Tag: NGO

Stepping away from #Mainstreaming: Building a Radical #OMN Through Clear, Grounded Communication

In the world shaped by corporate control, liberal co-option, and empty activism, the language we use is a battleground. The push for this #mainstreaming has dulled radical discourse, replacing it with sanitized, #NGO-friendly language that avoids real social change and challenge. If we are serious about building an alternative, we need to rethink how we communicate—not just what we say, but how we say it.

An example that I have been developing for the last ten years is the #OMN (Open Media Network) hashtag story—a project rooted in direct action, radical media, and bottom-up organizing. It’s a path away from corporate-controlled narratives and into messy, human, and effective grassroots communication.

The problem with #mainstreaming language, NGO-driven approach to activism and media has a core flaw, it seeks acceptance rather than transformation.

This blunts radical movements, it dilutes the message, #mainstreaming turns radical ideas into soft, palatable soundbites. Instead of speaking clearly about power, control, and oppression, it replaces them with vague, feel-good language designed for funding applications and media appearances.

Example: Instead of saying, “Capitalism is a #deathcult destroying the planet,” we get, “We need sustainable economic growth and green investments.”.

The result? The core critique is lost. The real causes of oppression are left untouched. It shifts focus to liberal activism that places too much trust in institutions—governments, tech corporations, and NGOs—assuming that change can happen from within. Instead of building our own autonomous networks, we waste time begging for reforms that never come.

Example: Instead of rebuilding grassroots media, activists push for more regulations on social media companies—keeping power centralized rather than challenging the #dotcons path itself.

The result? Big tech still controls everything, and alternative voices get pushed to the margins. It avoids direct conflict and struggle, as real social change is messy. It requires taking risks, building new paths, and confronting power. #Mainstreaming, on the other hand, prefers safe conversations and endless dialogue over real action.

Example: Instead of fighting for community-controlled spaces, NGOs organize panels and workshops on “inclusion”—without actually shifting power.

The result? We #blindly talk while the same power structures remain intact. The #OMN path for real communication for real change. For this to be real we want to escape the #NGO liberal mess, we need to reclaim radical communication. That means, speaking in clear, direct language:

Say this: “The internet is controlled by #dotcons—giant corporations profiting from our data and attention. We need to take back control.” or “The #deathcult of neoliberalism is driving us to #climatedisaster.” and “#NothingNew: Stop wasting time chasing tech hype—fix what already works.”

Language should be sharp, memorable, and rooted in everyday experience. But this is not only about talking, building alternative structures, not just critiquing the system is needed. Talking is not enough. We need to build. The #OMN project is about creating a real alternative to corporate-controlled media through grassroots, federated networks.

  • Instead of: Complaining about Facebook’s censorship… Build: A network of ActivityPub-powered, self-hosted media hubs that can’t be shut down.
  • Instead of: Asking Twitter to fact-check misinformation… Build: A trust-based network of independent journalists and aggregators.

The Fediverse and #OMN are already moving in this direction. We #KISS need to push harder.

Recognizing that change comes from conflict and challenge, social movements succeed when they agitate. That means, calling out power structures instead of begging them to change. Defending radical voices instead of silencing them to fit liberal narratives. Using technology as a tool for liberation, not just convenience.

The biggest lie of #mainstreaming is that change happens by playing nice. History tells a different story: The labour movement won rights through strikes and resistance. The civil rights movement succeeded because of direct action, not just speeches. Open-source software survived because of forks, fights, and refusal to comply. If we want a free and open internet, we need to fight for it.

The #OMN is a practical vision of a radical media network for the future, decentralization – Breaking free from corporate control. Autonomy – Creating trust-based networks instead of top-down paths. Action over talk – Building real alternatives, not just complaining about problems.

This is the path forward. If we want to escape the bland, corporate-friendly language of the liberal web, we need to reclaim radical, direct, and effective communication.

You can get involved by joining the Fediverse (#Mastodon, #PeerTube, #Pixelfed etc).
If you have resources or skill, then support and develop the #OMN. Then help build #OMN-powered media hubs. Spread the principles. Push back against the #NGO takeover of the #openweb.

It’s past time to take back control of our narratives, our media, and our future.

The stress of living in the remains of the commons, boaters in the UK

The boater community is in rapid transition, with the pressures from gentrification, corporate control (#CRT), and online group dynamics (#failbook) colliding with a long-established scruffy, self-sufficient, and sometimes chaotic #liveaboard culture.

This can be seen in the #failbook London Boaters group which has shifted away from its activist roots into more of a “management” role, shaped by #NGO-style moderation and back-channel conversations with #CRT. The shift from grassroots resistance to passive mediation is a familiar story in many alternative and radical spaces, where energy gets siphoned away into “keeping the peace” rather than fighting for actual autonomy in what remains of our “commons”.

  • The cultural split is deepening: The divide between “scruffy” boaters and the more middle-class/posh newcomers is not just aesthetic; it’s a direct outcome of policy and economic pressures. And fear is creeping in, often a precursor to authoritarian responses.
  • The activist potential of #failbook is limited, big #dotcons groups rarely function as true organizing spaces, as they tend to get co-opted by NGO logic, mainstream narratives, and self-censorship.
  • The pressure cooker effect, with rising costs, more restrictions, and no real outlet for collective resistance, conflict is building. The lack of a strong, active counterforce means the CRT agenda is rolling forward fundamentally unchallenged.
  • Admin struggles, the LB admin team is focus on firefighting rather than any real direction. Without a broader base of radical, committed people in admin, the group moves to becoming a tool of pacifying #mainstreaming.

What’s Next? The current trajectory points to London’s waterways becoming sterile, managed, semi-privatized space, just like what’s happened in European cities. Unless a new, grassroots, real-world organizing effort is built outside #failbook, the “scruffy” boater culture may not survive in London.

Brainstorming London boater gentrification

Nationally we have the #NBTA which is an old school activist organising group, can we add up-to-date infrastructure and working practices. Would it be possible to restart a parallel #openweb platform (maybe something lightweight like a #fediverse instance) where people committed to actual resistance can organize without interference from NGO-style moderation? The boating community needs a space for counter-narratives and real discussion, rather than just a loop of buy/sell drama and soft social control.

What do you think, what’s the best way to push back while there’s still time?

For more on this LINK

We need to break out of this cycle

Funding structures are built for #NGO nonsense, not grassroots projects where actual value is created. The #OMN, #indymediaback, and #OGB challenge this, but funders can’t grasp it because they don’t understand value outside institutional framing.

Fixing the funding #blocking, funders need to THINK, not just UNDERSTAND. Right now, they “understand” in the framework of existing institutions, which means they miss the metaphor-driven, emergent nature of the #OMN. Our #Hashtag story is for THINKING, not passive understanding. They are useful tools to push the conversation forward, not dogma to be accepted or rejected. The two often treating them as fixed truths leads to #blocking the needed real change.

We need to break out of this cycle, 20 years of #techshit which is still strengthening the gatekeepers, we can’t keep playing by these rules. The biggest realization here is that truth and metaphor are not the same. Funders, #NGOs, and the #mainstreaming crew think in terms of fixed truths, while real change comes from dynamic thinking. That’s why they keep failing us.

So, how do we move forward?

Funding Proposal: Archiving the “Commons” with #MakingHistory and #OMN
#Indymediaback Funding Application 2025-02-036 indymediaback received
Application 2025-02-032 Open Governance Body #OGB
Funding application for the #OMN

The challenge for #OMN & #openweb

There are a lot of mental health issues that are pushed over us in what remains of our open alt spaces, we need ways to mediate the damage, to help the people who spread this mess. The path of the #mainstreaming is corrosive to the alt cultures it feeds on. The cycle is always the same:

  • Radical ideas emerge → They are raw, open, and challenging.
  • Mainstreaming co-opts them → Dilutes them into something marketable.
  • They become performative → Used as branding by the #fashernista left, while the right weaponises the left’s discarded tools (like direct action).
  • The original movement is discredited → The real alternatives get buried under a mess of victimhood narratives, NGO bureaucracy, and “respectable” gatekeeping.

Composting this mess, one way is radical openness, but in a way that is intentional rather than naïve:

  • as a grounding principle → The more we expose the internal workings of a movement, the harder it is for power politics and NGO rot to take hold.
  • Affinity-based organising → Trust-based, decentralised, and responsive, avoiding the traps of rigid structures that get hijacked.
  • Resisting the urge to close → Every time a movement feels under attack, there’s a knee-jerk reaction to centralise and control. That’s how we lose.
  • Recognising how #dotcons manipulate OPEN/CLOSED → They’ve mastered open for them, closed for us, and turned it into a system of social control.

To take these step we need to admit we live in a gatekeepered world, yes the old media gatekeepers are gone, but what we have now is worse. The illusion of openness in the #dotcons masks a totalitarian model of control that makes traditional media censorship look almost quaint. Until we acknowledge that, every alt project will keep getting swallowed or broken from within.

The challenge for #OMN & #openweb is that we need to rebuild media and organising from a place of resilience, not just reaction. The #geekproblem, the #NGO mess, and the left’s failure to defend its own tools have left us in a weak position, but there’s still compost to grow something from. So, who’s ready to get their hands dirty?

Cutting through 99% of the #techshit

The #openweb is a much better framing than #fediverse when trying to break out of the tribal bubbles. It speaks to something broader and historical, whereas #fediverse is just one (flawed) expression of those ideas.

Why #openweb matters, it’s not new, which is actually a strength, this is the original internet vision before it got hijacked by #dotcons. It avoids the self-referential nature of the #fediverse, which often turns into a closed loop of devs talking to devs. It’s a term that can bridge communities rather than reinforcing in-group/out-group dynamics.

The limits of mirroring #dotcons, the first stage of the #fediverse, was largely about copying corporate social media platforms but without the profit motive. That was useful, but it’s hit a ceiling. Why? Lack of real community support – Devs build stuff, but actual social infrastructure is missing. Scaling the wrong way – Just copying individualist, engagement-driven models doesn’t actually create an open, healthy network. Reinforcing the #geekproblem – Developers remain in control, not communities, which leads to predictable NGO-style behaviour creeping in.

Shifting the balance in tech, we can’t just keep replicating the #mainstreaming mess in different codebases. The tech itself needs to reflect the values of the #openweb, decentralised in governance, not just code, community-led, not dev-controlled, process transparency, not just ‘open-source’ performatively.

Dealing with the #geekproblem, devs are used to solving problems in isolation, but society isn’t a coding challenge. They often bring #NGO behaviour into the #fediverse, expecting deference to their authority—and then act surprised when there’s kickback.

Being #openweb native, if you’re coming from the NGO world, you’ll have a much better time if you actually engage with the native culture of the #openweb rather than trying to impose external hierarchies. Otherwise, you’ll just recreate the same socially and self-destructive patterns that have wrecked everything else. So yeah, to boost this thinking, we need to start using #openweb more and move beyond the #fediverse branding trap.

The #4opens and #nothingnew both cut through 99% of the crap so the few people who are going to do something can do something that would be useful rather than unless. From useful you get a few more people, rinse and repeat, and you get social change and challenge, even if this is repressed or implodes, it will be more fun, and interesting than the current mess making.

Let’s try a #spiky view of #fluconf

Am sure these are all “nice people”, but they are also the parasite class https://fluconf.online/program/ events like this are as much problem as solution – likely more so in the current mess. Nice as a facade, hiding small-minded, petty, nasty, invisible rot of the commons as a community.

What a mess we keep making. Yeah, it’s the same old cycle—polite, well-meaning polishing the surface while the rot spreads underneath. These kinds of events present themselves as solutions, but they’re a part of the problem, consolidating small influence, reinforcing the same tired invisible hierarchies, and sidelining anything truly change and challenge that we need.

They build in closed, insular circles, focusing on their own comfort and tiny carriers rather than the actual struggle happening outside their “curated spaces”. It’s all managed dissent—safely disrespectable, and ultimately toothless. They won’t rock the leaky boat because they are the leaky boat, floating uncomfortably along the wreckage of our tech paths

The invisible rot is the worst part. It’s not just individuals being “bad” people; it’s how structures of control creep in through do-bureaucracy, funding dependencies, and #fashernista gatekeeping. What starts as an open, messy movement shrinks, institutionalised, and turned into #techchurn at best or a cog in the #NGO machine at worst.

Meanwhile, real alternatives, we need, the commons, the #openweb, grassroots movements are not here, the cycle repeats. That’s a #spiky view what would a #fluffy view look like, we need more composting #fluconf

A #fluffy view, is more that the problem is less “them” than “us”, we are not creating the spaces that they could be better people though. So we fucked up here, what are “we” going to do about this mess making?

The pushing of doomed projects

We need real and sharp critique’s of the current state of #mainstreaming in the #openweb and tech-for-good spaces. The challenge is of cutting down obviously pointless projects from 99% to 90% which is a both realistic and necessary path. How can we achieve this shift, focusing on impactful subjects, better implementation, and strategic approaches in coding development.

The developing of alternatives to corporate platforms is a first step we have taken in the #Fediverse, with most of the #mainstreaming projects simply replicate corporate models while branding themselves as “ethical” or “decentralised.” The next step is to create genuine alternatives, by focusing on “native”tools for community governance, people-first design. Then it’s key to mediate the many #NGO tech projects that keep reinventing the wheel instead of tools for the change and challenge we actually need and use.

We need to rethink funding paths for #openweb projects, as the current funding ecosystem mostly drives pointless or doomed #geekproblem and #fashernista projects. Many of these projects are designed to chase grant money, not solve problems. To mediate this, we need to push for more cooperative grassroots funding pools.

A persistent issue is the disconnect between what developers think people need and what people actually need. Shifting away from the current paths can be done by testing ideas in real-world environments before scaling them, ensuring they’re practical and usable. Stop chasing the startup-style obsession with scaling at all costs. Building federated systems designed to thrive in small, resilient communities. Encourage slow, thoughtful growth that prioritises depth of engagement over breadth of reach. Simplifying over-engineered solutions and avoiding adding complexity for its own sake; the simpler the tool, the more likely it is to succeed.

How do we achieve the 9% Difference? Getting from 99% pointless projects to 90% will require, stronger public scrutiny to slow the pushing of doomed tech projects. This path needs to focus on realistic, grounded ideas, focus on doing, not talking by encourage people to start small and prove themselves through action, not the normal empty big #NGO promises.

By focusing, we can make a tangible difference in the #openweb space and reduce the noise of pointless #techchurn that waste time, focus and resources. It’s not about erasing failure altogether, that’s impossible. It’s about creating a culture where thoughtful, practical grassroots work has the space to thrive and grow #KISS

A social tech path out of the current mess

A look at the paths we need to take to balance the current #mainstreaming. Mess begets more mess, embrace It, but strategically is the starting point of the #OGB project, recognising that solving crises will inevitably create new complications. This isn’t defeatist but pragmatic. Understanding that “messy consensus” is a natural state of grassroots activism both online and offline allows us to embrace imperfection while striving for progress. How can we build tools to work with this balance, we need paths that don’t eliminate mess but help us navigate it constructively.

Messy consensus vs. formal consensus, is basic, that “almost nothing that works, works with formal consensus” is both an indictment of rigidity and a call to trust human intuition and collective messiness. Formal consensus processes prioritise idealised decision-making frameworks over functional, timely action. Messy consensus in practice, decisions that evolve through ongoing dialogue, negotiation, and iterative adjustments. A focus on getting things done rather than endlessly perfecting processes.

The #OGB Project approach is based on #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) by documenting messy consensus in action rather than try to force-fit solutions into rigid structures. The wider #OMN is about building software tools that reflect this dynamic, fluid, adaptive, and capable of handling the inherent unpredictability of real world grassroots organising.

Grassroots movements need patience and realism, activism is hard work, rife with delays, frustrations, and the risk of spiralling into unproductive behaviours. The example of delays being full of “shittiness all round” is all too common. The solution is to focus, implement basic accountability and communication tools to reduce friction (e.g., clear timelines, transparent updates). Design paths where delays can’t derail core progress (e.g., smaller, autonomous working groups with clear boundaries).

The #geekproblem and governance failures, technologists operate under the illusion that technology is apolitical, seeing themselves as neutral actors. This leads to tools and systems that perpetuate power imbalances rather than address them, then governance struggles inside this #techshit. On the more #NGO paths, governments and corporations alike fail because they attempt to apply dated paradigms (territorial governance, Soviet-style technocracy, and unchecked market competition) to globally networked paths.

#OGB and the #openweb native paths are about building politically aware technologies that understand their social impact and are actively shaped by the communities they serve. This is about moving beyond individualistic thinking to balance paths where decisions are made collectively and equitably, guided by progressive shared values and principles.

Metadata isn’t trivial, it’s often more revealing than the data itself. Governments and corporations weaponise it for control. However, this control relies on perpetuating individual isolation and the illusion that society doesn’t exist. A core path is challenging the #deathcult mentality and this death spiral of isolationism. The idea that individuals are isolated entities, disconnected from society, aligns with the deeply reactionary mindset of the #deathcult. It’s this ideology that drives surveillance capitalism, authoritarian governance, and ecological collapse.

The #OMN is about countering the death spiral by build networks and technologies that grow solidarity, collective agency, and a sense of shared purpose. To make this happen, we need to call out reactionary ideologies wherever they manifest, but with patience and a focus on education. The Internet is a commons, not an empire. The internet’s potential is currently squandered by treating it as a platform for profit-driven empires. With the #OMN instead, we cultivate a shared common, reflecting the principles of the #openweb. With commons-based governance, we move away from corporate models and toward federated, community-led governance. Interoperable ecosystems, prioritise open standards that allow diverse communities to connect without being locked into monopolistic kingdoms.

The #OMN contribution, is about documenting the failures of current systems and demonstrate the viability of federated, grassroots alternative paths. And from this building the cultural and technical infrastructure necessary to support an internet that is truly by and for the people. Practical steps are acknowledging the mess, start with the reality of our messy paths and systems rather than pretending they don’t exist. Then use this understanding as the foundation for solutions. Promote realistic timelines, by accepting that grassroots organising moves slower than we’d like, but ensure delays are constructive rather than paralysing. Focus on education, misunderstandings stem from a lack of digital literacy and political awareness, we need patience and persistence to mediate messy processes through practice.

In conclusion, how can we shape the world without being covered in shit. Yes, the path is messy, imperfect, and filled with hard work, but that’s no reason to despair. The #OMN projects offers a grounded approach that prioritises doing over theorising, embracing messy consensus as a strength rather than a weakness. By rejecting the #deathcult of individualism and building on the principles of the #openweb, we create paths that reflect the reality of grassroots organising: chaotic, collaborative, and, ultimately, transformative.

Challenging “liberal trolls” and #encryptionist blindness

Addressing liberal trolls and the #openweb tensions, the influx of users following the (#TwitterMigration) has illuminated tensions on the #openweb, particularly the behaviour of “liberal trolls.” Who often advocate for performative inclusivity and impose hierarchical thinking, creating friction in existing decentralized paths. Their presence derails conversations, inhibit grassroots growth, and introduce mainstream patterns of control. What can we do with this mess making:

  1. Reframing the debate: 90% Open, 10% Closed offers a balanced vision. It contrasts sharply with the #encryptionists’ push for 90% closed systems that prioritize secrecy over collaboration. To mediate this, we need to promote openness as resilience to foster diversity, adaptability, and innovation. This “native” path resists co-optation by authoritarian forces, a core concern of #encryptionists. Highlight success stories, examples where openness has thrived, such as Mastodon’s ability to scale post-Twitter Migration without compromising its ethos. Build Bridges to encourage conversations between open and closed proponents. Identify shared values, while challenging “common sense” that hinder collaboration.
  1. Combatting liberal troll dynamics, liberal trolls to often wield performative outrage and self-righteousness as tools for control, sidelining radical ideas. To mitigate their impact: Community moderation with clear values, with moderation policies rooted in grassroots principles—collaboration, inclusion, and respect for dissent. Make these values explicit and widely understood. Empower the margins by supporting voices from underrepresented radical communities to counterbalance dominant narratives. Ignore the noise, trolls thrive on attention. Strategic non-engagement, combined with clear policies, reduce their disruptive influence.
  1. Addressing the #geekproblem and blocking energy, the #geekproblem is characterized by a resistance to radical ideas and community-focused solutions, creating unspoken barriers to progress in tech spaces. We need strategies to overcome this by making tech accessible to non-geeks with user-friendly designs and intuitive experiences. This diminishes the gatekeeping power of overly technical communities. Distributed Leadership encourages non-hierarchical, collective decision-making. This prevents a few individuals from exerting outsized influence over grassroots tech projects. Education and outreach, equip newcomers with the tools and knowledge to navigate #openweb spaces, reducing reliance on geek-centric paths.
  1. Resisting destructive cult paths, #NGO-driven power grabs and for “cult-like” behaviour needs to safeguard against by fostering decentralized power structures. Encourage healthy conflict by normalize constructive disagreements as part of openweb culture. This reduces the potential for groupthink and authoritarian tendencies. Recognize and resist co-optation by staying vigilant against efforts to co-opt grassroots movements for institutional and corporate interests.
  1. Building radical resilience, to mediate the blocking energy and empower radical tech, we need proactive strategies. Create paths for experimentation, this might include enclaves where radical ideas can be tested without suppression and co-optation. Foster allyship by building alliances between radical movements and pragmatic reformers to amplify shared goals. Challenge “Common Sense” imposition of “practical” solutions that dilute grassroots paths and values. Embrace creative, “mad and bad” ideas to disrupt this status quo blocking.

In conclusion, the path of the #openweb depends on striking a balance between openness and security, grassroots experimentation and mainstream scalability, and decentralization and coordination. By mediating the mess brought into our spaces by liberal trolls, encryptionist ideologies, and the #geekproblem, we can create a more resilient digital ecosystem that is a path of radical innovation and community-driven change and challenge we need in the era of #climatechaos and social brack down. On this path, radical ideas are not only welcomed but celebrated #KISS

Application 2025-02-040 Makeinghistory received

The following submission was recorded by NLnet. Thanks for your application, we look forward to learning more about your proposed project.
Contact

name
hamish campbell
phone
email
hamish@visionon.tv
organisation name
OMN
country
UK
consent
You may keep my data on record

Project

code
2025-02-040
project name
Makeinghistory
fund
Commons_Fund
requested amount
€ 50000
website

    https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/MakingHistory

synopsis

The MakingHistory project is a collaborative initiative to create a decentralized, participatory network for documenting and sharing grassroots movements, historical events, and underrepresented narratives. Rooted in the ethos of the #openweb and leveraging Fediverse technologies like ActivityPub, the project empowers communities to take control of their stories, ensuring they are preserved and amplified outside corporate-controlled paths.

The project focuses on enabling user-generated timelines, multimedia integration, and collaborative curation to document history in real-time or retrospectively. By prioritizing transparency, inclusivity, and grassroots participation, it provides tools for meany voices to be heard and for diverse perspectives to be shared. It combines modern federated tech with the collective spirit of earlier grassroots media movements.

experience

I have been involved in projects that align with the ethos and goals of the MakingHistory project, particularly through my work with Indymedia and the Open Media Network (#OMN).

Indymedia: Building the Foundations for Grassroots Media. I was an active participant in the global network, a pioneering grassroots media project launched in the late 1990s. Indymedia provided a decentralized platform for activists, communities, and independent journalists to report on issues overlooked by mainstream media. It was one of the first major digital efforts to democratize media creation and distribution, fostering participatory and collective storytelling. This work underpins much of the MakingHistory vision, highlighting the importance of grassroots participation, robust federated technologies, and transparent governance. I bring 20+ years of experience to this native path of open, community-driven initiatives, blending technical expertise with a deep commitment to empowering underrepresented voices. MakingHistory is the next step in a long journey to reclaim narrative power and ensure our collective history is preserved and accessible for future generations.

usage

The MakingHistory project’s requested budget is strategically allocated to ensure its success, focusing on building the infrastructure, fostering community engagement, and maintaining sustainable growth. Below is a breakdown of how the budget will be utilized, along with a discussion of funding sources:

Budget Allocation:

Technical Development: Platform Infrastructure: Funding will support server hosting, domain management, and storage for federated platforms that form the backbone of MakingHistory.
Software Development: Resources will be allocated to improving and customizing tools, the Federated Wiki and other ActivityPub systems to meet the project’s goals.
Testing and Maintenance: Ongoing efforts to ensure platform stability, security, and scalability as the user base grows.

Content Creation and Archiving: Collaborative Storytelling Tools: Developing features to empower communities to collaboratively document and share historical narratives, aligning with the MakingHistory vision. Digital Archiving: Ensuring long-term preservation of user-generated content, with open access to historical narratives and multimedia resources.

Community Engagement and Education: Workshops and Training: Organizing events and online sessions to onboard contributors and familiarize them with the platform and principles of decentralized storytelling. Outreach Campaigns: Promoting the project within the Fediverse and other relevant networks to build a diverse and engaged user base.

Administrative and Governance Support: Project Coordination: Supporting a small team to manage the day-to-day operations, oversee development, and facilitate community governance.
Documentation and Reporting: Creating transparent records of decision-making processes and project progress in alignment with the framework.

Contingency and Scaling: Allocating funds for unexpected challenges and ensuring the project can scale effectively as adoption increases.

Funding Sources: Past and Present: The project has drawn inspiration and lessons from prior initiatives like Indymedia and OMN, which were largely self-funded and supported through volunteer efforts. While MakingHistory does not currently have additional external funding sources, it builds on a history of successful resource pooling and community-driven contributions.

Key Historical Context: Indymedia relied heavily on grassroots funding models, including small donations from community members and solidarity events.

The Open Media Network (#OMN) has been developed on a minimal funding approach, emphasizing open-source collaboration and volunteer labor to maintain independence.

Future Plans: The project aims to diversify funding sources by: Pursuing small grants from organizations aligned with open culture and grassroots storytelling. Encouraging direct community contributions through crowdfunding campaigns and donation drives. Partnering with like-minded initiatives within the Fediverse to share resources and minimize overhead costs.

The budget will enable the project to blend technical excellence with grassroots participation, ensuring the MakingHistory network becomes a sustainable and impactful resource for communities worldwide. This path emphasizes independence and aligns with the principles of transparency, collaboration, and decentralization.

comparison

The MakingHistory project stands apart from traditional #NGO-funded efforts by addressing the systemic failures that have often plagued similar initiatives, while also building on the successes and lessons from historical grassroots and open-source projects.

Comparison of MakingHistory focusing on how it diverges from typical #NGO approaches and aligns with the ethos of the #openweb and principles.

Indymedia: Historical Example: Indymedia was a pioneering grassroots initiative that provided a decentralized platform for citizen journalism and activism during the early 2000s. It thrived on community-driven content and a federated approach to publishing. Strengths: Empowered local voices, operated transparently, and embraced grassroots values. Weaknesses: Over time, it struggled with sustainability, internal conflicts, and adapting to technological shifts, leading to fragmentation and decline. MakingHistory builds on Indymedia’s ethos of storytelling but modernizes the approach with ActivityPub based technology, collaborative wiki tools, and stronger focus on sustainability through decentralized governance.

Comparison with Typical #NGO-Funded Paths: Top-Down Structures: Many #NGO-funded media initiatives operate within rigid, hierarchical structures. Decision-making is centralized and driven by donor priorities rather than community needs. Result: This approach frequently alienates grassroots participants, undermining the authenticity and trust necessary for lasting impact. MakingHistory Difference: Operates on a bottom-up, decentralized governance model, allowing communities to shape their own narratives and priorities. It values trust and humanity over external control. Funding Dependency: #NGO projects are heavily reliant on external funding, which leads to shifts in focus, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and an overemphasis on metrics that satisfy donors rather than serving people. Result: Projects fail to adapt once funding dries up or priorities change, leaving behind fragmented and abandoned ecosystems.

Overemphasis on Professionalization: #NGO efforts prioritize professional content creation and institutional partnerships, sidelining grassroots contributors and reducing community engagement.
Result: The platforms may appear polished but lack genuine participation and long-term relevance to their target communities. MakingHistory Difference: Prioritizes participatory storytelling, encouraging communities to create and share their own historical narratives. The focus is on tools that are accessible to everyone, regardless of technical expertise.

Technological Approaches: Many #NGO-funded media projects adopt proprietary or siloed technologies, limiting interoperability and peoples autonomy. These systems tend to mimic corporate #dotcons paths, prioritizing control over collaboration. Result: This creates dependency on centralized systems, contradicting the principles of decentralization and the #openweb.
MakingHistory Difference: Built entirely on open standards and federated technologies like ActivityPub, ensuring interoperability and communerty control. It actively resists the commodification of user data and narratives.

Why Historical #NGO Paths Fail: Mission Drift: Over time, #NGO projects shift away from their original grassroots objectives due to donor pressure and institutional inertia. Lack of Community Ownership: Decision-making and content creation are often detached from the communities they aim to serve, resulting in low engagement and eventual obsolescence. Inability to Adapt: Tied to rigid funding cycles and institutional agendas, projects struggle to respond to changing technological and social landscapes.

Conclusion: The MakingHistory project avoids these pitfalls by embracing a grassroots-first approach, rooted in transparency, participation, and adaptability. It rejects the typical #NGO path of hierarchical control and funding dependency, focusing instead on empowering communities to collaboratively document their own histories. By leveraging modern federated technologies and the lessons of historical efforts like Indymedia and the #OMN, MakingHistory creates a sustainable and impactful #openweb native path that reflects the diversity and richness of grassroots storytelling. This path ensures the project remains relevant, resilient, and rooted #KISS

challenges

The MakingHistory project faces significant (social) technical challenges, many of which are intertwined with the development and implementation of overlapping initiatives such as the Ibis Wiki, Indymediaback, the Open Media Network (#OMN), and the Open Governance Body (#OGB). These challenges arise from the #KISS goal of creating a cohesive path that supports decentralized storytelling, collaboration, and governance while addressing the limitations of existing tools and technologies.
Key Technical Challenges: Seamless Integration of Federated Tools:

  • The MakingHistory project will utilize ActivityPub to enable federated communication between platforms, such as wikis, blogs, and media repositories.
  • Challenge: Ensuring compatibility and seamless data exchange across diverse platforms in the Fediverse, while maintaining high performance and user-friendly interfaces.
  • Solution: Building upon the open standards demonstrated in Ibis Wiki, integrating its federated wiki approach with other #OMN tools for decentralized content creation and sharing.

Decentralized Content Management:

  • Like Indymediaback, the project requires a robust system for managing decentralized content, including publishing, moderation, and archiving.
  • Challenge: Implementing decentralized moderation and curation tools that respect user autonomy while maintaining trust and quality within the network.
  • Solution: Leveraging mastodons dynamic federated design and adapting it for the needs of grassroots media communities.

Scalability and Resilience:

  • The system must scale to accommodate growing user bases and diverse use cases, while ensuring resilience against platform failures or external attacks.
  • Challenge: Designing systems that balance decentralization with scalability, ensuring reliable performance even in resource-limited environments.
  • Solution: Building lightweight, modular tools inspired by existing Fediverse codebase and architecture, optimized for grassroots deployments. Most of the solutions already exist.

User Experience for Non-Technical Audiences:

  • Engaging grassroots communities requires networks that are easy to use, even for people with limited technical expertise.
  • Challenge: Simplifying complex federated technologies like ActivityPub into intuitive interfaces and workflows.
  • Solution: Enhancing exiting fedivers codebase #UX usability to integrate accessible tools for storytelling and collaboration, making a practical path for community organizers and activists.

Interoperability Across Projects:

  • The MakingHistory project shares common goals and infrastructure with Indymediaback, #OMN, and #OGB. Creating a unified codeing ecosystem.
  • Challenge: Coordinating development across projects to avoid duplication, resolve conflicts, and maximize synergy.
  • Solution: Developing shared APIs and data models, ensuring interoperability and a cohesive user experience across all initiatives.

Governance and Trust Models:

  • Governance structures must align with #OGB principles of transparency, inclusivity, and grassroots control.
  • Challenge: Implementing governance mechanisms that can operate effectively in a federated environment, balancing peoples autonomy with collective decision-making.
  • Solution: Using the OGB framework to prototype and test governance models within MakingHistory, adapting them to meet the needs of federated storytelling communities.

Preservation and Archiving:

  • As with Indymediaback, preserving the history created by people and commneties is essential for future generations.
  • Challenge: Developing decentralized archiving methods that ensure content longevity without relying on centralized infrastructure.
  • Solution: Utilizing distributed redundant storage solutions and metadata tagging for efficient archiving and retrieval.

Overlap and Synergies: The MakingHistory project serves as a bridge between Indymediaback, #OMN, and #OGB, leveraging shared infrastructure and principles:

  • From Ibis Wiki: A federated, collaborative wiki system that lays the foundation for decentralized storytelling.
  • From Indymediaback: Grassroots media publishing tools and workflows for content creation and moderation.
  • From #OMN: A federated media ecosystem rooted in the principles of transparency, inclusivity, and collaboration.
  • From #OGB: Governance models that empower communities to take ownership of their narratives.

By addressing these challenges, MakingHistory will provide an effective tool for documenting grassroots stories but also strengthen the broader ecosystem of decentralized and federated media, demonstrating a scalable, trust-based model for community-driven storytelling, simply put making history.

ecosystem

The ecosystem of the MakingHistory is rooted in the broader framework of the Open Media Network (#OMN) and the decentralized social web of the Fediverse. Combining principles of openness, decentralization, and grassroots engagement, MakingHistory creates a vibrant and interconnected path for collaborative storytelling and historical documentation. This ecosystem will leverage existing platforms, tools, and communities while fostering new connections to build a sustainable network for grassroots DIY media.

Ecosystem Overview, Core Components:

OMN: A federated media network built on the principles of open data, open source, open processes, and open standards. MakingHistory will integrate seamlessly with #OMN tools to allow decentralized content sharing and collaboration.

Fediverse: Using ActivityPub and other open standards, the project will connect with established platforms like Mastodon, PeerTube, WriteFreely, and Ibis Wiki to ensure compatibility and engagement across the decentralized web.
Grassroots Media: Building on the ethos of Indymedia, the project will provide tools for activists, journalists, and communities to document and share their history without reliance on centralized platforms or corporate control.

Key Actors: Grassroots Communities: Local organizations, activists, and storytellers who document and share their narratives. Fediverse Developers and Admins: Collaborating with developers and instance administrators to ensure technical interoperability and promote the project within the Fediverse. Allies in the FOSS Ecosystem: Engaging with free and open-source software projects that share the goals of decentralization and people empowerment. Educational and Historical Institutions: Partnering with groups interested in archiving and preserving grassroots stories for future generations.

Engagement Strategies

Community Outreach: Host workshops, webinars, and meetups within grassroots networks and Fediverse communities to introduce MakingHistory and its tools. Collaborate with existing activist networks to co-develop and test features that meet their specific needs.

Promotion on the Fediverse: Actively use Fediverse platforms like Mastodon and Lemmy to share updates, gather feedback, and engage with the wider decentralized social web. Publish guides and tutorials to encourage adoption by Fediverse users and admins.

Collaboration with Developers: Work with ActivityPub crew and SocialHub communities to align technical development with existing standards and best practices. Share code, documentation, and progress transparently on platforms like federated Git’s to invite contributions from the wider FOSS ecosystem.

Building Trust Through : Promote the project’s adherence to the principles to build trust and credibility among users and partners. Use open processes for decision-making and feature prioritization to ensure inclusivity and accountability.

Showcasing Outcomes: Develop case studies and success stories from pilot deployments to demonstrate the project’s impact and potential. Highlight how MakingHistory complements and extends the capabilities of existing Fediverse and #OMN tools.

Promoting Outcomes

Federation with Existing Tools: Integrate with platforms like Mastodon (for updates), PeerTube (for video storytelling), and WriteFreely (for blogs) etc to ensure content is accessible and sharable across the Fediverse. Collaborate with other #OMN initiatives, such as Indymediaback and OGB, to strengthen the ecosystem and amplify shared goals. Grassroots Campaigns: Encourage communities to create and share content, documenting local histories and movements, to build awareness and participation organically.

By nurturing a collaborative and inclusive ecosystem, MakingHistory amplifies the voices of grassroots actors and create a sustainable foundation for decentralized storytelling, aligned with the wider OMN and Fediverse vision #KISS

#Indymediaback Funding Application 2025-02-036 indymediaback received

The following submission was recorded by NLnet. Thanks for your application, we look forward to learning more about your proposed project.
Contact

name
hamish campbell
phone
email
hamish@visionon.tv
organisation name
OMN
country
UK
consent
You may keep my data on record

Project

code
2025-02-036
project name
indymediaback
fund
Commons_Fund
requested amount
€ 50000
website

    https://unite.openworlds.info/indymedia

synopsis

The #indymediaback is a Fediverse project about rebooting the radical grassroots media network, Indymedia, by anchoring it in trust-based (Open Data, Source, Process, and Standards). It prioritizes local, collective publishing as the foundation for global solidarity and counter-narratives. The project resists the co-option of #mainstreaming and #dotcons by decentralized, democratic governance and focusing on native, horizontal structures.

Expected outcomes include a revived independent media landscape that amplifies marginalized voices, balancing corporate and state narratives, and builds resilience against #posttruth misinformation. By composting the #geekproblem and embracing simplicity (#KISS), the project empower communities with sustainable, open tools for storytelling, activism, and solidarity. The goal is to seed a flourishing, cooperative #openweb native media as a part of the current activertypub based web reboot.

experience

I’ve been actively engaged in #FOSS and #openweb projects for over 20 years, focusing on building grassroots, community-driven alternatives to centralized and corporate-controlled platforms. My work emphasizes creating and sustaining open, democratic, and resilient digital paths.

In the early days of the Fediverse, I ran five instances for the first five years, helping to seed the decentralized ecosystem that has since grown into a viable and widely recognized alternative to the #dotcons. This hands-on involvement gave me a deep understanding of the technical, social, and governance challenges of decentralized networks.

Since the launch of the ActivityPub standard, I’ve contributed to shaping the underlying paths that enable decentralized social networking. My work has facilitated discussions, advocating for grassroots perspectives, to ensure that the voices of smaller, community-oriented projects are heard amid broader efforts to standardize and scale the Fediverse.

My involvement includes engaging in advocacy, community building, and technical implementation, ensuring that open standards remain open and accessible. By bridging technical expertise with grassroots activism, I work to mediate the #geekproblem and bring human-centered, trust-based solutions to the forefront.

These experiences directly feed into the #indymediaback project, where I bring not only technical skills but also a rich history of working within collaborative, open frameworks. By combining lessons from past successes and challenges, we plan on contributing to building a robust #openweb ecosystem that stands resilient in these fragile social, ecological and technical times.

usage

The budget for the #indymediaback project will be allocated to support the development, outreach, and sustainability of the initiative. Drawing on code from Ibis 0.2.0 https://ibis.wiki/article/Ibis_release_0.2.0_-_Federated_Wiki_with_Shiny_Redesign

  1. Platform Development: Core Infrastructure: Building a lightweight, federated publishing platform that aligns with #openweb principles, based on a federated wiki approach like Ibis. This includes robust ActivityPub integration for seamless interconnectivity with the Fediverse. UI/UX enhancements on top of this to show and shape the media flows.
  2. Community Support and Training: Workshops: Conducting training sessions to onboard activists, journalists, and developers onto the platform, focusing on decentralized publishing and governance. Documentation: Creating clear, multilingual resources to empower communities to use and extend the platform independently.
  3. Outreach and Advocacy: Network Building: Expanding the grassroots network by collaborating with existing projects in the Fediverse and the broader #FOSS ecosystem. Awareness Campaigns: Promoting the importance of independent media and the dangers of the #closedweb to engage both activists and potential contributors.
  4. Maintenance and Sustainability: Hosting Costs: Providing stable hosting for early adopters and community-managed hubs. Ongoing Development: Allocating resources for iterative updates, security improvements, and adapting/building code and UX from user feedback.

Past and Present Funding Sources: Historically, the #indymediaback project has operated with minimal funding, relying on volunteer efforts and community goodwill to sustain its activities. Some aspects, such as initial platform experimentation and hosting small-scale instances in the Fediverse, were supported by personal contributions and donations from allied groups.

While the project has not yet received large-scale institutional funding, it has benefited from the collaborative ethos of the #FOSS and #openweb communities. Moving forward, the project seeks to diversify funding sources by exploring grants, grassroots crowdfunding, and partnerships with aligned organizations. However, maintaining independence from corporate or agenda-driven funding remains a core principle to safeguard the radical and democratic essence of the initiative.

The requested budget will act as a seed, enabling the #indymediaback project to transition from concept to sustainable implementation.

comparison

Comparison with Historical Indymedia: #Indymediaback: builds on the original ethos of news publishing and grassroots participation but adapts to modern needs with more robust and user-friendly technology. The project focuses on federated systems and decentralized governance to avoid the bottlenecks and centralization that hindered the original Indymedia.

Technology: early Indymedia used custom-built CMS platforms like DadaIMC, which were groundbreaking at the time but eventually became outdated. The lack of resources for updates and scalability led to significant challenges as the internet evolved.

Indymediaback: Leverages ActivityPub and the Fediverse, building on existing protocols and infrastructure while maintaining an open and adaptable architecture. This ensures scalability, security, and relevance in the evolving landscape of decentralized web technologies.

Comparison with Existing Fediverse Media Projects

Mastodon and Pixelfed, Flagships of the Fediverse project focused on microblogging, popularized ActivityPub and brought decentralized platforms into mainstream conversations. However, this success has also led to “NGO-style” #mainstreaming tendencies, with decisions catering to wider audiences rather than grassroots paths. Pixelfed: A decentralized alternative to Instagram, Pixelfed focuses on visual storytelling but often lacks the “news” path that #indymediaback seeks to prioritizes.

Indymediaback, unlike Mastodon or Pixelfed, explicitly targets “news” communities and grassroots content. Its focus is on collective storytelling and action, ensuring that it serves as a platform for organizing, not just broadcasting.

Lemmy and Kbin: Are Reddit-style platforms for community-driven forums, Lemmy demonstrates the potential for federated discussion but lacks the tools for journalistic workflows or media dissemination.

Bonfire Networks, is a federated platform emphasizing modularity, Bonfire aims to provide tools for diverse community needs. However, its roots in the #NGO space mean it struggles to align with actually reverent to grassroots paths.

Expected Outcome: The #indymediaback project revitalize “native” media by combining the best aspects of the original Indymedia—open publishing, grassroots participation, and activist focus—with the technological and governance advancements of the Fediverse. The outcome is a resilient, federated news network that empowers communities to create, share, and amplify their stories, freed from the constraints of corporate platforms and institutional agendas. This reboot provides a necessary counterbalance to the #closedweb and an avenue for meaningful news in these trubaled “post truth” times.

challenges

The #indymediaback project faces some challenges:

Federated Open Publishing: Developing a robust, ActivityPub-compatible open-publishing system to handle collaborative content creation and moderation at scale.

Scalability and Usability: Ensuring the platform can support diverse communities while remaining accessible to non-technical users.

Trust and Governance: Implementing transparent moderation tools and decentralized governance to balance openness with accountability.

Interoperability: Seamlessly integrating with existing Fediverse platforms while providing unique activist-focused features.

ecosystem

The ecosystem focus on empowering local activists, citizen journalists, and independent media organizations, providing them with tools for collaborative storytelling, decentralized publishing, and grassroots governance.

Key Ecosystem Actors:

Fediverse Platforms: Like Mastodon, Pixelfed, Peertube form the foundation for connecting and amplifying diverse communities. #indymediaback interoperates with these platforms, enriching the Fediverse with news-focused capabilities while leveraging their existing user bases.

Citizen journalists: community reporters, and activists will be the core creaters of the platform. The project will provide tools for collaborative content creation, transparent moderation, and open publishing to ensure their voices are heard.

Developers and technologists: open-source developers and technologists in the Fediverse and ActivityPub communities will play a critical role in refining and scaling the platform. The project will actively engage with forums like SocialHub to share progress, seek feedback, and align with broader Fediverse standards.

Grassroots organizations: Non-profits, collectives, and activist networks will be key collaborators. By building a decentralized news outlet, the project amplifys their impact while fostering cross-community solidarity.

Engagement Strategies: Collaborative development, hosting regular open sprints, hackathons, and discussions within the Fediverse to build a strong, participatory development culture.

Community support: Dedicated onboarding and user support resources will ensure seamless adoption by non-technical people and communities. Tutorials, workshops, and community-led training will help bridge the digital divides.

Outreach and partnerships: The project will engage with existing Fediverse admins, moderators, and activists to build a coalition for shared goals, promoting the outcomes through federated content streams and cross-platform collaborations.

Application 2025-02-032 Open Governance Body #OGB

Application 2025-02-032 Open Governance Body #OGB received

The following submission was recorded by NLnet. Thanks for your application, we look forward to learning more about your proposed project.
Contact

name
hamish campbell
phone
email
hamish@visionon.tv
organisation name
OMN
country
UK
consent
You may keep my data on record

Project

code
2025-02-032
project name
Open Governance Body #OGB
fund
Commons_Fund
requested amount
€ 50000
website

    https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody

synopsis

A project designed to create a trust-based, decentralized framework for governance within grassroots networks and communities. Rooted in the principles—open data, open source, open processes, and open standards—the #OGB seeks to mediate human-to-human collaboration by fostering trust, transparency, and simplicity (#KISS).

Its primary focus is addressing the #geekproblem by bridging technical and social flows, creating tools that empower people to organize effectively without falling into hierarchical or centralized traps. The #OGB builds on trust to sift through noise, allowing genuine contributions to rise, moving from complexity to simplicity and back to complexity organically.

The expected outcomes include:

Strengthened grassroots governance: Tools for decision-making and collaboration that are inclusive and scalable.
A thriving #openweb ecosystem: Platforms and networks that prioritize trust and social value over profit.
Mediation of mainstreaming and NGO influence: Keeping progressive activism focused on spiky, meaningful change rather than fluffy distractions.

The #OGB aims to create sustainable digital commons that nurture resilience, diversity, and real-world impact.

experience

Yes, I’ve been involved in projects and communities aligned with the ethos and goals of the #OGB. My contributions span technical development, advocacy, and fostering open governance frameworks, all rooted in the principles of trust, transparency, and collaboration.

  1. Indymedia, I was an active contributor to the global Indymedia movement, which played a pivotal role in grassroots media and decentralized collaboration. My contributions focused on: Open publishing workflows to empower communities to share their stories. Advocating for the “trust at the edges” model to ensure decision-making remained grassroots-driven. Bridging technical and social challenges by helping develop and maintain tools that aligned with the movement’s values.
  2. OMN (Open Media Network), As one of the key proponents of the #OMN, I’ve worked to reboot grassroots media using trust-based networks and federated tools. My contributions include: Developing the concept of (open data, open source, open processes, open standards) to serve as a foundational framework. Advocating for federated tools like #ActivityPub and #RSS to enable media flows across decentralized networks. Organizing collaborative spaces to design tools that prioritize human-to-human trust rather than algorithms or centralized control.
  3. Fediverse Advocacy, Within the Fediverse, I’ve championed the importance of grassroots governance and resisting the co-option of these spaces by corporate or NGO interests. Contributions include: Participating in discussions to shape decentralized protocols like #ActivityPub. Pushing for #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principles to ensure accessibility and scalability. Highlighting the dangers of #mainstreaming and proposing strategies to mediate its impact on the #openweb.
  4. Open Governance Experiments, I’ve collaborated on smaller experimental governance projects aimed at exploring new ways of mediating human collaboration. For example: Designing trust-based moderation systems to reduce #geekproblem domination in decision-making processes. Implementing open-process methodologies to ensure transparency in workflows. Mediating conflicts between technical and social contributors, fostering productive collaboration.

Core Contributions Across Projects, across all these initiatives, my primary focus has been on bridging the technical and human aspects of governance. This involves: Developing frameworks that enable decentralized decision-making while maintaining trust. Advocating for simplicity to combat the paralysis caused by unnecessary complexity. Building alliances and mediating the challenges posed by #dotcons, #NGO dominance, and #geekproblem tendencies.

Through these efforts, I’ve gained insights into the challenges of building sustainable governance models in decentralized spaces, and the #OGB embodies the culmination of this work. It’s a step forward in creating robust, trust-based networks that empower communities to take control of their digital and social spaces.

usage

Budget Allocation for #OGB Project

The requested budget will be allocated strategically to ensure the project’s foundational development and long-term sustainability. An outline of key areas:

  1. Technical Development and Infrastructure (40%) Development of Core Tools: Funding will support developers to build the initial version of the #OGB code, focusing on simplicity, accessibility, and scalability. Server Infrastructure: Setting up and maintaining federated servers for testing, development, and early adoption. Integration with Existing Standards: Work to align with protocols like #ActivityPub, #Nostr and #RSS, ensuring seamless interoperability with the broader #openweb ecosystem.
  2. Community Building and Outreach (25%) Workshops and Training: Organizing sessions to train communities on the #OGB framework, focusing on trust-based governance and open-process workflows. Content Creation: Developing accessible documentation, tutorials, and guides to demystify the #OGB model for diverse audiences. Engagement Campaigns: Reaching out to grassroots organizations, activists, and communities to onboard early adopters.
  3. Research and Iterative Design (20%) User Feedback Loops: Conducting trials with early adopters to gather insights and refine the tools and processes. Governance Framework Refinement: Exploring different trust-based models to ensure inclusivity and adaptability to various contexts. Conflict Mediation Strategies: Testing and integrating mechanisms for conflict resolution and power balance within the #OGB framework.
  4. Administrative and Miscellaneous Costs (15%) Project Coordination: Funding part-time coordinators to manage timelines, resources, and community engagement. Operational Expenses: Covering software donations, events, domain hosting, and other minor but essential operational costs.

Past and Present Funding Sources. The #OGB project is currently unfunded in a formal sense, operating entirely through volunteer contributions. However, it is rooted in a history of collaborative efforts from related initiatives, which have benefited from in-kind support rather than direct funding.

Past Sources: #OMN and #Indymedia Communities: Provided foundational concepts and voluntary contributions of time, skills, and infrastructure. Fediverse and #Activertypub Advocates: Offered insights and testing environments for early experimentation with governance ideas.

challenges

Present Sources: Volunteer Contributions: Core contributors are donating their time and resources to push the project forward. Allied Projects: Informal support from related decentralized tech communities, sharing knowledge, feedback, and occasional resources.

Future Vision, while external funding is vital to accelerate the project’s development, we aim to maintain independence and adhere to the principles. By minimizing reliance on corporate or NGO funding, we ensure that the #OGB remains a grassroots-driven initiative. Our long-term goal is to establish a self-sustaining model through community contributions and shared ownership, embodying the trust-based governance the project seeks to promote.

Detailed budget breakdown can be attached if required.

comparison

The #OGB (Open Governance Body) project stands on the shoulders of both historical and contemporary efforts, drawing lessons from their successes and failures to craft a novel path to decentralized governance.

A comparative analysis: Historical Projects and Their Influence

Indymedia (Independent Media Centers) Overview: Indymedia was a global network of grassroots media collectives that emerged in the late 1990s to provide a platform for independent journalism. It embodied principles of openness, decentralization, and non-hierarchical governance. Comparison: Like Indymedia, #OGB aims to empower communities through open and decentralized structures. However, Indymedia struggled with governance conflicts and centralization of power in some regions. The #OGB addresses these issues through trust-based networks, conflict mediation mechanisms, and scalable governance tools. Key Takeaway: The #OGB builds on the ethos of Indymedia while implementing technological solutions to mitigate governance bottlenecks.

Occupy Movement’s General Assemblies. Overview: Occupy’s assemblies were experiments in direct democracy, emphasizing inclusivity and consensus-based decision-making. However, the lack of structured governance led to inefficiency and internal conflicts. Comparison: The #OGB shares Occupy’s commitment to participatory governance but incorporates trust-based models to build the decision-making. Instead of full consensus, the #OGB employs trust networks to delegate decisions while retaining accountability and inclusivity. Key Takeaway: The #OGB leverages structured trust-based governance to overcome the decision-making paralysis often seen in consensus-driven movements.

Contemporary Projects and Their Relationship to #OGB. Fediverse and #ActivityPub. Overview: The Fediverse is a decentralized network of federated platforms like Mastodon, powered by the ActivityPub protocol it is pushing user autonomy and grassroots control but has faced challenges around governance and moderation.
Comparison: The #OGB complements the Fediverse by providing governance structures for federated projects, addressing the ongoing issues of moderation and decision-making. The #OGB’s trust networks align with the decentralized ethos of the Fediverse, offering a scalable solution for community self-governance. Key Takeaway: The #OGB enhances the governance layer missing in many Fediverse projects, fostering resilience and collaboration across federated networks.

NGO-Led Open Source Initiatives. Overview: Many open-source projects are managed by NGOs, which often prioritize stability and funding over grassroots participation. This has led to criticism of centralized decision-making and “corporate capture.” Comparison: The #OGB resists NGO-style top-down management, instead prioritizing the principles: open data, open source, open process, and open standards. Unlike NGO-driven projects, the #OGB is inherently community-first, ensuring power remains with the users and contributors. Key Takeaway: The #OGB rejects the NGO-centric model, emphasizing trust-based grassroots governance to avoid co-option by external actors.

Lessons from Historical Failures. CouchSurfing’s Decline. Overview: CouchSurfing transitioned from a grassroots volunteer-driven project to a for-profit company, alienating its core community and undermining trust. Comparison: The #OGB guards against such shifts by embedding trust and open governance at its core, ensuring the project remains community-owned and operated. Key Takeaway: Trust-based governance prevents mission drift and maintains alignment with the community’s original values.

P2P Projects and Overengineering. Overview: Many P2P initiatives have failed due to technical complexity and a lack of user-friendly interfaces, alienating non-technical users. Comparison: The #OGB adheres to the #KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid), ensuring accessibility and ease of adoption without sacrificing functionality. Key Takeaway: Simplicity is essential for widespread adoption and long-term viability.

Key Differentiators of the #OGB Trust-Based Networks. Unlike purely consensus-driven or hierarchical models, the #OGB employs trust-based networks to enable efficient and inclusive decision-making at scale. The Framework. The #OGB is grounded in the principles, ensuring transparency, accountability, and openness across all aspects of the project. Focus on Digital Commons. The #OGB is designed to nurture digital commons, creating a space for grassroots innovation, collaboration, and governance that resists corporate capture. Composting the #TechShit, creating fertile ground for genuine social innovation.

Expected Outcomes. The #OGB aims to fill the governance gap left by historical and contemporary efforts, fostering a resilient, open, and trust-based framework for digital collaboration. By learning from the past and building on existing technologies, we seek to empower communities to reclaim the #openweb, bridging the gap between technology and grassroots activism.

The #OGB project faces significant challenges in implementing scalable trust-based governance systems. Key technical hurdles include:

Interoperability: Ensuring seamless integration with existing open protocols like #ActivityPub and the widening #openweb reboot.
Usability: Creating user-friendly interfaces to make complex governance processes accessible to non-technical people.
Resilience: Building systems resistant to malicious actors and spam within decentralized networks.

Are a few issues.

ecosystem

The #OGB project is rooted in a diverse ecosystem of grassroots organizations, decentralized communities, and open-source initiatives.

Ecosystem Description

  1. Grassroots Communities: Activist groups, independent media collectives, and community-driven initiatives seeking alternatives to hierarchical decision-making.
  2. FOSS Developers: Open-source software developers invested in decentralized tools, such as #ActivityPub, #Mastodon, and related protocols.
  3. NGOs and Advocacy Groups: Organizations interested in participatory governance and transparency tools for improving their operations.
  4. Tech Enthusiasts: People exploring ethical and sustainable technology beyond the centralized #dotcons paradigm.
  5. Academic and Research Institutions: Scholars studying governance, social movements, and decentralized technologies.

Engagement Strategies

  1. Collaborative Development: Open, participatory development processes underpinned by the philosophy (open data, source, process, and standards).
  2. Workshops and Webinars: Educating target audiences about trust-based governance and the project’s tools.
  3. Partnerships: Building alliances with aligned organizations, including community networks and FOSS projects.
  4. Documentation and Guides: Creating accessible materials to help communities adopt #OGB principles and tools.
  5. Pilot Projects: Collaborating with grassroots organizations to implement and refine governance systems, ensuring practical impact.

Promotion of Outcomes

  • Demonstration Projects: Showcasing successful case studies of #OGB governance in action.
  • Fediverse Integration: Leveraging federated platforms for dissemination and collaboration.
  • Open Events: Participating in conferences, hackathons, and public forums to share insights and foster adoption
GOVERNANCE-BODY_REV-March-2022.pdf
OGB-dev.png