What would a fediverse "governance" body look like?

We all know how good (or not?) people all over the world and throughout history have been in solving conflict and strive and then live together in peace and harmony, right :thinking:

Probably that “emotional maturity” or maybe immaturity in your perspective is just an online reflection of the social fabric that exists in the real world, and is spun up by the collective members of the community. The Foundation I am talking about is not, however, a socio-cultural institution, nor providing spiritual guidance. Social and spiritual values are those that flow from the Community itself, and the people interacting with it.

In other words: the community is the decider and as it is formed organically it determines the foundation it wants to stand on. The community is in the lead to set policy as it were, and the foundation will adopt it. A recent example is the SocialHub Community Values Policy discussion we had. Is it an all-inclusive masterpiece of enlightenment? Probably not, but each member in the broader fediverse community has the chance to raise their voice and - with decent arguments and in good faith - bring positive change to the overall culture. Change that will be reflected in turn in policy improvement and arduent defenders of the values they represent. Without the latter the Foundation would crumble.

Similar to the Foundation not being a socio-cultural institution dictating social norms and preaching spiritual values, it also shouldn’t be a political body either. Technology is not neutral. Though part of the foundation’s tasks may be to lobby politicians for the adoption of decentralized technologies - i.e. starting with federation and interoperability standards - it will adhere to community values in the same way, when doing so. Part of those values is that extremism of whatever kind is not tolerated, nor is authoritarianism or plutocracy. And that human values, virtues and freedoms are pillars on which the technology must shape itself.

Reformulated, the Foundation should not be an arbiter of political opinion or conflict, but a promoter of widespread adoption of the technology foundation (yes, also a foundation) it represents in the best, most optimal ways that are possible within the landscape it operates in and in alignment to the community that drives and evolves said technology base.

If the above positioning and representation of the unity between community and foundation means that the foundational component is rather technocratic, then so be it. Imho, there is no other way to place the separation that wouldn’t significantly stifle the foundation in its mission to further the technology.