Skip to Content

Wiki source code of Governance

Version 1.2 by Robert Schaub on 2026/02/08 08:28
Show last authors
1 = Governance =
2
3 FactHarbor governance is **simple, transparent, flat, and focused on enabling automation**.
4 {{include reference="Archive.FactHarbor 2026\.02\.08.Organisation.Diagrams.Governance Structure.WebHome"/}}
5
6 == 1. Governance Philosophy ==
7
8 **Core Principles**:
9
10 * **Automation over bureaucracy**: Minimize manual processes
11 * **Transparency by default**: Open decision-making
12 * **Community input**: Listen but decide decisively
13 * **Measured outcomes**: Data drives decisions
14 * **Adaptive structure**: Evolve as needed
15
16 == 2. Organizational Structure ==
17
18 **Flat Cooperative Model**:
19
20 * Small organization with collaborative teamwork
21 * No hierarchical management layers
22 * Decisions by consensus when possible, voting when needed
23 * Everyone contributes across multiple areas
24 **General Assembly** → **Governing Team** → **Team Members**
25
26 === 2.1 General Assembly (All Members) ===
27
28 Decides: Governing Team election, statutes, major strategic changes, budget
29 Meets: Annually
30
31 === 2.2 Governing Team ===
32
33 Decides: Strategy, policy, budget allocation, hiring
34 Meets: Quarterly
35 Size: small group (Facilitator, Coordinator, Treasurer + others)
36
37 === 2.3 Team Members ===
38
39 * **Technical Coordinator**: AKEL & infrastructure
40 * **Community Coordinator**: Moderators & contributors
41 * **Moderators** (part-time): Handle abuse/disputes
42
43 == 3. Decision Authority ==
44
45 **Day-to-day**: Technical Coordinator + Community Coordinator
46 **Tactical**: Governing Team (simple majority)
47 **Strategic**: General Assembly (2/3 majority)
48
49 == 4. Policy Development ==
50
51 **RFC Process** (Request for Comments):
52
53 1. Anyone drafts proposal
54 2. Community discussion
55 3. Governing Team reviews and votes
56 4. Decision published
57 **Emergency changes**: Technical Coordinator can act immediately, Governing Team ratifies later
58
59 == 5. Financial Governance ==
60
61 * Annual budget approved by General Assembly
62 * Two-signature requirement for >CHF 5,000
63 * Governing Team approval for >CHF 20,000
64 * Quarterly financial reports
65 * Annual independent audit
66
67 == 6. Automation Governance ==
68
69 **Core Principle**: AKEL makes content decisions. Humans make system decisions.
70
71 === 6.1 Decision Boundary ===
72
73 **What AKEL Decides (Automated)**:
74
75 * All claim verdicts and confidence scores
76 * All evidence assessments and relevance scores
77 * All source track record scores
78 * All risk tier classifications
79 * All publication decisions
80 * All scenario extractions
81 **Rationale**: These decisions must be automated for scale, consistency, transparency, and to avoid human bias. Humans cannot process millions of claims reliably.
82 **Human Role**: Monitor aggregate performance metrics, identify systematic issues, improve algorithms.
83 **What Humans Decide**:
84 **Strategic Decisions** (General Assembly, 2/3 majority):
85 * Mission and values
86 * Risk tier policy definitions
87 * Major architectural changes
88 * Budget allocation
89 * Dissolution
90 **Tactical Decisions** (Governing Team, simple majority):
91 * Algorithm parameter ranges (within policy)
92 * Infrastructure investments
93 * Hiring and role assignments
94 * Community policies
95 * Partnership agreements
96 **Operational Decisions** (Domain Owners, autonomous):
97 * Technical Coordinator: AKEL performance optimizations, infrastructure changes
98 * Community Coordinator: Community process improvements, documentation
99 * Moderators: Handling AKEL-flagged items, detection improvement proposals
100 **Emergency Decisions** (any team member, ratified by Governing Team):
101 * Critical security issues
102 * Legal compliance requirements
103 * Immediate safety concerns
104
105 === 6.2 Principle: Fix the System, Not the Data ===
106
107 **When AKEL makes a "wrong" decision**:
108
109 * ❌ Do NOT manually override that specific verdict
110 * ✅ DO investigate: Is this a systematic issue?
111 * ✅ DO improve: Change algorithm/policy to handle such cases better
112 * ✅ DO test: Validate improvement on historical data
113 * ✅ DO deploy: Roll out improved system
114 * ✅ DO monitor: Check if metrics improve
115 **Example**:
116 * Bad: "AKEL rated this source too low, I'll manually boost it"
117 * Good: "AKEL consistently under-rates peer-reviewed sources. Let's adjust the scoring algorithm to weight peer-review more heavily."
118
119 === 6.3 Governance of AKEL ===
120
121 **Quarterly Performance Review**:
122
123 * Who: Governing Team + Technical Coordinator
124 * What: Review AKEL performance metrics, bias audits, user feedback patterns
125 * Output: Performance report, improvement priorities, policy updates if needed
126 **Performance Metrics Monitored**:
127 * Processing speed (P50, P95, P99)
128 * Success rate and error rate
129 * Evidence completeness
130 * Confidence score distribution
131 * User feedback (helpful/unhelpful ratio)
132 * Bias indicators (by domain, source type, etc.)
133 **Triggers for Policy Review**:
134 * Metrics outside acceptable ranges
135 * Systematic bias detected
136 * Major user complaints about fairness
137 * Legal/compliance concerns
138 * New domains requiring special handling
139 **Algorithm Change Process**:
140
141 1. Identify issue from metrics
142 2. Propose solution (RFC - Request for Comments)
143 3. Test in staging environment
144 4. Measure impact on historical data
145 5. Technical Coordinator approves (or escalates to Governing Team for policy changes)
146 6. Deploy with monitoring
147 7. Evaluate results
148
149 === 6.4 Human Intervention Criteria ===
150
151 **Legitimate reasons to intervene**:
152
153 * ✅ AKEL explicitly flags item for human review
154 * ✅ System metrics show performance degradation
155 * ✅ Legal/safety issue requires immediate action
156 * ✅ User reports reveal systematic bias pattern
157 **Illegitimate reasons** (system improvement needed instead):
158 * ❌ "I disagree with this verdict" → Improve algorithm
159 * ❌ "This source should rank higher" → Improve scoring rules
160 * ❌ "Manual quality gate before publication" → Defeats purpose of automation
161 * ❌ "I know better than the algorithm" → Then improve the algorithm
162
163 === 6.5 Consent-Based Decision Making ===
164
165 **For system changes**, use consent not consensus (from Sociocracy 3.0):
166 **Consent** = No principled objections
167
168 * Faster than consensus
169 * Respects concerns without requiring full agreement
170 * "I can live with this and support it"
171 **Process**:
172
173 1. Proposal presented (RFC)
174 2. Clarifying questions
175 3. Reactions and concerns
176 4. Proposer integrates feedback
177 5. Consent round: Any principled objections?
178 6. If no objections → Decision made
179 7. If objections → Integrate and repeat
180 **Use for**:
181
182 * Algorithm changes
183 * Policy updates
184 * Infrastructure investments
185 * Process changes
186 **Not for**:
187 * Strategic decisions (use voting)
188 * Emergency decisions (use autonomous authority)
189
190 == 7. Transparency & Accountability ==
191
192 **Always public**: Policies, structure, board membership, financials, quality metrics, major decisions
193 **Published quarterly**: Activity reports, metrics, moderation stats
194 **Internal documentation**: All meetings, decisions, actions retained indefinitely
195
196 == 7. Conflict Resolution ==
197
198 **User disputes**: Moderator → Appeal to different moderator → Governing Team (final)
199 **Timeline**: Reasonable timeframe
200
201 == 8. Moderation Oversight ==
202
203 **Moderator requirements**: high reputation, 6+ months active, clean record
204 **Review**: Quarterly by Community Coordinator, annually by Governing Team
205 **Appeal**: Any user can appeal promptly
206
207 == 9. Code of Conduct ==
208
209 **Governing Team**: Act in org interest, disclose conflicts, maintain confidentiality
210 **Team Members**: Follow procedures, professional conduct, document decisions
211 **Moderators**: Impartial decisions, respect privacy, respond timely
212
213 == 10. Amendment Process ==
214
215 **Minor changes**: Governing Team decision
216 **Major changes**: General Assembly (2/3 vote)
217 **Emergency**: Governing Team can act, must ratify at next Assembly
218
219 == 11. Related Pages ==
220
221 * [[Organisational Model>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Organisational-Model]]
222 * [[Legal Framework>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Legal-Framework]]
223 * [[Transparency Policy>>FactHarbor.Organisation.How-We-Work-Together.Transparency-Policy]]