Skip to Content

Changes for page Governance

Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2025/12/24 20:33
From version 3.3
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/12/16 20:28
Change comment: Renamed back-links.
To version 3.2
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/12/16 20:25
Change comment: Update document after refactoring.

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
4 4  
5 5  == Governance Structure ==
6 6  
7 -{{include reference="FactHarbor.Archive.FactHarbor V0\.9\.23 Lost Data.Organisation.Diagrams.Governance Structure.WebHome"/}}
7 +{{include reference="Test.FactHarborV09.Organisation.Diagrams.Governance Structure.WebHome"/}}
8 8  
9 9  * **Governing Team** – Sets high-level policy, organizational direction, funding priorities
10 10  * **Lead** – Coordinates execution, represents organization publicly
... ... @@ -21,7 +21,6 @@
21 21  **Scope**: Architecture, data model, AKEL configuration, quality gates, system performance
22 22  
23 23  **Process**:
24 -
25 25  * Proposals discussed in technical forums
26 26  * Review by core maintainers
27 27  * Consensus-based approval
... ... @@ -29,7 +29,6 @@
29 29  * Quality gate adjustments require rationale and audit validation
30 30  
31 31  **Examples**:
32 -
33 33  * Adding new quality gate
34 34  * Adjusting AKEL parameters
35 35  * Modifying audit sampling algorithms
... ... @@ -40,7 +40,6 @@
40 40  **Scope**: Risk tier policies, publication rules, content guidelines, ethical boundaries
41 41  
42 42  **Process**:
43 -
44 44  * Proposal published for community feedback
45 45  * Discussion period (recommendation: minimum 14 days for major changes)
46 46  * Governing Team decision with community input
... ... @@ -48,7 +48,6 @@
48 48  * Risk tier policy changes require Expert consultation
49 49  
50 50  **Examples**:
51 -
52 52  * Defining Tier A domains
53 53  * Setting audit sampling rates
54 54  * Content moderation policies
... ... @@ -59,7 +59,6 @@
59 59  **Scope**: Domain quality standards, source reliability in specialized fields, Tier A content validation
60 60  
61 61  **Process**:
62 -
63 63  * Expert consensus in domain
64 64  * Documented reasoning
65 65  * Review by other experts
... ... @@ -67,7 +67,6 @@
67 67  * Experts set domain-specific audit criteria
68 68  
69 69  **Examples**:
70 -
71 71  * Medical claim evaluation standards
72 72  * Legal citation requirements
73 73  * Scientific methodology thresholds
... ... @@ -101,7 +101,6 @@
101 101  === Transparency Requirement ===
102 102  
103 103  All governance decisions must be:
104 -
105 105  * **Documented** with reasoning
106 106  * **Published** for community visibility
107 107  * **Reviewable** by community members
... ... @@ -116,7 +116,6 @@
116 116  **Composition**: Maintainers, Domain Experts, and Governing Team member(s)
117 117  
118 118  **Responsibilities**:
119 -
120 120  * Set quality standards for audit evaluation
121 121  * Review audit statistics and trends
122 122  * Adjust sampling rates based on performance
... ... @@ -131,7 +131,6 @@
131 131  === Audit Performance Metrics ===
132 132  
133 133  Tracked and published:
134 -
135 135  * Audit pass/fail rates by tier
136 136  * Common failure patterns
137 137  * System improvements implemented
... ... @@ -141,7 +141,6 @@
141 141  === Feedback Loop Governance ===
142 142  
143 143  **Process**:
144 -
145 145  1. Audits identify patterns in AI errors
146 146  2. Audit Committee reviews patterns
147 147  3. Maintainers propose technical fixes
... ... @@ -150,7 +150,6 @@
150 150  6. Deployed with monitoring
151 151  
152 152  **Escalation**:
153 -
154 154  * Persistent high failure rates → Pause AI publication in affected tier/domain
155 155  * Critical errors → Immediate system review
156 156  * Pattern of harm → Policy revision
... ... @@ -169,7 +169,6 @@
169 169  === Risk Tier Review Process ===
170 170  
171 171  **Triggers for Review**:
172 -
173 173  * Significant audit failures in a tier
174 174  * New emerging topics or domains
175 175  * Community flags systematic misclassification
... ... @@ -177,7 +177,6 @@
177 177  * Periodic policy review
178 178  
179 179  **Process**:
180 -
181 181  1. Expert domain review (identify if Tier A/B/C appropriate)
182 182  2. Community input period (recommendation: sufficient time for feedback)
183 183  3. Audit Committee assessment (error patterns in current tier)
... ... @@ -204,7 +204,6 @@
204 204  **Who Can Propose**: Maintainers, Experts, Audit Committee
205 205  
206 206  **Requirements**:
207 -
208 208  * Rationale based on audit failures or system improvements
209 209  * Testing in sandbox environment
210 210  * Impact assessment (false positive/negative rates)
... ... @@ -211,12 +211,10 @@
211 211  * Community notification before deployment
212 212  
213 213  **Approval**:
214 -
215 215  * Technical changes: Maintainer consensus
216 216  * Policy changes (e.g., new gate criteria): Governing Team approval
217 217  
218 218  **Examples of Governed Changes**:
219 -
220 220  * Adjusting contradiction search scope
221 221  * Modifying source reliability thresholds
222 222  * Adding new bubble detection patterns
... ... @@ -236,7 +236,6 @@
236 236  === Proposal Mechanism ===
237 237  
238 238  Anyone can propose:
239 -
240 240  1. Submit proposal with rationale
241 241  2. Community discussion (recommendation: minimum timeframe for feedback)
242 242  3. Relevant authority reviews (Maintainers/Governing Team/Experts)
... ... @@ -273,7 +273,6 @@
273 273  === User Appeals ===
274 274  
275 275  Users can appeal:
276 -
277 277  * Content rejection decisions
278 278  * Risk tier assignments
279 279  * Audit outcomes
... ... @@ -280,7 +280,6 @@
280 280  * Moderation actions
281 281  
282 282  **Process**:
283 -
284 284  1. Submit appeal with evidence
285 285  2. Reviewed by independent moderator/expert
286 286  3. Decision with reasoning
... ... @@ -294,3 +294,4 @@
294 294  * [[Automation>>FactHarbor.Specification.Automation.WebHome]]
295 295  * [[Requirements (Roles)>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome]]
296 296  * [[Organisational Model>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Organisational-Model]]
278 +