This document defines the governance model for the Awesome Design Patterns Examples project, including decision-making processes, key roles, and responsibilities.
For detailed role definitions and current role holders, see ROLES.md.
To provide a comprehensive, multilingual educational resource for software design patterns, implemented across multiple programming languages (Go, React.js, PHP, TypeScript, Java, AngularJS, and Angular 2+), fostering learning and best practices in software design.
This project follows a benevolent dictator governance model with community input. Decision-making balances between maintaining project quality and encouraging community contributions.
📋 See ROLES.md for detailed role definitions, current assignments, and required tasks.
Current: @luizwbr
Responsibilities:
- Final decision-making authority on project direction and major changes
- Review and merge pull requests
- Manage releases and versioning
- Oversee project roadmap and priorities (see ROADMAP.md)
- Ensure adherence to project standards and quality
- Manage repository settings and access
- Resolve conflicts and disputes
- Appoint and remove collaborators and contributors
Authority:
- Accept or reject contributions
- Make architectural decisions
- Establish coding standards and conventions
- Set project priorities and goals
Current: Contributors with write access (if any)
Responsibilities:
- Review pull requests
- Help maintain code quality
- Respond to issues and discussions
- Assist in project documentation
- Support community members
How to become a Collaborator:
- Demonstrate consistent, high-quality contributions over time
- Show understanding of project goals and standards
- Be invited by the Project Lead based on sustained engagement
Anyone who contributes to the project
Responsibilities:
- Follow the Code of Conduct
- Adhere to Contributing Guidelines
- Sign off commits with DCO
- Respect review feedback and collaborate constructively
- Maintain quality and educational value in submissions
Rights:
- Submit issues and feature requests
- Propose changes via pull requests
- Participate in discussions
- Use and distribute the code per the license
Examples: Bug fixes, documentation improvements, small refactoring
Process:
- Contributor submits pull request
- Automated checks must pass
- Maintainer or collaborator reviews
- If approved, merged by maintainer/collaborator
- Timeline: Usually within 1-2 weeks
Examples: New patterns, architectural changes, new language support, breaking changes
Process:
- Create an issue or discussion first to propose the change
- Community feedback period (minimum 3-7 days for significant changes)
- Project Lead makes final decision considering:
- Alignment with project mission
- Community input and consensus
- Technical merit and quality
- Maintenance burden
- Educational value
- If approved, contributor implements via pull request
- Code review and approval by Project Lead
- Merge and documentation updates
Examples: Critical security fixes, major bugs affecting functionality
Process:
- Project Lead may expedite review and merge
- May be implemented directly by Project Lead
- Community notified post-merge with explanation
- Bug reports
- Feature requests
- Questions and support
- General discussions
- Code contributions
- Review discussions
- Implementation feedback
All code contributions require review before merging:
- Automated tests must pass
- Code quality standards must be met
- Documentation must be updated
- DCO sign-off required
- Educational clarity is paramount
- Follows language-specific conventions
- Includes comments and documentation
- Maintains consistency across implementations
Contributions are evaluated on:
- Correctness: Code works as intended
- Educational value: Clear demonstration of pattern
- Consistency: Aligns with existing implementations
- Documentation: Adequate comments and README updates
- Quality: Follows project standards
- Completeness: Addresses the stated goal
- Simple PRs: Reviewed within 1-2 weeks
- Complex PRs: May take 2-4 weeks
- Major changes: Timeline discussed in proposal phase
- Most conflicts resolved through respectful discussion
- Contributors encouraged to find consensus
- If available, collaborators may help mediate
- Seek middle ground and compromise
- Project Lead has final authority
- Decision will be documented and explained
- Appeals may be considered with new information
- Handled per Code of Conduct
- May result in temporary or permanent ban
- Project Lead has final authority
This governance model may be updated by:
- Proposal via GitHub issue
- Community discussion period (minimum 14 days)
- Final decision by Project Lead
- Changes documented in this file with clear changelog
🔒 See ACCESS_CONTINUITY.md for comprehensive access continuity and succession plan.
If the current Project Lead becomes unavailable:
- Active collaborators (if any) may assume maintenance
- Repository ownership may transfer per GitHub's succession process
- Community may fork if necessary to continue development
Continuity Commitment: The project can create/close issues, accept changes, and release versions within one week of confirmed loss of support from any individual.
Measures in place:
- Public repository (forkable by anyone)
- MIT License (allows continuation)
- Distributed version control (multiple backups)
- Documented processes and governance
- DCO ensures contribution rights are clear
- Active collaborator appointment strategy
- Community-driven fork process if needed
All governance-related decisions are tracked publicly:
- Issues and pull requests on GitHub
- Commit history and discussions
- This governance document
- Project Lead accountable to community and open source principles
- All significant decisions explained and documented
- Regular engagement with contributor community
- All contributions licensed under MIT License
- Contributors must certify rights via DCO
- See Contributing Guidelines for details
- No contributor license agreement (CLA) required
- DCO sufficient for contribution certification
- All code remains open source under MIT License
- Open an issue with the "question" or "governance" label
- Tag the Project Lead in discussions
- Review this document and related policies first
- Open an issue describing the proposed governance change
- Allow time for community input
- Provide clear rationale and expected benefits
Document Version: 1.0
Last Updated: January 28, 2026
Next Review: January 2027 (or as needed)
- Quick Start Guide - Get started using this project
- Accessibility Statement - Accessibility commitment and guidelines
- Achievements - Project recognition and milestones
- Documentation Policy - How we keep docs current
- Project Roadmap - Plans for 2026-2027
- Access Continuity - Succession planning and continuity measures
- Roles and Responsibilities - Detailed role definitions and current assignments
- Contributing Guidelines
- Code of Conduct
- Developer Certificate of Origin
- Security Policy
- License