The Problem
Software ships features to everyone at once. Users become unwilling beta testers. Most people don't get a say.
Bad features stick around. Removing a feature is a "breaking change." No one asked the community if they wanted it in the first place.
No feedback loop. Decisions are made by product teams, not by people actually using the system.
Our Alternative
Community-governed feature lifecycle. Every feature goes through Draft → Beta → Review → Stable. Beta testers are real members who opted in.
Features graduate based on evidence, not executive decision. Clear criteria. Anyone can see what's working and what's not.
Features can be Rejected or Deprecated. There's a sunset path for features the community doesn't want.
How It Works
Any member can propose a feature
Write the proposal. Explain the problem it solves. Show examples. Make your case.
Community votes on priorities
Which proposals matter most? Members signal interest. Priorities bubble up from actual usage, not guesses.
Beta Network: members who opted in to test new features
Entry criteria: Account age threshold, trust circle size, or invitation from existing beta member.
Responsibility: Test thoroughly, provide structured feedback, vote on graduation.
Graduation criteria (all must pass)
- ✓ Minimum 10 beta testers
- ✓ Minimum 14 days of testing
- ✓ Minimum 5 feedback submissions
- ✓ 3:1 positive feedback ratio
- ✓ No blocking issues
- ✓ Accessibility review passed
- ✓ No unresolved objections
Feature classification: new capability vs. configuration option
Configuration options are lower risk — simpler graduation criteria. New capabilities need more testing.
Rejection or deprecation always possible
Features don't have to ship. Communities change their minds. Deprecated features have a support window, not permanent maintenance.
Example
Mina proposes a feature: "Project Templates"
Idea: New projects could start from templates instead of blank. Speed up setup, ensure consistency.
Community votes. It ranks high.
Beta phase starts. 12 testers from different practices (construction, design, fabrication, research) try it for 3 weeks.
Feedback: Construction loves it. Researchers say templates are too rigid. Designers use them but want more customization.
Graduation vote: 8 in favor, 2 concerned about rigidity, 2 abstain. No blocking objections.
Features ships — but with a note: "Community tested by [names]. Feedback: Works great for structured projects, less flexible for exploratory work. Known limitation."
Future users can see this isn't a perfect feature. It's a known quantity with known tradeoffs.