Governance models for distributed infrastructures
Title: Governance models for distributed infrastructure, with focus on hosting infrastructure – K,E
Brainstorming requirements: A system that allows for easy separation. There should be always the possibility to move away from the group. Democracy Accountability
Governance models brainstorming: Session participants split into 3 groups, tobrainstorm different governance models.
Group 1 There are 4 project areas:
engagement and workflow analysis,
tech software development,
Each project is organized as a working group. A fifth working group is the stakeholder coordination one.
There is also a fiscal sponsor.
What are the operational and legal needs of the grantees?
Anyone can apply to any funding, but should coordinate with the other groups. The grantee communicates with the working groups to coordinate the use of the funding.
Parts of the money also goes into a collective reserve.
- Accountability goes from the bottom up
- Money goes from the top down
- Entrance and exit: How do people enter and get out?
- There are lots of moving parts, working autonomously.
- Key aspects are:
- Conflict resolution processesPlans change
- Radical transparency about money
- Sched. slippage
Any group is empowered to support a working group. Big ideas:
- Anyone can write a grant
- Working groups are semi-autonomous, but have agreements with grantees.
Group 2 The group talked about what kind of issues the governance model should be able to solve.
How to come together as a group of projects that want to work together? What decisions should be a consensus?
Fluidity to join and leave grouptalkedDemocratic
Consensus for important/ big decisions
Tech to use
What we want to do
Funding as a whole/single entity may be difficult
Values have to be well-defined
Separate groups for different issues? E.g. software development group; shared hardware group; etc.
Group 3 Model inspired by indigenous community governance model, Mexico
Community has dialog to pick people from the community to form the government. They are nominated and cannot candidate themselves. Can only do it for one year, and can't do it again for at least two years. Who is in the goverment works full time for free for one year, so their family supports them. Plus, folks work in the government first in simpler roles (maybe even just part time), and then the governance group supports mentorship and leadership building, and over time can go and be in bigger roles (full time).
If you are picked to go in the government you don't have to go if you don't want.
Each org helps to ensure that the one that participates in the governance is in the condition to do it. Bigger orgs will be able to afford to have more people to go into that duty.
The government only takes care about admin and operation responsibilities. They do not have full decision making. Decisions are still taken together with the Assembly, which is all around them.
Assembly sets priorities and mandates. The Government exctued operational activities, and operational decisions
Tiered leadership, supported by mentorship
Sustainability (your org creates the condition for you to be inthe government)
Example of workflow:
The Assembly decides that there is topic that the Government needs to work on.
The Assembly works on it and reports back to the Assembly with the decision.
In the Assembly there are people who have been in the Government, and viceversa, it's cyclical
The government members are in charge of facilitate the Assembly: calling them for meetings, and facilitate the dialog.
The Assembly is very vocal to make sure that who is in the Government is from a wide demographic.
The Assembly can also decide to put Government members in a sort of "time out" (accountability).
Resources / funds in this model come from the state (green circle in the picture).