At first upload in January 2023, governance arrangements were merely that Julian D. A. Wiseman is the constitution. But if and when these markers become a much used de facto standard, such a governance arrangement might become unsatisfactory.

I am open to alternatives, including those in which control is passed to others, whether partly or wholly. This issue has been opened to hold discussion and suggestions.

There are constraints.

1. Governance arrangements should facilitate competent decisions consistent with the purpose and nature of this project.

2. Governance arrangements should facilitate the taking of decisions that, even if not supported by a majority of all of the markers’ users, seem to have sufficient legitimacy to be broadly acceptable.

3. Governance arrangements should facilitate the taking of decisions without undue delay.

4. The grumbles page lists some unwelcome requests that could arise out of competition between a country and its enemies. If governance were being done by representatives of firms that might seek business from such countries, a subset of those countries might make that business conditional upon abuse of governance. Which would be unwelcome. Hence governance arrangements should be robust to mischief of this type.

5. Governance arrangements should be robust to other types of mischief.

Particularly welcome in this thread would be links to previous solutions to ‘problems’ like this. There must be precedent that has worked.