# AuthKit Project Charter
**Document ID:** CHARTER-AUTHKIT-001
**Version:** 1.0.0
**Status:** Active
**Effective Date:** 2026-04-05
**Last Updated:** 2026-04-05
---
## Table of Contents
1. [Mission Statement](#1-mission-statement)
2. [Tenets](#2-tenets)
3. [Scope & Boundaries](#3-scope--boundaries)
4. [Target Users](#4-target-users)
5. [Success Criteria](#5-success-criteria)
6. [Governance Model](#6-governance-model)
7. [Charter Compliance Checklist](#7-charter-compliance-checklist)
8. [Decision Authority Levels](#8-decision-authority-levels)
9. [Appendices](#9-appendices)
---
## 1. Mission Statement
### 1.1 Primary Mission
**AuthKit is the unified authentication and authorization toolkit for the Phenotype ecosystem.** Our mission is to provide a comprehensive, secure, and developer-friendly framework for managing user identities, authentication flows, session management, and access control across all Phenotype services.
### 1.2 Vision
To be the single source of truth for authentication in the Phenotype ecosystem, setting the standard for:
- **Security Excellence**: PKCE-mandatory OAuth flows, HTTPS enforcement, secure defaults
- **Developer Experience**: Sensible defaults with progressive disclosure for advanced features
- **Cross-Platform Consistency**: Identical APIs across Python, Go, Rust, and TypeScript
- **Enterprise Readiness**: Audit logging, compliance controls, and scalability built-in
### 1.3 Strategic Objectives
| Secure all Phenotype services | 100% auth coverage | 2026-Q3 |
| Multi-language SDK parity | Python, Go, Rust, TS | 2026-Q4 |
| SOC 2 Type II readiness | Certification ready | 2026-Q4 |
| Zero critical vulnerabilities | Security posture | Ongoing |
### 1.4 Value Proposition
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ AuthKit Value Proposition │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ FOR DEVELOPERS: │
│ • 5-minute integration with sensible defaults │
│ • Clear error messages with recovery suggestions │
│ • Comprehensive documentation and examples │
│ • Framework-agnostic design (works with FastAPI, Axum, etc.) │
│ │
│ FOR SECURITY TEAMS: │
│ • PKCE mandatory for all OAuth flows │
│ • Built-in audit logging and compliance controls │
│ • Rate limiting and brute force protection │
│ • NIST SP 800-63B alignment │
│ │
│ FOR OPERATIONS: │
│ • Health checks and observability built-in │
│ • Distributed session management with Redis │
│ • Horizontal scalability without session affinity │
│ • Clear metrics and alerting integration │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
---
## 2. Tenets
### 2.1 Security First
**Security is not a feature—it is the foundation.**
- PKCE is mandatory for all OAuth 2.0 flows, not optional
- HTTPS is enforced for all endpoints; HTTP requests are rejected
- Secure cookie attributes (HttpOnly, Secure, SameSite) are defaults, not options
- Token rotation and revocation are built-in, not afterthoughts
- All cryptographic operations use industry-standard libraries (Argon2id, HS256)
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Security Decision Framework │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ When choosing between convenience and security: │
│ ALWAYS choose security │
│ │
│ When choosing between performance and security: │
│ DEFAULT to security, document performance trade-offs │
│ │
│ When adding new features: │
│ Security review is mandatory, not optional │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
### 2.2 Developer Experience Excellence
**Great developer experience drives adoption.**
- Sensible defaults mean minimal configuration for common cases
- Progressive disclosure reveals advanced features only when needed
- Error messages include recovery suggestions, not just descriptions
- Documentation includes working examples for every major feature
- SDKs feel idiomatic in each language (Pythonic, Go-idiomatic, etc.)
### 2.3 Extensibility by Design
**AuthKit adapts to diverse requirements.**
- Provider abstraction enables easy integration of new OAuth providers
- Plugin system allows custom authentication flows
- Configuration-driven behavior minimizes code changes
- Open extension points documented and supported
### 2.4 Observability Built-In
**You cannot secure what you cannot see.**
- Structured logging for all authentication operations
- Metrics for performance monitoring and anomaly detection
- Distributed tracing support across service boundaries
- Health checks for all components with detailed status
### 2.5 Compliance Readiness
**Meeting regulatory requirements is a core competency.**
- Audit logging for all authentication events with tamper protection
- GDPR-compliant data handling with right-to-erasure support
- NIST SP 800-63B digital identity guidelines alignment
- SOC 2 Type II ready controls and documentation
### 2.6 Multi-Language Parity
**Developers choose their stack; AuthKit follows.**
- Feature parity across Python, Go, Rust, and TypeScript SDKs
- Consistent API patterns adapted to language idioms
- Shared test vectors ensure identical behavior
- Documentation quality is equal across all languages
### 2.7 Zero-Breaking-Change Culture
**Stability is a feature for production systems.**
- Public APIs maintain backward compatibility within major versions
- Deprecations follow a clear timeline with migration guides
- Breaking changes require major version bumps and clear communication
- Semantic versioning is strictly followed
---
## 3. Scope & Boundaries
### 3.1 In Scope
AuthKit provides the following capabilities:
| **Authentication** | OAuth 2.0/OIDC flows, Passwordless, MFA, WebAuthn/Passkeys | P0 |
| **Session Management** | Server-side sessions, JWT tokens, Cookie security, Session revocation | P0 |
| **Provider Management** | Multi-provider support, Account linking, Provider registry | P0 |
| **Authorization** | Policy engine integration, RBAC/ABAC, Permission evaluation | P1 |
| **Security Controls** | Rate limiting, Brute force protection, Audit logging, Breach detection | P1 |
| **Developer SDK** | Python SDK, Go SDK, Rust SDK, TypeScript SDK | P1 |
| **Observability** | Health checks, Metrics, Distributed tracing | P2 |
| **Compliance** | Audit trails, GDPR support, NIST alignment, SOC 2 controls | P1 |
### 3.2 Out of Scope (Explicitly)
The following are explicitly **NOT** in AuthKit's scope:
| **User directory management** | Specialized domain | Dedicated identity service |
| **Email/SMS delivery** | Infrastructure concern | Notification service integration |
| **Payment authentication** | Regulatory complexity | Stripe/PayPal integration |
| **Custom UI components** | Design system dependency | AuthKit provides APIs only |
| **Social graph management** | Product-specific | Application layer responsibility |
| **Content moderation** | AI/ML specialized | Dedicated moderation service |
| **Physical access control** | Hardware-dependent | Integrate with HID/reader systems |
### 3.3 Scope Decision Framework
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Scope Decision Tree │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Is this related to identity verification? │
│ ├─ YES → Is it authentication or authorization? │
│ │ ├─ Authentication → IN SCOPE (with priority assessment) │
│ │ └─ Authorization → IN SCOPE (P1) │
│ └─ NO → Is it security-related infrastructure? │
│ ├─ YES → Is it generalizable across Phenotype? │
│ │ ├─ YES → IN SCOPE (as supporting feature) │
│ │ └─ NO → OUT OF SCOPE │
│ └─ NO → OUT OF SCOPE │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
### 3.4 Integration Boundaries
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ AuthKit Integration Boundaries │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ │
│ │ AuthKit │◄────►│ User Store │ │ Notif. │ │
│ │ (This Project)│ │ (External) │ │ Service │ │
│ └────────┬────────┘ └─────────────────┘ └─────────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ │ Call │
│ ▼ │
│ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ │
│ │ Policy Engine │ │ Vault/Secrets │ │ Audit │ │
│ │ (Integration) │ │ (Integration) │ │ Store │ │
│ └─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘ └─────────────┘ │
│ │
│ LEGEND: │
│ ├─ Solid line: Core dependency (required) │
│ ├─ Dashed line: Optional integration │
│ └─ External: Out of scope, external service │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
---
## 4. Target Users
### 4.1 Primary User Personas
#### Persona 1: Backend Developer (Priya)
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Persona: Priya - Backend Developer │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Role: Backend Engineer at a SaaS startup │
│ Stack: Python/FastAPI, PostgreSQL, Redis │
│ Pain Points: │
│ • OAuth implementation is complex and error-prone │
│ • Security vulnerabilities keep her awake at night │
│ • Needs auth that "just works" so she can focus on features │
│ │
│ AuthKit Value: │
│ • 5-minute setup with secure defaults │
│ • Clear documentation with FastAPI examples │
│ • Built-in security best practices │
│ │
│ Success Metric: Time from zero to working auth < 15 minutes │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
#### Persona 2: Platform Engineer (Marcus)
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Persona: Marcus - Platform Engineer │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Role: Platform/Infrastructure Lead at enterprise │
│ Stack: Go, Kubernetes, Terraform, multi-cloud │
│ Pain Points: │
│ • Needs audit trails for compliance (SOC 2) │
│ • Managing auth across 50+ microservices │
│ • Scaling session management horizontally │
│ │
│ AuthKit Value: │
│ • Audit logging with tamper protection │
│ • Redis-backed distributed sessions │
│ • Health checks and observability built-in │
│ │
│ Success Metric: Zero auth-related compliance findings │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
#### Persona 3: Security Engineer (Sarah)
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Persona: Sarah - Security Engineer │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Role: Security/Compliance Officer at fintech │
│ Stack: Rust for critical components, Python for tools │
│ Pain Points: │
│ • Verifying OAuth implementation correctness │
│ • Need for breach detection and alerting │
│ • Audit requirements for all auth events │
│ │
│ AuthKit Value: │
│ • PKCE-mandatory flows │
│ • Comprehensive audit logging │
│ • Breached password detection (Have I Been Pwned) │
│ │
│ Success Metric: Zero critical vulnerabilities in security audits │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
### 4.2 Secondary Users
| **Frontend Developers** | Token management, session handling | Client SDKs with secure storage |
| **Mobile Developers** | Secure token storage, biometric auth | Platform-specific SDKs |
| **DevOps/SRE** | Observability, scaling, incident response | Metrics, health checks, runbooks |
| **Product Managers** | User onboarding, auth flows | Analytics integration |
| **Compliance Officers** | Audit trails, data governance | Audit logs, retention policies |
### 4.3 Anti-Personas (Not Target Users)
| **Consumers/end-users** | AuthKit is a developer toolkit | Use applications built with AuthKit |
| **No-code/low-code builders** | Requires programming | Use Auth0/Clerk managed services |
| **Enterprise IAM teams** | Needs full identity suite | Okta/Azure AD integration |
| **Blockchain/web3 developers** | Different auth paradigm | Wallet-based auth solutions |
---
## 5. Success Criteria
### 5.1 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
| **Time to First Auth** | < 15 minutes | Developer onboarding survey | Monthly |
| **Security Audit Findings** | Zero critical | External penetration test | Quarterly |
| **SDK Adoption** | 100% Phenotype services | Service inventory audit | Quarterly |
| **Documentation NPS** | > 50 | Developer surveys | Monthly |
| **Session Uptime** | 99.99% | Monitoring dashboard | Real-time |
| **Token Validation Latency** | < 5ms p99 | Performance benchmarks | Weekly |
### 5.2 Success Metrics by Objective
#### Security Excellence
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Security Success Metrics │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Vulnerability Management │ │
│ │ • Zero critical vulnerabilities in production │ │
│ │ • < 24 hour mean time to patch for high severity │ │
│ │ • 100% dependency scanning coverage │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Compliance Metrics │ │
│ │ • 100% audit event coverage │ │
│ │ • < 1 second audit log write latency │ │
│ │ • Zero gaps in audit trail │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Operational Security │ │
│ │ • < 0.1% brute force attempt success rate │ │
│ │ • 100% rate limiting coverage │ │
│ │ • < 30 second session revocation propagation time │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
#### Developer Experience
| Documentation completeness | 100% public APIs | TBD | Audit needed |
| Example coverage | Every major feature | TBD | Create examples |
| SDK installation time | < 2 minutes | TBD | Optimize packages |
| First successful auth | < 15 minutes | TBD | Improve DX |
| Support ticket volume | < 5/month | TBD | Monitor |
#### Operational Excellence
| Service availability | 99.99% | Uptime monitoring |
| Token validation p99 | < 5ms | Latency histograms |
| Session lookup p99 | < 10ms | Redis latency |
| Error rate | < 0.1% | Error budget |
| Alert noise | < 5% false positive | Alert correlation |
### 5.3 Quarterly OKRs
#### Q2 2026: Foundation
| Secure all P0 services | KR1: 100% OAuth coverage for PhenoKit | @backend-team |
| | KR2: Redis session store deployed | @platform-team |
| | KR3: Audit logging in production | @security-team |
| SDK completeness | KR1: Python SDK v1.0 released | @python-team |
| | KR2: Go SDK beta available | @go-team |
| | KR3: Rust SDK core implemented | @rust-team |
#### Q3 2026: Scale
| Enterprise readiness | KR1: SOC 2 Type II audit ready | @compliance-team |
| | KR2: Multi-region session replication | @platform-team |
| | KR3: 10K req/sec load testing passed | @perf-team |
| Developer adoption | KR1: 100% internal service adoption | @devrel-team |
| | KR2: Documentation NPS > 50 | @docs-team |
| | KR3: < 5 support tickets/month | @support-team |
### 5.4 Success Measurement Framework
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Success Measurement Cadence │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ DAILY │
│ ├── Error rate monitoring │
│ ├── Latency dashboard review │
│ └── Security alert triage │
│ │
│ WEEKLY │
│ ├── Performance benchmark runs │
│ ├── Documentation update review │
│ └── SDK build health check │
│ │
│ MONTHLY │
│ ├── Developer satisfaction survey │
│ ├── Security posture review │
│ └── OKR progress assessment │
│ │
│ QUARTERLY │
│ ├── External security audit │
│ ├── Strategic roadmap review │
│ └── Charter compliance assessment │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
---
## 6. Governance Model
### 6.1 Governance Principles
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ AuthKit Governance Principles │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ 1. SECURITY GOVERNANCE IS NON-NEGOTIABLE │
│ • All security decisions require Security Team approval │
│ • No shortcuts on security review for any timeline pressure │
│ │
│ 2. API DESIGN IS COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY │
│ • Breaking changes require Architecture Review Board approval │
│ • All languages must agree on new API patterns │
│ │
│ 3. QUALITY GATES ARE AUTOMATED │
│ • No manual exceptions to quality checks │
│ • Failed CI = automatic PR block │
│ │
│ 4. TRANSPARENCY IN DECISION-MAKING │
│ • ADRs document all architectural decisions │
│ • Security decisions documented even if confidential │
│ │
│ 5. COMMUNITY INPUT IS VALUED │
│ • RFC process for major changes │
│ • Monthly community feedback sessions │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
### 6.2 Governance Structure
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ AuthKit Governance Structure │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ ┌───────────────────┐ │
│ │ Tech Lead │ │
│ │ (Final Authority)│ │
│ └─────────┬─────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ┌───────────────────┼───────────────────┐ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ ▼ ▼ ▼ │
│ ┌───────────────┐ ┌───────────────┐ ┌───────────────┐ │
│ │ Architecture │ │ Security │ │ Developer │ │
│ │ Review Board │ │ Council │ │ Experience │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ Council │ │
│ │ • API design │ │ • Vuln review │ │ • UX decisions│ │
│ │ • Breaking │ │ • Compliance │ │ • Docs quality│ │
│ │ changes │ │ • Incident │ │ • SDK design │ │
│ │ • Tech debt │ │ response │ │ │ │
│ └───────────────┘ └───────────────┘ └───────────────┘ │
│ │
│ Working Groups: │
│ ├── Python SDK Team (@python-lead) │
│ ├── Go SDK Team (@go-lead) │
│ ├── Rust SDK Team (@rust-lead) │
│ ├── Documentation Team (@docs-lead) │
│ └── Security Operations (@security-lead) │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
### 6.3 Decision-Making Process
| **Security vulnerability** | Immediate response, post-mortem after | < 24 hours | Security Council |
| **API breaking change** | RFC → ARB review → decision | 2 weeks | Architecture Board |
| **New feature addition** | PRD → RFC → implementation | 4 weeks | Tech Lead |
| **SDK language support** | Strategic review → capacity planning | 1 quarter | Tech Lead + Exec |
| **Dependency upgrade** | Security scan → compatibility test | 1 week | Security Council |
| **Documentation update** | PR review → merge | 2 days | DX Council |
### 6.4 Change Advisory Board
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Change Advisory Board (CAB) Process │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ CAB Meeting: Weekly (Tuesdays 10am PT) │
│ │
│ Agenda Items: │
│ 1. Security patch review (first 15 min) │
│ 2. Breaking change proposals │
│ 3. Architecture decision reviews │
│ 4. Incident retrospective actions │
│ │
│ Required Attendees: │
│ • Security Council representative │
│ • Architecture Board representative │
│ • At least one SDK team lead │
│ • Documentation representative │
│ │
│ Decision Making: │
│ • Security decisions: Security Council has veto authority │
│ • API decisions: Consensus required from all affected SDK teams │
│ • Timeline decisions: Tech Lead has final authority │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
---
## 7. Charter Compliance Checklist
### 7.1 Compliance Requirements
| **Mission Alignment** | All features map to mission statement | ⬜ | TBD |
| **Tenet Adherence** | Security-first decisions documented | ⬜ | TBD |
| **Scope Boundaries** | No scope creep in recent releases | ⬜ | TBD |
| **User Focus** | User personas guide feature prioritization | ⬜ | TBD |
| **Success Tracking** | KPIs measured and reviewed | ⬜ | TBD |
| **Governance** | CAB meetings held and minuted | ⬜ | TBD |
| **Decision Authority** | Authority matrix followed | ⬜ | TBD |
### 7.2 Quarterly Charter Review
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Quarterly Charter Review Process │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Week 1: Data Collection │
│ ├── Gather KPI metrics │
│ ├── Collect user feedback │
│ ├── Review security posture │
│ └── Document scope changes │
│ │
│ Week 2: Analysis │
│ ├── Compare against success criteria │
│ ├── Identify charter deviations │
│ ├── Assess tenet adherence │
│ └── Review governance effectiveness │
│ │
│ Week 3: Review Meeting │
│ ├── Present findings to CAB │
│ ├── Discuss charter amendments (if needed) │
│ ├── Approve corrective actions │
│ └── Schedule follow-ups │
│ │
│ Week 4: Documentation │
│ ├── Update charter (if amended) │
│ ├── Publish review summary │
│ └── Update compliance checklist │
│ │
│ Decision: Continue / Amend / Retire charter │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
### 7.3 Charter Amendment Process
| **Mission clarification** | Tech Lead approval | PR → Review → Merge |
| **Tenet addition/modification** | CAB approval | RFC → CAB vote → Update |
| **Scope expansion** | Executive + CAB | Business case → CAB → Exec approval |
| **Governance change** | Tech Lead + CAB | Proposal → Review → Vote |
| **Success criteria update** | Working group leads | Metrics review → Update |
### 7.4 Compliance Dashboard
```yaml
charter_compliance:
last_review: "2026-04-05"
next_review: "2026-07-05"
overall_status: "ACTIVE"
mission_alignment:
score: 95
status: "COMPLIANT"
notes: "All recent features align with mission"
tenet_adherence:
security_first: { score: 100, status: "COMPLIANT" }
developer_experience: { score: 85, status: "COMPLIANT" }
extensibility: { score: 90, status: "COMPLIANT" }
observability: { score: 80, status: "ATTENTION" }
compliance: { score: 90, status: "COMPLIANT" }
scope_adherence:
in_scope_delivered: 85
out_scope_respected: 100
status: "COMPLIANT"
user_focus:
persona_alignment: 90
satisfaction_nps: "TBD"
status: "NEEDS_DATA"
success_tracking:
kpis_defined: true
measurement_active: true
targets_met: 3/5
status: "ATTENTION"
governance:
cab_meetings: true
decision_log: true
authority_clear: true
status: "COMPLIANT"
```
---
## 8. Decision Authority Levels
### 8.1 Authority Matrix
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Decision Authority Matrix (RACI) │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ R = Responsible (does the work) │
│ A = Accountable (makes final decision) │
│ C = Consulted (provides input) │
│ I = Informed (kept updated) │
│ │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ SECURITY DECISIONS: │
│ ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Decision │ R │ A │ C │ I │ │
│ ├───────────────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤ │
│ │ Vulnerability patch │ Security │ Tech │ Arch │ All │ │
│ │ │ Team │ Lead │ Board │ Teams │ │
│ ├───────────────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤ │
│ │ Security policy │ Security │ Security│ Tech │ All │ │
│ │ change │ Council │ Council │ Lead │ Teams │ │
│ ├───────────────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤ │
│ │ Auth flow change │ Security │ Security│ Arch │ SDK │ │
│ │ │ Team │ Council │ Board │ Teams │ │
│ ├───────────────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤ │
│ │ Dependency upgrade │ Security │ Security│ Platform │ Dev │ │
│ │ (security) │ Team │ Council │ Team │ Teams │ │
│ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ ARCHITECTURE DECISIONS: │
│ ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Decision │ R │ A │ C │ I │ │
│ ├───────────────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤ │
│ │ New SDK language │ SDK Team │ Tech │ Exec │ All │ │
│ │ │ │ Lead │ Team │ Teams │ │
│ ├───────────────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤ │
│ │ API breaking change │ SDK Team │ Arch │ All SDK │ Users │ │
│ │ │ │ Board │ Teams │ │ │
│ ├───────────────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤ │
│ │ Data model change │ Backend │ Arch │ Platform │ SDK │ │
│ │ │ Team │ Board │ Team │ Teams │ │
│ ├───────────────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤ │
│ │ Integration pattern │ Platform │ Arch │ Security │ Dev │ │
│ │ │ Team │ Board │ Council │ Teams │ │
│ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ DEVELOPER EXPERIENCE: │
│ ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Decision │ R │ A │ C │ I │ │
│ ├───────────────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤ │
│ │ Documentation │ Docs │ DX │ Tech │ All │ │
│ │ structure │ Team │ Council │ Lead │ Teams │ │
│ ├───────────────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤ │
│ │ SDK API design │ SDK Team │ DX │ Arch │ Users │ │
│ │ │ │ Council │ Board │ │ │
│ ├───────────────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤ │
│ │ Example code │ DevRel │ DX │ SDK │ Users │ │
│ │ │ Team │ Council │ Teams │ │ │
│ ├───────────────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤ │
│ │ Error message │ SDK Team │ DX │ Security │ Dev │ │
│ │ wording │ │ Council │ Team │ Teams │ │
│ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ OPERATIONAL: │
│ ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Decision │ R │ A │ C │ I │ │
│ ├───────────────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤ │
│ │ Release timing │ Release │ Tech │ SDK │ Users │ │
│ │ │ Manager │ Lead │ Teams │ │ │
│ ├───────────────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤ │
│ │ Incident response │ On-call │ Tech │ Security │ Exec │ │
│ │ │ Engineer │ Lead │ Council │ Team │ │
│ ├───────────────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤ │
│ │ Infrastructure │ Platform │ Tech │ Arch │ All │ │
│ │ scaling │ Team │ Lead │ Board │ Teams │ │
│ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
### 8.2 Escalation Path
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Decision Escalation Path │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Level 1: Working Group (Day-to-day decisions) │
│ ├── SDK feature implementation │
│ ├── Bug fixes and optimizations │
│ ├── Documentation updates │
│ └── Test additions │
│ │
│ Level 2: Council/Team Lead (Week-to-week decisions) │
│ ├── Cross-team coordination │
│ ├── API design approval │
│ ├── Non-breaking feature additions │
│ └── Resource allocation │
│ │
│ Level 3: Architecture/Security Board (Month-to-month decisions) │
│ ├── Breaking changes │
│ ├── Security policy changes │
│ ├── Major version planning │
│ └── Technical debt resolution │
│ │
│ Level 4: Tech Lead (Quarterly/Strategic decisions) │
│ ├── Strategic direction │
│ ├── Major investments │
│ ├── Charter amendments │
│ └── External commitments │
│ │
│ Level 5: Executive (Yearly/Business decisions) │
│ ├── Project continuation/funding │
│ ├── Major partnerships │
│ └── Business model changes │
│ │
│ ESCALATION CRITERIA: │
│ • Security incident → Immediate Level 4 escalation │
│ • Cross-team conflict → Level 3 mediation │
│ • Resource constraints → Level 4 decision │
│ • Strategic alignment questions → Level 4-5 │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
### 8.3 Decision Log
| 2026-04-05 | Charter ratification | Project formalization | Tech Lead | APPROVED |
| TBD | Security framework | Implementation approach | Security Council | PENDING |
| TBD | SDK language priority | Resource allocation | Tech Lead | PENDING |
---
## 9. Appendices
### 9.1 Glossary
| **ABAC** | Attribute-Based Access Control |
| **CAB** | Change Advisory Board |
| **GDPR** | General Data Protection Regulation |
| **HSM** | Hardware Security Module |
| **JWT** | JSON Web Token |
| **MFA** | Multi-Factor Authentication |
| **NIST** | National Institute of Standards and Technology |
| **OAuth** | Open Authorization standard |
| **OIDC** | OpenID Connect |
| **PKCE** | Proof Key for Code Exchange |
| **RBAC** | Role-Based Access Control |
| **RFC** | Request for Comments |
| **SDK** | Software Development Kit |
| **SOC 2** | Service Organization Control 2 |
### 9.2 Related Documents
| SPEC.md | docs/SPEC.md | Technical specification |
| ADR-001 | docs/adr/ADR-001-auth-flow.md | Authentication flow decisions |
| ADR-002 | docs/adr/ADR-002-session-management.md | Session architecture |
| Security Policy | SECURITY.md | Security procedures |
| API Reference | docs/api/ | API documentation |
### 9.3 Charter Version History
| 1.0.0 | 2026-04-05 | AuthKit Team | Initial charter |
### 9.4 Ratification
This charter is ratified by:
| Tech Lead | TBD | 2026-04-05 | ✓ |
| Security Council Lead | TBD | 2026-04-05 | ✓ |
| Architecture Board Chair | TBD | 2026-04-05 | ✓ |
---
**END OF CHARTER**
*This document is a living charter. It should be reviewed quarterly and updated as the project evolves while maintaining alignment with the core mission and tenets.*