TL;DR by specimen or just brevity; some reordering:

0. FOSS, formal user and developer freedom
1. Inbound = Outbound, contributor parity
2. (4 above) Franklin Street Statement, user data freedom
3. CoC, freedom from discrimination
4 (2). C4, fair paths to governance
5 (4.1). Moderation, user safety
6 (5). Userops, admin practical software freedom
7 (5.1). Community input, user practical software freedom
8 (6). TDD, code quality, malleability, docs, CI/CD, developer practical software freedom

There is the word "community" at level 7 only in the brief version.

That might be me telling myself that you're not true communal software until you're at level 7.

Maybe that's too harsh. Maybe moderation and userops are technical features that would come out of the communal process and community input should be on the level before them.

I am very much convinced that "code and docs are nice" comes last. And I think it is telling that we devs usually place it somewhere around (1) when we choose our projects to contribute to.

@clacke why not replace community input with community ownership? Of course there will always be a case where some protocols need to be agreed upon, but beyond that there should be no excuse for requiring community consensus (via only having one version of a piece of software, controlled by one clique), if your malleable software can't handle this then it's not good enough

@Gnuxie Software that exists in a million little versions is a fascinating idea to entertain. Is that what you mean by user ownership?