Taxonomy / Polycentric proceduralism / Community-Written governance code

Community-Written governance code

Each online community authors its own procedures, such as votes, juries, term limits, and appeal steps, as executable policy attached to actions on the platform, and a shared runtime executes whatever each community wrote. The platform supplies the engine and the hooks but takes no position on the rules, so neighboring communities on the same substrate can run incompatible constitutions. The ambition is a portable, composable governance layer, with components that move from one context to another, rather than a single set of platform-wide rules.

The method, against Polycentric proceduralism

Scroll the diagram sideways to see all of it.

Concept Analysis: Theoretical Foundations

Each concept is read twice: whether the approach carries it, and whether the approach's own sources claim it. A concept that is absent and was never claimed is a gap in the field rather than a failure of the work, and is marked out of scope.

Many centers under shared meta-rules

PartialClaimed · partial

Definition · Michael Polanyi, The Logic of Liberty (1951)

Many independent decision centers, each acting on its own — but under one common framework of rules that all of them acknowledge. The shared framework is what makes it a system rather than a scatter.

Analysis

Both halves come closer here than anywhere else in the cell. Each community authors its own executable procedures and those procedures actually govern its actions, and every community runs on the same engine, whose primitives define what counts as an action, a vote or an appeal; Modular Politics then argues for the common layer directly, proposing an open standard for networked governance. What the centers share is nonetheless a substrate rather than meta-rules: the runtime constrains the form of a policy, not the limits of what a policy may do to a member, and the standard that would carry more than form is a call.

Overlapping jurisdiction

AbsentNot claimed · out of scope

Definition · Vincent Ostrom, Tiebout & Warren (1961)

The centers' authority overlaps on purpose — the same case can fall under more than one — and the friction between them is treated as a feature, worked out through interaction rather than prevented by a clean division of turf.

Analysis

What passes between the centers is components and data, not authority: a module that travels from one community to another is still applied by that community to its own cases. Vincent Ostrom's condition is that the same case falls under more than one center and the friction between them is worked out through interaction, and neither paper describes an act that two communities' policies both govern. The appeal steps PolicyKit supports run inside a single community's own procedure.

Subsidiarity and nesting

PartialNot claimed

Definition · Johannes Althusius (1603); Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons (1990)

Decisions are made at the most local level capable of making them, and local units nest inside larger ones that handle what the local level cannot. Authority is layered — neither centralized nor flatly fragmented.

Analysis

Authority sits at the local level and is exercised there: a community sets its own votes, juries and term limits instead of receiving them from the platform, which is subsidiarity's direction of travel and further than the rest of this cell gets. The nesting is what is absent. Neither paper states which decisions belong to the community and which to the layer above it, and nothing takes up a matter a community cannot settle, a dispute with another community above all. Drawing on Institutional Analysis and Development while omitting nested enterprises is a pointed gap.

Concept Analysis: Newly Introduced

Institutions as portable code

Added

The tradition describes centers and frameworks that people enact. Here a governance procedure is an executable object: it runs itself against platform actions with no officer to enforce it, and it can be copied out of one community and adopted by another. An institution becomes a piece of software that a community can install, edit and hand on, which is a mode of institutional transmission Polanyi and Ostrom have no account of.

Papers

No method has been built here yet — this approach rests entirely on what follows.