Wiki source code of Governance
Version 3.1 by Robert Schaub on 2025/12/15 16:56
Hide last authors
| author | version | line-number | content |
|---|---|---|---|
 |
1.1 | 1 | = Governance = |
| 2 | |||
| |
2.1 | 3 | FactHarbor is governed collaboratively with clear separation between **organizational policy and decisions** and **technical implementation**. |
| |
1.1 | 4 | |
| |
2.1 | 5 | == Governance Structure == |
| |
1.1 | 6 | |
| |
3.1 | 7 | {{include reference="Test.FactHarborV09.Organisation.Diagrams.Governance Structure.WebHome"/}} |
| 8 | |||
| |
2.1 | 9 | * **Governing Team** – Sets high-level policy, organizational direction, funding priorities |
| 10 | * **Lead** – Coordinates execution, represents organization publicly | ||
| 11 | * **Core Maintainers** – Technical and specification decisions, code/spec review | ||
| 12 | * **Domain Experts** – Subject-matter authority in specialized areas | ||
| 13 | * **Community Contributors** – Feedback, proposals, and participation in decision-making | ||
| |
1.1 | 14 | |
| |
2.1 | 15 | ---- |
| |
1.1 | 16 | |
| |
2.1 | 17 | == Decision-Making Levels == |
| |
1.1 | 18 | |
| |
2.1 | 19 | === Technical Decisions (Maintainers) === |
| |
1.1 | 20 | |
| |
2.1 | 21 | **Scope**: Architecture, data model, AKEL configuration, quality gates, system performance |
| |
1.1 | 22 | |
| |
2.1 | 23 | **Process**: |
| 24 | * Proposals discussed in technical forums | ||
| 25 | * Review by core maintainers | ||
| 26 | * Consensus-based approval | ||
| 27 | * Breaking changes require broader community input | ||
| 28 | * Quality gate adjustments require rationale and audit validation | ||
| |
1.1 | 29 | |
| |
2.1 | 30 | **Examples**: |
| 31 | * Adding new quality gate | ||
| 32 | * Adjusting AKEL parameters | ||
| 33 | * Modifying audit sampling algorithms | ||
| 34 | * Database schema changes | ||
| |
1.1 | 35 | |
| |
2.1 | 36 | === Policy Decisions (Governing Team + Community) === |
| |
1.1 | 37 | |
| |
2.1 | 38 | **Scope**: Risk tier policies, publication rules, content guidelines, ethical boundaries |
| |
1.1 | 39 | |
| |
2.1 | 40 | **Process**: |
| 41 | * Proposal published for community feedback | ||
| 42 | * Discussion period (recommendation: minimum 14 days for major changes) | ||
| 43 | * Governing Team decision with community input | ||
| 44 | * Transparency in reasoning | ||
| 45 | * Risk tier policy changes require Expert consultation | ||
| |
1.1 | 46 | |
| |
2.1 | 47 | **Examples**: |
| 48 | * Defining Tier A domains | ||
| 49 | * Setting audit sampling rates | ||
| 50 | * Content moderation policies | ||
| 51 | * Community guidelines | ||
| |
1.1 | 52 | |
| |
2.1 | 53 | === Domain-Specific Decisions (Experts) === |
| |
1.1 | 54 | |
| |
2.1 | 55 | **Scope**: Domain quality standards, source reliability in specialized fields, Tier A content validation |
| |
1.1 | 56 | |
| |
2.1 | 57 | **Process**: |
| 58 | * Expert consensus in domain | ||
| 59 | * Documented reasoning | ||
| 60 | * Review by other experts | ||
| 61 | * Escalation to Governing Team if unresolved | ||
| 62 | * Experts set domain-specific audit criteria | ||
| |
1.1 | 63 | |
| |
2.1 | 64 | **Examples**: |
| 65 | * Medical claim evaluation standards | ||
| 66 | * Legal citation requirements | ||
| 67 | * Scientific methodology thresholds | ||
| 68 | * Tier A approval criteria by domain | ||
| |
1.1 | 69 | |
| |
2.1 | 70 | ---- |
| |
1.1 | 71 | |
| |
2.1 | 72 | == AI and Human Roles in Governance == |
| |
1.1 | 73 | |
| |
2.1 | 74 | === Human-Only Governance Decisions === |
| |
1.1 | 75 | |
| |
2.1 | 76 | The following can **never** be automated: |
| |
1.1 | 77 | |
| |
2.1 | 78 | * **Ethical boundary setting** – What content is acceptable, what harm thresholds exist |
| 79 | * **Risk tier policy** – Which domains are Tier A/B/C (though AKEL can suggest) | ||
| 80 | * **Audit system oversight** – Quality standards, sampling strategies, auditor selection | ||
| 81 | * **Dispute resolution** – Conflicts between experts, controversial decisions | ||
| 82 | * **Community guidelines enforcement** – Bans, suspensions, conflict mediation | ||
| 83 | * **Organizational direction** – Mission, vision, funding priorities | ||
| |
1.1 | 84 | |
| |
2.1 | 85 | === AKEL Advisory Role === |
| |
1.1 | 86 | |
| |
2.1 | 87 | AKEL can **assist but not decide**: |
| |
1.1 | 88 | |
| |
2.1 | 89 | * Suggest risk tier assignments (humans validate) |
| 90 | * Flag content for expert review (humans decide) | ||
| 91 | * Identify patterns in audit failures (humans adjust policy) | ||
| 92 | * Propose quality gate refinements (maintainers approve) | ||
| 93 | * Detect emerging topics needing new policies (Governing Team decides) | ||
| |
1.1 | 94 | |
| |
2.1 | 95 | === Transparency Requirement === |
| |
1.1 | 96 | |
| |
2.1 | 97 | All governance decisions must be: |
| 98 | * **Documented** with reasoning | ||
| 99 | * **Published** for community visibility | ||
| 100 | * **Reviewable** by community members | ||
| 101 | * **Reversible** if evidence of error or harm | ||
| |
1.1 | 102 | |
| |
2.1 | 103 | ---- |
| |
1.1 | 104 | |
| |
2.1 | 105 | == Audit System Governance == |
| |
1.1 | 106 | |
| |
2.1 | 107 | === Audit Oversight Committee === |
| |
1.1 | 108 | |
| |
2.1 | 109 | **Composition**: Maintainers, Domain Experts, and Governing Team member(s) |
| |
1.1 | 110 | |
| |
2.1 | 111 | **Responsibilities**: |
| 112 | * Set quality standards for audit evaluation | ||
| 113 | * Review audit statistics and trends | ||
| 114 | * Adjust sampling rates based on performance | ||
| 115 | * Approve changes to audit algorithms | ||
| 116 | * Oversee auditor selection and rotation | ||
| 117 | * Publish transparency reports | ||
| |
1.1 | 118 | |
| |
2.1 | 119 | **Meeting Frequency**: Recommendation: Regular meetings as needed |
| |
1.1 | 120 | |
| |
2.1 | 121 | **Reporting**: Recommendation: Periodic transparency reports to community |
| |
1.1 | 122 | |
| |
2.1 | 123 | === Audit Performance Metrics === |
| |
1.1 | 124 | |
| |
2.1 | 125 | Tracked and published: |
| 126 | * Audit pass/fail rates by tier | ||
| 127 | * Common failure patterns | ||
| 128 | * System improvements implemented | ||
| 129 | * Time to resolution for audit failures | ||
| 130 | * Auditor performance (anonymized) | ||
| |
1.1 | 131 | |
| |
2.1 | 132 | === Feedback Loop Governance === |
| |
1.1 | 133 | |
| |
2.1 | 134 | **Process**: |
| 135 | 1. Audits identify patterns in AI errors | ||
| 136 | 2. Audit Committee reviews patterns | ||
| 137 | 3. Maintainers propose technical fixes | ||
| 138 | 4. Changes tested in sandbox | ||
| 139 | 5. Community informed of improvements | ||
| 140 | 6. Deployed with monitoring | ||
| |
1.1 | 141 | |
| |
2.1 | 142 | **Escalation**: |
| 143 | * Persistent high failure rates → Pause AI publication in affected tier/domain | ||
| 144 | * Critical errors → Immediate system review | ||
| 145 | * Pattern of harm → Policy revision | ||
| |
1.1 | 146 | |
| |
2.1 | 147 | ---- |
| |
1.1 | 148 | |
| |
2.1 | 149 | == Risk Tier Policy Governance == |
| |
1.1 | 150 | |
| |
2.1 | 151 | === Risk Tier Assignment Authority === |
| |
1.1 | 152 | |
| |
2.1 | 153 | * **AKEL**: Suggests initial tier based on domain, keywords, content analysis |
| 154 | * **Moderators**: Can override AKEL for individual content | ||
| 155 | * **Experts**: Set tier policy for their domains | ||
| 156 | * **Governing Team**: Approve tier policy changes, resolve tier disputes | ||
| |
1.1 | 157 | |
| |
2.1 | 158 | === Risk Tier Review Process === |
| |
1.1 | 159 | |
| |
2.1 | 160 | **Triggers for Review**: |
| 161 | * Significant audit failures in a tier | ||
| 162 | * New emerging topics or domains | ||
| 163 | * Community flags systematic misclassification | ||
| 164 | * Expert domain recommendations | ||
| 165 | * Periodic policy review | ||
| |
1.1 | 166 | |
| |
2.1 | 167 | **Process**: |
| 168 | 1. Expert domain review (identify if Tier A/B/C appropriate) | ||
| 169 | 2. Community input period (recommendation: sufficient time for feedback) | ||
| 170 | 3. Audit Committee assessment (error patterns in current tier) | ||
| 171 | 4. Governing Team decision | ||
| 172 | 5. Implementation with monitoring period | ||
| 173 | 6. Transparency report on rationale | ||
| |
1.1 | 174 | |
| |
2.1 | 175 | === Current Tier Assignments (Baseline) === |
| |
1.1 | 176 | |
| |
2.1 | 177 | **Tier A**: Medical, legal, elections, safety/security, major financial decisions |
| |
1.1 | 178 | |
| |
2.1 | 179 | **Tier B**: Complex science causality, contested policy, historical interpretation with political implications, significant economic impact |
| |
1.1 | 180 | |
| |
2.1 | 181 | **Tier C**: Established historical facts, simple definitions, well-documented scientific consensus, basic reference info |
| |
1.1 | 182 | |
| |
2.1 | 183 | **Note**: These are guidelines; edge cases require expert judgment |
| |
1.1 | 184 | |
| |
2.1 | 185 | ---- |
| |
1.1 | 186 | |
| |
2.1 | 187 | == Quality Gate Governance == |
| |
1.1 | 188 | |
| |
2.1 | 189 | === Quality Gate Modification Process === |
| |
1.1 | 190 | |
| |
2.1 | 191 | **Who Can Propose**: Maintainers, Experts, Audit Committee |
| |
1.1 | 192 | |
| |
2.1 | 193 | **Requirements**: |
| 194 | * Rationale based on audit failures or system improvements | ||
| 195 | * Testing in sandbox environment | ||
| 196 | * Impact assessment (false positive/negative rates) | ||
| 197 | * Community notification before deployment | ||
| |
1.1 | 198 | |
| |
2.1 | 199 | **Approval**: |
| 200 | * Technical changes: Maintainer consensus | ||
| 201 | * Policy changes (e.g., new gate criteria): Governing Team approval | ||
| |
1.1 | 202 | |
| |
2.1 | 203 | **Examples of Governed Changes**: |
| 204 | * Adjusting contradiction search scope | ||
| 205 | * Modifying source reliability thresholds | ||
| 206 | * Adding new bubble detection patterns | ||
| 207 | * Changing uncertainty quantification formulas | ||
| |
1.1 | 208 | |
| |
2.1 | 209 | ---- |
| |
1.1 | 210 | |
| |
2.1 | 211 | == Community Participation == |
| |
1.1 | 212 | |
| |
2.1 | 213 | === Open Discussion Forums === |
| |
1.1 | 214 | |
| |
2.1 | 215 | * Technical proposals (maintainer-led) |
| 216 | * Policy proposals (Governing Team-led) | ||
| 217 | * Domain-specific discussions (Expert-led) | ||
| 218 | * Audit findings and improvements (Audit Committee-led) | ||
| |
1.1 | 219 | |
| |
2.1 | 220 | === Proposal Mechanism === |
| |
1.1 | 221 | |
| |
2.1 | 222 | Anyone can propose: |
| 223 | 1. Submit proposal with rationale | ||
| 224 | 2. Community discussion (recommendation: minimum timeframe for feedback) | ||
| 225 | 3. Relevant authority reviews (Maintainers/Governing Team/Experts) | ||
| 226 | 4. Decision with documented reasoning | ||
| 227 | 5. Implementation (if approved) | ||
| |
1.1 | 228 | |
| |
2.1 | 229 | === Transparency === |
| |
1.1 | 230 | |
| |
2.1 | 231 | * All decisions documented in public wiki |
| 232 | * Audit statistics published periodically | ||
| 233 | * Governing Team meeting minutes published | ||
| 234 | * Expert recommendations documented | ||
| 235 | * Community feedback acknowledged | ||
| |
1.1 | 236 | |
| |
2.1 | 237 | ---- |
| |
1.1 | 238 | |
| |
2.1 | 239 | == Dispute Resolution == |
| |
1.1 | 240 | |
| |
2.1 | 241 | === Conflict Between Experts === |
| |
1.1 | 242 | |
| |
2.1 | 243 | 1. Experts attempt consensus |
| 244 | 2. If unresolved, escalate to Governing Team | ||
| 245 | 3. Governing Team appoints neutral expert panel | ||
| 246 | 4. Panel recommendation | ||
| 247 | 5. Governing Team decision (final) | ||
| |
1.1 | 248 | |
| |
2.1 | 249 | === Conflict Between Maintainers === |
| |
1.1 | 250 | |
| |
2.1 | 251 | 1. Discussion in maintainer forum |
| 252 | 2. Attempt consensus | ||
| 253 | 3. If unresolved, Lead makes decision | ||
| 254 | 4. Community informed of reasoning | ||
| |
1.1 | 255 | |
| |
2.1 | 256 | === User Appeals === |
| |
1.1 | 257 | |
| |
2.1 | 258 | Users can appeal: |
| 259 | * Content rejection decisions | ||
| 260 | * Risk tier assignments | ||
| 261 | * Audit outcomes | ||
| 262 | * Moderation actions | ||
| 263 | |||
| 264 | **Process**: | ||
| 265 | 1. Submit appeal with evidence | ||
| 266 | 2. Reviewed by independent moderator/expert | ||
| 267 | 3. Decision with reasoning | ||
| 268 | 4. Final appeal to Governing Team (if warranted) | ||
| 269 | |||
| 270 | ---- | ||
| 271 | |||
| 272 | == Related Pages == | ||
| 273 | |||
| 274 | * [[AKEL (AI Knowledge Extraction Layer)>>FactHarbor.Specification.AI Knowledge Extraction Layer (AKEL).WebHome]] | ||
| 275 | * [[Automation>>FactHarbor.Specification.Automation.WebHome]] | ||
| 276 | * [[Requirements (Roles)>>FactHarbor.Specification.Requirements.WebHome]] | ||
| 277 | * [[Organisational Model>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Organisational-Model]] | ||
| 278 |