Reviewed in batches
Everything gets sorted by what it touches, then read together rather than one at a time.
CONTRIBUTE
Help shape what this becomes.
This proposal is published early because it needs more perspectives than one person can bring. There are two ways in: a short form for one specific point, and an open discussion thread for the wider conversation.
WHAT HELPS
Ten things worth sending.
- A factual error, or an explanation that confused you
- A consumer, worker, cultural, disability, or international perspective
- A use case, edge case, misuse case, or failure mode
- A legal, labor, competition, security, privacy, or measurement concern
- A relevant study, standard, case, or historical comparison
- A better question, calculation, interface, architecture, or protection
- An implementation constraint from a real workflow
- A response to a published open question
- An introduction to someone the project should learn from
- Interest in nonexclusive research or implementation discovery
OPTION ONE · SEND A SPECIFIC POINT
Tell us the one thing you would change.
One clear point works better than a long list, because it can be traced to a decision. Your name and email are optional, and only needed if you would like a reply.
Contribution received.
Thank you. This will be read alongside the other contributions in the next review batch.
ONE HOUSEKEEPING NOTE
Please leave these out.
Each of these would create obligations this project has no way to meet yet, so an invented example serves better than a real record.
- Real customer conduct histories or scores
- Worker responses or information that could identify an individual worker
- Identity documents, credentials, authentication secrets, or security details
- Confidential company, client, employee, or personal information
- Information about another person
- Material you do not have the right to share
- Substantial code, specification rewrites, datasets, or patent-sensitive methods before contributor terms are published
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
Three things that happen after you hit send.
It can change the specification
Your point could become a correction, a clearer explanation, a new open question, or a documented objection. If it changes nothing, the reasoning for that gets recorded too.
Attributed only with permission
The project may summarize recurring feedback without identifying people. A name or quotation is not used as endorsement without separate permission.
HOW THE PROPOSAL CHANGES
Four sizes of change your point could trigger.
Editorial correction
Fixes presentation without changing meaning.
Clarification
Makes an existing decision easier to understand.
Candidate revision
Changes a provisional construct, method, interface, or research direction.
Structural amendment
Changes a core protection, purpose, prohibition, or frozen architecture and therefore requires a new release identity and impact review.
STEWARDSHIP TODAY
Who reads it, and what changes.
Brent Turner writes this proposal from Massachusetts, keeps the public record, and reads everything that arrives. He works on customer and brand experience as part of the executive team at Opus Agency, and has spent a career building the loyalty, recognition, and customer-relationship systems this proposal is arguing with. The legal, labor, and measurement questions on this site sit outside that experience, which is why they are published as open questions for the specialists who can actually settle them.
Within the proposal he can correct a page, clarify an explanation, add an open question, publish an alternative approach, and open a new line of research. Every one of those changes gets written into the decision register with the reason for it.
Two things are outside his authority by design. He cannot weaken a core protection, and he cannot describe a decision he made alone as community agreement. Independent governance has to exist before anything affects a real person, and building it is part of the plan rather than a promise added later.
OPTION TWO · JOIN THE OPEN DISCUSSION
Join the wider discussion.
The form above is for one specific point that needs to reach the specification. For the wider argument about whether this should exist, who it would help, and what it gets wrong, there is an open comment thread where that conversation is already underway and anyone can read it.
Conduct was first proposed in an essay on The New New, a newsletter about technology, business, and where the two are heading, written by Brent Turner. That essay is where the idea was published first, and its comment section has become the open forum for it. Anyone can read the thread, and replying takes a Substack account.
Read and join the discussion