v0.0.2 · 2026-10-14 · Request for Comments

Swartzism is a doctrine, not a membership. It has no leaders, no signatories, and no one to obey. It has a text, a record, and a process for changing both. This document is that process.

1. What publication means

The doctrine ships as a Request for Comments. Version 0.0.1 is an opening position, not a finished one: every line is contestable by argument, and the version number records what happened to the argument.

2. What is fixed

One thing. The boundary — liberate the world’s knowledge, defend each person’s life — is constitutional. It is not subject to ordinary amendment, coalition bargaining, or cost-benefit override. Proposals to move it are out of scope by definition; the doctrine’s answer to them is already written. Everything else is revisable.

3. Versioning

• 0.0.x — textual: wording, clarity, source corrections, corrigenda.
• 0.x.0 — structural: changes to the works, the guardrails, the taxonomy, or the framing of an axiom.
• 1.0.0 — only when the doctrine has survived a full adversarial pass (Pass 2 minimum) with no open amendment proposals against its axioms. Not before.
• Versions are tags, not authorities. No version is binding on anyone; the text argues for itself.

4. How to participate

The repository is https://github.com/LogicIncZo/swartzism. Three doors, in rising order of commitment:

• Comment — open an issue against the repository. Name the line you are attacking, state the argument, and cite the evidence.
• Amend — open a pull request carrying the exact changed text. Proposals move at the speed of §5.
• Fork — the preferred act. The license invites it: take the texts whole, change what you can defend, run your own review, and republish under CC BY-SA with the boundary intact. A fork is not a schism; it is the doctrine replicating the way information replicates — by copying and variation. If your fork survives its own attacks, link it back: the version history is the commons’ memory.

Two rules bind every door:

• Claims about the record carry source URLs or they do not count. This rule binds the doctrine’s own texts first — the review log records the corrigenda, including one fabricated citation caught and removed before publication.
• Arguments are judged, not authors. The doctrine is apersonal: contributions carry no attribution inside the texts, and no one’s endorsement is evidence.

5. What moves a proposal

1. The proposal names the exact text it changes.
2. The changed text passes the profession test (Principles §5.4): could someone safely say it aloud at work?
3. The change survives an adversarial pass — an attempt to break it from the record, from the boundary, and from practice.
4. If all three hold, the version advances and the rationale is logged in the review log.

6. The self-review rule

The doctrine is required to attack itself. The adversarial review log is not optional apparatus; it is the doctrine eating its own cooking. A version of the text that has not survived a published attempt to destroy it is not stable, whatever its number.

7. What governance cannot do

Governance can change wording, structure, and claims about the record. It cannot: (a) move the boundary; (b) name leaders; (c) convert the doctrine into a membership, an organization, or a brand. If the doctrine ever needs permission slips, it has stopped being a doctrine.

License

The doctrine’s texts are CC BY-SA 4.0. Take them, change them, republish them — under the same terms, with the boundary intact.