|
|
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,457 @@
|
|
|
|
|
# Proposal for Open Governance of Matrix.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This whole document is the proposed constitution proposal for Matrix.org, and
|
|
|
|
|
will form the basis of the first full Articles of Association (AoA) for [The
|
|
|
|
|
Matrix.org Foundation
|
|
|
|
|
C.I.C.](https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11648710) - a non-profit
|
|
|
|
|
legal entity incorporated to act as the neutral guardian of the Matrix
|
|
|
|
|
decentralised communication standard on behalf of the whole Matrix community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See https://matrix.org/blog/2018/10/29/introducing-the-matrix-org-foundation-part-1-of-2/
|
|
|
|
|
for more context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This obsoletes [MSC1318](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/1318).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**This MSC is now formalised in the official Rules of the Matrix.org Foundation,
|
|
|
|
|
maintained at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MhqsuIUxPc7Vf_y8D250mKZlLeQS6E39DPY6Azpc2NY**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Introduction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Historically the core team of Matrix has been paid to work on it by the same
|
|
|
|
|
employer (currently New Vector; the startup incorporated to hire the core
|
|
|
|
|
team in Aug 2017). Whilst convenient in initially getting Matrix built, we
|
|
|
|
|
recognise that this could create a potential conflict of interest between the
|
|
|
|
|
core team’s responsibilities to neutrally support the wider Matrix.org ecosystem
|
|
|
|
|
versus the need for New Vector to be able to support the team, and it has always
|
|
|
|
|
been the plan to set up a completely neutral custodian for the standard once it
|
|
|
|
|
had reached sufficient maturity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This proposal seeks to establish a new open governance process for Matrix.org,
|
|
|
|
|
such that once the specification has finally been ‘born’ and reached an initial
|
|
|
|
|
‘r0’ release across all APIs, control of Matrix.org can be decoupled from New
|
|
|
|
|
Vector and better support contributions from the whole ecosystem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The concepts here are somewhat inspired by [Rust’s Governance
|
|
|
|
|
Model](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1068-rust-governance.md);
|
|
|
|
|
a highly regarded solution to a similar problem: an ambitious
|
|
|
|
|
open-source project which has been too many years in the making, incubated at
|
|
|
|
|
first by a single company (Mozilla Corporation), which also enjoys a very
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiastic community!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Overview
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Governance of the project is split into two teams: the Spec Core Team and the
|
|
|
|
|
Guardians of the Foundation. In brief:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Spec Core Team are the technical experts who curate and edit the Matrix
|
|
|
|
|
Specification from day to day, and so steer the evolution of the protocol by
|
|
|
|
|
having final review over which Matrix Spec Changes (MSCs) are merged into the
|
|
|
|
|
core spec.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Guardians are the legal directors of the non-profit Foundation, and are
|
|
|
|
|
responsible for ensuring that the Foundation (and by extension the Spec Core
|
|
|
|
|
Team) keeps on mission and neutrally protects the development of Matrix.
|
|
|
|
|
Guardians are typically independent of the commercial Matrix ecosystem and may
|
|
|
|
|
even not be members of today’s Matrix community, but are deeply aligned with the
|
|
|
|
|
mission of the project. Guardians are selected to be respected and trusted by
|
|
|
|
|
the wider community to uphold the guiding principles of the Foundation and keep
|
|
|
|
|
the other Guardians honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In other words; the Spec Core Team builds the spec, and the Guardians provide an
|
|
|
|
|
independent backstop to ensure the spec evolves in line with the Foundation's
|
|
|
|
|
mission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Guiding Principles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The guiding principles define the core philosophy of the project, and will be a
|
|
|
|
|
formal part of the final Articles of Association of the Matrix.org Foundation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Matrix Manifesto
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We believe:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* People should have full control over their own communication.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* People should not be locked into centralised communication silos, but instead
|
|
|
|
|
be free to pick who they choose to host their communication without limiting
|
|
|
|
|
who they can reach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* The ability to converse securely and privately is a basic human right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Communication should be available to everyone as a free and open,
|
|
|
|
|
unencumbered, standard and global network.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Mission
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Matrix.org Foundation exists to act as a neutral custodian for Matrix and to
|
|
|
|
|
nurture it as efficiently as possible as a single unfragmented standard, for the
|
|
|
|
|
greater benefit of the whole ecosystem, not benefiting or privileging any single
|
|
|
|
|
player or subset of players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For clarity: the Matrix ecosystem is defined as anyone who uses the Matrix
|
|
|
|
|
protocol. This includes (non-exhaustively):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* End-users of Matrix clients.
|
|
|
|
|
* Matrix client developers and testers.
|
|
|
|
|
* Spec developers.
|
|
|
|
|
* Server admins.
|
|
|
|
|
* Matrix packagers & maintainers.
|
|
|
|
|
* Companies building products or services on Matrix.
|
|
|
|
|
* Bridge developers.
|
|
|
|
|
* Bot developers.
|
|
|
|
|
* Widget developers.
|
|
|
|
|
* Server developers.
|
|
|
|
|
* Matrix room and community moderators.
|
|
|
|
|
* End-users who are using Matrix indirectly via bridges.
|
|
|
|
|
* External systems which are bridged into Matrix.
|
|
|
|
|
* Anyone using Matrix for data communications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Greater benefit" is defined as maximising:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* the number of Matrix-native end-users reachable on the open Matrix network.
|
|
|
|
|
* the number of regular users on the Matrix network (e.g. 30-day retained federated users).
|
|
|
|
|
* the number of online servers in the open federation.
|
|
|
|
|
* the number of developers building on Matrix.
|
|
|
|
|
* the number of independent implementations which use Matrix.
|
|
|
|
|
* the number of bridged end-users reachable on the open Matrix network.
|
|
|
|
|
* the signal-to-noise ratio of the content on the open Matrix network (i.e. minimising spam).
|
|
|
|
|
* the ability for users to discover content on their terms (empowering them to select what to see and what not to see).
|
|
|
|
|
* the quality and utility of the Matrix spec (as defined by ease and ability
|
|
|
|
|
with which a developer can implement spec-compliant clients, servers, bots,
|
|
|
|
|
bridges, and other integrations without needing to refer to any other
|
|
|
|
|
external material).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N.B. that we consider success to be the growth of the open federated network
|
|
|
|
|
rather than closed deployments. For example, if WhatsApp adopted Matrix it
|
|
|
|
|
wouldn’t be a complete win unless they openly federated with the rest of the
|
|
|
|
|
Matrix network.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Values
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As Matrix evolves, it's critical that the Spec Core Team and Guardians are
|
|
|
|
|
aligned on the overall philosophy of the project, particularly in more
|
|
|
|
|
subjective areas. The values we follow are:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Supporting the whole long-term ecosystem rather than individual stakeholder gain.
|
|
|
|
|
* Openness rather than proprietary lock-in.
|
|
|
|
|
* Interoperability rather than fragmentation.
|
|
|
|
|
* Cross-platform rather than platform-specific.
|
|
|
|
|
* Collaboration rather than competition.
|
|
|
|
|
* Accessibility rather than elitism.
|
|
|
|
|
* Transparency rather than stealth.
|
|
|
|
|
* Empathy rather than contrariness.
|
|
|
|
|
* Pragmatism rather than perfection.
|
|
|
|
|
* Proof rather than conjecture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patent encumbered IP is strictly prohibited from being added to the standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Making the specification rely on non-standard/unspecified behaviour of other
|
|
|
|
|
systems or actors (such as SaaS services, even open-sourced, not governed by a
|
|
|
|
|
standard protocol) shall not be accepted, either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## The Spec Core Team
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The contents and direction of the Matrix Spec is governed by the Spec Core Team;
|
|
|
|
|
a set of experts from across the whole Matrix community, representing all
|
|
|
|
|
aspects of the Matrix ecosystem. The Spec Core Team acts as a subcommittee of
|
|
|
|
|
the Foundation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members of the Spec Core Team pledge to act as a neutral custodian for Matrix on
|
|
|
|
|
behalf of the whole ecosystem and uphold the Guiding Principles of the project
|
|
|
|
|
as outlined above. In particular, they agree to drive the adoption of Matrix as
|
|
|
|
|
a single global federation, an open standard unencumbered from any proprietary
|
|
|
|
|
IP or software patents, minimising fragmentation (whilst encouraging
|
|
|
|
|
experimentation), evolving rapidly, and prioritising the long-term success and
|
|
|
|
|
growth of the overall network over individual commercial concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spec Core Team members need to have significant proven domain experience/skill
|
|
|
|
|
and have had clear dedication and commitment to the project and community for >6
|
|
|
|
|
months. (In future, once we have subteams a la Rust, folks need to have proven
|
|
|
|
|
themselves there first).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members need to demonstrate ability to work constructively with the rest of the
|
|
|
|
|
team; we want participation in the Spec Core Team to be an efficient, pleasant and
|
|
|
|
|
productive place, even in the face of inevitable disagreement. We do not want a
|
|
|
|
|
toxic culture of bullying or competitive infighting. Folks need to be able to
|
|
|
|
|
compromise; we are not building a culture of folks pushing their personal
|
|
|
|
|
agendas at the expense of the overall project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The team should be particularly vigilant against 'trojan horse' additions to the
|
|
|
|
|
spec - features which only benefit particular players, or are designed to
|
|
|
|
|
somehow cripple or fragment the open protocol and ecosystem in favour of
|
|
|
|
|
competitive advantage. Commercial players are of course free to build
|
|
|
|
|
proprietary implementations, or use custom event types, or even custom API
|
|
|
|
|
extensions (e.g. more efficient network transports) - but implementations must
|
|
|
|
|
fall back to interoperating correctly with the rest of the ecosystem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Spec Core Team logistics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Spec Core Team itself will be made up of roughly 8 members + 1 project lead.
|
|
|
|
|
Roughly half the members are expected to be from the historical core team
|
|
|
|
|
(similar to Rust). The team must have 5 members to be able to function, with
|
|
|
|
|
the aim of generally having between 7 and 9 members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In future we may also have sub-teams (like Rust - e.g. CS/AS/Push API; SS API;
|
|
|
|
|
IS API; Crypto), but as a starting point we are beginning with a single core
|
|
|
|
|
team in the interests of not over-engineering it and scaling up elastically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spec Core Team members need to be able to commit to at least 1 hour a week of
|
|
|
|
|
availability to work on the spec and (where relevant) reference implementations.
|
|
|
|
|
Members must arrange their own funding for their time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responsibilities include:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Reviewing Matrix Spec Change proposals and Spec PRs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Contributing to and reviewing reference implementations of Matrix Spec Change
|
|
|
|
|
proposals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Shepherding Matrix Spec Changes on behalf of authors where needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Triaging Matrix Spec issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Coordinating reference implementations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Ensuring the code of conduct for +matrix:matrix.org community rooms is
|
|
|
|
|
maintained and applied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If members are absent (uncontactable) for more than 8 weeks without prior
|
|
|
|
|
agreement, they will be assumed to have left the project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spec Core Team members can resign whenever they want, but must notify the rest
|
|
|
|
|
of the team and the Guardians on doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New additions to the team must be approved by all current members of the team.
|
|
|
|
|
Membership has to be formally proposed by someone already on the Spec Core Team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members can be removed from the team if 75% of the current members approves and
|
|
|
|
|
agrees they are no longer following the goals and guiding principles of the
|
|
|
|
|
project. (The 75% is measured of the whole team, including the member in
|
|
|
|
|
question).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guardians act as a safety net, and can appoint or remove Spec Core Team members
|
|
|
|
|
(requiring approval by 75% of the current Guardians) if the Spec Core Team is
|
|
|
|
|
unable to function or is failing to align with the Foundation's mission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's suggested that one of the Spec Core Team members should also be a Guardian,
|
|
|
|
|
to facilitate information exchange between the Guardians and the Spec Core Team,
|
|
|
|
|
and to represent the technical angle of the project to the other Guardians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The project lead role acts to coordinate the team and to help steer the team to
|
|
|
|
|
consensus in the event of failing to get agreement on a Matrix Spec Change.
|
|
|
|
|
Every 12 months, a vote of confidence is held in the project lead, requiring the
|
|
|
|
|
approval of 75% of the current Spec Core Team members for the lead to be
|
|
|
|
|
renewed. There is no maximum term for the project lead. The lead may be
|
|
|
|
|
removed by the core team at any point (requiring 75% approval of current
|
|
|
|
|
members), and may resign the role at any point (notifying the team and the
|
|
|
|
|
Guardians). The lead automatically resigns the role if they resign from the
|
|
|
|
|
Spec Core Team. Resignation automatically triggers selection of a new lead, who
|
|
|
|
|
must be selected from the existing Spec Core Team with 75% approval from current
|
|
|
|
|
members within 14 days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is vital that the core spec team has strong domain expertise covering all
|
|
|
|
|
different domains of the spec (e.g. we don't want to end up with a core spec
|
|
|
|
|
team where nobody has strong experience in cryptography)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The initial Spec Core Team (and their domain areas) is:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Matthew Hodgson (Lead, Guardian)
|
|
|
|
|
* Erik Johnston (Servers)
|
|
|
|
|
* Richard van der Hoff (Servers, Cryptography)
|
|
|
|
|
* David Baker (Clients, IS API, Push API, Media)
|
|
|
|
|
* Hubert Chathi (Cryptography, General)
|
|
|
|
|
* Andrew Morgan (Servers, AS API, Spec Process)
|
|
|
|
|
* Travis Ralston (Bots and Bridges & AS API, Media, acting with Dimension hat on)
|
|
|
|
|
* Alexey Rusakov (Clients on behalf of Community)
|
|
|
|
|
* TBD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MSCs require approval by 75% of the current members of the Spec Core Team to
|
|
|
|
|
proceed to Final Comment Period (see https://matrix.org/docs/spec/proposals for
|
|
|
|
|
the rest of the MSC process).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even though a threshold of only 75% is required for approval, the Spec Core Team
|
|
|
|
|
is expected to seek consensus on MSCs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above governance process for the Spec Core Team is considered as part of the
|
|
|
|
|
spec and is updated using the Matrix Spec Change process. However, changes to
|
|
|
|
|
the governance process also require approval by 75% of the current Guardians
|
|
|
|
|
(acting as a formal decision of the Foundation's Directors), in order to ensure
|
|
|
|
|
changes are aligned with the Foundation's mission. For avoidance of doubt, Spec
|
|
|
|
|
Core Team votes and Guardians' votes are distinct and a person having both hats
|
|
|
|
|
has to vote independently on both forums with the respective hat on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spec Core Team decisions (e.g. appointing/removing members and lead)
|
|
|
|
|
should be published openly and transparently for the public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## The Guardians
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*This section will be used as the basis for the legal responsibilities of
|
|
|
|
|
Directors in the Articles of Association of the Foundation.*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Guardians form the legal Board of Directors of The Matrix.org Foundation CIC
|
|
|
|
|
(Community Interest Company). They are responsible for ensuring the Foundation
|
|
|
|
|
is following its guiding principles, and provide a safety mechanism if the
|
|
|
|
|
structure of the Spec Core Team runs into trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In practice, this means that:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Guardians are responsible for ensuring the Spec Core Team continues to
|
|
|
|
|
function, and have the power to appoint/dismiss members of the spec core team
|
|
|
|
|
(with the agreement of 75% of the Guardians) to address issues with the Spec
|
|
|
|
|
Core Team.
|
|
|
|
|
* Guardians must keep each other honest, providing a ‘checks and balances’.
|
|
|
|
|
mechanism between each other to ensure that all Guardians and the Spec Core
|
|
|
|
|
Team act in the best interests of the protocol and ecosystem.
|
|
|
|
|
* Guardians may dismiss members of the Spec Core Team who are in serious
|
|
|
|
|
breach of the guiding principles.
|
|
|
|
|
* Guardians may appoint members of the Spec Core Team to break deadlocks in the
|
|
|
|
|
unanimous consent requirement for the Spec Core Team when appointing new
|
|
|
|
|
members.
|
|
|
|
|
* Guardians may also override deadlocks when appointing a Spec Core Team leader
|
|
|
|
|
(with approval of 75% of the current Guardians).
|
|
|
|
|
* Guardians must approve changes to the above Guiding Principles (with approval
|
|
|
|
|
of 75% of the current Guardians)
|
|
|
|
|
* Guardians are responsible for approving use of the Foundation's assets
|
|
|
|
|
(e.g. redistributing donations).
|
|
|
|
|
* In future, Guardians may also be responsible for ensuring staff are hired by
|
|
|
|
|
the Foundation to support administrative functions and other roles required
|
|
|
|
|
to facilitate the Foundation's mission.
|
|
|
|
|
* As well as the Spec Core Team committee, they may also oversee committees for
|
|
|
|
|
other areas such as marketing Matrix.org, registering custom event types,
|
|
|
|
|
or "Made for Matrix" certification.
|
|
|
|
|
* Guardians are responsible for choosing if, when and how staff are located by
|
|
|
|
|
the Foundation to fill administrative and other functions required to
|
|
|
|
|
facilitate the Foundations' mission.
|
|
|
|
|
* Guardians are responsible for choosing if and when additional committees are
|
|
|
|
|
formed, and to oversee those committees.
|
|
|
|
|
* Guardians are not required to be involved on a day-to-day basis, however
|
|
|
|
|
those not taking a hands on approach are required to monitor to ensure a
|
|
|
|
|
suitable balance is kept by those that do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guardians are chosen typically to be independent of the commercial Matrix
|
|
|
|
|
ecosystem (and especially independent from New Vector), and may even not be
|
|
|
|
|
members of today’s Matrix community. However, they should be deeply aligned with
|
|
|
|
|
the mission of the project, and respected and trusted by the wider community to
|
|
|
|
|
uphold the guiding principles of the Foundation and keep the other Guardians
|
|
|
|
|
honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guardians are responsible for maintaining and updating the Guiding Principles
|
|
|
|
|
and Articles of Association of the Foundation if/when necessary. Changes to the
|
|
|
|
|
Guiding Principles require approval from 75% of the current Guardians and are
|
|
|
|
|
passed as a 'special resolution' of the board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Guardians may be appointed with approval from 75% of the current Guardians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guardians may resign at any time, with notification to the board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guardians may be removed due to serious breach of the guiding principles with
|
|
|
|
|
approval by 75% of the other current Guardians, or if absent from 3 consecutive
|
|
|
|
|
board meetings, or if they are legally disqualified from acting as a Director.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We aim to recruit roughly 5 Guardians. The initial Guardians are:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Matthew Hodgson (CEO/CTO, New Vector)
|
|
|
|
|
* Amandine Le Pape (COO, New Vector)
|
|
|
|
|
* TBA (agreed, needs paperwork)
|
|
|
|
|
* TBD
|
|
|
|
|
* TBD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The intention is for Matthew & Amandine (the original founders of Matrix) to
|
|
|
|
|
form a minority of the Guardians, in order to ensure the neutrality of the
|
|
|
|
|
Foundation relative to Matthew & Amandine’s day jobs at New Vector.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guardians must arrange their own funding for their time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guardian decisions (e.g. appointing/removing guardians; changes to the spec core
|
|
|
|
|
team; etc) should be published openly and transparently for the public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## The Code Core Team (aka The Core Team)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "Core Team" (or the "Code Core Team", to disambiguate from the Spec Core
|
|
|
|
|
Team) is a loose term that describes the set of people with access to commit
|
|
|
|
|
code to the public https://github.com/matrix-org repositories, who are either
|
|
|
|
|
working on matrix.org's reference implementations or the spec itself. Commit
|
|
|
|
|
access is decided by those responsible for the projects in question, much like
|
|
|
|
|
any other open source project. Anyone is eligible for commit access if they
|
|
|
|
|
have proved themselves a valuable long-term contributor, uphold the guiding
|
|
|
|
|
principles and mission of the project and have proved themselves able to
|
|
|
|
|
collaborate constructively with the existing core team. Active participation in
|
|
|
|
|
the core team is also signified by membership of the +matrix:matrix.org Matrix
|
|
|
|
|
community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responsibilities include:
|
|
|
|
|
* Helping ensure the quality of the projects' code repositories.
|
|
|
|
|
* Ensuring all commits are reviewed.
|
|
|
|
|
* Ensuring that all projects follow the Matrix spec.
|
|
|
|
|
* Helping architect the implementations.
|
|
|
|
|
* Contributing code to the implementations.
|
|
|
|
|
* Fostering contributions and engaging with contributors constructively in a
|
|
|
|
|
way that fosters a healthy and happy community.
|
|
|
|
|
* Following the Guiding Principles and promoting them within the community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Code Core Team members must arrange their own funding for their time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Functions of the Foundation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Independent legal entity which acts as neutral custodian of Matrix.
|
|
|
|
|
* Gathers donations.
|
|
|
|
|
* Owns the core Matrix IP in an asset lock, which shall be transferred from New Vector:
|
|
|
|
|
* Owns the matrix.org domain and branding.
|
|
|
|
|
* Owns the copyright of the reference implementations of Matrix (i.e. everything in https://github.com/matrix-org).
|
|
|
|
|
By assigning copyright to the Foundation, it’s protected against New Vector ever being tempted to relicense it.
|
|
|
|
|
* Owns the IP of the website.
|
|
|
|
|
* Owns the Matrix.org marketing swag (t-shirts, stickers, exhibition stands etc).
|
|
|
|
|
* Responsible for finding someone to run the Matrix.org homeserver (currently New Vector).
|
|
|
|
|
* Publishes the spec.
|
|
|
|
|
* Responsible for tools and documentation that support the spec.
|
|
|
|
|
* Responsible for ensuring reference implementations and test suite exists for the spec.
|
|
|
|
|
* Publishes the website (including ensuring This Week In Matrix and similar exist to promote independent projects).
|
|
|
|
|
* Manages any future IANA-style allocations for Matrix, such as:
|
|
|
|
|
* mx:// URI scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
* TCP port 8448.
|
|
|
|
|
* .well-known URIs
|
|
|
|
|
* Ensures that Matrix promotion is happening (e.g. ensuring that meetups &
|
|
|
|
|
events & community activity is supported).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In future:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Contracts entities to work on Matrix if such contracts help the Foundation to
|
|
|
|
|
fulfil its mission and obey the Guiding Principles (e.g. redistributing
|
|
|
|
|
donations back to fund development of reference implementations or compliance
|
|
|
|
|
kits).
|
|
|
|
|
* Manages a "Made for Matrix" certification process? (to confirm that products
|
|
|
|
|
are actually compatible with Matrix).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Timings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Foundation was incorporated in October 2018 as a UK limited by guarantee
|
|
|
|
|
private company, using generic non-profit articles of association combined with
|
|
|
|
|
a high-level mission lock aligned with the above:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> 4. The objects of the Foundation are for the benefit of the community as a whole
|
|
|
|
|
> to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> 4.1.1 empower users to control their communication data and have freedom over
|
|
|
|
|
> their communications infrastructure by creating, maintaining and promoting
|
|
|
|
|
> Matrix as an openly standardised secure decentralised communication protocol and
|
|
|
|
|
> network, open to all, and available to the public for no charge;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> 4.1.2 build and develop an appropriate governance model for Matrix through the
|
|
|
|
|
> Foundation, in order to drive the adoption of Matrix as a single global
|
|
|
|
|
> federation, an open standard unencumbered from any proprietary intellectual
|
|
|
|
|
> property and/or software patents, minimising fragmentation (whilst encouraging
|
|
|
|
|
> experimentation), maximising speed of development, and prioritising the long-
|
|
|
|
|
> term success and growth of the overall network over the commercial concerns of
|
|
|
|
|
> an individual person or persons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The foundation was then converted into a Community Interest Company, formalising
|
|
|
|
|
its non-profit status under the approval of the independent [Community Interest
|
|
|
|
|
Companies Regulator](https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-the-regulator-of-community-interest-companies),
|
|
|
|
|
which took effect Jan 2019.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are currently planning to release r0 of the Matrix Spec at the end of Jan 2019, and
|
|
|
|
|
finalise the Foundation's articles of association shortly afterwards based on the
|
|
|
|
|
contents of this MSC once passed FCP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This will coincide with the formal asset transfer of Matrix.org's assets from
|
|
|
|
|
New Vector Ltd, and the appointment of the remaining Guardians.
|
Travis Ralston
5 years ago