Skip to content

Governance & Working Group

This page describes how the Reconstruction‑Grade eDiscovery Standard is governed, how normative changes are evaluated, and how the working group operates. It operationalizes the principles in Section 7 — Standard Governance and Adoption.

Stewardship

The standard is currently stewarded by Cloudficient as the originating author. The steward role encompasses:

  • Maintaining the canonical repository and publication pipeline
  • Reviewing and merging contributions
  • Coordinating working‑group activities
  • Managing version releases and change control

The steward does not unilaterally adopt normative changes. Normative changes follow the review process described below.

Versioning and change control

The standard follows the versioning discipline defined in Section 7.3:

Version type Trigger Conformance impact
Major (e.g., 1.0 → 2.0) Breaking changes to conformance requirements Existing claims MUST be re‑evaluated
Minor (e.g., 1.0 → 1.1) New requirements, tests, or artifact coverage Existing claims remain valid
Patch / editorial Typos, formatting, non‑normative clarifications No conformance impact

Every version MUST include a change log entry in CHANGELOG.md. Conformance claims MUST reference a specific standard version.

Normative change process

Normative changes — any modification to MUST, SHOULD, or MAY requirements, conformance tests, or definitions that affect conformance evaluation — follow a structured review:

1. Proposal

A Normative Change Proposal issue is opened. The proposal must include:

  • Proposed wording (with MUST/SHOULD/MAY keywords)
  • Rationale tied to threat model, defensibility, or reproducibility
  • Conformance‑level impact (RG‑Core / RG‑Plus / RG‑Max)
  • Testability: how would you prove it?
  • Backward compatibility assessment

2. Working‑group review

The proposal is discussed by the working group. Review considers:

  • Necessity: Does this address a real gap or threat?
  • Testability: Can conformance be objectively measured?
  • Proportionality: Is the requirement achievable at enterprise scale?
  • Backward compatibility: Does it invalidate existing conformance claims?

3. Steward decision

The steward accepts, requests revision, or declines the proposal with documented rationale. Accepted proposals are assigned to a version milestone.

4. Implementation

A Pull Request is submitted referencing the approved Issue. The PR must update CHANGELOG.md and bump VERSION.

Working group

Purpose

The working group validates requirements against real enterprise conditions and contributes to the conformance test framework. Focus areas include:

  • Scale constraints and service throttling
  • Identity systems and effective‑dating
  • Regulatory obligations
  • Export reproducibility
  • Operational defensibility

Composition

Participation is open to:

  • Enterprises — legal operations, IT, compliance
  • Law firms — litigation support, eDiscovery practice groups
  • Service providers — managed review, consulting
  • Vendors — platform developers, processing tool providers
  • Individual practitioners — researchers, consultants

How to join

Express interest via the Working Group Participation form →

Operating principles

  • Discussions focus on measurable criteria, not product positioning.
  • Vendor participants contribute on equal footing; conformance claims by any party are evaluated against published requirements.
  • The objective is shared vocabulary, measurable baselines, and repeatable evaluation across collaboration platforms.

See also