diff --git a/CONTRIBUTIONS.md b/CONTRIBUTIONS.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..967fadbc480
--- /dev/null
+++ b/CONTRIBUTIONS.md
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+## Guidelines for Pull Requests and Releases (Web3 1.x)
+
+This document provides some ground rules for contributors (including the maintainer(s) of
+the project) about how to make, review and publish changes to 1.x. The most basic requirement is
+that **Web3 not break**.
+
+### Pull Requests for substantive changes (e.g. everything except comments and docs)
+
+1. Any PR that introduces a logic change should include tests. (In many cases, the tests will take
+more time to write than the actual code).
+
+2. All PRs should sit for 72 hours with the `pleasereview` tag in order to garner feedback.
+
+3. No PR should be merged until it has been reviewed, passes CI, and all reviews' comments are
+addressed.
+
+4. PRs should:
+  + have a narrow, well-defined focus.
+  + make the smallest set of changes possible to achieve their goal.
+  + include a clear description in the opening comment.
+  + preserve the conventions and stylistic consistency of any files they modify.
+
+5. Given the choice between a conservative change that mostly works and an adventurous change which
+seems better but introduces uncertainty - prefer the conservative change.
+
+### Reviews
+
+The end-goal of review is to suggest useful improvements to the author. Reviews should finish with
+approval unless there are issues that would result in:
+
+1. Buggy behaviour.
+
+2. Undue maintenance burden.
+
+3. Pessimisation (i.e. speed reduction / meaningful build-size increases).
+
+4. Feature reduction (i.e. it removes some aspect of functionality that users rely on).
+
+5. Avoidable risk (i.e it's difficult to test or hard to anticipate the implications of, without
+being strictly necessary to fix something broken).
+
+### Releases
+
+1. All releases should be proposed in a PR and subject to community review for a minimum of one week.
+
+2. Release review periods should be accompanied by a published `rc` version which can be used for
+sanity checks / additional testing.
+
+3. During release review, the code is frozen unless new changes are proposed, approved and merged.
+Changes should trigger a new `rc` release and set the release clock back enough that reviewers have
+the time they need to test new changes.
+
+4. Regular maintainers should manually test the `rc` against a Node project and the published
+minified bundle in a browser context. An external reviewer should verify they've done the same.
+
+5. A release PR must be approved at least by two known contributors of the web3.js project
+
+### Emergencies
+
+This topic is under org-wide discussion at https://github.com/ethereum/js-organization/issues/6
+
+(Much of the above is borrowed from Openish, Parity and Ethers contributions docs. It's meant
+to establish clear, egalitarian criteria for making changes to the code while prioritizing the
+safety of Web3's users.)