Open Items — Questions for Community Input

This document accompanies the Constitution but is not itself part of it. It lists matters that the drafting process identified as important but deferred for community input during the public comment period, or that require further design work before ratification.

Community members reviewing the Constitution are especially encouraged to weigh in on these items. They represent known uncertainties where the ratified version may benefit significantly from broader perspective.

1. Dispute Resolution Workflow

The Constitution establishes that disputes exist (Layer 8, Layer 10), that they gate monetization, and that they can escalate to Arbiters. What it does not fully specify is the detailed workflow:

• How are disputes filed, routed, and processed operationally?
• What information must a dispute filing contain?
• What are the timelines for Franchise Team response, discovery, deliberation?
• What constitutes a "resolution" in procedural terms?
• How are complex disputes (those involving multiple Facts, multiple Franchises, or policy-level questions) handled differently from simple ones?
• How does reputation feedback (writers with strong track records getting lighter scrutiny) work mechanically?

The drafting process acknowledged this as complex and deserving dedicated design. Community input on dispute workflow is invited. Post-ratification, the Network is expected to develop this workflow through normal operational standards, likely with Arbiter guidance given their interpretive role.

2. Specific Numeric Tuning

The Constitution sets default numeric values (T₁, T₂, decay rate, Kudos caps, etc.) but these are amendable and may benefit from refinement based on actual platform behavior. Specific values open to community input:

• Power curve exponent (currently 0.7): affects how aggressively diminishing returns take effect. Community input welcome on whether this should be gentler or more aggressive.
• Team membership threshold (currently 2,500 Commons Credits): affects how quickly motivated contributors can join governance. Should this be easier or harder to reach?
• Network-level contributor threshold (currently 5,000 Network Credits): same question for Network-level roles.
• Kudos caps (currently 5% + 5,000 absolute): do these feel right, or too generous/restrictive?
• Decay rate (currently 5%/quarter after 90-day grace): does this appropriately balance responsiveness with life-disruption tolerance?

These are amendable per Layer 1 Article II. Community input during comment period may lead to revised initial values before ratification.

3. The Creator's Founding Ledger Amount

The Constitution establishes that the Creator's Founding Ledger will be ratified at the methodology level (the rates and categorization of work) and the total level (the final Credit amount). The specific proposed ledger is in a companion document.

This is the most scrutinized element of the whole ratification. Community input is expected and necessary. Questions to consider:

• Is the methodology for valuing pre-launch work sound?
• Are the specific hours and categories accurate?
• Does the total reflect appropriate recognition without being excessive?
• Are there categories of work that should be valued differently (higher or lower)?

The ledger is subject to community revision during the comment period. The Creator has committed to responding to substantive critique.

4. Founding Contributor Grants — Specific Amounts

The Constitution establishes the Grant mechanism (Layer 12) but specific named individuals and Grant amounts are published separately. Community input on specific amounts is not a ratification vote, but observers can:

• Review the public justifications for each named person
• Note any concerns through the comment system
• The Creator may revise the Grants list during the active comment period

Post-comment-period and ratification, the Grants list is fixed.

5. Canonical Tier Structure Defaults

Layer 2 Article V permits Franchises to declare multi-tier canonical structures but does not specify default tier sets. Should the Network recommend default tier templates (e.g., "main/legends/alternate"), or should each Franchise design its own from scratch?

Community input welcome on whether template recommendations would help or hinder Franchise self-definition.

6. Leak Policy Specifics

Layer 10 Article V establishes leaks cannot ground Canonical Facts but may ground Provisional Facts when tagged. What it does not specify:

• What level of evidence qualifies something as an "official leak" vs. pure speculation?
• How should Franchise Teams handle leak material that may violate source creators' IP rights?
• Should there be a "cooling period" on leak content similar to grace periods?
• How should inaccurate leaks be handled retroactively?

Franchise Team discretion is the default, but community input may refine platform-level guidelines.

7. API and Data Access Policy Details

Layer 1 Article IV and Layer 11 Article I.6 establish API and data access as a Network-level revenue stream with contributor opt-out. Specific policy details deferred:

• What categories of third-party use are permitted, restricted, or prohibited?
• How does opt-out interact with aggregated vs. individual data?
• How is AI training data access handled specifically (given this is a particularly consequential category)?
• What are the contract terms and pricing models?

These are operational policies developed by Network post-ratification. Community input during comment period may shape initial policy.

8. Initial Franchise Ecosystem

The Constitution establishes how Franchises are created (Layer 2 Article VI), but what Franchises exist at launch is not a Constitutional matter. Community input welcome on:

• What initial Franchises should OLN host?
• Should the Network launch with a single Franchise and expand, or multiple Franchises simultaneously?
• What pre-existing communities or canons might benefit from OLN's approach?

These decisions are made by the Creator and early contributors pre-launch; community input during the comment period is welcome.

9. Integration with External Platforms

How does OLN interact with:

• Existing fan wikis (Fandom, dedicated wikis)?
• Creative platforms (AO3, Substack, Medium)?
• Social platforms (Discord, Reddit)?

Should there be import/export mechanisms? Federation protocols? Content syndication?

These are operational and engineering questions beyond the scope of the Constitution, but community preferences about integration philosophy may shape development priorities.

10. Accessibility and Internationalization

The Constitution doesn't yet formalize specific accessibility commitments (visual impairment support, cognitive accessibility, plain-language versions) or internationalization (non-English content, translation workflows, regional variations).

These should likely be operational standards at Network level, developed post-ratification. Community input during comment period welcome on priority and approach.

11. Meta-Governance Evolution

The Constitution establishes how it can be amended (Layer 1 Article VI, Layer 5 Article V) but does not address:

• Periodic review cycles (should the Constitution have a formal every-N-years comprehensive review?)
• Sunset clauses on specific provisions (should anything expire by default and require re-ratification?)
• Constitutional conventions (special processes for major overhauls beyond normal amendment)

Current provisions allow these to emerge, but community input welcome on whether any should be formalized initially.

12. Specific Contributor Fund Proposals

Layer 11 Article VII establishes the Contributor Fund mechanism. Community members can propose specific Funds for consideration at ratification or shortly after. Known candidates include:

• Hardship Fund (contributor emergencies)
• Excellence Fund (outstanding work recognition)
• Accessibility Fund (improvements for underserved contributors)
• Onboarding Fund (bringing in new contributors)
• Translation Fund (internationalization work)

Which Funds should exist at launch? What criteria and funding should each have? Community input welcome.

---

How to Provide Input

During the public comment period (Days 1–30 after Constitution publication), community members may:

• Comment publicly on specific Open Items
• Propose revisions to Constitutional text addressing these items
• Suggest additions to this Open Items list if you identify other deferred matters
• Participate in weekly digest discussions summarizing community feedback

The Creator commits to addressing substantive input on Open Items in the Day 7 digest responses and in revisions during the active comment period.

Post-ratification, Open Items are handled through the normal governance processes defined in the Constitution — some through Arbiter interpretation, some through Network policy, some through Franchise Team discretion, and some through Constitutional amendment.