No verifiable previous revision is available from the current data source: Notion’s API doesn’t expose a page’s edit history to this integration. Shown below is the current published version — the only version this page can genuinely display.
Administration and reporting
Summary
Version 0.1 uses a temporary, top-down administration model led by the root administrator. Version 1 is intended to replace unilateral authority with collegial decisions, distributed power, and transparent reporting.
Administration in version 0.1
The root administrator monitors feedback, prioritises the roadmap, and coordinates delivery toward the version 1 vision.
Contributors may receive administrative access to the services needed for their work. This access supports development and operations, but version 0.1 does not yet contain the administration and governance tools planned for the platform. Strategic and operational management therefore remains largely centralised.
Current teams
The current administration is organised across six teams: Moderation, Compliance, Treasury, Communication, Operations, and Technology.
The root administrator currently coordinates and remains responsible for all teams except access to the association's bank account. Only MN Associates has access to the bank account, reflecting the compliance and financial expertise required to administer it. Public financial reporting is documented in Donations and public treasury.
Administration in version 1
Version 1 is intended to introduce the administrative processes required by a user-generated-content platform. These include promotion and demotion, issue assessment, ratings, comments, reports, moderation, and other operational decisions.
The system should require collegial review so that no administrative action can be performed unilaterally. Decisions should result from defined multi-person processes, with authority distributed across the relevant teams.
Reporting and accountability
Administrative processes should produce transparent, non-identifying records that allow the community to understand how decisions were reached, audit the exercise of authority, and challenge outcomes through defined procedures.
This model follows the balance between participant privacy and institutional accountability described in Privacy.