# Collective Code Construction Contract - Oasis Implementation
The Collective Code Construction Contract (C4) is an evolution of the github.com [Fork + Pull Model](https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-requests/), aimed at providing an optimal collaboration model for free software projects.
This is the Oasis-specific implementation, based on [revision 2 of C4](https://github.com/zeromq/rfc/blob/63024673f19ad136652ff7b3bfb3a6547811e006/42/README.md).
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>.
## Abstract
C4 provides a standard process for contributing, evaluating and discussing improvements on software projects. It defines specific technical requirements for projects like a style guide, unit tests, `git` and similar platforms. It also establishes different personas for projects, with clear and distinct duties. C4 specifies a process for documenting and discussing issues including seeking consensus and clear descriptions, use of "pull requests" and systematic reviews.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119).
C4 is meant to provide a reusable optimal collaboration model for open source software projects. It has these specific goals:
1. 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;
1. To relieve dependencies on key individuals by separating different skill sets so that there is a larger pool of competence in any required domain;
1. To allow the project to develop faster and more accurately, by increasing the diversity of the decision making process;
1. 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;
1. To reduce the internal complexity of project repositories, thus making it easier for Contributors to participate and reducing the scope for error;
1. To enforce collective ownership of the project, which increases economic incentive to Contributors and reduces the risk of hijack by hostile entities.
1. A patch commit message SHOULD consist of a single short (less than 50 characters) line stating the problem ("Problem: ...") being solved, followed by a blank line and then the proposed solution ("Solution: ...").
1. Change on the project MUST be governed by the pattern of accurately identifying problems and applying minimal, accurate solutions to these problems.
1. 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).
1. Maintainers MAY merge incorrect patches from other Contributors with the goals of (a) ending fruitless discussions, (b) capturing toxic patches in the historical record, (c) engaging with the Contributor on improving their patch quality.
1. The user who created an issue SHOULD close the issue after checking the patch is successful.
1. Any Contributor who has value judgments on a patch SHOULD express these via their own patches.
1. Maintainers SHOULD close user issues that are left open without action for an uncomfortable period of time.
1. All Public Contracts SHOULD have space for extensibility and experimentation.
1. A patch that modifies a stable Public Contract SHOULD not break existing applications unless there is overriding consensus on the value of doing this.
1. A patch that introduces new features SHOULD do so using new names (a new contract).
1. New contracts SHOULD be marked as "draft" until they are stable and used by real users.
1. Old contracts SHOULD be deprecated in a systematic fashion by marking them as "deprecated" and replacing them with new contracts as needed.
1. When sufficient time has passed, old deprecated contracts SHOULD be removed.
1. A new Contributor who makes correct patches, who clearly understands the project goals, and the process SHOULD be invited to become a Maintainer.
1. Administrators SHOULD remove Maintainers who are inactive for an extended period of time, or who repeatedly fail to apply this process accurately.
1. 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.
- [Toyota Kata](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Kata) - covering the Improvement Kata (fixing problems one at a time) and the Coaching Kata (helping others to learn the Improvement Kata).