A guide to forgefriends governance

forgefriends is a horizontal community bootstrapped in January 2021 and based on a few rules (8). It takes less than ten minutes for any newcomer to read, understand the manifesto and decide if they are ok with it.

It will take a lot longer to figure out how they influence the actions of community members. Since there is no spokesperson, who should answer questions about forgefriends? Since there is no hierarchy, how can the project be funded? Community members are expected to behave according to the Code of Conduct but what happens if they do not?

According to Wikipedia,

“a flat organization (also known as horizontal organization or flat hierarchy) has an organizational structure with few or no levels of middle management between staff and executives.”

It is worth mentioning that forgefriends is horizontal in the sense that it has no levels of middle management. A horizontal community with even one level of management would be like claiming that a surface is horizontal when it is at a 5° angle.

The most common objection to establish a horizontal community is the claim that it is subject to the tyranny of structurlessness. But it does not compare because the forgefriends community has a structure and a well defined decision process. In 1970, the seminal article explains that

“… the women’s liberation movement has been taking shape, a great emphasis has been placed on what are called leaderless, structureless groups as the main – if not sole – organizational form of the movement.”

and articulates the negative outcome of this choice. It further concludes that:

“For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group and to participate in its activities the structure must be explicit, not implicit. The rules of decision-making must be open and available to everyone, and this can happen only if they are formalized.” (Jo Freeman, “The Tyranny of Structurelessness”)

The forgefriends community has a transparent, clearly defined and formalized decision making process that is open to everyone. And although it has no hierarchy it has a set of rules that gives it a structure.

There is no definitive and unambiguous document explaining how the governance of forgefriends is derived from the rules found in the manifesto. But there are examples to show how they were interpreted in the past.

Decision making process

Anyone can propose a decision by creating a new topic in the governance category of the forum and wait for a consensus period of at least two weeks to give a chance to community members to raise their concerns and object.

Half of the rules (4) in the forgefriends manifesto are related to decision making:

  • An action that has no impact on others can be carried out unilaterally
  • An action impacting others is advertised in advance and carried out if there is a consensus (or a favorable vote if there is no consensus)
  • Any member of the community impacted by an action is entitled to call for a vote
  • Community members respect consensus and vote results

Writing a series of articles published on the forgefriends forum about working without a GitHub account is a trivial example of an action that has no impact on others. Engaging in a discussion to explore how a company can participate in forgefriends also has no impact on others as long as nobody claims to have authority to decide in the name of forgefriends and only speak for themselves. Fostering diversity is also an individual commitment: forgefriends, as a project, works to improve diversity only to the extent that each member of the community does.

The 5,000€ grant to advance federation in Gitea, although perceived to originate from the forgefriends project, is actually the aggregation of two individual commitments and not a project wide decision, as can be seen in how the funds are approved and wired to the beneficiaries. The decision to allocate these funds did not require consensus from other forgefriends members because it only impacts the two community members that commit to run this grant in the context of the forgefriends project.

Mistakes happen and actions that have an impact on others will sometime be made (in this case editing the post of someone in the forum without their consent). Whatever the reason for the original mistake, the person who made it can organize a consultation to get consensus and revert the action if they do not get it.

Changing the name of the project to forgefriends is an action impacting others and it was advertised in advance. After a three weeks consensus period without any objection, it was carried out. The consensus period ranged from two weeks to four weeks, depending on how significant the impact is perceived to be.

There never was a vote organized in the forgefriends community.

Talking about forgefriends

Since there is no spokesperson, noone can claim to speak in the name of forgefriends, nor in the name of the forgefriends community. Each member of the community can however talk about forgefriends, from their perspective. It boils down to:

There can be occasions where a statement or blog post starts in the first person, as the subjective view of one community member, and the forgefriends community expresses a consensus on the content of the message. It can then be rewritten in the third person and published.

In other words, although there is no spokesperson, it is possible for the forgefriends community to express itself but this is a decision like any other: it requires consensus or a vote.

Funding forgefriends community members

Since there is no hierarchy, forgefriends cannot be represented by an organization. If a democratic non profit was created, there would be a board, elected by the members: this would be a single level hierarchy which is the opposite of the absence of hierarchy.

Funding can therefore only be received by individual forgefriends community members, it cannot be received by an organization that would then distribute the funds to community members. This has a few consequences when applying for funding:

  • forgefriends community members can only apply in their own name
  • the grant applicant cannot claim to have any power to decide in the name of the forgefriends community

For instance the DAPSI grant was received by an individual and a commercial entity, in their own name. The deliverables of this grant were designed to contribute to forgefriends but there was no guarantee they would actually be accepted by the forgefriends community: a vote could decide otherwise.

Donating to the forgefriends project

In the absence of hierarchy, it is not possible to donate money to the forgefriends project. It is however possible for a person to pledge to create a grant to be spent by the forgefriends project. For instance, a 5,000€ grant was created by two community members to further federation in Gitea. Although it appears to originate from the forgefriends project, it really is an individual initiative.

In other words, individuals donating to the forgefriends project can do so by:

  • Pledging to spend a given amount as decided by the forgefriends community
  • Agreeing the forgefriends project claims it is the origin of the fund without mentioning the original donor

For instance, communicating about the 5,000€ grant is done without mentioning the donors.

Exclusive resources and people with access

Community members with access to an exclusive resource are listed publicly because there currently is no way for a project such as forgefriends to run without them. They are a challenge because they are an obstacle to the benefits of horizontality and ongoing discussions explore alternatives.

2 Likes

I think it would be worth creating a governance category with this document as an introduction. This category would be where decisions are made so they can easily be found later on. Which is not currently the case.

One thing forgefriends might need to tackle better is keeping track of things for which there’s already tacit approval. Take e.g. my Community building and channel feedback. It has a bunch of points in it that found agreement. But they were not recorded as decision points on which others can now act.

Suppose someone new jumps into the community and says: “Hey folks, I have some time now and will work on a website revamp”. A new website impacts the project. Maybe it needs 2 week approval. Can the person already start? Does the person risk the work done was in vain, if not approved? And the person is available now, not in two weeks.

1 Like

You might have a ‘Community action’ or something repo where you create placeholder issues, that refer to forum discussions where points of consent are reached, paste these issue URL’s in the forum thread to cross-ref. Now you have an issue tracker that you can point anyone to to pick their favorite tasks to work on.

Add a kanban board for good measure, to see who’s working on what.

1 Like

image

1 Like

Cool, that was quick. Maybe there’s need for some labels. You want to create issues on-the-fly in an active discussion, and then they are ‘Pending’ or something. Maybe a label that indicates consent period, and then a label ‘Approved’ when that period expires. Discussion can then commence on implementation details, and only when new high-impact stuff is encountered there’s need to create additional community action issues (and maybe a dependency between them).

1 Like

image

1 Like

The governance category was created and the latest decisions moved there. This draft should really be a wiki topic in this category: it’s not like there will be a final version, it needs to evolve over time.

1 Like

There indeed are many ideas that led to action and will in the future, an important post :slight_smile: Some of those actions do not require consensus. For instance, changing the banner was the outcome of a discussion, not a formal consensus:

I’m interested to know which part of Community building and channel feedback specifically has “tacit approval”?

A link to this topic was added to the manifesto.

Maybe wrong word choice. Not referring to community consent. Just that there was overall agreement that some community building effort was needed, discussion followed, but since there were no clear action points all the 1-2-3 week consent seeking that may be in there still need to happen.

1 Like