An international federation of local AT Protocol community groups, designed so no one controls our destiny, including ourselves.
Founding Members Briefing · v1 Draft
§ 1 · Why This02
Why we're talking
We have local groups doing real work.
We aren't all in the same place. Some groups are signing venue contracts and managing liability paperwork already; others are running on free space and a food budget. The federation is the infrastructure that exists for when each group's moment arrives.
§ 1 · Why This03
What a federation provides.
A funder counterparty
Bluesky and other potential ongoing sponsors can't easily fund "the LA meetup" or "the NYC meetup" through normal corporate procurement. They can fund a member-governed 501(c)(6) that re-allocates to its member groups.
Liability coverage when needed
Some groups have been asked to sign venue contracts; others haven't yet. The federation holds insurance for when each group's turn comes, so no organizer finds out about liability the hard way.
A shared back-office
Templates, CoCs, accessibility checklists, A/V playbooks, branding. Each group stops rebuilding the same scaffolding, and the work compounds across the network.
A point of contact
When someone wants to talk to "the AT Protocol community," a federation gives them a counterparty. Worth having available for when it matters.
§ 1 · Why This04
The work ahead is institutional. The pattern is well-established. The choice is which to adapt.
§ 2 · The Shape05
02Section Two
Why a federation, not something else.
§ 2 · The Shape06
The options.
A federation is one option among several. The others have specific problems.
StructureAutonomySpeedCapture risk
Fiscal sponsor (long-term)LowFastHigh
Single nonprofit + chaptersLowMediumHigh
Worker cooperativeMediumMediumMedium
Stay informalHighFastN/A
Federation of equalsHighMediumLow
Federation: local groups keep autonomy and identity; back-office and shared infrastructure pool at the federation level. The line is drawn at the right place.
§ 2 · The Shape07
The pattern works.
Federations are not new. We have a generation of reference architectures to learn from.
Linux Foundation
501(c)(6). Internationally governed. Multi-decade track record running open-source infrastructure with corporate sponsors. Its tiered corporate-membership model is not the part we are borrowing.
Wikimedia
US foundation + ~40 country chapters. One-vote-per-affiliate in coordination. Genuine equal voice across vastly different chapter sizes.
Apache Software Foundation
501(c)(3). Project-autonomy model. The board doesn't tell projects what to do; projects govern themselves.
We are borrowing the best of these and explicitly avoiding the parts that lead to capture (for example, Linux Foundation's tiered corporate membership with board seats).
§ 3 · The Question08
03Section Three
Why incorporate in California, given everything happening in the US?
§ 3 · The Question09
Acknowledging it
This question deserves an honest answer.
The 2025–2026 US political environment has produced real changes for nonprofits. Several developments are worth naming:
Executive orders directing federal agency review of NGO funding alignment
Expanded "global gag rule" applying to US-based and international NGOs
State-level "foreign agent" registration legislation in multiple states
US withdrawal from international organizations and treaties
Expanded travel restrictions affecting cross-border movement
Increased political pressure on nonprofit tax-exempt status
For a community whose purpose is decentralized social infrastructure, free expression, and international participation, this carries real costs. Non-US founding groups are right to raise it.
§ 3 · The Question10
And yet, California, with eyes open.
The threats target (c)(3) and federal funding.
We are proposed as 501(c)(6). We are not seeking federal grants. That likely reduces our exposure compared with a federally funded 501(c)(3), pending counsel review. It does not eliminate US political risk.
California specifically protects nonprofits.
The CA Attorney General has been an active challenger of federal overreach. Strong member-protection law. If you incorporate in the US, this is one of the best states.
Reference architectures are US-domiciled.
Linux Foundation, CNCF, OpenJS, OpenSSF: all internationally governed, US-incorporated, operating successfully across multiple administrations.
The bylaws include migration insurance.
Article XIII (International Affiliates) and the asset-lock clause let operations migrate to a Canadian, EU, UK, or Japanese affiliate if the US environment becomes intolerable.
§ 3 · The Question11
The alternatives, weighed.
For a federation with members in the US, Canada, EU, UK, and Japan, where should the entity live?
DimensionCalifornia (c)(6)Canada CNCABelgian AISBLUK CICJapan ISH
Political riskUS drift concernLowLowBrexit frictionLow
Federation fitStrongStrongStrongOKOK
Recommendation: California (c)(6) as the trunk; sister entities via Article XIII Affiliates when specific needs justify them. Canada CNCA is the lightest Pattern B path if/when needed. Sources: European Activism Incubator, PwC Legal Belgium, Corporations Canada, Council on Foundations.
§ 3 · The Question12
The honest tradeoff.
For a non-US founding group in Canada, the EU, the UK, Japan, or elsewhere, here is what you are signing up for, and what you get in exchange.
You accept
US is the home jurisdiction, with US political risk
US tax compliance is the primary regulatory burden
Some non-US funders may prefer giving to a local entity
An explicit migration path if the US becomes intolerable
§ 4 · The Architecture13
04Section Four
How the federation works.
§ 4 · The Architecture14
The shape.
The federation serves the members who govern it.
§ 4 · The Architecture15
The load-bearing commitments.
The bylaws make these principles structurally difficult to change. Each amendment requires explicit supermajority action by the membership.
One member group, one vote, regardless of size, age, money, or jurisdiction. Two-thirds to amend.
Funders, sponsors, and vendors get recognition; only member groups vote. Three-quarters to amend.
Federation assets dissolve to a similar-purpose successor, never to members or founders. Three-quarters to amend.
No single funder past 40% of revenue for two consecutive years without explicit member action.
Written ballots are the default for binding votes; synchronous voting is the exception.
Two-year board terms, capped at four consecutive years. The cap prevents a permanent governing class.
§ 4 · The Architecture16
International equity, by design.
A federation drifts toward whoever shows up to meetings. Across time zones, that means whoever is awake. We have built specifically against this.
In the bylaws
Member groups may be in any jurisdiction
Meeting times stated in UTC, rotated across regions
Written ballot is the default voting method
Async decision-making is primary, sync is exception
Directors may be from any jurisdiction
In operations
Wise Business banking for multi-currency flow
Federation subsidizes local insurance where needed
Active translation funded for non-Anglophone regions
Async-only for binding decisions when Japan is in
W-8BEN-E and OFAC infrastructure from day one
Article XIII Affiliate path for future sister entities
§ 4 · The Architecture17
Each region is different.
The architecture is the same for everyone. The operational reality differs. The notes below are working assumptions, pending legal and tax review.
🇺🇸 US
Home jurisdiction. CA Mutual Benefit Corp plus 501(c)(6) intended. Political risk acknowledged; architecture designed to mitigate it.
🇨🇦 Canada
Likely the lowest-friction non-US membership. Wise CAD support is operational today. US-Canada tax treaty appears favorable, subject to tax review. Bilingual EN/FR commitment.
🇪🇺 EU
GDPR applies; a minimal-data posture is the intended compliance strategy, subject to legal review. EU funder pressure is the most likely Pattern B trigger (year 2–3).
🇬🇧 UK
UK GDPR applies. Post-Brexit, UK is not a clean EU workaround. CIC is available as a sister-entity form, pending counsel review.
🇯🇵 Japan
Deepest operational commitment. 16hr offset to LA, with no shared sync window. Async-only for votes. Funded JP translation. Cultural CoC flexibility.
Japan is the region that proves why the bylaws made async voting the default, and why "or equivalent code" is in the Code of Conduct provision.
§ 5 · The Path18
05Section Five
How we get there from here.
§ 5 · The Path19
The phased plan.
Months 1–2 · BridgeApply to Open Source Collective as fiscal sponsor. Accept Bluesky/Modal/Community Fund grants through OSC. Get insurance covered.
Months 2–4 · Pre-formationFounding members align on Mission, Membership, Decision-Making, International Operations. Bylaws drafted with US + cross-border legal review.
Months 4–5 · IncorporateFile California Articles. Get EIN. Open Wise Business account. Adopt initial policies. Federation legally exists.
Months 5–14 · Operate & await IRSFile IRS Form 1024 for 501(c)(6). Continue through fiscal sponsor. Build infrastructure. Make first disbursements.
Months 11–14 · IndependentIRS determination arrives. Migrate funds from OSC to the Federation. Federation stands on its own.
Year 2–3 · Affiliates if neededWhen a funder relationship or operational need requires, form a sister entity under Article XIII. Canada CNCA is the lightest path; EU AISBL or UK CIC for those regions; Japan ISH for Tokyo. Optional, available when justified.
§ 5 · The Path20
What this asks of founding member groups.
Concretely
Designate 1–2 delegates with voting authority
Affirm Mission, Criteria, Framework, Code of Conduct, Bylaws
Complete onboarding paperwork (incl. W-8BEN-E for non-US groups)
Participate in member governance (mostly async, occasionally sync)