FAQ Tag: Detailed

Detailed

  • 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.

  • Can I withdraw my sponsorship/donation?

    After a careful exchange of terms and the donor contract, there is the usual cooling-off period to sign the contract.

    However, as soon as the contract is signed, the donor is obligated to pay the donorship, and we will have to strictly enforce that. A donor can only lay off the obligation by having another donor replace him/her.
    This strict debtor management is necessary because we must deliver on our promises and need the finances to do so.

    Having presented the general rule, individual cases can be discussed with the chairman of the Foundation to see if there is a way out.

  • Bitcoin has Bitcoin Improvement Proposals. Why doesn’t KERI have a similar mechanism?

    KIPs – KERI Improvement Protocols so that there will also be space for market-driven instead of only technically driven.

    Good proposal; we’ll extend the current KIDS in this direction.

  • Why are there veto rights for the foundation’s chairman and the technical manager?

    In terms of execution, they are the only roles you can currently translate operationally into functions.
    See the other parts of the website to dive deep into their competence profiles that lay out their task, responsibilities, and rights as foundation managers.

    Besides the managers of the Foundation, whose rights are laid out in the Operational Agreement (Feb 2025: status concept) and the Memorandum of Understanding (Feb 2025: status concept), we have the members of the steering L3C.

    There are no veto rights for the members of the L3C should there be a draw in the votes of the L3C, and Sam Smith is still a member of the L3C; he gets the privilege to add one extra member vote to get out of the stalemate.


  • What about money flowing to another foundation that supports KERI?

    We have to keep the community together as well as we can. But not at all cost. How important do you think it is to operate as a unit?

    Anyone would prefer to be “Sam Smith Certified,” and to get there; any donor has to establish a connection with the one and only KERI foundation supported by the inventor.

    We consider any other foundation that claims to be the KERI foundation a business. We will happily and in a friendly way offer services to them and could coopetively move forward.

  • 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.

  • Shouldn’t it be a broad board instead of a management team?

    I believe the structure is too narrow. We need more Board members.

    One of our design principles is that we run it like a company, but it IS a board in a legal sense.

    It is only reasonable, safe, and logical to first finish things in a small technical team and only then start diversifying.

    We’ll reverse the question: How do you balance board managers over interest groups and continents? Does it become a political mess quickly?

  • Doesn’t your board look like a management team too much?

    I wonder whether a 3-person board of directors is so functional and effective.
    The foundation design is a cathedral (from The Cathedral and The Bazaar, by Eric S. Raymond) with just three people on the board.

    Yes, it is a team of managers (because we’ve reserved the term members for the steering L3C).

    However, the cathedral is a mischaracterization. In history, there have been numerous successful foundations to support the development and implementation of open-source software that started with a three-person board of directors, including the inventor/benevolent dictator:

    1. The Free Software Foundation (FSF). When it was founded by Richard Stallman in 1985, it had a board of directors with three members.
    2. The Open Source Initiative (OSI). The OSI was founded in 1998 by Eric S. Raymond and Bruce Perens, along with a third initial member, to promote and protect open-source software by certifying licenses and advocating for open-source principles. While the exact composition of the board has evolved, the foundation initially had a small core group of influential members guiding its mission.
    3. Apache Software Foundation (ASF): Founded in 1999, the ASF initially had a small group of individuals instrumental in its creation. The initial board included several key contributors to the Apache HTTP Server project, though the specific number of members can vary over time.
    4. Python Software Foundation (PSF): The PSF started with a small board in 2001 to support the Python programming language. The initial board of directors was composed of a few key figures in the Python community, including Guido van Rossum, the creator of Python.
    5. Linux Foundation: Although the Linux Foundation (founded in 2000 as the Open Source Development Labs) had a larger initial advisory board, its governing structure initially included a small, focused group of influential members from the open-source community, including Linus Torvalds, who played a significant role in guiding the foundation’s early direction.

  • How can we be sure that the domicile authorities will accept a not-for-profit organization as small as this?

    The proposal is a minimal, sufficient, practical, and simple means to a minimal enough end to meet the regulatory requirements in the domicile. Of course, our proposal will comply with the authorities and not-for-profit foundation’s requirements.