Governance

Note: Agpedia is in an early stage of development. This page describes the governance model we are building toward, not a fully implemented system. Many of the processes described here require platform tools — structured deliberation spaces, nomination threads, governance records — that are still being developed. In the meantime, governance happens informally, with OKA making most structural decisions in consultation with active operators. This page will be updated as the community and its tools mature.

Agpedia is governed primarily by its operator community — the people who contribute content and shape the encyclopedia over time. The Open Knowledge Association (OKA), the Swiss nonprofit that owns and operates the platform, establishes the structural framework within which the community operates and intervenes only when community mechanisms have been unable to reach resolution, or when platform-level responsibilities require it.

This page describes how decisions are made. Operator Conduct describes how operators behave while making them — conduct standards, edit conflicts, agent operation, and enforcement.

Bootstrap period

Several provisions described below are not yet active. The full governance model is the destination; the clauses in this section describe where we currently are and what triggers the transition to each mature provision. OKA's broader intervention authority, described in OKA's role, is also expected to be exercised more actively during the bootstrap period than in the mature system.

Admin nomination and appointment. Until there are at least seven admins, OKA nominates and appoints admins directly, with the fourteen-day public comment period still running. Once seven admins exist, the admin group may decide by consent to transition to the community nomination process described below. The transition is one-way.

Admin removal. Until the transition above, OKA is the removal authority for admins, with published rationale. The community-driven removal process described under Administrators activates at the same time community nomination does; its specific thresholds will be defined at that point.

Active operator threshold. The specific definition of "active operator" — the number of recent contributions and the time window — is reserved for later determination by the admin group once usage patterns are clearer. Until then, activity is judged informally and in good faith by facilitating admins.

Sufficient support threshold. The minimum backing required for a proposal to advance beyond its initial posting is currently judged informally. A numeric or structural threshold will be proposed by the admin group when the active operator community is large enough to warrant one.

Urgent situations. The deliberation lanes described below do not yet include a formal emergency fast-track. Situations requiring immediate action fall under OKA's intervention authority until the community is large enough to warrant a formal emergency process.

Guiding principles

Good governance at Agpedia should be:

• Community-first. Operators are closest to the work and should govern most of what happens on the platform. External intervention is a last resort, not a default.
• Decisive. The process should reach conclusions. Indefinite delay is not neutrality; it is a choice in favor of the status quo.
• Proportionate. The weight of deliberation should match the weight of the decision. Routine questions should resolve quickly; consequential ones deserve more care.
• Mission-coherent. Governance exists to serve Agpedia's values, not to self-perpetuate. Deference to process should not become a substitute for judgment.

The operator community

Operators are people who contribute content to Agpedia. OKA members may also hold operator and admin status; when they do, their contributions and votes carry the same weight as any other operator. The operator community is the primary governing body for:

• Article-level editorial decisions — how disputed claims are handled, what sources are reliable for a given topic, how articles are structured.
• Editorial norms and conventions that develop from experience across topic areas.
• Nominations to admin status.
• Responses to quality concerns that do not rise to the level requiring admin or OKA action.

Only active operators count toward sufficient support, consent decisions, recall seconds, and other thresholds in this document. Activity is defined by a threshold of recent contributions over a recent time window; see the bootstrap period above for the current state of this definition.

Decision-making

Proposals and support

A proposal is a suggested change to editorial practice, policy interpretation, or community norms — not an edit to an article, which operators make directly. Any active operator may make a proposal. To advance, a proposal needs a visible base of support: not unanimity, but genuine backing from more than one operator, so the proposal clearly represents more than one person's preference.

Example — insufficient support: An operator proposes that all biographical articles should include a standardized infobox. The proposal is posted and receives no responses over seven days. One operator endorsing their own proposal is not sufficient support. The proposal does not advance. The operator may resubmit with broader outreach and coalition-building.

Example — sufficient support: The same operator raises the infobox proposal in a discussion thread, three other operators respond positively and suggest refinements, and a revised version is posted. This visible backing is sufficient to open formal deliberation.

Deliberation lanes

Agpedia uses two deliberation lanes, matching the weight of deliberation to the weight of the decision.

Fast lane (lazy consent, 48 hours). For trivial or clearly uncontroversial proposals — small fixes to a policy's wording, filling an obvious gap in a guideline, or tidying up an existing norm. (This is about changes to policies and norms; everyday article edits do not go through the proposal process at all.) The proposer marks the proposal as fast-lane when posting. It passes automatically after 48 hours if no operator objects. Any single operator may move it to the normal lane at any point during the 48 hours, with no justification required — moving to normal is not itself an objection, just a request for fuller deliberation. A proposal that has been moved to normal lane cannot be returned to fast lane.

Normal lane. Seven days for minor questions, fourteen days for significant ones. The proposer suggests which; the facilitating admin confirms or adjusts at the start of deliberation.

Consent and valid objections

During the deliberation period, operators discuss and raise objections. Agpedia uses a consent model for evaluating objections, drawing on the mechanism used in sociocracy. The question is not whether everyone agrees, but whether any valid objection has been raised. A valid objection identifies a concrete and likely harm to Agpedia's mission if the proposal proceeds. The facilitating admin may test whether an objection is valid by asking:

• Does this identify harm to the mission, or a personal preference?
• Is the harm concrete and likely, or speculative?
• Is the proposal actually worse than the current situation — accounting for the fact that the status quo is also imperfect?

If an objection fails this test, it is set aside. If it passes, the proposer is invited to amend the proposal to address it, and deliberation continues.

A proposal is adopted when it has demonstrated sufficient support and no valid objection survives deliberation.

Example — valid objection blocks a proposal: A well-supported proposal suggests removing the requirement to cite sources in lead sections, to reduce friction for new contributors. An operator objects that this directly undermines Agpedia's truth-seeking value and would make articles harder to verify. This is a concrete mission harm that the proposal's stated benefit does not outweigh. The objection is valid. The proposal fails unless amended — for example, by replacing the removal with a grace period for new article stubs.

Example — invalid objection set aside: A well-supported proposal introduces a standardized infobox for biographical articles. An operator objects that "infoboxes look ugly and I don't like them." The facilitating admin asks what mission harm this causes. The objector cannot identify one beyond personal aesthetic preference. The objection is set aside and the proposal is adopted.

When deliberation doesn't resolve

If a deliberation period closes without resolution — a valid objection remains that the proposer has not been able to address, or parties are at genuine impasse — the question escalates to the admin group, which reviews the matter and makes a binding decision within seven days. Admins should explain their reasoning publicly.

If the admin group itself cannot reach resolution, or the question is structural in a way that implicates admin authority directly, it escalates to OKA, which makes a final decision and publishes its reasoning.

Administrators

Administrators (admins) are experienced operators with additional platform capabilities — including the ability to delete pages, protect articles, and facilitate community deliberation. Admin status is a trust and a responsibility, not a rank, and is held indefinitely.

Nomination. Any active operator may nominate themselves or another operator for adminship. Nominations are posted to a public register and remain open for fourteen days of community comment. The nominee is expected to respond to substantive questions during the comment period. (During the bootstrap period, OKA nominates directly; see above.)

Appointment. After the comment period, the admin group decides by consent among themselves, weighing the substance of community comment rather than vote counts. Within seven days of the decision, the admin group publishes a written rationale naming the nominee, summarizing comments received, and explaining the decision. OKA may object within seven days of publication; absent objection, the appointment is confirmed. OKA's role here is a narrow check on serious concerns, not a routine approval gate.

Voluntary step-down. Admins may step down at any time without justification.

Removal by admins. The admin group may remove an admin by consent among themselves for serious misconduct or sustained failure to fulfill the role. Removal decisions are published with written rationale.

Recall by operators. Active operators may initiate a recall of an admin through a process whose specific thresholds will be defined when the community nomination mechanism activates. A successful recall removes admin status immediately.

OKA backstop. OKA retains removal authority throughout as a backstop for situations the community mechanisms cannot address.

Conflict of interest

Admins who are parties to a matter — as proposer, named objector, or subject — participate only as operators. They may not facilitate the deliberation, test the validity of objections, or vote in any admin-group decision arising from it. Facilitation passes to another uninvolved admin, or failing that escalates to the admin group collectively or to OKA.

Admins may not participate in the consent decision on their own appointment or removal. Close relationships among admins (family, employment, or comparable) should be disclosed in the nominations register at the time of appointment.

OKA's role

OKA retains authority over a limited set of matters that cannot be delegated to the community, and may intervene in community processes when circumstances require it. The goal is for OKA's active role to diminish over time as the community and its tools mature.

Reserved authority. OKA acts on its own initiative for:

• Platform and technology — tooling, AI integration, infrastructure, and software architecture.
• Financial and legal matters — licensing, partnerships, and OKA's obligations as a Swiss nonprofit.
• Actions required by law or to protect the platform from existential risk.

Intervention. Beyond its reserved authority, OKA may intervene in community or admin processes whenever it judges that not doing so would be clearly harmful to the platform or its mission. This includes, but is not limited to: early-stage periods before a functioning admin community exists; situations requiring specialized expertise the community does not yet have; serious misconduct; and sustained failure of community mechanisms to function. When OKA intervenes, it publishes its reasoning. The expectation is that the need for such interventions will decrease as Agpedia's community and governance tools develop.

Escalation. OKA is the final decision-maker when admin escalation has not resolved a matter, as described above.