Governance overview

Chive uses a Wikipedia-style moderation model where the research community collaboratively manages the knowledge graph, authority records, and content policies. This decentralized approach ensures that no single entity controls the classification of scholarly work.

Governance philosophy

Chive's governance rests on three pillars:

Pillar	Description
Community-driven	Researchers propose and vote on changes
Expertise-weighted	Domain experts have greater influence in their fields
ATProto-native	Governance data lives in a dedicated PDS, ensuring portability

Key roles

Community members

Any authenticated user can:

• Propose new fields or changes to the knowledge graph
• Vote on pending proposals
• Tag preprints with user-generated tags
• Report content policy violations

Trusted editors

Appointed community members with demonstrated expertise:

• Review and approve routine proposals
• Moderate content and enforce policies
• Mentor new contributors
• Weighted votes (3.5x standard)

Authority editors

Library science professionals (MLIS or equivalent) who:

• Manage authority records
• Reconcile with external vocabularies (Wikidata, LCSH, VIAF)
• Approve authority record changes
• Highest vote weight (4.5x standard)

Governance committee

Elected body that:

• Sets overall policy direction
• Resolves disputes
• Appoints trusted and authority editors
• Manages the Governance PDS

Governance scope

What is governed

Area	Governance mechanism
Knowledge graph fields	Community proposals and voting
Authority records	Authority editor approval
Facet definitions	Proposal with lower threshold
Content policies	Governance committee decisions
Tag promotion	Two-stage nomination and vote

What is not governed

Area	Rationale
User content	Lives in user PDSes; users control their data
Preprint metadata	Entered by authors; Chive only indexes
Personal tags	User-generated; no approval needed
User identity	Managed by AT Protocol DIDs

The Governance PDS

All governance data lives in a dedicated Personal Data Server:

did:plc:chive-governance

This PDS stores:

• Authority records
• Facet definitions
• Organizational records
• Reconciliation history
• Approved proposals

By storing governance data in a PDS, it remains:

• Portable (can move to different hosts)
• Verifiable (cryptographically signed)
• ATProto-native (indexed by any compliant AppView)

Proposal lifecycle

┌──────────┐     ┌─────────────┐     ┌──────────┐     ┌───────────┐
│  Draft   │────►│  Discussion │────►│  Voting  │────►│  Outcome  │
│          │     │  (7 days)   │     │ (5 days) │     │           │
└──────────┘     └─────────────┘     └──────────┘     └───────────┘

1. Draft: Proposer creates and refines the proposal
2. Discussion: Community comments and suggests changes
3. Voting: Weighted votes tallied against thresholds
4. Outcome: Approved proposals are enacted; rejected ones archived

See Proposals for details.

Voting system

Not all votes are equal. Vote weight depends on:

Factor	Weight multiplier
Base (any authenticated user)	1.0x
Active contributor (10+ preprints/reviews)	1.5x
Domain expert (publications in field)	2.5x
Trusted editor	3.5x
Authority editor	4.5x

See Voting system for thresholds and quorum requirements.

Content moderation

Chive enforces community standards through:

1. User reports: Anyone can flag policy violations
2. Trusted editor review: Editors assess reports
3. Action: Warnings, content hiding, or escalation
4. Appeals: 14-day window for disputed decisions

See Moderation for policies and procedures.

Transparency

All governance actions are public:

• Proposals and voting records are visible to all
• Moderation decisions are logged (with privacy protections)
• Governance committee meeting summaries are published
• Annual transparency reports detail statistics

Governance documentation

Document	Description
Voting system	Thresholds, weights, and quorum
Proposals	Types, lifecycle, and requirements
Authority control	Managing authority records
Moderation	Content policies and enforcement
Governance PDS	Technical architecture
Organization	Non-profit structure and funding

Getting involved

Propose a change

1. Draft your proposal with clear rationale
2. Submit via the governance interface
3. Respond to community feedback during discussion
4. Await voting outcome

Become a trusted editor

1. Contribute actively (preprints, reviews, tags)
2. Demonstrate expertise in your field
3. Apply or be nominated
4. Governance committee review

Join the governance committee

1. Be an active trusted editor for 6+ months
2. Participate in governance discussions
3. Stand for election (annual cycle)
4. Serve 2-year terms

Next steps

• Voting system: Understand how decisions are made
• Proposals: Learn how to propose changes
• Knowledge graph: Understand what is governed