Architecture Governance Model¶

Document Type: Architecture Governance
Status: Draft
Version: 1.0
Last Updated: 2024-12-30
Owner: Architecture Team, Executive Leadership

Purpose¶

This document defines the architecture governance framework for Dokploy, establishing processes, roles, responsibilities, and decision-making authorities to ensure architectural integrity, compliance, and continuous improvement throughout the product lifecycle.

Governance Principles¶

1. Transparency¶

All architectural decisions are documented, communicated, and accessible to relevant stakeholders.

2. Accountability¶

Clear ownership and responsibility for architectural decisions and outcomes.

3. Continuous Improvement¶

Regular review and refinement of architecture based on learnings and feedback.

4. Risk-Based Approach¶

Governance activities proportional to risk and impact.

5. Lightweight Process¶

Minimum necessary governance to maintain quality without impeding velocity.

Governance Structure¶

graph TB
    EXEC[Executive Steering Committee]
    ARB[Architecture Review Board]
    ARCH_TEAM[Architecture Team]
    DEV_TEAMS[Development Teams]
    SECURITY[Security Team]
    DEVOPS[DevOps Team]

    EXEC -->|Strategic Direction| ARB
    ARB -->|Architecture Standards| ARCH_TEAM
    ARCH_TEAM -->|Guidance & Review| DEV_TEAMS
    SECURITY -->|Security Requirements| ARB
    DEVOPS -->|Operational Input| ARB
    DEV_TEAMS -->|Feedback & Proposals| ARCH_TEAM
    ARCH_TEAM -->|Escalations| ARB
    ARB -->|Major Decisions| EXEC

    style EXEC fill:#ffe6e6
    style ARB fill:#fff4e6
    style ARCH_TEAM fill:#e8f5e9

Governance Bodies¶

Executive Steering Committee¶

Composition: - CEO/CTO - Product VP - Engineering VP - Community Lead (for open source)

Responsibilities: - Set strategic architecture direction - Approve major architecture changes (>$50k impact) - Resolve conflicts between ARB and business needs - Review quarterly architecture health reports

Meeting Cadence: Quarterly + ad-hoc for major decisions

Decision Authority: Final authority on: - Platform strategy changes - Major technology pivots - Multi-phase initiatives - Budget allocation for architecture work

Architecture Review Board (ARB)¶

Composition: - Lead Architect (Chair) - Senior Backend Engineer - Senior Frontend Engineer - DevOps Lead - Security Lead - Product Manager

Responsibilities: - Review and approve Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) - Evaluate architectural compliance - Approve exceptions to architecture standards - Review architecture evolution proposals - Ensure alignment with principles and standards

Meeting Cadence: Weekly (1 hour) + ad-hoc for urgent reviews

Decision Authority: - All ADRs and significant architectural decisions - Technology stack additions/changes - Architecture standard exceptions - Design pattern adoption - Cross-cutting concerns

Quorum: 4 members (including Lead Architect)

Architecture Team¶

Composition: - Lead Architect - Solution Architects (as needed) - Technical Leads from each team

Responsibilities: - Create and maintain architecture documentation - Develop architecture standards and guidelines - Provide architecture consultation to teams - Conduct architecture reviews - Identify technical debt and improvement opportunities - Monitor architecture compliance

Meeting Cadence: - Weekly sync (30 min) - Monthly deep dive (2 hours)

Decision-Making Framework¶

Decision Levels¶

graph TB
    L1[Level 1: Strategic]
    L2[Level 2: Significant]
    L3[Level 3: Standard]
    L4[Level 4: Tactical]

    L1 -->|Examples| L1E[Platform changes, Major pivots]
    L2 -->|Examples| L2E[New technology, Cross-cutting changes]
    L3 -->|Examples| L3E[Component design, Pattern adoption]
    L4 -->|Examples| L4E[Implementation details, Library choices]

    L1 -->|Authority| ESC[Executive Committee]
    L2 -->|Authority| ARB[Architecture Review Board]
    L3 -->|Authority| ARCH[Architecture Team]
    L4 -->|Authority| TEAM[Development Teams]

    style L1 fill:#ffe6e6
    style L2 fill:#fff4e6
    style L3 fill:#e8f5e9
    style L4 fill:#e3f2fd

Level 1: Strategic Decisions¶

Authority: Executive Steering Committee
Examples: - Switch from Docker Swarm to Kubernetes - Change primary programming language - Major platform pivot (e.g., multi-cloud to single-cloud) - Acquisitions affecting architecture

Process: 1. Proposal with business case 2. ARB review and recommendation 3. Executive committee approval 4. Formal communication plan

Timeline: 2-4 weeks

Level 2: Significant Decisions¶

Authority: Architecture Review Board
Examples: - Add new database technology (e.g., add MongoDB) - Change authentication framework - Adopt new architectural pattern - Major version upgrade with breaking changes

Process: 1. ADR proposal submitted 2. ARB review meeting 3. Feedback period (1 week) 4. ARB decision 5. Documentation update

Timeline: 1-2 weeks

Approval Criteria: - ✅ Aligned with architecture principles - ✅ Addresses clear need/problem - ✅ Alternatives evaluated - ✅ Risks identified and mitigated - ✅ Implementation plan defined - ✅ No unresolved objections

Level 3: Standard Decisions¶

Authority: Architecture Team
Examples: - Component interface design - API endpoint design patterns - Data model changes - Security implementation approach

Process: 1. Design proposal 2. Peer review (async) 3. Architecture team approval 4. Implementation

Timeline: 2-5 days

Level 4: Tactical Decisions¶

Authority: Development Teams
Examples: - Library selection within approved stack - Implementation details - UI component choices - Test strategies

Process: 1. Team decision 2. Document in code/PR 3. No formal approval needed

Timeline: Same day

Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)¶

ADR Process¶

sequenceDiagram
    participant Dev as Developer/Team
    participant Arch as Architecture Team
    participant ARB as Review Board
    participant Doc as Documentation

    Dev->>Arch: 1. Submit ADR Proposal
    Arch->>Arch: 2. Initial Review

    alt Needs Discussion
        Arch->>ARB: 3. Schedule ARB Review
        ARB->>ARB: 4. Review & Discuss
        ARB->>Dev: 5. Feedback
        Dev->>ARB: 6. Updated Proposal
    end

    ARB->>ARB: 7. Vote & Decision
    ARB->>Doc: 8. Publish ADR
    ARB->>Dev: 9. Notify Decision
    Dev->>Dev: 10. Implementation

ADR Template¶

# ADR-XXX: [Decision Title]

**Status**: Proposed | Accepted | Rejected | Superseded | Deprecated  
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD  
**Decision Makers**: [Names]  
**Consulted**: [Names]  

## Context
[What is the issue we're addressing?]

## Decision
[What we've decided to do]

## Rationale
[Why this decision was made]

## Consequences
### Positive
- [Benefit 1]
- [Benefit 2]

### Negative
- [Drawback 1]
- [Drawback 2]

### Risks
- [Risk 1]: Mitigation: [...]
- [Risk 2]: Mitigation: [...]

## Alternatives Considered
### Option A: [Alternative Name]
- Pros: [...]
- Cons: [...]
- Why not chosen: [...]

## Implementation
- Timeline: [...]
- Effort: [...]
- Dependencies: [...]

## Validation
- Success criteria: [...]
- Monitoring: [...]

## References
- [Related ADRs]
- [Documentation]

ADR Lifecycle States¶

Architecture Review Process¶

Pre-Implementation Review¶

Trigger: Before starting implementation of significant features

Process: 1. Request Submission (Dev Team) - Feature description - Proposed design - Architecture impacts

1. Initial Triage (Architecture Team - 1 day)
2. Classify review level
3. Identify reviewers

4. Schedule if needed

5. Review Meeting (if needed - 1 hour)

6. Present design
7. Q&A

8. Feedback

9. Approval Decision (1-2 days)

10. Approved: Proceed
11. Conditional: Changes required
12. Rejected: Alternative needed

Review Checklist:

Architecture Principles
[ ] Open Source First
[ ] Self-Hosting Capable
[ ] Security by Design
[ ] Developer Experience Focus
[ ] Cloud-Native Architecture
[ ] API-First Design
[ ] Cost-Effectiveness
[ ] Observability Built-In

Technical Quality
[ ] Scalable design
[ ] Maintainable code structure
[ ] Adequate error handling
[ ] Security considerations addressed
[ ] Performance implications understood
[ ] Testing strategy defined

Documentation
[ ] Architecture documentation updated
[ ] API documentation provided
[ ] ADR created (if applicable)

Post-Implementation Review¶

Trigger: After completing significant features (quarterly)

Process: 1. Review Preparation (1 week) - Gather metrics - Collect feedback - Document learnings

1. Review Session (2 hours)
2. Present outcomes
3. Compare to predictions

4. Identify improvements

5. Actions (ongoing)

6. Document learnings
7. Update standards
8. Plan improvements

Review Areas: - Architecture decision outcomes - Performance vs. targets - Security incidents - Technical debt growth - Developer experience feedback

Compliance Management¶

Compliance Framework¶

graph TB
    STANDARDS[Standards & Regulations]
    CONTROLS[Architecture Controls]
    MONITORING[Compliance Monitoring]
    REPORTING[Compliance Reporting]
    REMEDIATION[Issue Remediation]

    STANDARDS --> CONTROLS
    CONTROLS --> MONITORING
    MONITORING --> REPORTING
    REPORTING --> REMEDIATION
    REMEDIATION --> CONTROLS

    style STANDARDS fill:#ffe6e6
    style MONITORING fill:#e8f5e9

Applicable Standards¶

Compliance Controls¶

Security Controls¶

• Automated security scanning (Snyk, npm audit)
• Dependency vulnerability monitoring
• Container image scanning
• Code review requirements
• Penetration testing (annually)

Data Privacy Controls¶

• Data classification framework
• Encryption at rest and in transit
• Data retention policies
• Right to deletion implementation
• Privacy impact assessments

Operational Controls¶

• Change management process
• Incident response procedures
• Backup and recovery
• Business continuity planning
• Disaster recovery testing

Architecture Standards¶

Mandatory Standards¶

Code Standards¶

Language: TypeScript
  - Version: 5.3+
  - Strict mode: Required
  - ESLint: Required
  - Prettier: Required

Testing:
  - Unit test coverage: ≥80%
  - Integration tests: Required for APIs
  - E2E tests: Required for critical flows

Documentation:
  - JSDoc: Required for public APIs
  - README: Required per component
  - ADR: Required for significant decisions

API Standards¶

Style: RESTful
Format: JSON
Versioning: URL-based (/api/v1/)
Authentication: JWT Bearer tokens
Rate Limiting: Required
Error Format: RFC 7807 (Problem Details)
Documentation: OpenAPI 3.1+

Security Standards¶

Secrets: Docker Secrets or env vars
Encryption: AES-256-GCM minimum
TLS: 1.3 minimum
Password Hashing: bcrypt (cost 12)
JWT: RS256 or HS256
Input Validation: Zod schemas
SQL: Parameterized queries only

Database Standards¶

ORM: Prisma required
Migrations: Version controlled
Indexes: Required for frequent queries
Foreign Keys: Required
Naming: snake_case tables/columns
Backups: Daily minimum

Exception Process¶

When Exceptions Are Needed¶

• Temporary workaround for urgent issue
• Legacy system integration
• Third-party constraints
• Performance optimization
• Proof of concept

Exception Request Process¶

1. Submit Exception Request

   Standard being violated: [...]
   Reason for exception: [...]
   Duration: Temporary | Permanent
   Risk assessment: [...]
   Mitigation plan: [...]
   Alternatives considered: [...]
   

2. Review by Architecture Team

3. Evaluate risk
4. Consider alternatives

5. Recommend decision

6. ARB Approval (if high risk)

7. Present in ARB meeting
8. Vote on approval

9. Document decision

10. Documentation

11. Exception logged
12. Review date set (if temporary)

13. Tracking in backlog

14. Monitoring

15. Regular review
16. Remediation planning
17. Eventual compliance

Exception Approval Authority¶

Metrics & Monitoring¶

Architecture Health Metrics¶

Quality Metrics¶

Technical Debt Metrics¶

Compliance Metrics¶

Monitoring Dashboard¶

graph LR
    subgraph "Data Sources"
        GITHUB[GitHub]
        SONAR[SonarQube]
        PROM[Prometheus]
        SENTRY[Sentry]
    end

    subgraph "Aggregation"
        METRICS[Metrics Collector]
    end

    subgraph "Reporting"
        DASHBOARD[Grafana Dashboard]
        REPORT[Quarterly Report]
    end

    GITHUB --> METRICS
    SONAR --> METRICS
    PROM --> METRICS
    SENTRY --> METRICS
    METRICS --> DASHBOARD
    METRICS --> REPORT

    style METRICS fill:#e8f5e9

Change Management¶

Architecture Change Process¶

stateDiagram-v2
    [*] --> Proposed
    Proposed --> UnderReview: Submit for Review
    UnderReview --> Approved: Pass Review
    UnderReview --> NeedsWork: Changes Required
    UnderReview --> Rejected: Not Approved
    NeedsWork --> UnderReview: Resubmit
    Rejected --> [*]
    Approved --> InProgress: Start Implementation
    InProgress --> Testing: Complete Development
    Testing --> Deployed: Tests Pass
    Testing --> InProgress: Tests Fail
    Deployed --> Validated: Validate in Production
    Validated --> [*]

Change Categories¶

Category 1: Breaking Changes¶

Examples: API version changes, major refactoring
Approval: ARB required
Communication: All stakeholders, 2 week notice
Testing: Full regression suite

Category 2: Additive Changes¶

Examples: New features, new APIs
Approval: Architecture Team
Communication: Development team
Testing: Feature + integration tests

Category 3: Minor Changes¶

Examples: Bug fixes, optimizations
Approval: Code review
Communication: Team sync
Testing: Unit + affected tests

Risk Management¶

Architecture Risk Register¶

Risk Assessment Matrix¶

Risk Review Cadence¶

• High/Critical: Weekly review
• Medium: Monthly review
• Low: Quarterly review

Communication & Reporting¶

Stakeholder Communication Plan¶

Quarterly Architecture Report¶

Contents: 1. Executive Summary (1 page) - Key decisions made - Major changes - Strategic recommendations

1. Architecture Health (2 pages)
2. Metrics dashboard
3. Compliance status

4. Technical debt status

5. Decisions Made (1-2 pages)

6. ADRs approved
7. Major changes implemented

8. Exceptions granted

9. Looking Forward (1 page)

10. Planned changes
11. Emerging risks
12. Resource needs

Continuous Improvement¶

Retrospective Process¶

Cadence: After each phase/major release

Process: 1. Gather Feedback (1 week) - Developer surveys - Stakeholder interviews - Metrics review

1. Retrospective Meeting (2 hours)
2. What went well
3. What didn't go well

4. Actions for improvement

5. Action Planning (1 week)

6. Prioritize improvements
7. Assign owners

8. Set deadlines

9. Implementation (ongoing)

10. Track progress
11. Report on improvements

Areas for Review¶

• Architecture process effectiveness
• Decision-making speed
• Documentation quality
• Standard adherence
• Tool effectiveness
• Communication clarity

Tool Support¶

Governance Tools¶

Automation¶

• Pre-commit hooks: Linting, formatting
• CI/CD gates: Tests, security scans, coverage
• Automated ADR creation: Template generation
• Metrics collection: Automated dashboard updates
• Compliance checks: Automated standard verification

Training & Onboarding¶

Architecture Onboarding¶

New Team Members: 1. Architecture overview presentation (2 hours) 2. Documentation reading (self-paced) 3. Shadow architecture review (1 session) 4. Architecture office hours (ongoing)

Content: - Architecture principles - ADR process - Key decisions and rationale - Standards and guidelines - Review process

Ongoing Training¶

• Monthly Architecture Workshop (1 hour)
• Deep dive on specific topics
• New patterns and practices

• Q&A session

• Quarterly Standards Update (30 min)

• New standards
• Updated guidelines
• Tool changes

Governance Maturity Model¶

Current State: Level 3 (Managed)¶

Path to Level 4 (Next 12 Months)¶

• Automated compliance monitoring
• Predictive risk analytics
• Architecture fitness functions
• Continuous documentation validation
• AI-assisted architecture reviews

Related Documents¶

• Architecture Principles: Core principles governing decisions
• ADR-001, ADR-002, ADR-003: Example architecture decisions
• Implementation Roadmap: Delivery timeline and phases
• Requirements Traceability Matrix: Requirements compliance
• Security View: Security governance aspects

Document Maintenance¶

Review Schedule: Quarterly
Owner: Lead Architect
Approver: Executive Steering Committee

Version History: | Version | Date | Changes | Author | |---------|------|---------|--------| | 1.0 | 2024-12-30 | Initial governance model | Architecture Team |

Document Version: 1.0
Last Updated: 2024-12-30
Next Review: 2025-03-30
Approved By: Executive Team, Architecture Review Board