- Have a reasonable code of conduct.  There will be no debate about what it is,
  it should come in at the very beginning, and should be utterly unchangeable
  except by the founders of the project or their successors.  I am partial to
  the combination of the Ubuntu CoC
  (https://ubuntu.com/community/ethos/code-of-conduct) and its related
  diversity statement (https://ubuntu.com/community/ethos/diversity).

- An email address should be provided for people to report code of conduct
  issues.  These emails will go the moderation team(s).

- Instead of some weird "values" statement ala "Fundamental Principles" or RFC
  98, there should be a mission statement not unlike the Python mission
  statement.

    The mission of the Python Software Foundation is to promote, protect, and
    advance the Python programming language, and to support and facilitate the
    growth of a diverse and international community of Python programmers.

- Maintain a moderation team intentionally composed of people with different
  political views.  Ensure that the ratio of left-leaning, centrist, and
  right-leaning people is roughly equal through time.

  - One way to eventually do this when things get large might be to have two
    moderation teams (one right-leaning and one left-leaning), each of which is
    organized it sees fit internally, and bans must be approved by both teams.
    This may be overengineering, but might be more reasonable than trying to
    balance by filtering individuals.  It might also relieve the pressure on a
    single mixed-politics moderation team when a controversy happens because
    the teams can blame each other and not need to awkwardly close ranks or
    behave as a clique (e.g. in an Infinisil+Jon situation)

  Initially the project founders will be the moderation team, but there should
  be an official way to onboard new members instead of needing to invent one
  when the community grows large enough.

- Those whom volunteer to moderate that are not long-time contributors should
  be vetted carefully, perhaps via research of their social media presence an
  an official application process that includes making them respond to some
  sort of questionnaire that identifies their personality type.  The results of
  the questionnaire should be made available to the project founders and to the
  existing members of the moderation team(s).  See
  https://bigfive-test.com/test .  If there are two moderation teams, this may
  be a deciding factor on which one they belong in, if it isn't already
  obvious.

- If the founders think the person belongs on the moderation team, they're in,
  regardless of what the existing members of the moderation team(s) believe.

- The founders of the project should have the power to remove any moderator
  without explanation, change the way that the moderation team(s) are
  organized, or dissolve the moderation team entirely.

- A moderation log should be kept that provides enough detail about exactly
  which CoC clause the moderation team believed was violated for each incident,
  and the censure details.  In cases where this would be a violation of privacy
  and good taste (e.g. sexual misconduct), a less detailed entry should be
  inserted.

- Any invididual moderator should feel empowered to remove spam, hide
  inappropriate content, and act as a mediator in cases of interpersonal
  conflict in community spaces.

- The moderation team should only be able to eject a member from official
  spaces only temporarily (maybe for a month), and then only by unanimous
  consent of all members of the moderation team(s).

- Permanent bans must be reviewed and ratified by the founders of the project
  after unanimous recommendation by the moderation team(s).

- The creators of the project will be the final arbiters of all issues
  insoluable by the moderation team.

- Stretch goal: purchase and provide moderation training to new moderators.

- Shut off auto-hiding or autoremoval of content based on user flagging, it's
  too easy to abuse and actually does "sow division in the community".

- There shall be one and only one group of people responsible for approving or
  denying conference and other sponsorships.

- The project will commit itself to quickly applying for a trademark on its
  name in all reasonable jurisdictions (the US, and European countries).  This
  is required to enforce the conference rule above.

- We can largely cut and paste the bylaws and structure of the PSF or another
  existing successful open source project as a bootstrapping process for
  planning when things become large enough such that the role of the "founders"
  is replaced by an actual board.  Or we can just do that ahead of time, and
  call the founders the board.