IPFS is too closely tied to Protocol Labs; this is a proposal for an independent entity to serve as its steward. We expect the entity to evolve over time and to ramp up the degree to which it is community-led. This document focuses on the initial stage during which it will exist under provisional governance in order to establish it on solid ground.
(Strike these off as they get addressed.)
MVP
Maybe in future, to answer in year 1
While the entity is ramped up, the initial tooling set up, the community organized, the entity needs governance. That governance will be arranged as follows.
When the entity launches, the ED will be given a roadmap to develop community governance for the entity and the tooling to support it, as well as the means to sustain the entity financially. The expectation is that the ED will apply the resources of the entity (team, funds) to act on the agreed-upon roadmap, and apprise the BB of their progress on a monthly basis. Because reality is often tricky, the ED is not expected to stick blindly to the roadmap but rather to display agility in bringing it to life. The BB evaluates the ED's progress. It is an oversight body that must not micromanage the ED's work, but it does hold the right to replace the ED if there is cause to find them lacking in their execution.
The end state of the roadmap leads to a community governance system. Under community governance, the community will elect its own Board and that Board will then name an ED.
If we set it up as a cooperative (as per Ecosystem Layer), we could use ipfs.coop
.
Staff cost: ~$1m/y OpEx: ??
W3C style:
Potential members (get LOIs):
PL contribution decreases over time Staked FIL that yields over time