Foundational Governance Practices

What Changed Since the Previous Revision

This revision incorporates feedback from early community discussion and aligns the document with the Meta-Layer governance tooling now in active use.

Key changes include:

• Added a How to Participate (Quick Start) section near the top of the document to make entry points and participation pathways immediately visible.
• Clarified participation pathways, emphasizing that anyone may submit drafts, comment, or join workgroups without creating a Project.
• Introduced Projects, Guilds, Workgroups, and Coordinators as explicit governance primitives, with clear separation of roles.
• Defined Stabilization as a readiness phase rather than a point of finality.
• Clarified that ML-RFCs remain open to public comment after publication, with structured paths for errata, amendments, or superseding drafts.
• Added a Glossary to normalize terminology across drafts, tooling, and community practice.
• Identified https://rfc.themetalayer.org as the primary governance hub for participation.
• Performed editorial cleanup to improve clarity, consistency, and long-term readability.

No changes were made to the core governance ethos of openness, rough consensus, or artifact-based public memory.

Preamble

The Internet experience begins at the interface, where people encounter information, agents, and one another. Protocols and signals are essential, but they are not the experience. We do not build foundational network protocols; we stitch them together and enable them to cooperate in the layer above the web. This is the meta-layer: the space of meaning, annotation, identity, and interaction.

Where the IETF ensures the plumbing flows, the Meta-Layer Infrastructure SIG ensures that what flows connects people in ways that are open, trustworthy, and interoperable. Our ethos is familiar - rough consensus and running code - but our focus is distinct: a people-centered Internet that cannot be reduced to pipes and packets.

Just as the IETF stewarded the web's foundation, the Meta-Layer Infrastructure SIG stewards its next level.

How to Participate (Quick Start)

Anyone can participate. The Meta-Layer governance process is open by default. Participation begins at https://rfc.themetalayer.org.

• (Optional) Register a Project if you are stewarding a long‑lived body of work. Most participants will submit drafts to existing Projects.
• Submit an ML-Draft (anyone may submit) and associate it with a Project.
• Assign or form a Workgroup to steward deliberation and assess rough consensus.
• Comment and annotate drafts and RFCs at any time.
• Join or create a Guild to learn, collaborate, and seed new work.

Participation does not require affiliation, permission, or prior approval. Visibility, deliberation, and recorded context are the basis of legitimacy.

1. Purpose

This Draft establishes the foundational governance practices of the Meta-Layer Infrastructure SIG. It is not only a request for input, but an act of unfolding: the SIG itself will emerge through these practices.

We adopt a hybrid governance framework inspired by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), rooted in transparency, decentralization, and inclusiveness, while adapting it to the realities of interface-level civic infrastructure and long-lived public digital artifacts.

By publishing ML-Draft-001, we set the baseline for how the SIG documents itself, makes decisions, records consensus, and evolves over time.

2. Document Lifecycle: ML-Draft → ML-RFC

2.1 Overview

The Meta-Layer governance process follows a continuous lifecycle rather than a linear, one-time approval path. Artifacts evolve, decisions are recorded, and prior context remains visible.

The lifecycle is intentionally summarized in a high-level diagram (where included). Detailed comment processes, consensus checks, escalation paths, and post-RFC change mechanisms are specified in the sections below and are not fully represented in the figure.

2.2 ML-Drafts

Revision Notes (Encouraged): Authors submitting revised versions of an ML-Draft are encouraged to include a brief explanation of substantive changes. Explanations are optional for purely editorial revisions, but strongly recommended when changes affect scope, governance mechanisms, or interpretive meaning.

ML-Drafts are exploratory, open documents used to capture ideas, lessons, proposals, and emerging practices.

• Drafts may be submitted by individuals or groups.
• Each draft is submitted within the context of a Project (see Section 2.6).
• The SIG encourages drafts to emerge from guilds or workgroups that steward ideas collaboratively.
• Drafts are not binding.
• Some drafts may never advance, and this is expected and acceptable.

2.3 Community Deliberation

All ML-Drafts are subject to community deliberation, which includes:

• Public comments and annotations
• Open Draft Lab sessions
• Asynchronous discussion and review
• Informal consensus signals (e.g., polling, humming)

Community deliberation is treated as a first-class governance activity and forms part of the permanent decision record.

2.4 Stabilization

Stabilization is the phase in which a draft is prepared for potential reliance.

Stabilization includes:

• Resolving substantive objections, or explicitly recording unresolved disagreements
• Clarifying scope and non-goals
• Ensuring terminological consistency
• Confirming required sections are present

Stabilization does not imply finality or immutability. It indicates readiness for possible promotion while preserving the ability to evolve.

2.5 ML-RFCs

ML-RFCs (Meta-Layer Requests for Comment) are stable governance artifacts promoted from ML-Drafts by community consensus and, when required, formal approval pathways.

ML-RFCs represent adopted practices, shared principles, or governance frameworks for the SIG. They are intended to be relied upon, but not treated as permanently closed.

Promotion from ML-Draft to ML-RFC requires an associated workgroup to assess rough consensus and readiness for reliance.

3. Post-RFC Comments and Evolution

Once an ML-RFC is published, it remains associated with its originating Project and workgroup for purposes of stewardship and evolution.

Publication as an ML-RFC does not close public comment.

ML-RFCs remain open to annotation and feedback. Post-publication comments may result in:

• Errata (editorial or clarifying corrections)
• Amendments (non-breaking extensions or refinements)
• Superseding drafts (major revisions responding to changed conditions or fundamental disagreement)

The original ML-RFC remains preserved as part of the historical record. Changes are additive and explicitly linked, never silently overwritten.

4. Governance Modes: Rough Consensus and Formal Decision Paths

4.1 Workgroups and Rough Consensus

Workgroups are the primary bodies responsible for determining whether rough consensus has been achieved for a given draft or RFC transition.

A workgroup:

• Is formed around a specific Project or scope
• Is open to participation
• Facilitates deliberation and synthesis
• Signals whether rough consensus has been reached

Workgroups do not exercise unilateral authority; they act as sensemaking and coordination bodies for the community.

4.2 Coordinators

Each workgroup may have one or more coordinators.

The role of a coordinator is to:

• Convene discussions
• Ensure process integrity
• Surface objections and consensus signals
• Coordinate transitions between lifecycle phases

Coordinators do not act as chairs in the traditional sense and do not make decisions on behalf of the group.

The SIG operates under a dual governance model:

• Rough Consensus: Used for most direction-setting, exploratory work, and draft development through visible community signals.
• Formal Decision Paths: Used for critical transitions, including promotion of ML-Drafts to ML-RFCs, elections, and significant resource allocations.

Formal decision paths may include recorded steward decisions, votes, or DAO-enabled mechanisms where appropriate.

5. IETF-Inspired Cultural Anchors

The SIG adopts and adapts the following IETF-inspired practices:

• Participation as individuals, guilds, and projects
• Rough consensus and visible signals
• Transparency by default
• Joyful communal labor (e.g., open labs, working sessions)
• RFC-like recordkeeping
• Reflection and iteration over perfection
• Zones of autonomy for workgroups
• A living-system ethos that treats governance as regenerative

6. Archiving, Provenance, and Inscribed Governance Artifacts

All ML-Drafts and ML-RFCs are archived to ensure durable provenance and long-term accessibility.

Each artifact is associated with a Project, and its lifecycle transitions are stewarded through a workgroup.

The SIG enables, but does not require, Drafts and RFCs to be submitted as Inscribed Governance Artifacts (IGAs) - governance artifacts anchored to neutral public substrates.

Inscription preserves:

• Existence and authorship
• Temporal context
• Independence from any single platform or institution

This practice supports public memory without enclosing participation or imposing technical barriers.

7. Teaching, Transparency, and Public Learning

The Meta-Layer Infrastructure SIG is not only building civic infrastructure; it is teaching how such infrastructure can be built.

By openly documenting drafts, projects, guilds, workgroups, deliberation, consensus signals, and evolution, the SIG serves as a living example of transparent, people-centered governance at the interface layer of the web.

The primary governance hub for Meta-Layer activity is:

https://rfc.themetalayer.org

This hub enables public participation in Meta-Layer governance by allowing anyone to:

• Register a Project that wishes to build governance in public
• Submit ML-Drafts and associate them with a Project
• Assign drafts to an existing or newly formed workgroup
• Comment on any draft or RFC
• Register a Guild and invite others to join

The hub is designed to lower barriers to participation while preserving durable records of governance activity.

The Meta-Layer Infrastructure SIG is not only building civic infrastructure; it is teaching how such infrastructure can be built.

By openly documenting drafts, deliberation, consensus, and evolution, the SIG serves as a living example of transparent, people-centered governance at the interface layer of the web.

8. Glossary of Terms

The following terms are used throughout this Draft and related ML-Drafts and ML-RFCs:

Artifact: A durable governance object, such as an ML-Draft or ML-RFC, including its associated context and history.

Community Deliberation: The set of public processes through which drafts are discussed, annotated, and refined, including comments, Open Draft Labs, and asynchronous discussion.

Coordinator: A facilitator within a workgroup responsible for convening discussion, maintaining process integrity, and surfacing consensus signals. Coordinators do not decide outcomes.

Draft (ML-Draft): An exploratory, non-binding governance document submitted for community input and deliberation.

Guild: An informal community of practice organized around shared skills, domains, or interests. Guilds may propose drafts, convene learning, or seed Projects.

Inscribed Governance Artifact (IGA): A governance artifact anchored to a neutral public substrate to preserve provenance, authorship, and temporal context.

Meta-Layer: The interface layer above the web where meaning, annotation, identity, presence, and interaction are coordinated.

Project: A persistent container for work within the SIG. Every draft and RFC is associated with a Project, which provides scope and continuity beyond individual documents.

Rough Consensus: A decision-making mode characterized by visible agreement and the absence of sustained, substantive objections, rather than formal voting.

RFC (ML-RFC): A stable governance artifact promoted from an ML-Draft through community consensus and defined approval pathways.

Stabilization: The phase in which a draft is prepared for potential reliance by resolving or explicitly recording objections and ensuring clarity and consistency.

Workgroup: An open coordination body convened around a Project or draft to steward deliberation, assess rough consensus, and manage lifecycle transitions.

9. Two-Year Sunset

The Meta-Layer Infrastructure SIG is designed as a two-year initiative. During this period, the SIG is expected to produce and adopt a substantial body of ML-RFCs covering governance, terminology, Desirable Properties, and substrate requirements.

At the conclusion of this period, the SIG will transition into the Meta-Layer Task Force, carrying forward the accumulated corpus of ML-RFCs as its foundation.

10. Projects, Guilds, and Workgroups

10.1 Projects

Projects are the primary containers for work within the SIG. Every submission, draft, or RFC is associated with a Project.

Projects:

• Provide scope and continuity
• May host multiple drafts and RFCs
• Persist beyond individual documents

10.2 Guilds

Guilds are informal communities of practice organized around skills, domains, or interests. Guilds may propose drafts, convene learning, or seed Projects.

10.3 Workgroups

Workgroups are convened to steward specific drafts or Projects through governance transitions.

A workgroup is required to:

• Assess rough consensus
• Recommend stabilization and promotion
• Steward post-RFC evolution

10.4 Terminology

The SIG intentionally uses workgroup rather than working group, and coordinator rather than chair, to emphasize facilitation, sensemaking, and interface-level governance over hierarchy.

11. Open Questions for Input

The SIG invites input on the following questions:

• How should ML-RFCs be classified and statused (e.g., active, obsolete, informational)?
• What criteria should govern promotion from ML-Draft to ML-RFC?
• How should draft workflows operate prior to custom tooling?
• How should formal decision mechanisms (including DAO-based voting) be scoped?
• Which additional IETF cultural practices should be adopted or adapted?

12. Informative References and Related Work

This Draft is informed by long-standing research into IETF governance practices and regenerative organizational models, including:

• Exploring the Remarkable Regenerative Patterns and Practices of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tgZ86ugijXPUOo_lD3kLfQBPbneecUNzZim1GOgkC1M/edit?tab=t.0
• The IETF: Organization, Rough Consensus, RFC Process, and Decentralized Meta-Layers https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z3kpn_7fjzEwlGnd6OIxvwlzhVzUpbW2/view
• IETF Administrative Policies and Procedures https://www.ietf.org/administration/policies-procedures/