Community Guidelines

Version 2.0 · Last updated: 12/23/2025

Our Philosophy

NaviDuck is built on the belief that technology should be accessible, transparent, and collaborative. We're not just building software—we're building a community of developers, users, and enthusiasts who believe in open, privacy-respecting tools.

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│        Our Core Community Values            │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  🔓 Openness and Transparency              │
│  👥 Respect and Inclusion                  │
│  🔧 Practical Problem Solving              │
│  📚 Knowledge Sharing                      │
│  🛡️ Privacy by Design                      │
│  🎯 Focus on User Value                    │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Participation Tiers

👑 Core Maintainers

Responsibilities: Code architecture, major decisions, release management
Requirements: Deep understanding of the codebase, consistent contributions
Current: DAPOWER99 (founder)

🛠️ Active Contributors

Role: Regular code contributions, issue triage, documentation
Path: 3+ substantial PRs merged, active in discussions
Permissions: PR review, issue assignment, wiki edits

🔍 Occasional Contributors

Role: Bug fixes, small features, documentation updates
Path: Any merged contribution
Permissions: Issue comments, PR creation

💬 Community Members

Role: Users, testers, feedback providers
Path: Using NaviDuck and participating in discussions
Permissions: Issue creation, discussion participation

Communication Channels

Primary: GitHub

Issues: Bug reports, feature requests
Discussions: General questions, ideas, help
Pull Requests: Code contributions
Wiki: Documentation, guides

Golden Rules for Communication

Search first - Check if your question/issue already exists
Be specific - Include details, error messages, steps to reproduce
Stay on topic - Keep discussions relevant to NaviDuck
Assume good faith - Everyone is here to help or be helped

Contribution Workflow

Step 1: Finding Work

Issues → Look for "good first issue" or "help wanted" labels
          ↓
Identify an area matching your skills
          ↓
Comment "I'd like to work on this" to avoid duplication

Step 2: Development

Fork repository → Create feature branch
       ↓
Make changes following code style
       ↓
Test thoroughly (see Testing Standards)
       ↓
Update documentation if needed

Step 3: Submission

Create Pull Request with template
       ↓
Link related issues
       ↓
Describe changes clearly
       ↓
Wait for review (typically 2-3 days)

Pull Request Requirements

✅ Follows code style guide
✅ Includes tests for new features
✅ Updates documentation
✅ Passes existing tests
✅ Single focus (one feature/fix per PR)

Code Review Standards

What Reviewers Look For

# ✅ Good contributions
def new_feature():
    """Clear purpose and documentation."""
    # Clean, readable code
    # Handles edge cases
    # Follows existing patterns
    pass

# ❌ Needs improvement
def messy_code():  # No docstring
    # Complex one-liners
    # Magic numbers
    # Doesn't match style
    pass

Review Response Times

Urgent security fixes: <24 hours
Bug fixes: 2-3 days
Features: 3-5 days
Large refactors: 5-7 days

How to Handle Feedback

Don't take it personally - Feedback is about the code, not you
Ask for clarification - If feedback isn't clear, ask questions
Explain your reasoning - If you disagree, explain why
Make requested changes - Update your PR promptly
Thank reviewers - Acknowledge their time and input

Issue Management

Creating Issues

## Expected Behavior
What should happen

## Actual Behavior
What actually happens

## Steps to Reproduce
1. Command: `search python`
2. See error: "CAPTCHA detected"
3. ...

## Environment
- OS: Windows 11
- Python: 3.9.7
- NaviDuck: 3.0.0

## Additional Context
Screenshots, logs, related issues

Issue Labels

bug: Something isn't working
enhancement: New feature or improvement
documentation: Docs need updating
good first issue: Great for new contributors
help wanted: Community help needed
security: Security-related issues
question: General questions

Response Expectations

Acknowledgement: Within 48 hours
Triage: Labeling within 3 days
Resolution: Depends on complexity
Updates: Regular status updates for ongoing issues

Decision Making Process

Types of Decisions

Technical: Implementation details, architecture
Feature: What to build next
Community: Guidelines, processes
Operational: Releases, maintenance

Decision Framework

Problem identified → Discussion opened
         ↓
Options proposed → Community feedback
         ↓
Consensus sought → Vote if needed
         ↓
Decision documented → Implemented

Voting Process

Who votes: Active contributors and above
Duration: 7 days minimum
Quorum: 3+ votes required
Majority: >50% for approval
Tiebreaker: Core maintainer decides

Conflict Resolution

Principles

Address directly - Talk to the person first
Focus on facts - Not personalities
Seek understanding - Not winning
Escalate if needed - To core maintainers

Unacceptable Behavior

Personal attacks or insults
Discrimination of any kind
Harassment in any form
Doxxing or sharing private information
Spamming or trolling

Resolution Steps

Private discussion between parties
Mediation by core maintainer if needed
Temporary cooling-off period
Formal warning if behavior continues
Removal from community in extreme cases

Recognition & Credit

How We Give Credit

Contributors list in README
Release notes acknowledge contributions
Special thanks for significant help
Badge system for different contribution types

Contributor Badges

🐛 Bug Hunter: Fixed critical bugs
📚 Documentarian: Improved documentation
🎨 Designer: UI/UX improvements
🔧 Maintainer: Ongoing maintenance
🚀 Feature Developer: Major features
🛡️ Security Guardian: Security improvements

Celebrating Contributions

Monthly "Contributor Spotlight"
Annual contributor awards
Featured in release announcements
Social media shoutouts (with permission)

Documentation Standards

What Needs Documentation

All public APIs and classes
Configuration options
Installation and setup
Common workflows
Troubleshooting guides

Documentation Levels

Code comments - How it works
Docstrings - What it does
README/Guide - How to use it
Tutorials - Learning paths
API Reference - Technical details

Documentation Review

Technical accuracy verified
Examples tested and working
Clear for intended audience
Consistent with existing docs

Testing & Quality Standards

Test Requirements

New features require tests
Bug fixes include regression tests
80%+ test coverage maintained
Tests run on all supported platforms

Testing Protocol

Local testing → CI pipeline → Manual verification
     ↓               ↓               ↓
Pass all tests   All checks pass   User testing
     ↓               ↓               ↓
Ready for PR    Ready for review   Ready for merge

Quality Gates

Code style - Passes black, flake8
Type hints - mypy passes (where applicable)
Tests - All pass, coverage maintained
Documentation - Updated and clear
Security - No obvious vulnerabilities

Release Process

Release Cadence

Patch releases: As needed for bugs
Minor releases: Every 1-2 months
Major releases: Every 6-12 months

Release Checklist

Who Can Release

Patch: Any core maintainer
Minor: Core maintainer agreement
Major: Community discussion and approval

Mentorship Program

For New Contributors

Onboarding guide with first tasks
Mentor assignment for guidance
Regular check-ins for support
Celebration of first contribution

Mentor Responsibilities

Guide through contribution process
Review first few PRs carefully
Provide constructive feedback
Help navigate community norms

Getting a Mentor

Comment on your first issue
Ask in discussions channel
Email core maintainers directly
Attend community meetings

Community Meetings

Regular Events

Monthly check-in: First Monday of each month
Sprint planning: Before major releases
Retrospective: After each release
Office hours: Weekly for questions

Meeting Structure

Agenda posted 24 hours in advance
Notes taken and published
Decisions documented
Action items assigned

Virtual Meetups

Platform: Discord/Matrix (TBD based on community size)
Recording: Meetings recorded for those who can't attend
Transcription: Notes published publicly

Financial Transparency

Current Status

NaviDuck is currently:

💰 No funding - Volunteer-driven
🆓 Free to use - MIT licensed
🌐 No ads - Never will have ads
🔓 No tracking - Privacy focused

If Donations Are Accepted

100% transparent reporting
Funds used for infrastructure only
No personal compensation
Community vote on fund usage

Sponsorship Policy

No exclusive sponsorships
Sponsors must align with values
No influence over development
Clear disclosure required

Moderation Team

Current Moderators

DAPOWER99 (founder and lead)

Moderation Principles

Transparency: Actions explained publicly
Consistency: Rules applied equally
Proportionality: Response matches offense
Appeal process: Fair chance to respond

Becoming a Moderator

6+ months active participation
Demonstrated good judgment
Community nomination
Current moderator approval

Language & Accessibility

Language Policy

Primary language: English
Translations welcome for documentation
Use clear, simple language
Avoid jargon without explanation

Accessibility Commitments

CLI interface works with screen readers
Color schemes consider color blindness
Documentation in plain language
Responsive to accessibility feedback

Inclusive Language

Use gender-neutral terms
Avoid ableist language
Respectful of all cultures
Welcoming to non-native speakers

Success Metrics

How We Measure Success

User growth - More people using NaviDuck
Contribution diversity - New contributors joining
Issue resolution time - Problems solved quickly
User satisfaction - Feedback and engagement
Code quality - Maintainable, clean codebase

Community Health Indicators

Low barrier to first contribution
Diverse contributor base
Respectful discussions
Steady feature development
Good documentation coverage

Feedback Loop

How We Improve

Monthly retrospectives - What's working, what's not
Annual survey - Community feedback
Contributor exit interviews - Why people leave
User feedback analysis - Patterns in issues

Changing These Guidelines

Proposed change discussion
Community feedback period (14 days)
Vote if consensus not reached
Update documentation
Communicate changes widely

Emergency Protocol

Security Issues

Report: security@ or private message to maintainers
Assessment: Severity determined
Fix: Developed privately
Release: Coordinated disclosure
Communication: Users notified

Critical Bugs

Tag: critical label applied
Priority: All hands on deck
Fix: Rapid development
Release: Patch immediately
Notification: Users alerted

Maintainer Unavailability

Designated backups for each role
Decision escalation path documented
Emergency contact list maintained
Graceful degradation of processes

Long-term Vision

Community Goals

Sustainable - Not dependent on single person
Welcoming - Easy for anyone to contribute
Impactful - Solving real problems
Innovative - Pushing CLI browser boundaries

Success Looks Like

Multiple active maintainers
Regular community events
Strong onboarding process
Happy, engaged users
Continuous improvement

Final Words

NaviDuck is more than code—it's people working together to build something useful. These guidelines exist to make that collaboration smooth, respectful, and productive.

Remember: We're all here to learn, build, and help each other. Mistakes happen, questions are welcome, and everyone started somewhere.

Be excellent to each other.

Community Guidelines version: 2.0
Last updated: 12/23/2025