Open debate
Challenge our ideas
A charter that can't survive criticism can't credibly call itself free.
We want objections before we want endorsements. Good-faith criticism that changes the standard gets credited in the change history.
Questions we can't yet answer
- Is this substantively new, or open source with pirate branding?
- Can a public-domain ideal coexist with contribution attribution, trademark and patent rights?
- What does genuine data ownership mean for collaborative, organizational or publicly replicated records?
- Where does full process disclosure end to protect secrets, privacy, security and third-party rights?
- Can labor, taxes, reserves and risk be honestly represented in cost-based pricing?
- Who audits the auditors, conformance badges and costs?
- Could a project comply technically while using coercive or abusive hosted-service terms?
- Can smaller maintainers participate without onerous documentation overhead?
- What should survive a protocol or cloud provider disappearing?
- Would a competing fork have the right to continue the movement's symbols and specification?
These are quoted from the governance document. The decision register lists twelve more open design decisions.
Where to argue
- What Would Make This Fail? — adversarial criticism and failure modes.
- Charter RFC — propose or contest a specific requirement.
- GitHub Discussions: not yet enabled. Planned categories are listed in
launch/RFC-SEEDS.md.
You can read everything here without an account. Posting currently needs a GitHub account, and we count that as a dependency to remove.
No harassment, no private data, no fabricated evidence.