Establish a Structured Community Feedback and Contribution Workflow

[CeloHaiTiFreClean]

Objective

Establish a single, transparent, and maintainable workflow for community feedback, proposals, bug reports, feature requests, and contributions across the CeloHT ecosystem.

Problem

Community feedback can become fragmented across repositories, duplicated issues, discussions, and informal channels.

The goal is to establish one canonical workflow so valuable community input is not lost, duplicated, or handled inconsistently.

Requirements

• Define where users should report:
  • Bugs
  • Security concerns
  • Feature requests
  • Documentation improvements
  • Product feedback
  • Governance proposals
  • General community contributions
• Define when an issue should be opened versus a discussion/proposal.
• Define duplicate detection and consolidation rules.
• Establish labels/categories for community-originated work.
• Define triage ownership and expected handling workflow.
• Link related issues instead of duplicating work.
• Preserve useful historical context when duplicates are closed.
• Ensure security-sensitive reports are routed through the security process instead of public issues.
• Document the workflow in the canonical contributor documentation.

Acceptance Criteria

• A single canonical community feedback workflow is documented.
• Issue types and their intended usage are clearly defined.
• Duplicate issues have a documented handling process.
• Labels/categories are standardized.
• Triage ownership is documented.
• Security reports have a separate documented path.
• Contributors can easily determine where to submit each type of feedback.
• The workflow is referenced from the main contributor documentation.
• Existing duplicate community-feedback issues are reviewed and consolidated.

Out of Scope

• Creating multiple repositories for the same feedback category.
• Duplicating existing contribution/security workflows.
• Creating a separate feedback dashboard.