Governance
This document says who decides, how, and what a contributor can rely on. It describes the project as it is today, not as it is intended to become.
Where the project stands
Section titled “Where the project stands”Trisilva does the editorial work and holds the only editor seats. There are no other maintainers yet and no external implementers on record. Saying otherwise would be more comfortable and would not be true.
That is a real limitation and it is worth stating what it means for a reader. A standard maintained by one organisation carries that organisation’s blind spots. The protection against it is not a promise, it is the record: every decision below leaves a written reason, so a reader can check the reasoning rather than trust the maintainer.
Editors decide what enters the standard.
| Name | Affiliation | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Vu Tung Lam | Trisilva | The standard, and the Vietnam profile |
That is the whole list, and the limitation is described below rather than left to be inferred from the length of the table.
Profile owners are accountable for what a profile claims about its market’s regulation.
| Profile | Accountable |
|---|---|
vn | Unassigned |
Contributors open issues and proposals. No agreement or membership is required.
Implementers build against the standard. An implementer who reports a defect that changes the standard is the most useful contributor there is, and is listed as such in the changelog.
How a change is decided
Section titled “How a change is decided”- An issue. Anything: a defect, a gap, a question, a market with no profile.
- A proposal, for anything that changes the standard. What breaks, who it affects, and what an existing implementation has to do about it. Small corrections skip this.
- A decision, with the reasoning written down. Every accepted change records why, against the specific defect or gap it closes. Every rejected proposal records why, in the issue.
- A version. See Versioning.
Nothing enters the standard without a written reason. That is the one procedural rule here, and it is the rule that lets someone audit a single-maintainer project.
When an editor disagrees with you
Section titled “When an editor disagrees with you”An editor can decline a proposal. What an editor cannot do is decline it silently or without a reason, and a decision recorded as a preference rather than an argument is a defect in this process that you should raise.
Every module carries a “What to watch” section, and everything in one is explicitly open. Those are the places where this project made a call rather than inherited one, including every case where the two source documents disagree and one was chosen over the other. A well-argued objection to any of them should be expected to change the document. The full record of what was changed and why is in Changelog and inherited/.
How editorship opens
Section titled “How editorship opens”Two independent implementers, or one sustained outside contributor, and editorship opens. This is written here so it can be held against us rather than as an aspiration.
The threshold is written down because a standard governed by one company is worth less than one governed by several, and naming the condition is more useful than promising the outcome. An editor seat follows sustained work on the standard, so the way to take one is to do the work.
Conflict of interest
Section titled “Conflict of interest”Trisilva sells insurance operations software built on this standard. That is a real conflict and the mitigation is a scope line rather than a declaration.
Nothing that only makes sense because of a vendor’s product enters the standard. Distribution mechanics, commission ledgers, workflow sub-states and operational service-level measurement sit above it. This has bitten already: material previously filed as the Vietnam profile was base-standard work, and material that was genuinely product behaviour was kept out of the profile at v0.2. The line is enforced by asking one question of every proposal, including our own. Would a market with no Trisilva software in it need this? If the answer is no, it does not go in.
What this project does not have
Section titled “What this project does not have”No foundation, no legal entity, no membership, no funding, no trademark of its own, and no ratification process. A future version may need some of these. None of them exist today.