Governance model

The CommonGrants protocol requires a governance model to ensure its evolution is guided by a structured, transparent, and inclusive decision-making process. The governance model should balance early-stage innovation with long-term stability and adoption.

Decision

The governance model for CommonGrants will follow a two-phase approach:

1. Short-term: Pre v1.0 Next 1-2 years
   • HHS will steward the development of the protocol as part of the SimplerGrants initiative.
   • New features will be proposed through RFCs, with feedback gathered from key stakeholders.
   • Breaking changes may be introduced in minor versions as the protocol matures.
2. Long-term: Post v1.0 Next 2-3 years
   • Establish an independent governance body composed of organizations that have formally adopted the protocol.
   • Define a strategy for engaging all key stakeholders including in the management of the protocol, including:
     • Grantors
     • Grant seekers
     • Open source developers
   • Implement a formal process for reviewing and accepting community-proposed changes.
   • Define a structured release cycle for major and minor protocol updates that prioritize backwards compatibility.

Consequences

• Positive consequences
  • Early development enables rapid innovation and adoption for a concrete use case: Federal grants.
  • Long-term governance ensures stability and consensus-driven evolution.
  • Key stakeholders are actively involved in protocol management throughout the lifecycle.
• Negative consequences
  • Initial reliance on HHS may limit broader adoption until governance is decentralized.
  • Transitioning governance structures requires careful execution to maintain momentum.

Decision drivers

• Early adoption and innovation: The governance model should support rapid feature iteration in the early phase.
• Interoperability and stability: A long-term governance structure should prioritize stability and broad adoption.
• Stakeholder inclusion: The process must ensure input from grant-making organizations, grant seekers, and technology providers.

Options considered

1. Stewardship by HHS indefinitely
   • Pros: Centralized decision-making ensures alignment with federal priorities.
   • Cons: Limits engagement from non-federal stakeholders, slowing broader adoption.
2. Immediate formation of an independent governance body
   • Pros: Ensures early stakeholder input and shared ownership.
   • Cons: May slow initial development due to consensus-driven decision-making.
3. Phased transition from HHS stewardship to an independent body (chosen)
   • Pros: Balances early innovation with long-term stability.
   • Cons: Requires a clear transition plan to avoid governance gaps.