Contribution (#49)

* add code of conduct

* add proposal

* fix url

* spelling

* add Tilo

.github/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+# Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct
+
+## Our Pledge
+
+We as members, contributors, and leaders pledge to make participation in our
+community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body
+size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender
+identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status,
+nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual
+identity and orientation.
+
+We pledge to act and interact in ways that contribute to an open, welcoming,
+diverse, inclusive, and healthy community.
+
+## Our Standards
+
+Examples of behavior that contributes to a positive environment for our
+community include:
+
+* Demonstrating empathy and kindness toward other people
+* Being respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences
+* Giving and gracefully accepting constructive feedback
+* Accepting responsibility and apologizing to those affected by our mistakes,
+  and learning from the experience
+* Focusing on what is best not just for us as individuals, but for the overall
+  community
+
+Examples of unacceptable behavior include:
+
+* The use of sexualized language or imagery, and sexual attention or advances of
+  any kind
+* Trolling, insulting or derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
+* Public or private harassment
+* Publishing others' private information, such as a physical or email address,
+  without their explicit permission
+* Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a
+  professional setting
+
+## Enforcement Responsibilities
+
+Community leaders are responsible for clarifying and enforcing our standards of
+acceptable behavior and will take appropriate and fair corrective action in
+response to any behavior that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive,
+or harmful.
+
+Community leaders have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject
+comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are
+not aligned to this Code of Conduct, and will communicate reasons for moderation
+decisions when appropriate.
+
+## Scope
+
+This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces, and also applies when
+an individual is officially representing the community in public spaces.
+Examples of representing our community include using an official e-mail address,
+posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed
+representative at an online or offline event.
+
+## Enforcement
+
+Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be
+reported to the community leaders responsible for enforcement at
+[INSERT CONTACT METHOD].
+All complaints will be reviewed and investigated promptly and fairly.
+
+All community leaders are obligated to respect the privacy and security of the
+reporter of any incident.
+
+## Enforcement Guidelines
+
+Community leaders will follow these Community Impact Guidelines in determining
+the consequences for any action they deem in violation of this Code of Conduct:
+
+### 1. Correction
+
+**Community Impact**: Use of inappropriate language or other behavior deemed
+unprofessional or unwelcome in the community.
+
+**Consequence**: A private, written warning from community leaders, providing
+clarity around the nature of the violation and an explanation of why the
+behavior was inappropriate. A public apology may be requested.
+
+### 2. Warning
+
+**Community Impact**: A violation through a single incident or series of
+actions.
+
+**Consequence**: A warning with consequences for continued behavior. No
+interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction with
+those enforcing the Code of Conduct, for a specified period of time. This
+includes avoiding interactions in community spaces as well as external channels
+like social media. Violating these terms may lead to a temporary or permanent
+ban.
+
+### 3. Temporary Ban
+
+**Community Impact**: A serious violation of community standards, including
+sustained inappropriate behavior.
+
+**Consequence**: A temporary ban from any sort of interaction or public
+communication with the community for a specified period of time. No public or
+private interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction
+with those enforcing the Code of Conduct, is allowed during this period.
+Violating these terms may lead to a permanent ban.
+
+### 4. Permanent Ban
+
+**Community Impact**: Demonstrating a pattern of violation of community
+standards, including sustained inappropriate behavior, harassment of an
+individual, or aggression toward or disparagement of classes of individuals.
+
+**Consequence**: A permanent ban from any sort of public interaction within the
+community.
+
+## Attribution
+
+This Code of Conduct is adapted from the [Contributor Covenant][homepage],
+version 2.1, available at
+[https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/1/code_of_conduct.html][v2.1].
+
+Community Impact Guidelines were inspired by
+[Mozilla's code of conduct enforcement ladder][Mozilla CoC].
+
+For answers to common questions about this code of conduct, see the FAQ at
+[https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq][FAQ]. Translations are available at
+[https://www.contributor-covenant.org/translations][translations].
+
+[homepage]: https://www.contributor-covenant.org
+[v2.1]: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/1/code_of_conduct.html
+[Mozilla CoC]: https://github.com/mozilla/diversity
+[FAQ]: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq
+[translations]: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/translations

.github/CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+# Contributing to thevalidatoR
+
+:+1::tada: Before we jump in - thanks for getting this far! :tada::+1:
+
+All discussions are open and inclusive on this repo. If you have an idea, or but - please make an issue! 
+
+## Code of conduct
+
+This project follows the [![Contributor Covenant](https://img.shields.io/badge/Contributor%20Covenant-2.1-4baaaa.svg)](CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md).
+
+## Contributions
+
+PRs are welcome.
+
+## Proposal for a 'validation documentation' sub-team in the R Validation Hub
+
+**This is a proposal, and not our current collaboration model**
+
+### Purpose
+
+The core purpose of this gh-action is to provide a common template, that can be applied 
+to packages to generate automated documentation detailing the installation, assessment 
+of unit tests, and cross referencing what defined features from the documentation are 
+tested (by building the traceability matrix).
+
+The intended aim is that the gh-action can be used to provide 'shared' 
+validation documentation between companies. The expectation is that validation 
+would then take place by installing and testing the package against the actual 
+environments present in each company. 
+
+While discussions are on-going around 'assessment' of packages meeting 
+required validation thresholds for each company (and sharing the components
+of this human based process between companies), the scope of this working group is 
+focussed on the 'automated' documentation.
+
+### Position in R Validation Hub
+
+The R Validation Hub is a PSI and R Consortium Working Group, with a strong member overlap with Phuse validation efforts. 
+Thus we feel the best way forward forward is to fold this in as an contribution based subset of the 
+efforts under the wider R Validation Hub umbrella.
+
+### Governance
+
+* Decisions (and discussions) will always be documented, as either github issues or github discussions.
+* Contributions and discussions will in all cases be open (and present in Github)
+* The team will remain a meritocracy, and as it's an activity 
+
+#### Github repositary maintainers / admins
+
+In addition to the org admins having access, adding an individual to the repository  
+will be based on meritocracy, based on contributions made as an external contributor and 
+where there is no disagreement from the current maintainers. 
+`org [currently insightsengineering, proposal is pharmar]` admins retain the right to remove 
+individuals with admin/maintainer rights if the code of conduct is breached.
+
+Current maintainers (while R packages have a specific definition of maintainer, this is not an R package
+and we are following the Github definition):
+
+* James Black (@epijim) 
+* Doug Kelhkoff (@dgkf-roche)
+* Andy Nicholls (@andyofsmeg)
+* Ellis Hughes (@thebioengineer)
+* Tilo Black (@tlblnk)
+* Dawid Rycerz (@knightdave)
+
+#### Responsibilities to the R validation Hub
+
+* `thevalidatoR` is a project analogous to `riskmetric` and the R assessment shiny app, so no additional formal meeting structure is required, beyond commitments from the package maintainers to continue to be available to update the wider team on current status.
+* A named maintainer (James Black as of today) will maintain the dicussion, road map / kanban and ensure releases are documented.