> ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://routerdocs.hivenet.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # Code of conduct > Review the standards, scope, reporting process, and enforcement guidelines that apply across the Hivenet Router community. Hivenet Router follows the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct, version 2.1. It applies to maintainers, contributors, and everyone participating in the project’s community spaces. Its purpose is to support an open, welcoming, inclusive, and healthy environment where people can contribute without harassment. The repository’s root [`CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md`](https://github.com/HivenetOSS/hivenet_router/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) is the authoritative version. This page summarizes how the policy applies. Refer to the canonical file for the complete wording. Review the complete standards, scope, reporting process, and enforcement guidelines. Contact the community leaders responsible for reviewing conduct reports. ## The community pledge Hivenet Router’s maintainers and contributors pledge to make participation harassment-free for everyone, regardless of identity, background, ability, experience, education, appearance, nationality, religion, economic status, or other personal characteristics. Community participation should contribute to an environment that is: * open * welcoming * diverse * inclusive * healthy These standards apply equally to experienced maintainers, first-time contributors, users reporting problems, and people participating in project discussions. ## Expected behavior Constructive participation includes: * showing empathy and kindness * respecting different opinions, perspectives, and experiences * giving specific and constructive feedback * receiving feedback without personal hostility * accepting responsibility for mistakes * apologizing and learning when your actions affect others * considering what is best for the wider community Disagreement is allowed and often necessary in an open-source project. The Code of Conduct does not require participants to avoid criticism or technical debate. It requires that disagreement remain focused on the work, evidence, trade-offs, and project needs rather than becoming personal, insulting, or threatening. ## Unacceptable behavior Behavior that violates the Code of Conduct includes: * sexualized language, imagery, attention, or advances * trolling or deliberately disruptive conduct * insulting or derogatory comments * personal or political attacks * public or private harassment * publishing another person’s private information without permission * conduct that would reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting This applies regardless of whether the behavior occurs publicly or privately. For example, moving harassment from a GitHub issue into email, direct messages, or social media does not place it outside the policy. ## Where the policy applies The Code of Conduct applies across Hivenet Router community spaces, including: * GitHub issues * pull requests * code reviews * commits and repository contributions * documentation discussions * project-related email * community discussions * online or offline project events * other spaces managed by the project It also applies when someone officially represents the Hivenet Router community in public. Examples include: * using an official project or company email address * posting through an official social-media account * speaking as an appointed project representative * representing the project at an event The policy does not claim authority over every part of a participant’s personal life. It does apply when outside conduct is directed at community participants or is connected to official project representation. ## Maintainer responsibilities Community leaders are responsible for clarifying and enforcing the standards fairly. They may remove, edit, or reject contributions that do not comply with the policy, including: * comments * issues * pull requests * commits * code * documentation * wiki edits * other project contributions When appropriate, maintainers will explain why moderation action was taken. Enforcement decisions should be based on: * the behavior involved * its impact on the community * whether it is isolated or repeated * the safety of affected participants * the participant’s response to previous guidance * the need to prevent further harm ## Report an incident Report abusive, harassing, threatening, or otherwise unacceptable behavior privately to: ```text theme={null} support@hivenet.com ``` Include the information needed to understand and investigate the incident, such as: * where it occurred * when it occurred * what happened * who was involved * links, screenshots, or messages where relevant * whether the behavior is continuing * whether anyone faces an immediate safety concern * any previous related incident or moderation action Provide only information that is relevant to the report. Do not distribute sensitive evidence more broadly than necessary. Do not respond to harassment by publishing another person’s private information. Send supporting material privately to the enforcement contact. ## Privacy All reports should be reviewed promptly and fairly. Community leaders responsible for enforcement are required to respect the privacy and security of the person making the report. This means that incident details should be shared only as needed to: * investigate the report * protect affected participants * make an enforcement decision * carry out the resulting action * meet an overriding legal or safety obligation The Code of Conduct does not promise that every report can remain completely anonymous in every circumstance. Reporters should nevertheless be told when information needs to be shared beyond the enforcement team whenever that is reasonably possible. ## What happens after a report The precise process depends on the incident, but a typical review includes: The enforcement contact confirms that the report has been received and identifies any information needed for the review. Community leaders examine the report, relevant project records, and supporting evidence. The reviewers consider the seriousness, duration, context, repetition, and effect of the behavior. The enforcement team applies the relevant Community Impact Guideline. The people who need to know are informed, and the moderation or access restrictions are applied. The maintainers monitor compliance with the decision and escalate the response when its terms are violated. The complete canonical policy governs the process when this summary and the repository wording differ. ## Enforcement guidelines The Contributor Covenant defines four levels of community impact. | Level | Typical impact | Possible consequence | | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Correction | Inappropriate, unprofessional, or unwelcome behavior | A private written warning, explanation, and possibly a requested public apology | | Warning | One violation or a series of related actions | A formal warning and restrictions on interaction for a defined period | | Temporary ban | A serious violation or sustained inappropriate behavior | A temporary ban from community interaction and communication | | Permanent ban | A continuing pattern, harassment, aggression, or disparagement of groups | Permanent removal from public participation in the community | ### Correction A correction normally addresses behavior such as inappropriate language or conduct that is unprofessional or unwelcome. The person may receive: * a private written warning * an explanation of the violation * guidance on expected behavior * a request for a public apology The purpose is to stop the behavior and establish a clear standard before it escalates. ### Warning A warning applies to a more consequential incident or a series of actions. It can prohibit interaction with: * the people affected * the people enforcing the policy * related discussions or community spaces The restriction can also apply to unsolicited contact through external channels such as social media. Violating the warning can lead to a temporary or permanent ban. ### Temporary ban A temporary ban applies to a serious violation or sustained inappropriate behavior. During the ban, the participant may not: * contribute to project spaces * contact affected participants * contact the people enforcing the policy without invitation * participate through alternative accounts * continue the dispute through external public or private channels Violating the ban can result in permanent removal. ### Permanent ban A permanent ban applies to conduct such as: * a continuing pattern of violations * sustained harassment * aggression toward an individual * disparagement or harassment of groups of people * refusal to comply with earlier enforcement action A permanently banned participant may no longer interact publicly within the project community. ## Good-faith reports A report does not need to prove the complete case before it is submitted. Participants should report concerns in good faith and provide the most accurate information available to them. An investigation may determine that: * the Code of Conduct was violated * the behavior was inappropriate but does not require formal enforcement * the available evidence is insufficient * the dispute is primarily technical rather than a conduct matter * another reporting or support process is more appropriate A report that is not upheld is not automatically a false or malicious report. Deliberately fabricated reports, manipulated evidence, retaliation, or use of the enforcement process to harass another participant can themselves violate the Code of Conduct. ## Technical disagreement Technical criticism is not harassment merely because it is direct or negative. Participants may challenge: * implementation choices * architecture * performance claims * documentation * security assumptions * testing quality * project scope * maintainers’ decisions Keep criticism connected to the work. Constructive: ```text theme={null} This change can race when two requests acquire the final capacity slot. The test currently covers only sequential requests. ``` Not constructive: ```text theme={null} Only an incompetent developer would write this. ``` The first identifies a concrete technical concern. The second attacks the person rather than helping the project resolve the problem. ## Moderation and technical decisions Code-of-conduct enforcement and technical project governance are related but distinct. A pull request can be rejected because: * it does not fit the project’s scope * the design introduces unacceptable trade-offs * tests are incomplete * compatibility is not preserved * maintainers prefer another approach That rejection is not, by itself, a conduct violation. Similarly, a technically correct contribution does not excuse harassment, threats, or abusive behavior. Maintainers may moderate conduct while making a separate decision about the underlying technical proposal. ## Retaliation Do not retaliate against someone for: * reporting an incident * participating in an investigation * providing evidence * enforcing the Code of Conduct * complying with an enforcement decision * supporting a person affected by misconduct Retaliation can include: * public attacks * private harassment * attempts to expose the reporter’s identity * interference with their contributions * coordinated exclusion * unwanted contact after being told to stop Report suspected retaliation through the same private enforcement channel. ## Security reports use a private channel too Suspected security vulnerabilities should also be reported privately to: ```text theme={null} support@hivenet.com ``` A security report and a conduct report may use the same contact address, but they are different processes. For a security issue, include technical reproduction and impact details. Do not publish the vulnerability in a public GitHub issue. See [Contributing](/project/contributing#report-a-security-issue-privately) for the security-reporting guidance. ## Attribution The canonical policy is adapted from: * the [Contributor Covenant](https://www.contributor-covenant.org/), version 2.1 * the Community Impact Guidelines inspired by [Mozilla’s code-of-conduct enforcement ladder](https://github.com/mozilla/diversity) The Contributor Covenant also provides: * a [frequently asked questions page](https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq/) * [translations](https://www.contributor-covenant.org/translations/) The repository’s canonical file contains the complete attribution and reference links. ## Next steps Read the complete and authoritative Contributor Covenant policy. Review the development, documentation, issue, and pull request workflow. Review the Apache License 2.0 terms applying to the project and its contributions. Report public bugs and discuss feature proposals that are not security or conduct incidents.