Problem
An external developer or potential contributor has no way to know:
- Who is actively maintaining this organization
- What happens if the primary maintainer is unavailable
- Whether the project is actively maintained or effectively abandoned
The absence of any continuity statement is itself a credibility signal — and a negative one.
Required change
Add a short governance continuity section (3-5 sentences is enough) to either the org homepage README or GOVERNANCE.md that covers:
- Who the primary maintainer is (GitHub handle is sufficient).
- Where to report urgent issues if no response in N days.
- The project status (actively maintained, experimental, etc.).
This does not need to be elaborate. Even a minimal statement like:
This organization is maintained by @telleroutlook. For urgent issues, open a GitHub issue and tag @telleroutlook. Core repos (wasmagent-js, wasmagent-protocol, agentbom) are actively maintained. Research repos (symkernel, wasmagent-train-replay) receive best-effort updates.
Acceptance criteria
- The continuity statement exists in a discoverable location (org README or GOVERNANCE.md).
- It answers: who, how to reach them, and which repos are actively maintained.
Problem
An external developer or potential contributor has no way to know:
The absence of any continuity statement is itself a credibility signal — and a negative one.
Required change
Add a short governance continuity section (3-5 sentences is enough) to either the org homepage README or GOVERNANCE.md that covers:
This does not need to be elaborate. Even a minimal statement like:
Acceptance criteria