Governance

OpenEmotions™ distinguishes stewardship of infrastructure from authority over scientific claims. Repository ownership does not establish expertise. No steering committee, verified expert panel, or institutional affiliation is claimed to exist at launch.

Contributors propose changes. Reviewers assess submissions in a stated scope. Verified Experts have credentials checked with consent, for a declared domain and period. Maintainers operate releases and enforce project process. Scientific Editors coordinate evidence review and resolve editorial questions with recorded reasoning. A Steering Committee may be established when participation warrants it, with published appointment and conflict procedures.

Changes enter by issue and pull request, with automatic validation and human review. Scientific disputes must cite a stable claim ID. Preserve opposing evidence, seek an independent reviewer where possible, and publish the rationale for qualified revision, disputed status, or deferral. Do not remove contrary evidence merely because a majority disagrees.

Participants disclose relevant conflicts. Reviewers should recuse themselves from decisions where interests compromise independence. A disputed maintainer decision can be appealed in a governance issue requesting independent review. Where no independent expertise is available, label uncertainty and defer adjudication; do not manufacture consensus.

Verified status must record the public scope of verification and must be reassessed if credentials expire or are challenged. Private verification material stays outside the public dataset. Roles may be revoked with documented reasons and a chance to respond. Emergency security actions may occur before public discussion, followed by an appropriate record once disclosure is safe.