Commitments about process, never about outcome
These standards describe how a representative works: what they disclose, what they publish, how they learn, and how they stay reachable. They say nothing whatsoever about which way to vote.
Ten standards of practice
Each standard states a principle, the practical commitment a member makes, and why it exists. Select a standard to read it in full.
Member commitment
“I vote according to my own judgement. I accept no instruction, bloc, or reward tied to how I vote.”
Why it matters
A membership body that could shift votes would become a governance actor in its own right. This standard is what keeps the Institute a profession rather than a faction.
Member commitment
“I publish my funding sources, affiliations, and material interests, and keep them current.”
Why it matters
Undisclosed interests are indistinguishable from having none. Publishing them lets delegators weight a rationale properly instead of speculating.
Member commitment
“I publish a written rationale for consequential votes, in plain language, within a stated timeframe.”
Why it matters
Rationales turn representation into something reviewable. They also make it possible for other DReps to learn from reasoning they disagree with.
Member commitment
“I keep an open contact channel and respond to reasonable delegator questions.”
Why it matters
Delegation is a relationship, not a transfer. Delegators need a route to ask a question before deciding whether to stay.
Member commitment
“I weigh evidence before allegiance, and I say plainly when the evidence is thin.”
Why it matters
Governance quality degrades when positions harden into teams. Naming uncertainty honestly is more useful than manufactured confidence.
Member commitment
“I complete ongoing education each year in the areas my mandate actually touches.”
Why it matters
Protocol parameters, treasury mechanics, and constitutional practice all move. Education keeps competence current rather than assumed.
Member commitment
“I argue hard against ideas and never against people. Disagreement is the work, not a failure of it.”
Why it matters
Adversarial scrutiny is how weak proposals get found. Hostility is how good contributors get driven out. The standard protects the first and rejects the second.
Member commitment
“I report periodically on my activity so delegators can decide whether to keep delegating to me.”
Why it matters
Periodic reporting gives delegators a real basis for redelegation - without any central body ranking or scoring representatives.
Member commitment
“When I get something wrong, I correct it publicly and explain what changed my mind.”
Why it matters
A culture that punishes correction produces representatives who defend errors. Visible correction is a sign of health, not weakness.
Member commitment
“Research, templates, and tooling I produce for the Institute stay openly licensed and reusable.”
Why it matters
Shared artefacts raise the baseline for every representative, including non-members and future DReps.
How standards are created
Slowly, publicly, and with the objections recorded alongside the outcome.
Proposed
Any member, or any member of the public, may propose a standard through the open feedback process. Proposals must state the practice problem, not the desired outcome of any vote.
Drafted
The Standards Council turns viable proposals into draft language with a principle, a member commitment, and a rationale. Drafts are published as they are written, not after.
Consulted
A minimum 30-day public comment window. Comments and the Council's responses are published together, including the ones that were rejected.
Adopted
The Membership Assembly adopts, amends, or returns the draft. Adopted standards carry a version number and an effective date.
How standards change
A standard that cannot be revised becomes dogma. Revision is designed in.
- Any standard may be amended or retired by the Membership Assembly.
- Amendments follow the same public comment window as new standards.
- No amendment may weaken or override the independence rule.
- Every change is recorded in the changelog with its author and its reason.
- Members are notified before an amendment takes effect, never after.
What standards can and cannot govern
The boundary is the whole design. Standards reach process and behaviour; they stop at judgement.
Standards can govern
- Disclosure of funding, employment, and material interests
- Publication and timeliness of written rationales
- Responsiveness to reasonable delegator questions
- Completion of continuing education
- Participation in peer review
- Public correction of published errors
- Conduct in debate and in Institute spaces
Standards can never govern
- Which way a member votes on any governance action
- Whether a member supports or opposes a proposal or proposer
- A member's political, economic, or ideological positions
- Which DReps a delegator should choose
- Any numerical rating of representative quality
- Membership of other organisations or communities
Version history
Every version of the framework stays published, including the ones we moved away from.
v0.1 Draft
CurrentFirst public draft of the ten standards. Published for community input; not yet binding on members.
v0.0.3
Working draftAdded Correction Culture and Open Public Goods after founding-member review. Merged two overlapping transparency drafts.
v0.0.1
Founding memorandumIndependence rule fixed as a non-amendable constraint before any other standard was written.
This draft is open for community input
You do not need to be a member to comment. Feedback and our responses are published together.