Wage and bargaining differences
The project plan must address this risk explicitly rather than assuming good intent solves it.
Principles and safeguards
Useful work should not require hidden risk
This model acknowledges wage differences, extractive outsourcing, power imbalance, unpaid speculative work, unclear employment signals, access barriers, and weak bargaining power.
Why this page exists
Ethics must shape the process, not decorate the footer
A good mission does not excuse unclear compensation, unsafe clients, scope creep, weak supervision, privacy failures, or work used without consent.
Risks acknowledged
Power and labor risks are real
Extractive outsourcing
The project plan must address this risk explicitly rather than assuming good intent solves it.
Unpaid speculative work
The project plan must address this risk explicitly rather than assuming good intent solves it.
Deceptive employment signals
The project plan must address this risk explicitly rather than assuming good intent solves it.
Equipment and access gaps
The project plan must address this risk explicitly rather than assuming good intent solves it.
Scope, ownership, and feedback ambiguity
The project plan must address this risk explicitly rather than assuming good intent solves it.
Core principles
Shared expectations before participation
- Scope before work
- Fair and explicit compensation status
- No deceptive employment promise
- Consent and data minimization
- Ownership and attribution in writing
- Human supervision and accountable decisions
- Useful feedback and acceptance criteria
- Concern reporting and safe exit
Supervised collaboration
A human-reviewed path from need to closure
- 1
Organization review
Check fit, ownership, risk, and responsible contact.
- 2
Clarify scope
Define output, access, timeline, budget, and evidence.
- 3
Review builder fit
Confirm capability, capacity, protections, and choice.
- 4
Written terms
Agree on the full project-term checklist.
- 5
Supervised work
Use checkpoints, feedback, and risk escalation.
- 6
Acceptance and closure
Document output, result, limits, ownership, and next step.
Responsibilities
Accountability has named sides
DoGoodie
Review fit, define the process, protect builders, keep records proportionate, and avoid promising capacity that does not exist.
Organization
Provide an accountable contact, lawful objective, realistic access, timely feedback, and respect for scope, compensation, ownership, and consent.
Builder
Work honestly within scope, disclose limits and material tool use, protect data, raise risks, and document output without inflating impact.
Project manager
Coordinate access, checkpoints, decisions, feedback, risks, and closure; prevent scope drift and escalate concerns.
Project terms and closure
Every productive project defines these separately
- Scope and output
- Timeline and review points
- Compensation—or the explicit non-compensated educational nature
- Ownership and licenses
- Attribution and publication permission
- Access, equipment, and responsible contacts
- Confidentiality and data handling
- Acceptance criteria and feedback
- Closure and a safe way to exit
Feedback, attribution, confidentiality, consent, and exit
Protection continues through closure
Feedback
Review points and meaningful feedback are agreed before work; silence is not an acceptance process.
Attribution and confidentiality
Public credit, aliases, private access, and reuse require explicit terms and permission.
Safe exit
A participant can raise risk, pause, or leave through a defined path without retaliation.
Concern and escalation
A separate route for treatment, conduct, and privacy concerns
What the model is not
No implied legal or employment status
- DoGoodie is not an employer of record, staffing agency, legal representative, certifier, or regulator.
- A pilot is not automatically employment, continuing work, or a route to Network membership.
- Not every project is paid or available; any non-compensated educational activity must be explicit and voluntary.
- This public framework does not make employment-law conclusions or replace project-specific legal review.