FAQ Category: Archived

Archived

  • What is a BDFL and who is it?

    A BDFL, which stands for “Benevolent Dictator For Life,” is an informal title given to influential leaders in open-source software development projects.

    This term typically refers to project founders or primary creators who retain final decision-making authority over the project’s direction and development.

    The concept of BDFL originated in 1995 and is closely associated with the Python programming language community. Guido van Rossum, the creator of Python, was jokingly named the “First Interim BDFL”.

    Key characteristics of a BDFL include:
    1. Ultimate authority on technical decisions
    2. Influence over coding standards and core design philosophies
    3. Veto power over proposed changes
    4. Collaborative work with the community while maintaining a consistent vision

    Notable examples of BDFLs include:
    • Guido van Rossum (Python)
    • Linus Torvalds (Linux kernel)
    • Larry Wall (Perl)
    • Yukihiro Matsumoto (Ruby)
    • Samuel Smith (Keri)

    It’s important to note that the BDFL title is honorary and based on community trust. If a BDFL were to act irresponsibly, the project could be forked.

  • If sponsors were dropping out, would you let this happen?

    We would do everything possible to bind sponsors to us within the objectives and design of the foundation.

    Who are the sponsors who are dropping out?

    Please provide the name and the lost opportunity in US $.

  • Why do you need an executive team of managers?

    The executive team works on operational matters within the envisioned foundation framework. All the roles that are needed are included (anyone can add them if something is missing). Those roles will soon be assigned to functions/persons depending on the phase/scale of the foundation.

    Members versus Managers

    We think an essential function of the foundation should be to focus on technology, vision, and broad adoption. KERI founder Sam Smith should be there.

    We have members of the legal entity, the L3C, and to avoid misunderstanding, we use managers for the foundation, which we run in a professional way but not-for-profit.

  • What is the use of a pro-bono advisory board?

    To align ideas and input ideas. One individual, the leader of that advisory board, has decision-making power.

    For those who strongly advise against the concept of an advisory board

    We would reverse the question:
    What if the KERI plan and your concept are incompatible with Sam’s wish? How important is it to you to operate as a unit?

    The question is whether we need an advisory board with final decision-making power over the foundation at this stage.
    For us, it is a clear ‘no’ to that question. Despite that, we have foreseen the appointment of one person from that advisory board with decision-making power.

    The advisory board we envision has decision-making power via its chairman having a seat with voting rights on the board of directors. Based on consensus, they should get on the advisory board first instead of slowing down decision-making and operations by having a (growing) bunch of people with individual interests and agendas that consume valuable time. It doesn’t add value or speed up the delivery of the 5Ws at this stage.

  • What is the decision-making power of the advisory board?

    The board selects the voting chair from the advisory board on the main board.

  • Why not create a broad board of directors who sufficiently represent the interests of donors?

    Our version of the foundation won’t give way to politicians and talkers, and no one will be able to buy influence. It’ll be a “proof of work” organization, not a proof of stake powerhouse.

    The interests of donors are represented in other ways:

    • coopetive design
    • advisory board with one voting chair on the board
    • directly funded projects

    In this stage, we can’t allow roles representing narrower interests to outnumber the votes of the critical roles on the board.

  • How can I see this differently than a ‘Sam Foundation’?

    The foundation is co-founded by and tailored to its BDFL, Samuel Smith. We do this not because we’re his fans but because we understand that foundations that are disconnected from their original visionaries and gatekeepers in the past were less successful than the ones that managed to keep them happy and on board. Ideally, a BDFL is a two-way commitment.

  • You have to let go of control. How are you going to do this?

    Originally, this idea was solely to give all parties a voice and bring that together in one forum. The proposed managers of the designed board happily reserve a seat on the board for this purpose, with decision-making authority: the leader of the Advisory Board.

    If anyone asks to let go of control, have you put your money where your mouth is?

    The founding chairman has committed to donating to get the foundation started. So far, we haven’t seen anyone else making a similar commitment.

    So, he wants to set up this vehicle to ensure that the internal processes are efficient, funds are spent effectively, and the required targets are met.  
    Van Cann: “I’ll stop when I think: would I leave this system alone and trust its inner workings? And only when the answer is ‘yes’”

  • How can anyone want to participate in this?

    Suppose we set this up in a reasonable, safe, and logical way to mature the KERISuite first on a small technical team. And we only then start diversifying; do you see yourself in any role at any point in time in the future? We welcome your positive contributions.

  • Is the chairman practically running the foundation on his own?

    One individual has to take up various roles at the beginning of the foundation. In this perspective, anno 2025, the answer to the question is ‘to a great extent, yes’ 🙂

    But bear in mind: We developed a role-based organizational chart, an Operational Agreement, and a Memorandum of Understanding. So, it’s a consensus-critical manager-managed operation in the foundation.
    Without painful consequences, no single role within the foundation could dictate or veto the operation. All competence profiles have been specified and published.

    Moreover, the foundation is independent of individuals, except that the BDFL role in the KERI foundation is reserved on a personal basis for Dr. Samuel Smith.

    We honestly can’t take people seriously when they complain about a compact KERI foundation, which the original inventor is totally in sync with, and a two-way commitment between the foundation and founder has been established.