From a3ce5bbf0fa18529f55f5b974533efc399fd28e1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: vishal veerareddy Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 15:12:04 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] docs: Added code of conduct --- CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md | 139 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ README.md | 3 + 2 files changed, 142 insertions(+) create mode 100644 CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md diff --git a/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c95c4a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ +# Lynkr Code of Conduct + +## Why this exists + +Lynkr is infrastructure people trust with their agent traffic and their money. +That trust extends to the community: contributors should be able to file an +issue, review a PR, or disagree about routing design without being demeaned, +dismissed, or driven off. This document says what we expect, what we don't +tolerate, and exactly what happens when someone reports a problem. + +We'd rather have a slower answer in an issue thread than a fast one that makes +someone feel stupid for asking. + +## Who and where this covers + +This code applies to everyone participating in the Lynkr project — maintainers, +contributors, and users — in every project space: + +- The GitHub repository: issues, pull requests, discussions, commit messages, + and code review comments +- Any project chat, forum, or mailing list +- Social media posts made in connection with the project (e.g., replying to + someone's question about Lynkr, discussing a contributor's work) +- Conferences, meetups, and calls where you are representing or discussing + Lynkr + +It protects everyone, and we name explicitly the characteristics that are most +often targeted: age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, +sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, +education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, +caste, religion (or lack of it), and sexual identity and orientation. +Experience level is on that list deliberately: this is a technical project, +and newcomer-hostility is the failure mode technical projects actually have. + +## What we expect + +- **Assume competence, explain context.** "This breaks session pinning — + here's why that matters" teaches; "did you even read the code?" doesn't. +- **Review the code, not the person.** Critique in a PR should be specific, + actionable, and about the change. +- **Welcome imperfect first contributions.** A rough PR with a good idea is a + gift, not a burden. Say what's good before what's wrong. +- **Disagree with receipts.** Routing design, benchmarks, and provider quirks + are debated with evidence, not volume or seniority. +- **Give credit.** If an issue, comment, or upstream project shaped your + change, say so. +- **Accept "no" gracefully.** Maintainers will decline changes; contributors + may decline suggestions. Neither is an insult. + +## What we don't tolerate + +Concrete examples, because vague codes protect no one: + +- Insults, put-downs, or name-calling — including "polite" versions like + feigned confusion at someone's question or RTFM-style responses +- Comments that demean anyone based on the characteristics listed above, + including "jokes" and stereotypes +- Sexualized language, imagery, or unwelcome sexual attention in any project + space +- Harassment: sustained unwanted contact, dogpiling on a contributor, + following someone across threads to continue an argument they've exited +- Publishing someone's private information (address, employer, legal name, + contact details) without explicit permission +- Gatekeeping: telling someone they're not qualified to participate, use the + project, or hold an opinion +- Retaliation against anyone who reports a violation in good faith, or + weaponizing this code with knowingly false reports +- Sustained disruption: derailing threads, sealioning, reopening settled + decisions without new information + +Not violations: rejecting a PR, direct technical criticism of a change, +enforcing project scope, or asking someone to take an off-topic discussion +elsewhere. + +## How to report + +Email **hello@lynkrhq.com** with the subject line "Conduct". Include what +happened, where (links help), when, and who was involved. Screenshots are +welcome; deleted comments are still violations. + +- You do not have to be the target to report — witnesses are encouraged to. +- If you are uncomfortable reporting under your name, you may use an alias + email account; reports are judged on their evidence, not the reporter's + identity. +- **If your report concerns the maintainer**, we acknowledge the structural + problem honestly: Lynkr currently has a single maintainer, so there is no + independent chain. You may instead report the behavior to GitHub via + [GitHub's Report Abuse process](https://github.com/contact/report-abuse), + which the maintainer cannot influence. As the maintainer team grows, this + section will be replaced with a named second contact. + +What happens after you report: + +1. **Acknowledgment within 48 hours** that the report was received. +2. **Review**: the maintainer reads the material, gathers context, and — where + it can be done without exposing the reporter — hears from the person + reported. +3. **Decision within 14 days**, communicated to the reporter and the person + reported. If it takes longer, you'll be told why and given a new date. +4. **Follow-up**: for upheld reports, the maintainer checks in with the + reporter after roughly one month to confirm the behavior actually stopped. + Resolution on paper is not resolution. + +Reports are kept confidential. Details are shared only as needed to +investigate and act. + +## Consequences + +Proportional to impact and pattern, at the maintainer's judgment: + +1. **Correction** — a private (or, for public harm, public) explanation of + why the behavior violated this code, with an expectation it stops. +2. **Warning** — formal notice that continued behavior means removal, possibly + with a cooling-off period away from project spaces. +3. **Temporary ban** — a defined period of no participation in any project + space, including PRs, issues, and review. +4. **Permanent ban** — for severe violations (threats, harassment campaigns, + doxxing) or repeated violations after warning. Severe cases skip the + ladder. + +Consequences apply to everyone, including the maintainer's collaborators, +sponsors, and heaviest contributors. Code quality does not buy conduct +exemptions. + +## Keeping this honest + +This document is reviewed every six months (or after any enforcement action, +whichever comes first) and the revision date below is updated even when +nothing changes, so you can tell it's alive. Substantive changes are made in +public PRs like any other change to the project. + +This code was written for Lynkr following +[Project Include's guidance](https://projectinclude.org/writing_cocs), with +structural conventions from the +[Contributor Covenant](https://www.contributor-covenant.org) community. It is +not copy-pasted boilerplate; if part of it doesn't fit how this community +actually behaves, open an issue and say so. + +*Last reviewed: 2026-08-26* diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 79811fd..9656340 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -617,6 +617,9 @@ With tier routing + token optimization: **additional 50-87% savings** on cloud p - [NPM Package](https://www.npmjs.com/package/lynkr) — Official releases - [DeepWiki](https://deepwiki.com/Fast-Editor/Lynkr) — AI-powered docs +This project follows our [Code of Conduct](CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) — it applies in +all project spaces, and it tells you exactly how to report a problem. + --- ## License From b29732c55ed6ed8ce2f40867334fabd19865dd29 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: vishal veerareddy Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 15:18:02 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] addressed rc --- CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md | 12 +++++++++--- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md index c95c4a1..a3a3d44 100644 --- a/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md +++ b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md @@ -84,10 +84,16 @@ welcome; deleted comments are still violations. identity. - **If your report concerns the maintainer**, we acknowledge the structural problem honestly: Lynkr currently has a single maintainer, so there is no - independent chain. You may instead report the behavior to GitHub via + independent chain. For behavior in GitHub-hosted spaces (issues, PRs, + discussions, review comments), report it to GitHub via [GitHub's Report Abuse process](https://github.com/contact/report-abuse), - which the maintainer cannot influence. As the maintainer team grows, this - section will be replaced with a named second contact. + which the maintainer cannot influence. For behavior elsewhere, report it to + that venue's own process — the event's organizers, or the platform's trust + and safety channel — all of which are likewise outside the maintainer's + control. We name this gap rather than paper over it: until the maintainer + team grows, there is no single independent contact for non-GitHub + incidents, and this section will be replaced with a named second contact + as soon as one exists. What happens after you report: