary people to use.
Accessibility and dignity	The project should empower people who are often depersonalised by automated systems, especially disabled users seeking reasonable adjustments.
Open public utility	Code, templates, and doctrine are MIT-open unless mark governance requires a separate certified route.
Non-hype precision	Claims should be calm, verifiable, and limited to what the framework actually does.

Roles

Role	Current holder / route	Responsibilities
Founder / Maintainer	Lewis James Burgess	Sets project direction, protects the doctrine, reviews sensitive changes, and has final responsibility for official standards.
Future Maintainers	Trusted contributors promoted on merit	Review focused PRs, steward defined repository areas, and uphold the binary test and contribution standards.
Contributors	Anyone submitting issues, discussions, documentation, templates, tests, or code	Improve the project while preserving its human-first tone and scope.
Certification Oversight	Burgess Principle Ltd	Administers authorised use of the Certification Mark and certified routes separately from ordinary MIT use.
Advisory Reviewers	Trusted subject-matter contributors or independent reviewers invited for a defined question	Give non-binding advice on governance, certification integrity, accessibility, or technical risk where neutrality would be strengthened by a second view.

Decision Making Process

For ordinary code, documentation, templates, tests, and small repository improvements, the project uses lightweight lazy consensus:

1. Open an issue, discussion, or focused pull request.
2. Allow reasonable time for maintainers and affected contributors to comment.
3. If there is no unresolved objection, a maintainer may merge once the change is reviewed and aligned with project standards.

The Founder / Maintainer may veto or pause any change that affects:

• the UK Certification Mark UK00004343685;
• official certification standards or authorised mark use;
• the exact SOVEREIGN / NULL / AMBIGUOUS binary test;
• legal, doctrinal, or public-position statements; or
• the reputation, neutrality, or humanist accountability purpose of the project.

Disputes should be escalated calmly: first in the relevant issue or pull request, then to direct maintainer review, and finally to Founder / Maintainer decision where doctrine, mark governance, or project integrity is affected.

Lightweight Governance Elements Adopted

This project borrows only the low-bureaucracy parts of mature open-source governance models:

1. Merit-based maintainer promotion. Maintainer trust is earned through sustained, public contribution: careful reviews, precise documentation, good judgment about the binary test, and respect for the mark boundary. Volume of commits alone is not enough. "Sustained" normally means several months of visible, useful contribution or multiple meaningful contributions over time.

2. Lazy consensus for ordinary work. Routine repository changes proceed when they are visible, scoped, reviewed, and when no unresolved objection remains. Objections should be specific and evidence-based, not blocking for its own sake.

3. Neutral advisory oversight for sensitive questions. Where certification, doctrine, accessibility, or public trust is affected, the Founder / Maintainer or Certification Oversight may invite a defined reviewer or small review group to give a recommendation recorded in the relevant issue, pull request, certification record, or STATUS.md entry. A defined reviewer should match the Advisory Reviewers role above: relevant expertise, no material conflict (defined below), and a clearly stated review scope.

   A material conflict includes:

   • a financial interest, such as paid work for the applicant or holding stock or equity in it;
   • a close personal relationship, such as family or household connection;
   • a partnership or sponsorship interest, such as a joint programme; or
   • an adversarial interest, such as an active dispute with the applicant.

   This advice does not create a standing committee and does not replace final responsibility, but it reduces the risk of self-certification or insular judgment.

Contribution Ladder

Stage	Typical path	Trust signal
Contributor	Opens issues, discussions, or focused PRs	Clear, respectful, scoped contributions that follow CONTRIBUTING.md.
Regular Contributor	Makes repeated useful contributions	Understands the binary test, tone, licensing boundary, and review process.
Trusted Contributor	Helps review or maintain a defined area	Gives careful feedback, avoids overclaiming, and protects human-first accountability.
Maintainer	Appointed by the Founder / Maintainer	Can review and merge in agreed areas while escalating certification, doctrine, and dispute questions.

Maintainer status is earned through sustained judgment, not volume of commits. Promotion should normally follow sustained public contributions over time: visible repository work, calm conduct, understanding of the certification boundary (the distinction between MIT reuse and certified mark use), and willingness to escalate doctrinal or mark-governance questions rather than decide them unilaterally.

How the Certification Mark Fits

The repository core is MIT-open: people may use, copy, adapt, fork, and redistribute the materials under the MIT licence.

Certified use is different. The Certification Mark UK00004343685 signals an authorised claim about adoption of the Burgess Principle as a governance framework. To preserve neutrality and prevent badge-washing, certified use requires separate authorisation through Burgess Principle Ltd or the proprietor. Open use of the materials must not imply certification, endorsement, affiliation, or official approval unless that authorisation exists.

Certification decisions should be evidence-led and impartial. Payment, adoption interest, sponsorship, or contributor status must not on its own justify certified use of the mark. Where Burgess Principle Ltd has a material commercial, personal, or partnership interest in an applicant, the review should record that interest and use an external verifier or advisory reviewer before certification is granted, renewed, refused, suspended, or withdrawn.

Succession and Conflict Resolution

If the Founder / Maintainer becomes unavailable, succession should prioritise continuity of the binary test, the MIT-open public record, and the separate certification-mark boundary. Any successor or interim maintainer should preserve the existing doctrine unless Lewis James Burgess or an authorised legal route has approved a change.

Conflicts should be handled in good faith, with a preference for narrow issues, plain evidence, and de-escalation. If a conflict concerns ordinary repository work, maintainers may resolve it through lazy consensus. If it concerns doctrine, the Certification Mark, official standards, or neutrality, it must be escalated for Founder / Maintainer or authorised certification oversight review.