🧵 Thinking through how a co-operative software governance model could work (again), specifically for a large collection of projects or an Apache-like software foundation:

Each project (comprising one or more related software repos, issue trackers, and other resources) has a project leader and maintainers. Pretty standard stuff. Project leader may be semi-permanent or may be elected from time-to-time from the maintainers. Maintainers can code review and merge, project leader is ultimately responsible for ensuring timely communications and merges, representing the project to the board, etc.

@beckett I haven't heard of this, but it does sound vaguely similar (except I was thinking that each "circle" as they call it could do whatever it wants in terms of consensus building, voting, etc.), I'll have to read up on it. Thanks!


@sam @beckett I heartily recommend the sociocracy book "We The People" for inspiring documentation on this sort of bidirectional decision structure. (The consensus aspect is central to their philosophy of voluntary participation, but tangential to the structural aspect of circles.)

@sam I vigorously recommend the book Many Voices One Song from Sociocracy For All. It’s the new buble for understanding and implementing Sociocracy.



Sign in to participate in the conversation

A Fediverse instance for people interested in cooperative and collective projects.