keeping it honest

A veto is only as strong as the ability to catch a breach, act on it, and stay honest. The detection and enforcement provisions below are part of the amended structure, in draft.

catching a breach

Some breaches are visible at once: a paywall on messaging, a real-name demand. The hidden ones, like quiet data-sharing, need standing powers.

• Information. The Foundation can demand what it reasonably needs. Refusal is itself a signal.
• Audit. It can require an independent audit of where Ruck’s data goes: yearly, and any time it suspects a breach.
• Attestation. The directors confirm compliance in writing. A false attestation is a personal breach of duty.
• Reporting. Staff, users, or researchers can report a breach in confidence.

An action taken without consent is void. If the company will not correct it, the Foundation can go to court, and the directors who allowed it are personally exposed.

paying for it

The Foundation holds no endowment. Ruck covers its running and legal costs, including the cost of enforcing against Ruck itself. That funding cannot be used as leverage: the budget is set a year ahead, it cannot be withheld to pressure a decision, and disputes over what is reasonable go to an independent expert. For a major case, the Foundation can draw on independent third-party litigation funding. Stewards are indemnified and insured.

what is published

Every year: how the veto was used or withheld, with reasons; the state of each rule; who the Stewards are and how conflicts were handled; and how the Foundation was funded and what it spent. Material failures are disclosed when they happen, not at year end.

protecting the rules

Everyday machinery can be changed by the Stewards. The core, the rules, the veto, the independence of appointments, the founder’s exit, can only be changed by a supermajority, and never below the floor entrenched in the Articles. These protections make any erosion of the mission slow, visible, and hard to coordinate.