--- title: "Governance" description: "Who decides what SPDF is, how, and how that changes as the format gains implementers and users. SPDF starts with a single editor and is designed to pass to a technical committee as soon as there are people outside…" url: https://spdf.joseluissaorin.com/es/gobernanza/governance markdown: https://spdf.joseluissaorin.com/es/gobernanza/governance.md lang: es alternate_en: https://spdf.joseluissaorin.com/governance/governance.md updated: 2026-10-07 author: José Luis Saorín Ferrer (https://joseluissaorin.com) license: CC-BY-4.0 --- # Governance > Who decides what SPDF is, how, and how that changes as the format gains implementers and users. SPDF starts with a single editor and is designed to pass to a technical committee as soon as there are people outside… Who decides what SPDF is, how, and how that changes as the format gains implementers and users. SPDF starts with a single editor and is designed to pass to a technical committee as soon as there are people outside the original project to share it with. The key words MUST, SHOULD and MAY are to be read as described in BCP 14 (RFC 2119 and RFC 8174) when, and only when, they appear in capitals. ## Principles - **Nothing changes in silence.** Normative changes go through the [RFC process](RFC-PROCESS.md), in public, with recorded reasons. - **Conformance over authority.** What the format means is settled by the specification and its conformance cases, not by what any one implementation does, including the reference one. - **Open by licence.** The specification can be implemented by anyone, for any purpose, without asking (see [Licences and patents](#licences-and-patents)). - **Users outside software count.** Libraries, archives, scholars and readers in every language are part of the community, not only implementers. ## Phase 1: the editor SPDF was created by **José Luis Saorín Ferrer** for Scholaris and opened as a standard in October 2026. Until the technical committee exists, he is the **editor** and the **maintainer** of the specification and of this repository. The editor: - runs the RFC process: assigns numbers, opens and closes discussion periods, records decisions and their reasons; - decides on RFCs after public discussion, seeking consensus first, and writes down how every substantive objection was answered; - keeps the specification, its Spanish translation and the conformance suite consistent; - merges changes to each implementation's folder only after its maintainer's review, once each folder has a named maintainer; - represents the project in registrations (IANA, PRONOM, the Library of Congress, the SQLite and file(1) projects) and before standards bodies; - handles security reports as [`SECURITY.md`](../SECURITY.md) describes. Contact: . **Continuity.** If the editor cannot be reached for 90 days, the maintainers of the first-tier implementations that pass the conformance suite MAY convene an interim committee by the rules below, to keep the specification and the repository alive until the editor returns or a technical committee is formed. ## Phase 2: the technical committee ### When it is formed The editor calls for a technical committee within 90 days after both conditions hold: 1. **three independent implementations** (in the sense of [`RFC-PROCESS.md`](RFC-PROCESS.md#independent-implementations)) pass the whole conformance suite of the current version; and 2. they are maintained by **at least two organizations** independent of each other. The editor and the projects he leads count as one organization; a person maintaining an implementation on their own counts as their own organization. The editor MAY call for the committee earlier. ### Composition - Between 5 and 7 members. - The editor holds a seat while the role of editor exists. - At least two members are maintainers of implementations that pass the suite, and at least one member represents users of the format (a library, archive, publisher or research group) rather than an implementation. - **No organization holds more than one third of the seats** (rounded down, minimum one). If a member changes employer and the limit is exceeded, a seat is renewed early. - Terms are two years and staggered, so that about half the seats are renewed each year. ### How members are chosen - **First committee.** The editor opens a public call for nominations for 30 days (self-nominations welcome), publishes the candidates and their affiliations, and proposes a committee that meets the composition rules. It is confirmed unless a sustained objection, with reasons, is raised within 14 days; objections are resolved in public before the committee takes office. - **Later renewals.** Elections with approval voting. Voters are people with at least one merged contribution to the specification, the conformance suite or an implementation in the previous 24 months, plus the named maintainers of implementations. Ties are broken by the public random procedure of RFC 3797. - Vacancies are filled for the rest of the term by the same method, or by co-option confirmed as for the first committee when fewer than 6 months remain. ### The editor under the committee The editor keeps writing and maintaining the specification and running the RFC process, and is a member of the committee. Disputed decisions are taken by the committee. The committee may appoint additional editors, and may replace the editor by a two-thirds majority of its members. ## Making decisions 1. **Consensus first.** Decisions are sought by consensus: no sustained objection remains after discussion. Routine matters use lazy consensus: a proposal announced in public stands if nobody objects within 7 days. 2. **Voting when consensus fails.** Only when the discussion has been given a fair chance and progress requires a decision, the committee votes. A quorum is a majority of its members. Decisions take a simple majority of the members voting, except: - a new **major version** of the specification, changes to this document, [`RFC-PROCESS.md`](RFC-PROCESS.md) or [`VERSIONING.md`](VERSIONING.md), and replacing the editor need **two thirds of all members**; - the licences cannot be changed to anything less open than they are (see below). 3. **Records.** Every decision is recorded in public, in the RFC, issue or pull request it concerns, with the reasons and, for votes, who voted how. Meetings may be held, but their decisions are tentative until written down there, and anyone may object within 7 days of publication, giving technical reasons. 4. In phase 1 the editor takes decisions by the same standard: consensus sought first, reasons recorded, objections answered in writing. ## Conflicts of interest - Committee members and the editor publish their affiliations, employers and funding related to SPDF, and keep that information current. - A member MUST disclose any direct interest in a decision (for example, a proposal that favours or harms a product of their employer) and SHOULD abstain from voting on it. They may still take part in the discussion. - The editor's own products, among them Scholaris and SPDF Reader, are declared interests. While no committee exists, decisions that would give them an advantage over other implementations are explained in writing and remain open to appeal. ## Appeals - Anyone affected by a decision may appeal it in writing within **30 days** of its publication, giving the reasons and the outcome they seek. - **Phase 1:** the appeal goes to the editor, who reconsiders and answers in public within 30 days. If the appellant is not satisfied, the appeal stays on record and the first committee reviews it if the matter is still open. - **Phase 2:** the appeal goes to the whole committee, which answers within 30 days. Members who took the decision under appeal may speak, but the outcome needs a majority of the members who did not. The committee's answer is final. - Appeals do not suspend a decision unless the editor or the committee says so. - The licences allow anyone to fork the specification at any time. Forks are welcome to build on SPDF, but files and implementations that do not follow this specification must not be presented as conforming SPDF. ## Claims of conformance An implementation may describe itself as conforming to SPDF *version* for the kinds of case it claims only if it passes every case of those kinds in a suite that targets that version, and its report (`conformance.json`) is public. Partial support is welcome and should be described as such. ## Code of conduct Everyone who takes part follows the [Contributor Covenant 2.1](../CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md). - **Phase 1:** reports go to the editor at . Reports concerning the editor himself are recorded, and the reporter may ask for them to be reviewed by an independent mediator agreed with them, or by the first committee. - **Phase 2:** the committee names two of its members as conduct contacts. A person who is the subject of a report, or has a conflict of interest in it, takes no part in handling it. - Reports are kept confidential, as the code of conduct requires. ## Licences and patents - The **specification and the documentation** are licensed under [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) (CC BY 4.0). - The **code** in this repository (libraries, the reference producer, the reader, the conformance suite, the website) is licensed under the MIT licence or the Apache License 2.0, at the user's choice (`MIT OR Apache-2.0`). - Contributions are accepted under the same licence as the part of the repository they change (inbound = outbound), without a contributor licence agreement or a Developer Certificate of Origin sign-off for now (see [`CONTRIBUTING.md`](../CONTRIBUTING.md)). - **Patent commitment.** José Luis Saorín Ferrer, as author and editor, commits not to assert any patent claim that he owns or controls, now or in the future, against anyone for making, using, selling, offering, importing or distributing an implementation of the SPDF specification. Every contributor to the specification makes the same commitment, by the act of contributing, for the patent claims they own or control that would necessarily be infringed by implementing the text they contributed. The commitment is irrevocable. - No decision of the editor or of the committee may relicense the specification under terms less open than CC BY 4.0, or the code under terms less open than `MIT OR Apache-2.0`. Versions already published keep their licences in any case. ## Where the project lives - Repository: . It is private until the specification, the conformance suite and the first-tier libraries pass, and public afterwards. If a GitHub organization `spdf-format` is created, the repository moves there. - Website: . - The editor or the committee may later propose to continue the work in a standards venue (for example a W3C Community Group). Such a move is decided by RFC and keeps the licences and the patent commitment above. ## Changing this document This document changes by RFC, with the same discussion and final comment periods as the specification. Under the committee, the change needs two thirds of all members.