Documentation

Notes on how to make a CROW Card, what we mean by terms and categories, definitions for potential values, and so on. Choosing where to build your community's online space? See Choosing a platform.

Getting started

The MAKE feature assumes you've already set up (or at least selected) a system for your community to sit within. If you haven't, have a look at Choosing a platform: an overview of some common systems communities use, alongside what we think is useful to know (because it can shape how much autonomy or power your community has!): whether the software is open source, whether you can host an instance of it yourself, what structural model it follows, and what costs you should expect.

By community, we take a pretty broad view: a group that engages in and enforces some kind of collective decision-making, has a shared (digital) space, has boundaries for membership, and some kind of shared purpose. However, this also excludes some informal or cultural communities we often colloquially refer to, e.g., a distinct subset of users on Bluesky. This is not to say those groups can't use the CROW Card Maker! We presume that there just wouldn't be a clear place to post the Card itself, nor clear mechanisms to enforce the values and practices that are stated on it.

Examples.

A Reddit subreddit qualifies: moderators set rules, and the community experiences them. A Facebook Group qualifies too, but note that Facebook can override or dissolve it unilaterally, which limits sovereignty. Likewise, Bonfire instances and other groups on community-oriented platform software generally count as communities (and in the case of Bonfire, some features may even result in some nested communities).

A TikTok account or just a social media feed does not qualify: there is no community governance surface, only an audience and an algorithm.

Some emergent systems also create some interesting new cases of online community: labeling services like Blacksky (built on AT Protocol) govern a normative filter, deciding whose content is visible to people who opt in, which is a real form of collective decision-making (but not for a shared venue in the traditional sense).

Getting started is simple. You can create a new Card by going to MAKE and entering some basic information about your community:

name
community type - the kind of group, e.g. a workplace, a neighborhood, a support group. This shapes what's suggested to you.
format - the kind of online space, e.g. a chat group or a forum. This suggests which modules you'll want to fill out. You can change both the format and the module selection.
size and link
a short description: its purpose and its culture
keywords - we recommend giving at least three
where you'd like your community to be on three scales (from 1 to 7): how participatory, transparent and hierarchical (see the three scales). Each shows its trade-offs. These are only shown publicly if you share your full Card.
values - up to five; some are suggested, from your community type, format, description and keywords, and where you'd like to be

Then pick the modules your Card will cover (Infrastructure, Membership, Rules, Processes, Federation, or your own), and fill them in at your own pace.

Important!

When you create a new Card, the app will give you an id and secret key. Save it somewhere! You will only get this once and you can use it to edit/update your Card. You can also choose to have this browser remember your Card; Forget in the editor clears it from the device.

You may want to think about how your CROW Card will be filled out or updated. For example, some communities may want to convene town halls to have a participatory discussion about their governance practices, using the CROW Card app as an occasion to reflect, iterate, and document. Others might be simply run by one person who fills it out unilaterally. It will depend on your community (however, we do encourage using it as an excuse to convene)!

We do run workshops to help communities fill out the CROW Card. Reach out!

Using the editor

A few things that work the same way throughout the CROW Card Maker:

Saving is automatic. Your answers save as you go; the status in the sidebar says when they last did. Save saves right away.
Modules can be switched on and off under Basics → Modules. Switching one off hides it, but keeps what you've filled in, in case you switch it back on.
Suggested and See also chips mark values and approaches that may suit your community, from what you said in Basics: its community type, format, description and keywords, where you'd like to be on the three scales, its size, and the values you selected. Each says why, including anything that counts against it. At most five values are Suggested. A few options say why they're generally not a fit for groups like yours. Nothing is ever selected for you.
More like this / Try something new. When you select an approach or a value, a row under your choices offers similar ones, and a few different ones to consider; click one to add it.
Suggestions appear at the top of a module when something you entered elsewhere affects it, e.g. choosing a federated platform suggests the Federation module. If one appears out of sight, a small "New suggestion" notice points to it.
Pre-filling. Choosing a platform you know fills in its details and the costs that are always or never paid on that kind of platform. Costs that are only sometimes paid are left for you to answer, with what's usual shown beside each as a guide. Change anything that's different for you.
Notes on what you choose. Your choices show as tags; click one to add a note about how it works in your community. Tags with a note get a small asterisk.
Changing your mind is safe. If you unselect something, change a Yes to a No, or switch a field to another kind, what you'd entered for it is set aside rather than lost: switch back, even another day, and it's there again. Set-aside answers aren't part of your Card or its exports.
Steps. Conflict management and Federation's response ladder are put in order by dragging: approaches on the same step happen in parallel. In conflict management you can also mark your preferred (primary) ways.
Your community structure (how decisions get made) is one list: you set it in Membership, and adjust it, with notes, for changing the rules, maintenance and moderation in Processes.
Laws to know. Under Infrastructure → Locations, you can open a page of landmark laws for where your servers, members and admins are, and save it as a PDF. It's an informational starting point, not legal advice.
Your own modules. Add a module for anything the built-in ones don't cover, with fields for written answers, checkboxes, radio buttons, or a scale (1–5, 1–7 or 0–10).
Publish. On the Export page, publish your Card at a link to share, choosing how much it shows (Minimal, Foggy, Misty or Full). Each publish is a new version; your draft stays private until you publish changes. You can unpublish at any time.
Export. Download your Card as raw data (JSON) or as documentation (Markdown). Only Basics and the modules you use are included.
Reset clears the modules you choose, or starts the whole Card over (it keeps its id and secret).

Publishing

On the Export page you can publish your Card at a link to share. Your Card stays a private draft: readers see the version you published, until you publish your edits as a new version. You choose how much readers see, and who can find it, and you can change either at any time without publishing again.

How much readers see

View	What readers see	Can be used as a starting point
Minimal	The basics: who you are, your platform, how people join, how many rules you have, and the three scales.	No
Foggy	Minimal, plus how many rules you chose of each type (not the rules themselves), where your servers, members and admins are, the kinds of other tools you use (not which), and your federation approach: whether you share a block list, and whether you bridge to other networks.	Yes
Misty	Most of your card, without the notes on how you use things: infrastructure, ways of joining, rules, decision-making, conflict steps and federation.	Yes
Full	Everything, with your notes, your own modules, and downloads.	Yes

Part by part:

Part of the Card	Minimal	Foggy	Misty	Full
Format, size, keywords and values	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Community type	–	–	Yes	Yes
Purpose	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Culture	–	–	Yes	Yes
Where they’d like to be on the scales	–	–	–	Yes
Platform and software	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Protocol, open source, self-hosted	–	–	Yes	Yes
Costs	–	–	Yes	Yes
Other tools	–	–	Yes	Yes
Kinds of other tools	–	Yes	–	–
Locations	–	Yes	Yes	Yes
How people join	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Ways of joining	–	–	Yes	Yes
Notes on ways of joining	–	–	–	Yes
About being closed	–	–	Yes	Yes
Membership’s note on joining	–	–	–	Yes
Decision-making approaches	–	–	Yes	Yes
Notes on decision-making approaches	–	–	–	Yes
Membership’s note on how it’s organized	–	–	–	Yes
How many rules	Yes	–	–	–
Rules counted by type	–	Yes	–	–
Rules	–	–	Yes	Yes
Conflict management steps	–	–	Yes	Yes
Notes on processes	–	–	–	Yes
Communication channels	–	–	Yes	Yes
Federation approach, block list and bridging (yes / no)	–	Yes	Yes	Yes
Response ladder	–	–	Yes	Yes
Notes on federation	–	–	–	Yes
Shared lists, tools, how rules shape federation, bridged protocols	–	–	–	Yes
Custom modules	–	–	–	Yes
Governance scales	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Downloads	–	–	–	Yes
Can be used as a starting point	–	Yes	Yes	Yes

What a view leaves out isn't just hidden: it isn't sent to readers at all. Earlier versions are shown in the same view.

Who can find it

Unlisted: only people you give the link to can open it.
Listed: it will also appear in the Library, for anyone to find. The Library is coming soon: until then, listed Cards can also only be opened by link.

Contact and credit

Publishing needs a contact email. Only the CROW team sees it, to contact you about your Card; it's never shown publicly. Your name and organization are optional, and shown on the published Card only if you select them.

Versions and unpublishing

Each time you publish your edits, the Card gets a new version (v1, v2, …), with an optional note on what changed. Readers can look back at earlier versions.
Unpublish takes the Card down: its link stops working. Your published versions are kept privately, so publishing again carries on from them.
Unpublish and delete history also deletes every published version, so publishing again starts at v1.

Reading a published Card

Above the Card: its version, when it was published, which view it's shown in (with what that view shares in the "i"), any credit, and where it was forked from. Fork this card and the downloads are there too, when the view allows them.
The top: the community's name (a link to it, when given), its community type, format and size, and where it is (hover a place to see whether it's where the servers, members or admins are).
Modules each sit in a light outline. Whatever wasn't filled in is left out.
Notes sit behind a small asterisk: hover it, tab to it or tap it to read the note. Long notes are cut short; the whole note is in the raw data download.
Other things with more to say show it the same way, in a bubble, and turn orange when you point at them: the joining icons, tools, protocols and the scales.
The three scales are drawn as icons with a column of squares, filled to what the community's choices add up to. In the Full view, the square outlined in dots is where the community would like to be. See the three scales.
A star marks a primary step in conflict management.

Coming soon

We are actively working on improving the experience of using the CROW Card Maker. This includes:

Browsing published Cards in the Library.
A visual summary card to download and share.
Automating the filling in of fields so that folks don't need to type so much! For example, if you enter your link, ideally our app should check out the link and try to fill in as many later fields as possible (e.g., community name, size), or read your existing rules and fill in the Rules module.
Recommendations that learn from published Cards.
A fuller, reviewed list of laws to know for each place.
Integrating CROW Cards into existing platform software as extensions.

How to contribute

You can explore more at our Git repo: see in particular TODO.md for the roadmap and the tasks being worked on, and the README for setting up and how to contribute. Let us know if a platform, tool or covenant should be added to the lists below.

Reference

Definitions and values for the fields of a Card, in the order the editor's modules ask about them.

Communities

Three answers in Basics describe what a community is: what kind of group it is (its community type), the kind of online space it uses (its format), and how big it is (its size). The community type shapes which values and approaches are suggested; the format suggests which modules to fill in, and groups the platforms in Choosing a platform; the size also counts towards suggested approaches.

Community types

Type	Description
Personal space	Run by one person, for themselves and whoever they let in.
Family	Relatives keeping in touch and organizing family life.
Friends	A group of friends, or friends of friends.
Neighborhood / local	People who live in the same place.
Civic / public	Public life: residents, citizens, local government.
Workplace / organization	People who work together in one organization.
Professional / industry	People in the same field, across organizations.
Classroom / education	Learners and teachers in a course or school.
Movement / activism	People organizing for a cause or for change.
Hobby / interest / fandom	People who share an interest.
Open source / peer production	People making something together in the open.
Faith / spiritual	A religious or spiritual community.
Research / science	Researchers working together.
Citizen science	Members of the public collecting, classifying or analyzing data for a research project. Often run by scientists or an institution, but also by communities and collectives.
General-purpose social space	A public space for many kinds of people, not one group: general feeds and servers.
Support / peer support	People supporting each other through something.
Cooperative / collective	Owned and run by its members.
Club / association	A membership organization with formal members.
Identity / cultural community	People who share an identity or culture.
Creator and audience	A community around a creator or a small team.
DAO / web3 project	An organization governed on a blockchain.

Formats

Format	Description
Chat Group	Real-time or near-real-time conversation among members, typically organized into channels or rooms.
Discussion Forum	Asynchronous threaded discussion, often with voting or ranking of posts.
Listserv / Email	Email-based group communication; each list server independently hosted.
Social Network / Media	Profile-based social communication, often with public posts and follow relationships.
Peer Production	Collaborative creation of shared artifacts (e.g., wikis, documentation, encyclopedias).
Team	Communication platforms for coordinating a team or project, e.g. a team chat or shared workspace.

Sizes

Size	Description
Small	Under ~50 members
Medium	~50 to a few hundred members
Large	A few hundred to a few thousand members
Very large	Thousands or more members

Values

Communities select up to five values that describe what they prioritize. Values you select count towards the approaches marked Suggested throughout the rest of the Card, with the reasons. The values are from the CommunityRule project by Metagov; we grouped them into tabs and reworded a few descriptions.

The groups (tabs)

Group	Description
Goals & causes	What the community works toward, or stands for in the wider world.
How we organize	How the community is structured, and how power and decisions are shared.
How we treat each other	The culture between members: how people treat and look out for each other.
Justice & inclusion	Fairness, access and belonging, especially for people who are often left out.
Practices	Things the community does, and makes time for.
Widely shared	Values most good-faith communities hold. Choose them if they're central to who you are.

The values

Value	Meaning
Accessibility	We design spaces and tools that everyone can use regardless of ability or background. This may mean we provide alt-text for images, wheelchair ramps for events, and use plain language in documents. There may be a tension with goals like aesthetics and security (Simple design vs flashy easy access vs strict gates). Example of inconsistency: Hosting events in venues that are physically inaccessible to wheelchair users or publishing video content without captions which excludes the deaf community.
Accountability	Members accept responsibility for their actions and their impact on the community. This may mean we publish error logs and hold retrospective meetings to own our mistakes without shifting blame. There may be a tension with goals like psychological safety (Blame-free culture vs owning mistakes). Example of inconsistency: Leaders refusing to accept responsibility for failures and instead blaming external factors or junior team members for the lack of success.
Adaptability	The group remains flexible and willing to change strategies when circumstances shift. This may mean we pivot strategies quarterly based on feedback rather than sticking to a rigid 5-year plan. There may be a tension with goals like consistency (Changing course vs staying the path). Example of inconsistency: Persisting with a strategy that evidence shows is failing or penalizing members who suggest necessary changes based on new data.
Agency	Every individual possesses the power and capacity to act on their own behalf. This may mean Members choose their own tasks and define their own working hours. There may be a tension with goals like alignment (Doing what you want vs pulling together). Example of inconsistency: Managers micromanaging details that should be up to the individual or requiring approval for minor decisions that slows down work unnecessarily.
Altruism	We act out of a genuine concern for the well-being of others without expecting reward. This may mean we offer services for free or pay-what-you-can, prioritizing need over ability to pay. There may be a tension with goals like sustainability (Giving it all away vs keeping the lights on). Example of inconsistency: Only offering assistance when it provides a public relations benefit or expecting recipients of aid to perform public gratitude.
Anti-oppression	We actively oppose all forms of systemic discrimination and hierarchy. This may mean we have a dedicated diversity officer and mandatory bias training. There may be a tension with goals like comfort (Challenging norms is uncomfortable). Example of inconsistency: Dismissing concerns about bias as irrelevant politics or refusing to examine how organizational structures replicate systemic inequalities.
Autonomy	The group maintains independence from external control by governments or corporations. This may mean we refuse funding that comes with strings attached or veto power. There may be a tension with goals like coordination (Independence vs standardization). Example of inconsistency: Accepting funding that comes with strings attached such as donor veto power or allowing external partners to dictate internal strategy.
Capacity Building	We focus on teaching skills so that members become stronger and more capable over time. This may mean we dedicate 20% of the budget to training and mentorship programs. There may be a tension with goals like efficiency (Training takes time away from doing). Example of inconsistency: Cutting the training budget immediately when funds are tight or expecting junior members to perform without providing any mentorship.
Collaboration	We work together to solve problems rather than competing against one another. This may mean we default to 'Multi-player mode' on documents and credit all contributors. There may be a tension with goals like speed (Group work is slower than solo work). Example of inconsistency: Individuals hoarding information to make themselves indispensable or taking sole credit for work that was the result of a team effort.
Common Ownership	Resources and assets are owned collectively by the members rather than by private investors. This may mean Assets are held in a trust or cooperative structure where every member has a share. There may be a tension with goals like investment speed (Harder to raise VC capital). Example of inconsistency: Structuring the organization so that a small group of founders retains all voting power and profits despite claims of being a collective.
Community Care	We prioritize the physical and mental health of our members above productivity. This may mean we start meetings with check-ins and fund mental health stipends. There may be a tension with goals like productivity (Rest takes time away from output). Example of inconsistency: Praising individuals for working while sick or scheduling mandatory meetings during times that are ostensibly reserved for rest and recovery.
Conflict Resolution	We address disagreements openly and constructively to find a path forward. This may mean we have a standing mediation committee and clear grievance forms. There may be a tension with goals like harmony (Addressing conflict feels disruptive). Example of inconsistency: Ignoring interpersonal disputes in the hope they will disappear or labeling members who raise valid concerns as troublemakers to silence them.
Consent	Participation and interactions are always voluntary and based on clear permission. This may mean we use 'opt-in' by default for all communications and initiatives. There may be a tension with goals like speed (Asking everyone takes time). Example of inconsistency: Automatically subscribing members to lists without asking or pressuring individuals to take on tasks they have already explicitly declined.
Consensus	We strive to make decisions that everyone can agree to or at least live with. This may mean we do not move forward with a proposal until all blocking concerns are resolved. There may be a tension with goals like action and speed (Everyone agreeing takes forever). Example of inconsistency: Pushing a decision forward despite unresolved blocking concerns or using social pressure to force dissenters to conform to the majority.
Constructive Feedback	Criticism is offered kindly to help improve the work rather than to tear people down. This may mean we use the 'Praise-Improve-Praise' sandwich and focus on the work, not the person. There may be a tension with goals like politeness (Honesty can hurt feelings). Example of inconsistency: Delivering harsh criticism without offering actionable advice for improvement or attacking a person's character rather than their work.
Cooperation	We believe working together produces better results than working in isolation. This may mean we actively partner with similar organizations instead of competing for market share. There may be a tension with goals like competition (Sharing the pie vs taking the pie). Example of inconsistency: Viewing similar organizations as threats to be destroyed rather than partners or refusing to share resources that could help the broader ecosystem.
Copyleft	We license our work so that anything built from it stays free and open for everyone. This may mean we release work under share-alike licenses (e.g., GPL, AGPL, CC BY-SA) and ask that changes are shared back. There may be a tension with goals like adoption (Share-alike terms put off some users and companies). Example of inconsistency: Releasing modifications to open projects under restrictive licenses that prevent the community from benefiting from the improvements.
Decentralization	Power is distributed across a network rather than concentrated in a central authority. This may mean Decision-making authority is pushed to the edges no central HQ exists. There may be a tension with goals like efficiency and cohesion (Herding cats). Example of inconsistency: Concentrating all critical decision-making power in a single founder or small inner circle while claiming to be a flat organization.
Direct Action	We take steps to solve problems ourselves instead of waiting for authorities to act. This may mean we organize, show up, and act together when something needs doing. There may be a tension with goals like caution and legitimacy (Acting now vs going through official channels). Example of inconsistency: Forming a committee to study a problem endlessly instead of taking immediate steps to address the urgent needs of the community.
Diversity	We value a wide range of perspectives and backgrounds within our membership. This may mean we strictly enforce quotas or targets for representation in leadership. There may be a tension with goals like homophily and ease (It's easier to work with people like you). Example of inconsistency: Hiring primarily for culture fit which results in a homogenous team or having a leadership team that lacks representation from marginalized groups.
Documentation	We record our processes clearly so that others can learn from and repeat our work. This may mean decisions, guides, and how-tos are written down where members can find them. There may be a tension with goals like speed (Writing it down takes time). Example of inconsistency: Relying on oral tradition where only long-time members understand the systems or refusing to write down processes because it takes too much time.
Education	We are committed to the continuous learning and growth of all members. This may mean we publish open curriculums and host free workshops for the public. There may be a tension with goals like action (Learning vs Doing). Example of inconsistency: Treating questions from newcomers as annoyances or creating an environment where members are afraid to admit they do not know something.
Empathy	We strive to understand and share the feelings of others in our community. This may mean we prioritize user research and listening tours before building solutions. There may be a tension with goals like objectivity (Feeling with users vs analyzing data). Example of inconsistency: Dismissing user feedback that conflicts with internal assumptions or prioritizing data metrics over the actual lived experience of people.
Empowerment	We give members the authority and resources to take charge of their own work. This may mean we provide resources and authority to those closest to the problem. There may be a tension with goals like control (Letting go means risking mistakes). Example of inconsistency: Delegating responsibility without giving the corresponding authority to make decisions or second-guessing every choice made by the team.
Equity	We distribute resources based on need to ensure fair outcomes for everyone. This may mean we use sliding scale pricing and offer scholarships to level the playing field. There may be a tension with goals like equality (Different treatment vs same treatment). Example of inconsistency: Treating everyone exactly the same despite different starting points or refusing to accommodate specific needs under the guise of fairness.
Experimentation	We encourage trying new things and learning from failure rather than sticking to the safe path. This may mean we celebrate 'smart failures' as learning opportunities. There may be a tension with Reliability (New things break). Example of inconsistency: Punishing members for experiments that do not succeed or requiring guaranteed success before approving any new initiative.
Fairness	We apply rules and distribute resources in a just and impartial manner. This may mean we use transparent salary bands and objective criteria for promotions. There may be a tension with goals like favoritism (Treating everyone same vs helping friends). Example of inconsistency: Creating special rules for friends of the leadership or applying policies inconsistently depending on who is involved.
Fair Remuneration	People are paid fairly for the work they do for the community. This may mean paid roles get a living wage, and unpaid work is recognized and kept within reason. There may be a tension with goals like low costs and a volunteer spirit (Paying people vs keeping costs down). Example of inconsistency: Expecting members to work for exposure or passion instead of paying a living wage for their labor.
Flexibility	We accommodate the different needs and schedules of our members. This may mean we allow remote work and asynchronous schedules. There may be a tension with goals like predictability (Asynch work makes scheduling hard). Example of inconsistency: Penalizing members for using flexible work arrangements or judging commitment based on the number of hours physically present in the office.
Forkability	Anyone can take the work in a new direction if they disagree with where it's going. This may mean our code, content, and data can be copied and adapted, and leaving to start anew is respected. There may be a tension with goals like unity (Easy exits can split the community). Example of inconsistency: Legally threatening or socially shunning a group that decides to take the project in a different direction due to disagreements.
Freedom	We protect the liberty of individuals to express themselves and act as they choose. This may mean we release our work under copyleft licenses. There may be a tension with goals like security (Total freedom includes freedom to harm). Example of inconsistency: Censoring speech that is critical of the leadership or implementing surveillance tools to monitor member activity.
Freedom of Information	Information is a public good that should be freely available. This may mean we keep our knowledge, research, and records open, not behind paywalls or logins. There may be a tension with goals like privacy and income (Open by default vs protecting people and funding). Example of inconsistency: Locking important organizational knowledge behind paywalls or restricting access to documents based on arbitrary hierarchy.
Generosity	We give freely of our time and resources to support the collective goal. This may mean we share our surplus resources with aligned groups in need. There may be a tension with goals like self-preservation (Giving until it hurts). Example of inconsistency: Hoarding a surplus of resources while allied groups are struggling to survive or viewing every interaction as a transaction to be maximized.
Harm Reduction	We focus on lowering the harm of risky situations rather than demanding they never happen. This may mean we meet people where they are, without judgment, and offer practical ways to stay safer. There may be a tension with goals like strict rules (Pragmatism vs zero tolerance). Example of inconsistency: Insisting on abstinence-only approaches to risk or refusing to provide safety equipment because it might encourage risky behavior.
Holism	We consider the whole person and the whole system, not just isolated parts. This may mean we account for members' lives outside the community, and for how one change affects everything else. There may be a tension with goals like focus and speed (Seeing everything vs getting one thing done). Example of inconsistency: Ignoring the personal context of a member and treating them solely as a unit of production or optimizing one department at the expense of others.
Holacracy	We organize around roles and circles rather than top-down managers. This may mean we use circles and roles instead of managers and job titles. There may be a tension with goals like clarity (Roles can be confusing compared to titles). Example of inconsistency: Reintroducing hidden hierarchies where influence is based on social capital rather than clear roles or ignoring governance processes.
Honesty	We tell the truth even when it is difficult or uncomfortable. This may mean we refuse to spin bad news and admit when we don't know the answer. There may be a tension with goals like diplomacy (Blunt truth vs tact). Example of inconsistency: Hiding bad news from the membership to protect morale or giving vague non-answers when asked direct questions about challenges.
Horizontalism	We organize as equals, without bosses or top-down management. This may mean no one has permanent authority over others, and roles rotate or are shared. There may be a tension with goals like speed and clarity (Everyone leading vs someone deciding). Example of inconsistency: Creating informal power structures where a shadow board makes the real decisions outside of the collective process.
Humility	We recognize that we do not have all the answers and are open to learning from others. This may mean Leaders eat last and credit the team for successes. There may be a tension with goals like marketing (Selling yourself vs being modest). Example of inconsistency: Leaders taking credit for the team's success while blaming the team for failures or refusing to admit when they are wrong.
Inclusion	We proactively welcome people who are often marginalized or excluded. This may mean we proactively invite marginalized voices to the planning table. There may be a tension with goals like exclusivity and focus (Big tent vs niche group). Example of inconsistency: Holding meetings in spaces or at times that are inaccessible to working parents or people with different schedules.
Inclusivity	We make it easy for anyone to take part, whatever their background, language, or experience. This may mean we avoid jargon, welcome newcomers, and translate where we can. There may be a tension with goals like depth and focus (Open to everyone vs built for experts). Example of inconsistency: Using jargon that alienates newcomers or failing to provide translation for members who speak different languages.
Independence	We avoid reliance on any single funding source or authority figure. This may mean we maintain a diversified funding base to avoid dependency on one donor. There may be a tension with goals like resources (Going it alone means less help). Example of inconsistency: Relying on a single large donor who threatens to pull funding if the organization takes a political stance they dislike.
Innovation	We value new ideas and creative solutions over tradition and established methods. This may mean we reward novel approaches even if they disrupt current workflows. There may be a tension with goals like tradition (New vs Old). Example of inconsistency: Shutting down new ideas with the excuse that things have always been done a certain way or refusing to allocate resources to test new concepts.
Integrity	We align our actions with our stated values even when no one is watching. This may mean we refuse contracts that violate our ethical standards, regardless of profit. There may be a tension with goals like profit and opportunity (Saying no to easy money). Example of inconsistency: Accepting a partnership that violates the group's core values because the financial offer is too good to refuse.
Interdependence	We recognize that our survival and success are tied to the well-being of others. This may mean we map our supply chain to ensure we support local ecosystems. There may be a tension with goals like self-sufficiency (Relying on others vs prepping). Example of inconsistency: Acting as if the organization exists in a vacuum and ignoring the impact of its actions on the surrounding community or ecosystem.
Interoperability	Our tools and systems work with other open systems rather than locking people in. This may mean we use open standards and protocols, and members can take their data and connections elsewhere. There may be a tension with goals like control and polish (Open standards vs a seamless, closed product). Example of inconsistency: Building walled gardens that trap users or deliberately breaking compatibility with other open tools to lock people in.
Intersectionality	We consider how different forms of discrimination overlap and compound for people. This may mean we pay attention to how race, gender, class, disability, and sexuality combine, and center those most affected. There may be a tension with goals like simplicity (Many perspectives vs one clear message). Example of inconsistency: Focusing on a single issue like class while ignoring how race and gender compound the experience of oppression for some members.
Justice	We seek to repair past wrongs and create a fair system for the future. This may mean we prioritize restorative processes over punitive ones. There may be a tension with goals like mercy (Strict rules vs forgiveness). Example of inconsistency: Focusing on punishment and exclusion rather than healing and restoration or applying rules more strictly to marginalized members.
Knowledge Sharing	We freely distribute information so that everyone can benefit from it. This may mean we document everything in a public wiki. There may be a tension with goals like intellectual property (Open source vs patent). Example of inconsistency: Creating silos where information is hoarded to maintain power or refusing to document work so that others become dependent on a single expert.
Labor Rights	We uphold the right of all workers to organize and to advocate for their conditions. This may mean we support unions and collective bargaining, and members can talk openly about pay and conditions. There may be a tension with goals like flexibility and cost (Worker protections vs doing more with less). Example of inconsistency: Discouraging members from discussing their pay or working conditions or retaliating against those who try to organize.
Leadership	We encourage everyone to step up and take initiative when needed. This may mean anyone can propose and lead work, and we support people as they grow into responsibility. There may be a tension with goals like equality (Leaders emerging vs everyone the same). Example of inconsistency: Waiting for permission to solve an obvious problem or complaining about an issue without offering to help fix it.
Learning	We embrace mistakes as opportunities to grow rather than failures to be punished. This may mean we fund conference tickets and book clubs for members. There may be a tension with goals like performance (Study time vs work time). Example of inconsistency: Viewing mistakes as a sign of incompetence rather than a learning opportunity or cutting the budget for personal development.
Liberty	We oppose authoritarian control and support the freedom of the individual. This may mean we defend the right of members to fork the project if they disagree. There may be a tension with goals like order (Chaos vs rules). Example of inconsistency: Imposing strict rules on personal behavior that has no impact on the work or demanding ideological purity tests for membership.
Localism	We prioritize local needs and resources over global or distant ones. This may mean we source supplies from within a 50-mile radius. There may be a tension with goals like globalism and scale (Sourcing near vs sourcing cheap). Example of inconsistency: Importing goods that could be sourced locally to save a small amount of money or ignoring the needs of the immediate neighborhood.
Maintenance	We value the unglamorous work of sustaining and fixing what we have already built. This may mean we make time for upkeep, moderation, and admin work, and credit the people who do it. There may be a tension with goals like innovation (Fixing the old vs building the new). Example of inconsistency: Celebrating only new feature launches while neglecting the critical infrastructure that keeps the organization running.
Mentorship	Experienced members actively guide and support newcomers. This may mean we pair newcomers with someone who shows them around, and asking for help is always welcome. There may be a tension with goals like speed (Teaching takes time away from doing). Example of inconsistency: Senior members refusing to spend time training juniors or creating a culture where asking for help is seen as weakness.
Meritocracy	Influence is earned through contribution and skill rather than status or wealth. This may mean those who do the work have a say in it, and roles go to people who have shown they can fill them. There may be a tension with goals like equity (Rewarding contribution can favor those with more time and resources). Example of inconsistency: Rewarding people based on their confidence and social status rather than the actual quality and impact of their contributions.
Mutual Aid	We engage in a reciprocal exchange of resources where everyone is both a giver and a receiver. This may mean we practice 'solidarity, not charity' by exchanging resources directly. There may be a tension with goals like charity (Solidarity vs Tax Write-offs). Example of inconsistency: Creating a transactional system where help is only given with the expectation of an immediate equivalent return.
Non-violence	We reject physical and emotional violence as a means to achieve our goals. This may mean we de-escalate conflicts and refuse to engage with law enforcement where possible. There may be a tension with goals like self-defense (Turning cheek vs fighting back). Example of inconsistency: Using aggressive language or intimidation tactics to silence opposition or justifying harm as necessary for the greater good.
Open Source	We make our work freely available for others to use, study, and change. This may mean we publish our source code (and other work) under open licenses and welcome contributions. There may be a tension with goals like income and control (Giving it away vs earning from it). Example of inconsistency: Releasing code without documentation or using a license that claims to be open but actually restricts commercial use or modification.
Openness	We operate transparently and invite participation from the outside world. This may mean All meetings are open to the public unless safety is at risk. There may be a tension with goals like privacy and security (Open doors let bugs in). Example of inconsistency: Conducting all real business in private messages and only using public meetings to rubber-stamp decisions that have already been made.
Participation	Democracy requires the active engagement of all members in the decision-making process. This may mean we require active contribution to maintain voting rights. There may be a tension with goals like efficiency (Too many cooks). Example of inconsistency: Creating barriers to entry that make it difficult for new members to have a voice or ignoring the input of the broader membership.
Reliability	Members can count on one another to follow through on what they commit to. This may mean we do what we say we will do and notify others early when plans must change. There may be a tension with Flexibility (Sticking to the plan vs adapting). Example of inconsistency: Missing deadlines without notice or making ambitious commitments the group knows it cannot keep.
Resilience	The group can absorb shocks and keep functioning when conditions get hard. This may mean we build redundancy into critical roles and document institutional knowledge so no single departure sinks the work. There may be a tension with goals like efficiency (Backup capacity vs lean operations). Example of inconsistency: Concentrating all critical knowledge in one person or ignoring warning signs of burnout until key members quit.
Solidarity	We stand with one another, especially when members face pressure from outside forces. This may mean we defend members against unjust treatment and share risk collectively rather than leaving anyone exposed. There may be a tension with goals like individualism (Collective defense vs personal autonomy). Example of inconsistency: Staying silent when a member faces mistreatment or leaving vulnerable members to handle external pressure alone.
Stewardship	We take responsibility for tending the shared resources and relationships entrusted to us. This may mean we make decisions with future members in mind and reinvest in the infrastructure we depend on. There may be a tension with goals like efficiency (Long-term care vs short-term output). Example of inconsistency: Extracting short-term value from shared resources without replenishing them or deferring maintenance until systems fail.
Transparency	Decisions, finances, and processes are visible to the membership by default. This may mean we publish meeting notes, budgets, and decision logs where all members can read them. There may be a tension with goals like privacy (Open books vs personal disclosure). Example of inconsistency: Making major decisions in private channels and only announcing outcomes, or hiding finances behind vague summaries.
Trust	We extend good faith to one another and build relationships that can withstand disagreement. This may mean we interpret others charitably and repair quickly when trust is strained. There may be a tension with Accountability (Assuming good intent vs naming harm). Example of inconsistency: Jumping to worst-case interpretations of ambiguous behavior or withholding repair when a breach could be addressed directly.
Voluntarism	Participation is freely chosen rather than coerced, and contribution is recognized on its own terms. This may mean we don't pressure members into tasks they haven't consented to and we honor their right to step back. There may be a tension with Reliability (Free participation vs guaranteed coverage). Example of inconsistency: Using guilt or social pressure to extract labor from members or shaming people who decline additional responsibilities.

Platforms

Infrastructure starts with the platform a community runs on. We've collected some of the most common ones, by format, in Choosing a platform; picking a listed one in the editor fills in its details and the usual costs. Let us know if a platform should be included.

What we label

For each platform (data/platforms.json):

Label	What it means
Platform	The platform or software family. A row marked (any) is a protocol generic: any software that speaks that protocol (see protocol generics).
Format	The kind of online space it's listed under (see formats).
Software	The specific software powering it. Proprietary means closed source with no published code; a name (e.g. Mastodon, GNU Mailman) means that open source project. Blank on generic rows: you type in the software you use.
Protocol	The open interoperability protocol it implements, if any. Blank if it uses no open protocol.
Open source	Whether the software is released under an OSI-approved open source license (see open source). Varies on generic rows, since it depends on the software you choose.
Self-hostable	Whether you can run your own instance of it. Varies where self-hosting is possible but optional (e.g. your own Matrix homeserver, AT Protocol PDS, or Nostr relay).
Structural model	How it organizes data and communication between participants (see structural models).
Platform type	Its cost profile: who runs it, and what it mostly carries (see platform types). Some platforms could be one of several; the editor asks which.

The datasheet also keeps each platform's license, the reasoning behind its open source label, and notes, for research documentation; they aren't shown in the editor.

Open source (OSI)

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) defines open source software as software whose license grants freedoms to use, study, modify, and distribute. A platform is labeled open source when its software is released under an OSI-approved license. A few cases worth noting:

Telegram — client apps are open source (GPLv3), but the server is proprietary and not published. Since the server is the operative component for a platform, Telegram is classified as not open source.
Signal — both client and server are AGPLv3, so it is open source. However, Signal controls the central infrastructure and the server is not practically self-hostable to interoperate with the main network, hence Self-hostable = No.
Fandom — built on a proprietary fork of MediaWiki. Although MediaWiki itself is open source (GPLv2+), Fandom's modifications are not published under an OSI-compatible license.
Wikipedia — the MediaWiki software is open source (GPLv2+), but Wikipedia itself is hosted exclusively by the Wikimedia Foundation. The software label is open source; the platform is not self-hostable as Wikipedia.

Protocol generics

Some platforms are listed as a generic (any) row for a protocol: any software that implements it. Choose one in the editor and type in the software you use, if it isn't listed separately. The named examples are those we list on their own rows; the others are common software for the same protocol.

Generic row	Protocol	Named examples in dataset	Other common software
Matrix client	Matrix	Synapse, Dendrite, Element	Conduit, Cinny, FluffyChat
ActivityPub client (Discussion Forum)	ActivityPub	Lemmy	Kbin, Mbin
ActivityPub client (Social Network / Media)	ActivityPub	Mastodon, Bonfire, Pleroma, Akkoma, Misskey, PeerTube, Pixelfed, Friendica	Calckey, Hometown, Catodon
Diaspora Protocol client	Diaspora Protocol	Diaspora*	Friendica (also supports this protocol)
AT Protocol client	AT Protocol	Bluesky, Blacksky	Skeets, Graysky, Sky.app
Nostr client	Nostr	Damus, Amethyst, Primal	Snort, Iris, Coracle

Platform types

We also group platforms by type, from their labels (is it protocol-based, is the software open source, is it self-hostable, what model does it follow). We use this to give some reasonable estimates of the costs of using a platform. It also makes it easier to compare platforms that look different on the surface but share the same underlying structure.

Type	Description
Corporate / Proprietary	Operated by a company. Community runner is a tenant — no infrastructure to manage, but also no ultimate control.
Self-Hosted, Text-Primary	You run the software yourself. Primary content is text, links, or lightweight media. Full control; real infrastructure costs.
Self-Hosted, Media-Heavy	Self-hosted with significant video or image storage. Storage and delivery costs are a meaningful ongoing expense.
Hosted OSS / Institutional	Open source software, but hosted by an institution (a university, a nonprofit). You participate; you don't operate.
Protocol Client, Relay-Based	Connects to the Nostr relay network. Infrastructure costs only arise if you run your own relay.
Protocol Client, PDS-Based	Connects to the AT Protocol network. Infrastructure costs only if you run your own Personal Data Server.
Centralized Messaging	Open source software, centrally operated by the developer. Community = a group chat. No infrastructure costs.

Structural models

The structural model describes how a platform's infrastructure is organized — who controls data, and how communication flows between participants.

Model	Description	Examples
Centralized	A single operator controls all data and infrastructure. The platform is one server (or cluster) owned and operated by one entity.	Discord, Telegram, WeChat, Signal Chat, Zooniverse, …
Federation	Multiple independently-operated servers interoperate via a shared open protocol. Each server is autonomous; users on different servers can still interact.	Synapse, Dendrite, Element, Lemmy, Mailman-based lists, …
Relay	Messages are broadcast through relay nodes. Clients choose which relays to connect to and read from. There is no canonical server — the network is the relays.	Damus, Amethyst, Primal
Federation / Relay	Uses elements of both models. AT Protocol uses PDS-to-PDS federation for data storage, plus a relay layer (the firehose) for real-time distribution.	Bluesky, Blacksky
Centralized / Federation	A proprietary or institutionally-controlled platform built on top of a federation protocol. The platform itself is not self-hostable, but it interoperates with the broader protocol ecosystem.	Roundabout

Expected costs

On a Card, each cost is answered Yes or No: whether your community pays for it, in money or time. What's usual is worked out from each platform's type rather than platform by platform, and the editor shows it beside each cost as a guide. The main cost drivers are infrastructure ownership (do you host it?) and content type (does it generate heavy media?). Everything else — admin labor, third-party tools — applies broadly regardless of platform choice and depends more on your community's size and activity.

Self-hosting means you bear hosting, domain, email delivery, backups, and potentially managed hosting costs. Proprietary or institutionally-hosted platforms mean you bear none of these.
Media-heavy platforms (PeerTube, Pixelfed) add significant storage and delivery costs on top of the standard self-hosting baseline.
Protocol-native clients (Nostr, AT Protocol) have costs that only arise if you choose to run your own relay or Personal Data Server — most community runners won't.
Admin and moderation labor is the one cost that cuts across all platform types, because it follows community size and culture rather than technical architecture.

Platform type	Hosting	Media storage	Domain	Email delivery	Paid software	Managed hosting	Backups	Admin + mod labor	Trust, safety & tools	Legal	Events
Corporate / Proprietary	No	No	No	No	Rare	No	No	Often	Sometimes	Rare	Sometimes
Self-Hosted, Text-Primary	Yes	Sometimes	Yes	Sometimes	No	Sometimes	Sometimes	Often	Sometimes	Sometimes	Sometimes
Self-Hosted, Media-Heavy	Yes	Yes	Yes	Sometimes	No	Sometimes	Yes	Often	Sometimes	Sometimes	Sometimes
Hosted OSS / Institutional	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Often	Sometimes	Rare	Sometimes
Protocol Client, Relay-Based	Sometimes	Sometimes	Sometimes	No	No	Sometimes	Sometimes	Sometimes	Sometimes	Rare	Rare
Protocol Client, PDS-Based	Sometimes	Sometimes	Sometimes	No	No	Sometimes	Sometimes	Sometimes	Sometimes	Rare	Rare
Centralized Messaging	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Sometimes	No	Rare	Rare

What the words mean:

Value	Meaning
Yes	This cost reliably applies.
Often	Applies frequently but not universally; depends on community size or activity.
Sometimes	Applies in some configurations or at some scale.
Rare	Technically possible but uncommon in practice.
No	This cost does not apply.

All values reflect what a community organizer or operator typically pays — not the platform company. For corporate / proprietary platforms, that's what a group admin or community manager pays. For self-hosted platforms, what an instance operator pays. For protocol client rows (Nostr, AT Protocol), what running your own relay or PDS costs; most community runners on these platforms will not incur infrastructure costs.

Most platforms take what's usual from their platform type. A handful have overrides where the type's isn't accurate for that platform — for example, Discourse requires email delivery for notifications, and Mailman is itself an email delivery system.

Platform	Cost	Usually	Reason
WeChat	Paid software	Sometimes	Official Account registration involves real fees in the Chinese regulatory context.
WeChat	Legal & compliance	Sometimes	Operating a WeChat community involves legal exposure under Chinese regulatory requirements.
iNaturalist	Admin + mod labor	Sometimes	Moderation is largely institutional rather than community-run.
Reddit	Third-party, trust & safety tools	Often	Active subreddits commonly use third-party moderation bots and tools.
Discourse	Email delivery	Yes	Discourse requires SMTP configuration for notifications — it's not optional.
Mailman-based lists	Email delivery	Yes	Mailman is itself an email delivery system.
Mailman-based lists	Admin + mod labor	Sometimes	Mailing lists typically require less active moderation than forum or social platforms.
Mastodon	Media storage & delivery	Often	These platforms actively encourage image and media sharing; object storage costs are a known operator pain point.
Bonfire	Media storage & delivery	Often	These platforms actively encourage image and media sharing; object storage costs are a known operator pain point.
Misskey	Media storage & delivery	Often	These platforms actively encourage image and media sharing; object storage costs are a known operator pain point.
Wikipedia	Third-party, trust & safety tools	Often	Wikipedia communities actively use moderation tooling (Twinkle, STiki, etc.).

Other tools

Besides its platform, a community may use other tools for its governance work (Infrastructure → Other tools), and has ways for members and moderators to reach each other (Processes → Communications).

Governance tools

Known tools communities use to support deliberation, voting, trust & safety, and other governance work. Communities can also add their own. Let us know if you think a tool should be added here!

Tool	Category	Description	Access
Airtable	Surveys & feedback, Documentation & wikis	Spreadsheet-database hybrid often used to track member applications, feedback, and community data.	Free tier available
All Our Ideas	Voting & polling, Surveys & feedback	Pairwise voting tool that surfaces collective priorities from open-ended member input.	Free
BookStack	Documentation & wikis	Self-hosted, open-source wiki and documentation platform organized as books, chapters, and pages.	Free (self-hosted)
Buttondown	Announcements & newsletters	Simple, privacy-focused newsletter tool popular with independent writers and community organizers.	Free tier available
Cal.com	Events & calendars	Open-source scheduling tool for booking meetings and coordinating availability across a community.	Free tier available
Cobudget	Funding & finance, Deliberation & decision-making	Collaborative budgeting tool that lets community members propose and fund initiatives together.	Free tier available
Collab.Land	Identity & access	Token-gated access management for Discord and Telegram communities in Web3 ecosystems.	Free tier available
Confluence	Documentation & wikis	Team wiki and documentation platform from Atlassian, widely used in organizations.	Free tier available
Consider.it	Deliberation & decision-making	Visual deliberation tool that shows where people stand on proposals and what arguments they find compelling.	Free tier available
Consul	Deliberation & decision-making, Voting & polling	Open-source participatory democracy platform for proposals, debates, and voting, used by municipalities.	Free (self-hosted)
Coop (ROOST)	Trust & safety	Open-source human review console for content moderation with queue orchestration and CSAM/NCMEC reporting workflows.	Free (self-hosted)
CryptPad	Documentation & wikis	Open-source, end-to-end encrypted collaborative document and wiki suite with no account required.	Free tier available
Decidim	Deliberation & decision-making, Voting & polling	Participatory democracy platform with proposals, debates, participatory budgeting, and assemblies.	Free (self-hosted)
Donorbox	Funding & finance	Donation and fundraising tool for nonprofits and community organizations with recurring giving support.	Free tier available
Eventbrite	Events & calendars	Event ticketing and registration platform for both free and paid community events.	Free tier available
Ghost	Announcements & newsletters	Open-source publishing platform with newsletter, membership, and paid subscription features.	Free (self-hosted)
GitBook	Documentation & wikis	Documentation platform for publishing structured knowledge bases, guides, and internal wikis.	Free tier available
Google Forms	Surveys & feedback, Voting & polling	Simple survey and polling tool, requires a Google account.	Free
Guild	Identity & access	Access gating for community spaces based on token ownership, role, or credential, popular in Web3.	Free
Hasher-Matcher-Actioner (HMA)	Trust & safety	Open-source hash matching system from Meta for detecting known harmful content such as CSAM and TVEC.	Free (self-hosted)
HedgeDoc	Documentation & wikis	Self-hosted, open-source collaborative markdown editor for real-time document co-authoring.	Free (self-hosted)
Hive Moderation	Trust & safety, Moderation bots & filters	AI-driven image, text, and video moderation API for platform safety teams.	Paid
Kialo	Deliberation & decision-making	Structured pro/con debate mapping tool that helps groups reason through complex decisions together.	Free tier available
Listmonk	Announcements & newsletters	Self-hosted, open-source newsletter and mailing list manager with no per-subscriber fees.	Free (self-hosted)
Llama Guard	Trust & safety, Moderation bots & filters	Open-source safety classifier from Meta for detecting unsafe content in LLM inputs and outputs, adaptable to custom policies.	Free (self-hosted)
Loomio	Deliberation & decision-making, Voting & polling	Structured discussion threads with voting (consent, polls, proposals), popular with co-ops and nonprofits.	Free tier available
Luma	Events & calendars	Event management and community calendar tool with RSVP, ticketing, and email reminders.	Free tier available
Mailchimp	Announcements & newsletters	Email marketing and newsletter platform with list management, automation, and campaign analytics.	Free tier available
MediaWiki	Documentation & wikis	Open-source wiki software that powers Wikipedia, suitable for large community knowledge bases.	Free (self-hosted)
Mentimeter	Voting & polling, Surveys & feedback	Live polling and Q&A tool for community calls and town halls.	Free tier available
Mobilizon	Events & calendars	Open-source, federated event organizing platform designed as a privacy-respecting alternative to Facebook Events.	Free (self-hosted)
Notion	Documentation & wikis	All-in-one workspace for notes, wikis, databases, and project management.	Free tier available
Open Collective	Funding & finance	Transparent fundraising and financial management platform for communities, collectives, and open-source projects.	Free tier available
OpenAI Moderation API	Trust & safety, Moderation bots & filters	Free API from OpenAI that classifies text across harmful content categories including hate speech, self-harm, and violence.	Free
Osprey (ROOST)	Trust & safety	Open-source rules engine for real-time event processing and behavioral investigation, donated by Discord.	Free (self-hosted)
Ozone	Trust & safety, Moderation bots & filters	Open-source moderation tool from Bluesky Social for running independent labeling services on the AT Protocol.	Free (self-hosted)
Patreon	Funding & finance	Membership and subscription platform for communities to offer tiered supporter access and benefits.	Free tier available
Perspective API	Trust & safety, Moderation bots & filters	Machine learning API from Google/Jigsaw that scores text for toxicity and other harmful attributes.	Free
Polis	Deliberation & decision-making, Voting & polling	AI-assisted opinion mapping that surfaces areas of cross-group agreement, often used in civic contexts.	Free (self-hosted)
pretix	Identity & access, Events & calendars	Open-source ticketing and registration platform with access control and membership check-in features.	Free (self-hosted)
Remesh	Deliberation & decision-making, Surveys & feedback	AI-assisted large-group deliberation platform that surfaces themes and consensus in real time.	Paid
Slido	Voting & polling, Surveys & feedback, Events & calendars	Live Q&A and polling tool for meetings and events, with audience interaction features.	Free tier available
Snapshot	Voting & polling	Off-chain, token-weighted governance voting used by DAOs and Web3 communities.	Free
Substack	Announcements & newsletters	Newsletter and publication platform with paid subscription support and community comment sections.	Free tier available
Tally	Surveys & feedback	Free form builder with a clean interface, no account required for respondents.	Free tier available
Typeform	Surveys & feedback, Voting & polling	Form and survey builder for async preference gathering and community input.	Free tier available

Communication channels

Ways a community's members and moderators can reach each other. Communities can also add their own.

Channel	Description
Announcement feed	A channel or account where moderators post updates for everyone, e.g. an announcements channel or pinned posts.
Feedback form	A form or survey where members can raise concerns or suggestions, anonymously or not.
Public contact info	An email address or contact page anyone can use to reach the people running the community.
Mailing list	An email list for announcements or discussion among members.
Group chat	A chat room or channel where members and moderators talk in real time.
Dedicated admin account	A shared account for the moderation team, so members can reach the team rather than one person.

Membership

How people join a community, and how it's organized.

Joining

Communities first say how open joining is, picking one or more of four tiers; the ways of joining that fit those tiers are shown first, and any can be chosen. The ways of joining are from the CommunityRule project by Metagov.

Tier	Description
Open	Anyone can join with minimal or no gatekeeping. Entry is self-initiated.
Tiered / Probationary	Membership is earned or provisional. Entry involves a process of demonstration, contribution, or supported onboarding before full rights are granted.
Restricted / Approvals	Entry requires approval from existing members or a structured gatekeeping process.
Closed	The community is not accepting new members. If only this is selected, we assume there are no pathways to joining the community.

The ways of joining:

Option	Description
Open Access	Maximum inclusion. Anyone can join immediately by simply showing up.
Orientation Required	Newcomers must attend a training or orientation session.
Invitation Only	New members can only join if they are 'vouched for' by existing members.
Contribution Based	Membership is reserved for people contributing their labor.
Mentorship	New members are paired with 'Mentors' to guide them through a probationary period.
Peer Sponsorship	New member must be vouched for by an existing member.
Consensus or Vote-Based Approval	Group votes on whether to admit a new member.
Trial Period / Provisional Membership	New members have a probationary period before full rights.
Referral System with Screening	Members refer new people, with structured screening.
Membership Agreement or Pledge	New members must agree to specific values, responsibilities, or rules.
Weighted or Tiered Membership	Different levels of membership with increasing rights over time.
Hybrid Approval Process	Combines multiple approval steps like voting, screening, and referrals.
Skill-Based Contribution	Joining by submitting work, such as a pull request.
Pay-to-Join	Requires financial contribution or dues.
Application & Review	Application reviewed by an onboarding team.
Identity Verification	Requires verification of identity, credentials, or background.
Collective Interviews	Group collectively interviews new members for cultural fit.
Skill-Based Evaluation	Requires passing a skills assessment or portfolio review.
Lottery / Sortition	Members are selected randomly from a pool of eligible applicants.

Structure: the three scales

A community's structure is how decisions get made among its members: the decision-making approaches it selects (described under Processes → Decision-making). Each approach, joining tier, way of joining and conflict approach sits somewhere on three scales, from 1 to 7; a Card's score on each is the average of its choices. In Basics, communities also say where they'd like to be.

Scale	What it measures	What each level means
Participatory	How many members take part in a decision, and how much say they have. Decision-making: How many members take part in making decisions, and how much say they have (1: one person or a few decide; 7: everyone takes part, as in consensus; votes are 6: everyone has a say, but only through a ballot). Conflict: How much of the community takes part in resolving a conflict, beyond the people in it (a community vote 6; circles and restorative practices 5; mediation by one neutral person 3; a manager deciding 1). Joining: Not scored: how open joining is shows in the joining tiers themselves (open, tiered, approvals, closed). Values: Where a community that holds the value would tend to want to be.	1 One person, or a few, decide 2 A small group decides, sometimes asking others 3 A few decide, after hearing from members 4 A share of the members take part, or have some say 5 Most members can have a say; a smaller group decides 6 Nearly everyone takes part in most decisions 7 Everyone takes part
Transparent	How visible the process, the criteria and the reasons are to members (not necessarily to the public). Decision-making: Whether the discussion, the reasons and the outcome are visible and recorded. Conflict: Whether the process and outcome are visible. Confidential processes (mediation, circles, restorative practices) score low by design; that isn't a flaw. Joining: Whether the criteria for joining, and decisions about who joins, are visible. Values: Where a community that holds the value would tend to want to be.	1 Private: decisions and reasons aren't seen 2 Some outcomes are shared, rarely the reasons 3 Outcomes are shared; the reasons only if asked 4 Outcomes are visible; the reasons and process not always 5 Outcomes and reasons are shared; the discussion isn't 6 The process and reasons are mostly open, and recorded 7 Fully open: the process, discussion and reasons are recorded for all
Hierarchical	How much the authority to decide sits with particular people, roles or levels, rather than with members as equals. Decision-making: Who decides: members as equals (1), roles that coordinate but don't decide (2), roles with more weight (3–4), roles with authority over others (5), a leader or the top of several levels (6–7). Conflict: Who decides the outcome: the people involved, as equals (1–2), a council or panel of members (3–4), an arbitrator, manager or other single role (5–7). Joining: Who holds the gate, from the members' point of view: all members together (1), some members (3), a gatekeeper, or levels of membership (5). Values: Where a community that holds the value would tend to want to be.	1 Flat: no role carries more authority 2 Nearly flat: some roles coordinate, but don't decide 3 A few roles carry a little more weight 4 Some roles carry more weight 5 Clear roles, some with authority over others 6 Several levels, with most authority near the top 7 Clear levels, with authority at the top

None of the scales is "good" or "bad". Each end gains something (+) and costs something (−):

Scale	Low end	High end
Participatory	1: One person, or a few, decide + Fast decisions, clear ownership + Asks little of members' time − Misses what members know − Rests on a few people	7: Everyone takes part + Draws on everyone's knowledge + Decisions are widely accepted − Slower, harder as you grow − Tiring; loud voices can dominate
Transparent	1: Private + Protects people's privacy + Room for frank discussion − Decisions are hard to check − Misuse can go unnoticed	7: Fully open + Builds trust, leaves a record + Mistakes are easier to spot − Can expose sensitive information − Keeping records takes work
Hierarchical	1: Flat: no role carries more authority + Every voice weighs the same + Anyone can take initiative − Unclear who's responsible − Hidden leaders can emerge	7: Clear levels, with authority at the top + Clear responsibility and escalation + Coordinates well at scale − Power concentrates − Decisions bottleneck at the top

Rules

A community's rules: a link to where they live, the covenants it endorses, and the rules it selects (each can be reworded, and communities can add their own). How rules shape who a community federates with is under Federation.

Covenants & guidelines

Known covenants and community guidelines a community might endorse or adhere to. Communities can also add their own.

Covenant	Description
Contributor Covenant	Widely-used code of conduct for open source projects. https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
Mastodon Server Covenant	Baseline moderation and operational standards for Mastodon instances. https://joinmastodon.org/covenant
Bonfire Community Guidelines	Guidelines for communities running on Bonfire Networks. https://bonfirenetworks.org/
Discord Community Guidelines	Discord's platform-wide community standards. https://discord.com/guidelines
Bluesky Community Guidelines	Bluesky's platform-wide community standards. https://bsky.social/about/support/community-guidelines

Rule schema

The rules communities can select from. Rules are grouped into two broad categories (behavior and content) and further organized by type. Some types support per-rule qualifiers: either how a rule treats something (allowed / not allowed / allowed with labeling or disclosure / approval required) or how firm it is (required / recommended / not required). These are marked below.

Type	Rules
Behavior — Rules about how members treat each other and conduct themselves.
Civility & good-faith participation	Be respectful to other members No personal attacks or insults No trolling, flamebait, or deliberately disruptive behavior Respect names, pronouns, and boundaries Respect moderator instructions & Code of Conduct
Harassment and personal safety	No harassment No bullying No dogpiling No stalking No threats or intimidation No doxxing No block evasion No unwanted sexual advances No misinformation / fake news No repeated unwanted contact No posting private information without consent
Discrimination and hateful conduct	No hate speech No racism No sexism or misogyny No homophobia No transphobia No ableism No xenophobia No casteism No antisemitism No Islamophobia No targeted misgendering or deadnaming No dehumanizing language toward protected groups
Authenticity and account integrity allowed / not allowed	Impersonation Parody accounts Bot accounts
Spam, advertising, and platform misuse allowed / not allowed	Spam Mass-following or mass-replying Unsolicited advertising & unsolicited DMs for promotion Personal project / non-commercial / non-profit promotion Commercial advertising Fundraising or donation requests Affiliate links SEO / link-farming accounts
Instance access & onboarding constraints	Users must be 18+ Users must provide a reason for joining This server is for a specific community or interest Primary language expectation Registrations are manually reviewed Users must complete profile information
Content — Rules about what members post, create, and share.
Content warnings & sensitive media labeling required / recommended	Content warning for sexual content Content warning for graphic violence / gore Content warning for disturbing or traumatic topics Content warning for spoilers Alt text for image posts
AI-generated media, attribution, and copyright allowed / not allowed	AI-generated media AI impersonation of real people Credit original creators Reposting without permission Copyright infringement Scraped or stolen creative work Crediting on fanworks and derivatives
Adult / explicit content rules allowed / not allowed	Explicit sexual content Nudity Adult content Sexualized depictions of minors Non-consensual sexual content Revenge porn / intimate media NSFW avatars / header images Real-person explicit content
Illegal / jurisdiction-specific prohibited content	No illegal content under applicable local law
Violence, threats, extremism, and self-harm allowed / not allowed	Violent content Extremist propaganda Terrorist content Self-harm / suicidal content

Processes

How a community makes decisions, handles conflict, and communicates. The decision-making and conflict management approaches are from the CommunityRule project by Metagov.

Decision-making

The approaches a community selects describe its general structure: how decisions get made (set in Membership). In Processes, the same list is adjusted, with notes, for three kinds of decisions in particular: changing the rules, maintenance and moderation. A community typically picks a few, often different approaches for different kinds of decisions (e.g., lazy consensus for daily operations, full consensus for governance changes).

Approach	Description
Lazy Consensus	A decision is assumed approved unless objections are raised within a specified timeframe.
Do-ocracy	Decisions are made by those who take initiative and carry out the work.
Consensus Decision-Making	All members must agree. Best for important decisions in small groups. Does not work well for low stakes decsions.
Rotational Leadership	Decision-making responsibilities rotate among members.
Modified Consensus	Attempts to reach full agreement first, but falls back to voting if consensus isn’t possible.
Consensus Seeking with Delegates	Members provide input, and delegates refine decisions to seek broad agreement.
Sociocracy	Decisions are made in small, interconnected circles with feedback loops connecting the organization.
Supermajority Rule	A higher threshold (e.g., 2/3 or 3/4) must be met for a decision to pass. Can be a great fallback for when consensus fails.
Ranked Choice Voting	Members rank options by preference, and votes are redistributed until one option has a majority.
Range Voting	Members score each option, and the option with the highest total or average score wins.
Majority Rule	A decision is approved if it receives more than 50% of the votes.
Approval Voting	Members vote for all options they find acceptable; the option with the most approvals wins.
Weighted Voting	Votes carry different weights based on criteria like financial contribution or seniority.
Cumulative Voting	Members distribute a set number of votes across one or more options, often to express intensity of preference.
Quadratic Voting	Members use credits to vote, with the cost increasing quadratically for multiple votes on the same option.
Continuous Voting	Members can change their votes over time, with decisions finalized when a threshold is reached.
Holacracy	Decision-making authority is distributed across self-organizing teams.
Collaborative Platforms	Structured discussions on tools like Loomio or Polis are used to make group decisions.
Deliberative Polling	Members discuss and reflect on an issue before voting, informed by deliberation.
Investor-Filled Board Seats	Key decisions are made by a board with seats allocated to investors or stakeholders.
Elected Board of Directors	Members elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf.
Advisory Committees	Smaller groups provide recommendations, which the broader organization typically follows.
Delegated Decision-Making	Specific individuals or groups are entrusted with decision-making authority.
Executive Committees	A subset of leaders or senior members makes critical decisions.
First Past the Post	The option with the most votes wins, regardless of whether it achieves a majority.
Lottery/Sortition	Members or leaders are randomly selected to make decisions, promoting fairness.
Proof of Work	Decision weight is tied to demonstrable effort or contributions, common in blockchain systems.
Random Choice	Decisions are made by chance, such as a coin toss or drawing lots, to avoid bias.
Algorithm-Driven Decisions	Automated systems analyze data and propose or enforce decisions.
Autocratic Decision-Making	A single leader or authority makes all decisions without group input.
Hierarchical Decision-Making	Decisions are made at different levels of an organizational structure, with authority increasing at higher levels.
Negotiated Decisions	Stakeholders or parties discuss and negotiate until they reach an agreement.

Conflict management

Approaches for handling conflicts between members. Communities put the ones they use in steps, in the order they'd try them (first, escalation, last resort); several on the same step happen in parallel, and preferred ways can be marked primary.

Approach	Description
Peer Mediation	Trained members within the organization mediate disputes among peers.
Conflict Resolution Council	Senior members with institutional knowledge provide guidance or decisions.
Facilitated Negotiation	A neutral facilitator helps guide the negotiation process.
Ad Hoc Arbitration	Arbitrators are chosen specifically for a particular case.
Conflict Workshops	Structured sessions where parties collaboratively resolve disputes and improve future interactions.
Supermajority Vote	Members vote to resolve a dispute democratically.
Interest-Based Bargaining	Focuses on underlying interests rather than fixed positions to find win-win solutions.
Restorative Practices	Dialogue-focused methods for understanding and repairing harm.
Mediation	A neutral third party assists parties in reaching a voluntary agreement.
Circle Processes	A structured format for open dialogue with equal input from all involved.
Judicial Committees	A standing committee responsible for adjudicating disputes.
Managerial Decision	A manager or leader makes a binding decision.
Internal Tribunal	A formal hearing body within the organization.
Consensus Building	Collaborative work to reach a resolution that all parties can agree upon.
Binding Arbitration	An external arbitrator makes a binding decision.
Non-Binding Arbitration	An arbitrator gives a recommendation that is not binding.
Binding Contracts	Legal agreements that define resolution methods.
Lottery/Sortition	Random selection used to resolve low-stakes disputes or select juries.
Rotational Judging	A rotating set of members is assigned to handle conflicts.

Federation

For communities on federated platforms (e.g. ActivityPub): who they federate with, what they do when there's a problem with another server, and the shared lists and tools they use. Also how their rules shape who they federate with.

Approach

The community's overall posture toward federating with other servers.

Approach	Description
Open	Default to federating with everyone; block specific bad actors as needed.
Allowlist first	Default to not federating; explicitly allow a curated list of trusted servers.
Denylist first	Default to federating and blocking/denying access as needed.

Response ladder

The actions moderators take when there's a problem with another server, put in the order they escalate through them. Several on the same step happen in parallel.

Action	Description
Warn	Issue a warning to the other server's moderators.
Mute	Hide the server's content from federated timelines without blocking.
Discuss	Internal moderator discussion before deciding next action.
Ghost	Bonfire-specific: silently drop interactions without visible block.
Block	Fully defederate; no interaction permitted.

Lists & tools

Known shared block lists a community might follow, and tools and services that help with federation decisions. Communities can also add their own.

Name	Category	Description
Anti-Meta Fedipact	blocklist	List of ActivityPub instances that publicly committed to defederating from Meta's Threads platform. https://fedipact.online/
Blacksky	service	AT Protocol moderation labeling service focused on protecting Black users from harassment and coordinated targeting. https://blacksky.app/
FediBlock	service	Community convention and aggregation effort for sharing instance block recommendations, organized around the #FediBlock hashtag. https://codeberg.org/fediblock
Fedicheck	tool	Web tool that compares an instance's blocklist against multiple community blocklist sources to surface gaps in coverage. https://fedicheck.online/
Fediseer	service	Reputation and endorsement service where instance admins can vouch for or censure other instances across the Fediverse. https://fediseer.com/
Garden Fence	blocklist	Blocklist of ActivityPub instances maintained to protect communities from harassment and bad-faith actors. https://github.com/jmdugan/blocklists
IFTAS DNIF	blocklist	Do Not Interact Federation blocklist maintained by IFTAS for instances with verified severe content policy violations. https://about.iftas.org/activities/moderation-as-a-service/dnif/
Mastodon Spam Stopper	blocklist	Blocklist and automation rules targeting spam accounts and instances on Mastodon. https://codeberg.org/jomo/mastodon-spam-stopper
Oliphant Unified Blocklist	blocklist	Tiered blocklist compiled from multiple Mastodon instance admin sources, graded 0–3 by severity of harm. https://codeberg.org/oliphant/blocklists
Seirdy Instance Blocklist	blocklist	Granular instance blocklist maintained by a Fediverse admin with per-entry rationale and severity tiers. https://seirdy.one/pb/bsl.csv
The Bad Space	service	Index of ActivityPub instances flagged for hosting harassment, hate speech, or insufficient moderation, maintained by a Black-led team. https://thebadspace.work/