← Governance

Proposed Anti-Capture Amendments to the Foundation Charter

Status: Draft for Adam’s review. These are pre-ratification additions to the Charter; the Charter has not yet been legally constituted, so the immutable articles can still be modified. Once the Charter is ratified and the Foundation is legally constituted, these provisions become immutable alongside the articles they are added to.

Date: 2026-04-10

Motivation: Prevent capture of the trademark board (Foundation trustees) by any special interest after the Author relinquishes personal control (death, incapacity, or voluntary transition to the three-trustee structure). The existing Charter has strong protections against direct commercial-administrator capture, but has gaps against coordinated indirect capture, working-group isolation, and slow-motion board stacking.

Failure modes studied

These amendments are informed by documented governance failures in comparable organizations:

1. Project Veritas / James O’Keefe (2023)

What happened: The board removed the founder in February 2023. Whether this was legitimate governance (the board claimed financial malfeasance) or a coordinated coup (O’Keefe’s supporters claimed DeSantis-aligned operatives captured the board) depends on whose account you read. The structural lesson is the same either way: a coordinated group of board members who pre-align off-record can move to oust or redirect in weeks, presenting the community with a fait accompli.

Lesson for the Honest Foundation: The Constitution already protects the Author during his lifetime (Art IV §1). The gap is after the Author: the Board of Governors and the Foundation trustees need structural transparency requirements so that coordination cannot happen in darkness.

2. Rust Foundation trademark policy (2023)

What happened: A small trademark working group drafted a restrictive trademark policy without community involvement, published it with a 9-day comment window via a Google form, and triggered a community revolt. The Rust Foundation apologized and rewrote the policy. The failure was not board capture but working-group isolation: a small group with delegated authority made a consequential decision without the transparency that would have surfaced objections early.

Lesson for the Honest Foundation: Even with good board-level governance, delegated authority (working groups, committees, ad-hoc drafting groups) can make damaging decisions if there are no sunshine requirements. The external audit requirement catches this: an auditor reviewing the Foundation’s operations would flag a working group that produced a consequential policy without community notice.

3. AXELOS / PeopleCert (2021)

What happened: PeopleCert acquired AXELOS (the ITIL IP holder) for £380M, combining exam delivery (the commercial administrator role) with IP ownership (the foundation role). The community concern: “butchers testing their own meat.” Training organizations reported it became harder to operate, consumer choice was reduced, and exam quality declined.

Lesson for the Honest Foundation: The Charter already prohibits the Foundation from being merged with or acquired by any entity (Art VII §4). But the AXELOS case shows that the acquisition target was the IP-holding entity itself, not the project. The external audit requirement catches financial pressure on the Foundation to sell or merge: an auditor reviewing the Foundation’s finances would flag unsustainable operating costs that could create acquisition pressure.

4. Linux Foundation pay-to-play governance

What happened: Board seats correlate with membership tier. Platinum members ($500K+/year) get guaranteed board seats. This creates governance where the largest corporate sponsors have structural influence. The criticism is that this is governance-by-checkbook rather than governance-by-merit.

Lesson for the Honest Foundation: The Constitution Art VII §3 already prevents any single category from holding a majority of Board of Governors seats, and no single commercial licensee can hold more than one seat. But it does not prevent financial influence from operating within categories (e.g., a commercial licensee funding multiple “practitioner” candidates). The external audit and the anti-affiliation provisions address this.

Proposed additions to the Charter (pre-ratification)

Amendment 1: External Governance Audit (add to Article V as new Section 7)

Add to Article V (Operations) as a new immutable section:

Section 7 (immutable). External governance audit. The Foundation must commission an independent external governance audit at least once every three years, conducted by a qualified auditor who has no relationship with any trustee, any commercial licensee, any Board of Governors member, or the Author. The audit must cover:

1. Trustee independence verification. Confirm that each trustee meets the qualification criteria of Article III Section 5 at the time of the audit. Verify that the Independent Trustee has no undisclosed commercial interests. Verify that Interested Trustees’ disclosed interests are current and complete.
2. Recusal compliance. Review the minutes of all Foundation decisions during the audit period. Confirm that Interested Trustees recused from decisions affecting their disclosed interests. Flag any decisions where recusal should have occurred but did not.
3. Communication review. Review all formal and informal communications between trustees and between trustees and commercial licensees during the audit period, to the extent such communications are available. Flag any pattern of pre-decision coordination between Interested Trustees, or between any trustee and a commercial licensee, on matters that subsequently came before the Foundation for decision.
4. Financial independence verification. Review the Foundation’s financial records to confirm that the Foundation is not financially dependent on any single commercial licensee or donor. Flag any funding pattern that could create acquisition pressure or undue influence.
5. Delegation review. Review any working groups, committees, or ad-hoc drafting groups that operated under Foundation authority during the audit period. Confirm that delegated groups operated with appropriate community notice and comment periods before producing consequential policy recommendations.
6. Trustee selection review. For any trustee selected during the audit period, confirm that the selection process followed Article IV, that the selected trustee met the qualifications in Article III Section 5, and that the selection was not the result of a coordinated effort by parties with aligned commercial interests.

The auditor’s report is published in full on the Foundation’s website within 30 days of completion. No portion of the report may be redacted, withheld, or delayed except as required by applicable privacy law (and any such redaction must be disclosed with a statement of the legal basis). The trustees must respond publicly to each finding within 60 days of publication.

The external audit requirement is immutable. The Foundation may not suspend, defer, or skip an audit cycle for any reason. A Foundation that has not published an external governance audit report within the preceding 36 months is in violation of this Charter, and any commercial licensee may petition the designated arbiter (Appendix B) to compel the audit.

The cost of the audit is an operational expense of the Foundation, funded from general operating reserves. If the Foundation cannot fund the audit, the Board of Governors must fund it from project operating funds. If neither can fund it, any commercial licensee may fund the audit directly, provided the auditor is selected by the Independent Trustee (not by the funding licensee) to prevent the funder from influencing the audit scope or findings.

Amendment 2: Institutional Arbiter (modify Article IV Section 2 and Appendix B)

Replace Article IV Section 2 with:

Section 2 (immutable). After the founding period, if the remaining trustees cannot agree unanimously on a replacement within 180 days, the selection passes to the designated institutional arbiter. The initial designated institutional arbiter is named in Appendix B; it must be an institution (such as a law faculty’s alternative dispute resolution program, a national bar association’s arbitration panel, or an ombudsman office), not a named individual. The institutional arbiter selects the replacement trustee by applying the qualification criteria of Article III Section 5, interviewing candidates, and appointing the candidate the arbiter judges most qualified. The arbiter’s appointment is final and not subject to review by the remaining trustees.

The designated institutional arbiter cannot be changed from an institution to a named individual by any trustee action, Board of Governors action, or amendment procedure. The institution may be changed to a different institution by unanimous vote of all three trustees plus the Foundation’s confirmation that the new institution meets independence criteria comparable to the original. If the designated institution ceases to exist or declines to serve, the remaining trustees must unanimously designate a replacement institution within 90 days; failing that, the Board of Governors designates the replacement institution by 75% supermajority vote.

Amendment 3: Anti-Affiliation Rule (add to Article III as new Section 9)

Add to Article III (Trustees) as a new immutable section:

Section 9 (immutable). Anti-affiliation rule. No two trustees serving simultaneously may share any of the following relationships:

1. Current or recent (within five years) employment by the same organization
2. Current or recent (within five years) partnership, co-ownership, or co-investment in the same commercial entity
3. Current or recent (within five years) participation on the same board of directors, advisory board, or governance body of any organization
4. Family relationship (spouse, domestic partner, parent, child, sibling)
5. Current or recent (within five years) mentor-mentee, supervisor-subordinate, or academic advisor-advisee relationship

The anti-affiliation rule applies at the time of appointment and is verified by the external governance audit (Article V Section 7). A trustee who acquires an affiliating relationship with another serving trustee after appointment must disclose the relationship within 30 days. If the relationship cannot be dissolved, one of the two affiliated trustees must resign within 90 days; if neither resigns, the Independent Trustee (if not one of the affiliated pair) decides which trustee must resign. If the Independent Trustee is one of the affiliated pair, the designated institutional arbiter decides.

The purpose of this rule is to prevent slow-motion board stacking through aligned appointments. Trustees with shared affiliations do not need to explicitly coordinate; their interests align naturally. The anti-affiliation rule makes natural alignment structurally impossible by ensuring that no two trustees share a professional, institutional, or personal relationship close enough to create implicit coordination.

Amendment 4: Board of Governors Delayed Activation (add to Constitution Article VII as new Section 6)

Add to Honest Constitution Article VII (Succession) as a new immutable section:

Section 6 (immutable). Delayed activation of self-restructuring amendments. Any amendment to the Board of Governors’ composition (number of seats, allocation of seats between categories, selection mechanism for seats, term lengths, or voting procedures) that is adopted through the Article VIII amendment procedure does not take effect until the second full Board term following the term in which the amendment was adopted. Board members serving at the time of adoption continue to serve their current terms under the pre-amendment rules. The amendment activates only when the second full post-adoption Board term begins.

The purpose of this provision is to prevent a sitting Board from restructuring itself to entrench its own coalition. A coalition that holds 75% of the Board today can pass an amendment (meeting the Article VIII supermajority threshold), but the amendment does not benefit the coalition’s current members; it benefits whoever holds seats two terms from now, which may be entirely different people. This removes the incentive for self-serving restructuring while preserving the Board’s ability to improve its own governance for future cohorts.

The delayed-activation requirement is immutable. No emergency amendment, no expedited procedure, and no Foundation waiver can accelerate the activation of a self-restructuring amendment.

Amendment 5: Sunshine Provisions (add to Article V as new Section 8)

Add to Article V (Operations) as a new immutable section:

Section 8 (immutable). Sunshine provisions. The Foundation operates under the following transparency requirements:

1. Public notice of all decisions. Every decision taken by the Foundation (including trustee votes, trademark licensing decisions, enforcement actions, appeals outcomes, trustee appointments, and operational decisions) must be published on the Foundation’s website within 14 days of the decision, with the vote recorded by trustee name (except where a trustee has recused, in which case the recusal is recorded by name and the reason for recusal is stated).
2. Public notice of all meetings. Every formal meeting of the trustees must be announced on the Foundation’s website at least 14 days in advance, with the agenda published. Minutes must be published within 30 days of the meeting.
3. No binding pre-meeting agreements. Any agreement reached between trustees outside of a formally convened and publicly noticed meeting is non-binding and may not be cited as precedent or as a commitment in any subsequent formal meeting. Trustees may discuss Foundation business informally, but informal discussions cannot produce binding commitments. This provision exists to prevent the O’Keefe/Project Veritas failure mode where board members pre-aligned off-record and then presented a fait accompli at the formal meeting.
4. Public comment period for consequential decisions. Any decision that affects trademark licensing terms, certification standards, methodology version adoption, or trustee composition must be published as a proposed decision at least 60 days before the formal vote, with a public comment period. The trustees must publish a written response to substantive public comments before voting. This provision exists to prevent the Rust Foundation failure mode where a consequential policy was drafted in isolation and published with an inadequate comment window.
5. Whistleblower protection. Any person (trustee, staff, commercial licensee employee, contributor, or member of the public) who reports a suspected governance violation to the designated institutional arbiter or to the external governance auditor is protected from retaliation by the Foundation, by any trustee, or by any commercial licensee. Retaliation against a whistleblower is itself a breach of fiduciary duty (for trustees) or a trademark license violation (for commercial licensees). The whistleblower’s identity is protected from disclosure unless the whistleblower consents or a court orders disclosure.

The sunshine provisions are immutable. The Foundation may not suspend, narrow, or create exceptions to these provisions for any reason, including confidentiality of commercial negotiations, urgency of a decision, or sensitivity of a personnel matter. If a matter requires confidentiality under applicable law (e.g., privacy law, employment law), the decision itself is still published, with the legally-required portions redacted and the legal basis for redaction stated.

How these five amendments interact

The amendments form a layered defense:

Next steps

1. Adam reviews these five amendments and decides which to accept, modify, or reject
2. Accepted amendments are integrated into the Charter and Constitution drafts at the appropriate article locations
3. The governance documents are finalized with the anti-capture amendments in place before the Foundation is legally constituted, so the amendments enter the immutable articles at ratification
4. The external governance auditor and the designated institutional arbiter are identified and named in the appendices before ratification

These amendments add approximately 2,000 words to the governance documents total. They are load-bearing: without them, the Foundation is vulnerable to the specific failure modes documented above. With them, the Foundation has the strongest anti-capture governance of any open-source or open-methodology foundation I am aware of.