This document defines the public project roles and decision process for LoopX. It governs the repository and its releases. It is separate from LoopX runtime concepts such as agent peers, todo claims, quota, gates, and write scopes.
| Person | Role | Since | Public evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
@huangruiteng |
Creator and lead maintainer | 2026-05-31 | Initial public commit |
The lead maintainer is currently the final decision maker for releases, maintainer appointments, security-sensitive handling, and changes to this governance model. That tie-break role should be revisited when the active maintainer group grows.
Path-scoped subsystem appointments and preferred review assignments are recorded below. A subsystem appointment does not by itself grant repository-wide maintainer authority.
The following developers have, or have been invited to accept, GitHub's
repository write role. Write access supports day-to-day pull-request and
branch work within the repository rules. It does not by itself appoint someone
as a maintainer or grant release, security, or governance authority.
| GitHub account | Repository role | Access status |
|---|---|---|
@wujc12 |
Write | Active |
@ZaynJarvis |
Write | Active |
@Hoey041 |
Write | Active |
@maxliux5 |
Write | Active |
@JackyCSer |
Write | Active |
@steven-kid |
Write | Active |
@liubf21 |
Write | Invitation pending |
@wchwawa |
Write | Invitation pending |
GitHub's repository settings are the operational source of truth for access. This public snapshot should be updated through a pull request when a write-role invitation is accepted, expires, or is revoked. Maintainer appointments remain subject to the process below.
A subsystem maintainer is accountable for review quality and contract coherence inside a named surface. The appointment does not grant authority over unrelated subsystems, releases, security handling, repository settings, or admin-bypass merges.
| Role | Account | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Subsystem maintainer | @steven-kid |
Bundled Lark extension, its direct CLI delegates, Lark capability and integration documentation, and focused Lark validation |
| Lead maintainer and fallback reviewer | @huangruiteng |
Repository governance, cross-subsystem decisions, and review of changes authored by the subsystem maintainer |
The Lark integration maintainer is expected to:
- provide the first substantive response and design review for Lark pull requests;
- keep extension implementation, direct CLI delegates, public documentation, and focused validation consistent;
- protect authority, readback, owner-private receipt, retry, idempotency, and cross-platform boundaries;
- submit approval or change-request reviews on pull requests authored by other contributors; and
- escalate changes that alter shared extension lifecycle, status, quota, todo, release, security, or repository-governance contracts.
The appointment does not authorize the subsystem maintainer to approve their own pull requests. A non-author reviewer must still approve those changes under the repository rules. Merge, release, security, repository-settings, and admin-bypass authority remain governed by this document and the lead maintainer.
The matching paths are recorded in CODEOWNERS. That file
provides automatic review routing. This appointment does not make code-owner
approval a branch-protection requirement. After at least three, and normally
five, completed cross-author exact-head review cycles, the lead maintainer may
separately decide whether to propose required code-owner review.
@steven-kid is a preferred reviewer, not the sole code owner, for the shared
host integration seams currently centered on:
loopx/host_loop_activation.py;loopx/host_mode_planner.py;loopx/cli_commands/host_mode_plan.py; anddocs/integrations/runtime-connector-catalog.md.
Host integration spans Codex, Claude Code, OpenCode, DeepSeek Harness, and
other runtime providers. Provider-specific implementation remains with the
relevant contributors and repository maintainers, while shared status, quota,
todo, scheduler, and Turn contracts remain outside the Lark appointment. These
host paths are therefore not assigned to @steven-kid in CODEOWNERS at this
stage.
Adding, expanding, narrowing, or retiring a subsystem appointment requires a
public pull request that updates this document and any matching CODEOWNERS
routes. Contribution count alone is not sufficient evidence. The decision
should consider sustained technical judgment, cross-author review quality,
boundary discipline, responsiveness, and whether the proposed path scope is
cohesive.
Maintainers may review and merge pull requests, publish releases, triage security reports, and make repository governance decisions. They are expected to protect compatibility, the public/private boundary, contributor trust, and the quality of LoopX's control-plane contracts.
Maintainer authority is explicit: it comes from this document and repository permissions, not from commit count, a runtime todo claim, or an agent role.
Anyone who improves code, tests, documentation, design, issues, or reviews is a contributor. Accepted commits and co-authored commits are credited through the public Git history and GitHub contributor views. Contribution does not by itself grant merge, release, or governance authority.
Agents and automation may prepare changes, run validation, or appear in commit provenance. They do not become human maintainers and cannot grant themselves repository authority. A human maintainer remains accountable for merges, releases, and boundary decisions.
- Routine changes use pull-request review, focused validation, and maintainer judgment. Silence is not approval when a change requires an explicit gate.
- Changes to persisted state, public contracts, defaults, permissions, evidence policy, or compatibility should explain the behavioral impact and include proportionate regression coverage.
- Significant product or governance changes should be discussed in a public issue or pull request before they are finalized.
- Security reports, credentials, private evidence, and other sensitive matters must not be posted in a public issue. Ask a maintainer for a private contact path without including the sensitive details.
- Releases are cut by a maintainer after the documented release checks pass. Exceptions and known skips should be recorded in the release or pull request.
- When consensus is not reached, the lead maintainer records the decision and rationale in the relevant issue or pull request.
The versioned Current Technical Directions page is the canonical map of active strategic programs, maturity, contribution routes, and promotion gates. The pinned GitHub Discussion is its community-facing projection; an issue, Discussion, RFC, or integration branch does not override merged runtime and stable reference contracts.
Each strategic direction has one long-lived tracking issue. Trackers record outcomes, boundaries, implementation leads, material decisions, and links to bounded work. They are not themselves blanket implementation authorization. A claimable change should have a separate issue or public task-board row with an explicit smallest slice, base branch, non-goals, and validation plan.
A material change to a direction's stage, scope, implementation lead, integration branch, or promotion gate requires a pull request updating the canonical map. The RFC index and contributor task board should change in the same pull request when their routing changes. Maintainers update the pinned Discussion after merge and should not maintain an independent roadmap body there.
The direction/* labels route discovery and review. They do not grant
authority, promise delivery, or imply that a Draft or Research item is ready
for implementation. Recognition as an implementation lead records current
public work; it is separate from repository write access, subsystem maintainer
appointment, and repository-wide maintainer authority.
Maintainers are selected from contributors who have shown sustained technical judgment, reliable review, respect for project boundaries, and care for other contributors. An active maintainer nominates the candidate; the active maintainers approve the appointment; and the change is recorded here through a pull request.
A maintainer may step down at any time. Inactive or emeritus status, when needed, should likewise be recorded in this file rather than inferred from recent commit activity.
Important decisions should leave durable public rationale in an issue, pull request, release, or stable project document. Private incident details and raw agent trajectories do not belong in that public record.
This charter does not create a legal entity, employment relationship,
copyright assignment, or trademark registration. See
AUTHORS.md for attribution,
TRADEMARKS.md for name and mark usage, and
CONTRIBUTING.md for the contribution workflow.