Why we should have a member-governed XRPL Foundation

Yesterday I published a proposal for updating the governance structure of the XRPL Foundation.

This proposal is meant to be just that – a proposal, on its own, put up for the community to discuss and debate. Many rightly have questions such as, “why now?” or “what’s your motivation?” and also, “why are you so handsome?”

(Ok, nobody asked that last one)

Ahem. More seriously, I think these are valid questions, and I’d like to share a bit more about “why” I wrote the post, to clear up any confusion around my intentions.

My primary motivation for the proposal is that over many years, I’ve observed some people in the XRPL community having strong dissatisfaction related to a myriad of topics that - in my mind - seem to stem from a perception that their individual voice isn’t heard or they’re not able to make an impact in the affairs of the XRPL community and the XRP Ledger itself. 

To be clear, this problem is not something that exists because of the XRPLF, or any particular shortcoming of the XRPLF. Instead, as I thought about how we – as a community – could better adhere to the ethos of decentralization and democratic organization, I saw the XRPLF as an ideal place to try and solve these problems, especially the one of people feeling unheard. 

To me it made sense to pursue this kind of experiment inside of the XRPLF because the XRPLF is a key organization in our community that deals with a variety of non-ledger, IRL concerns. For example, XRPLF owns and stewards important websites and the GitHub repo for a large amount of source code that many in our community (including myself) contribute to. XRPLF also publishes a dUNL (Default UNL) that many rely upon. XRPLF has IP rights to real things that are reasonably considered “community goods.” XRPLF operates important infrastructure. And so on. XRPLF does a lot of great work; real work, and has been around for many years. In other words, the XRPLF is a key organization in our community, and — especially due to its non-profit status — it is considered to be a neutral and fair representative on a variety of important topics affecting our community.

In short, giving more people in our community “a voice” through the XRPLF simply made sense to me – and still does.

To be clear, my proposal is something I published personally as a community member — it’s not a proposal from Ripple. Additionally, my proposal is not a critique of the current XRPLF. Instead, this proposal is a vision for what the XRPLF could be, building on the foundation’s existing structure. Did you know that the XRPLF is already set up with a membership, but does not have a clear membership model for others to join? Did you know that the XRPLF also has an unclear donation model to make it sustainable for the long term? My proposal simply aims to clarify both (membership and sustainable donation model) while simultaneously helping bring more people into the community.

Now, as to why I decided to “go public” in the manner that I did – this is because I wanted an open, public conversation on Github. Did I put a lot of effort into refining my proposal? Absolutely. But the level of refinement of my proposal shouldn’t be construed as an “edict”, “final edition”, or a “takeover.”  Instead, my proposal is simply a well-informed starting point. A proposal that I’d like the overall community to help craft.

Given the amount of discussion generated, I believe I made the right choice in publishing what I did, and how I did. But there are other questions that seem to be causing confusion around my intentions.

For example, some have asked if I had shared this proposal with others before publishing it - yes, absolutely, with multiple leaders at the XRPL Foundation as well as other long-time XRPL developers. I do understand that some will feel surprised, or “under consulted” — but my hope was that the bulk of the work would be done in public, not in private.

Another, proposal-specific question some have asked is around the “Sustaining Member” idea, worrying this is a way people can maliciously “buy” their way onto the XRPLF Board. It’s not. Instead, that membership class is meant to be an enabler of sustainable funding. However, this membership class can be limited, or even deleted. Remember, my proposal is a starting point. It’s an idea.

Some have also claimed that my proposal is simply inappropriate on its face, saying:  “the XRPLF is an independent entity, so who are you to make such a proposal”, or even “the XRPLF is just fine as it is, why change it?” 

This begs a clarifying question to everyone in the XRPL community: what exactly is the purpose of the XRPL Foundation, and who should decide that purpose?

My proposal lays out one answer, with what I consider to be many additional benefits to us all – an enhanced, member-governed entity (forged inside of the existing XRPLF) with well-defined authority boundaries that we all can understand and participate in. 

But it’s worth considering: should we perhaps pursue a different proposal, or even pursue the ideas found in my proposal outside of the XRPLF, maybe in some kind of new nonprofit entity that assumes some of the roles and responsibilities and mechanisms I’ve outlined in this post?

What’s your opinion?