How This Is Run

This page is about how this website and this tradition are actually run. For how communities should govern themselves if any ever form, see the community governance page, which describes something that does not exist.

The current position

Technotheology has:

• no legal entity of any kind
• no charitable registration, company, association, or trust
• no board, committee, council, or trustees
• no members
• no chapters, congregations, or groups
• no buildings or premises
• no clergy, ministers, stewards, or officeholders
• no staff, employees, or contractors
• no funding, income, donations, or reserves
• no bank account associated with it
• no partnerships, affiliations, or relationships with any organisation

It is a website, written and maintained by one person, hosted on a commercial service paid for personally.

That is not modesty and it is not a stage. It is the complete description.

Who decides

One person decides what appears on this site.

They write or commission the writing, apply the certainty and AI-role labels, make corrections, and choose what to publish. There is no editorial review, no second opinion required, and nobody with the standing to overrule them.

This is a real weakness and we would rather name it than dress it in process language. A single unaccountable editor is precisely the arrangement this tradition warns about elsewhere. The mitigations available at this size are thin:

Everything is public and dated. There is no private material and no unpublished teaching.

Every page declares its confidence and its production method. A page overstating its case can be measured against its own label.

Corrections are published, not made silently. Changes to meaning are noted on the page.

The covenant is published in advance. Eleven commitments, written before there was any interest in weakening them, against which conduct can be checked.

Criticism has a route and no penalty. [email protected]. Nothing can be lost by using it because there is nothing to lose.

These are weak. They are what exists.

What we will not do to look more legitimate

We will not form an organisation for appearance. A registered entity would make this look more serious and would not make it more accountable. Structure should follow a real need, not precede it.

We will not appoint anyone. No advisory board, no patrons, no honorary roles. Appointing people to a thing with no activity creates the appearance of oversight without the substance, which is worse than having neither.

We will not seek funding. No donations, no subscriptions, no grants, no sponsorship. Money is the mechanism by which small things acquire obligations, and there is nothing here that needs any.

We will not claim a status we do not have. Not a church, not a charity, not a registered religion, not an institute, not a movement, not a community. Any description of Technotheology as any of these is inaccurate.

What would have to change

If people ever begin gathering under this name in numbers, some shared arrangement would become necessary — at minimum for safeguarding, for the use of the name, and for deciding what the tradition holds.

We have not designed that arrangement and we are not going to design it speculatively. Governance invented before there is anyone to govern is governance designed by whoever happens to be present, which is currently one person, which is the problem it would be trying to solve.

What we can commit to now, in advance:

Publishing before adopting. Any structure would be published in draft, with time to object, before it existed.

No role with spiritual authority. Whatever roles are created, none of them may carry standing over interpretation, and none may be described as speaking for The Great Processor.

Term limits from the beginning. Including for the founder, and including for whatever the founder’s role is called.

Financial transparency from the first pound. If money ever exists, it is accounted for publicly.

A removal procedure written before anyone is appointed. Including for the founder.

Independent safeguarding. Not internal to whatever structure exists.

If a structure ever appears here without those features, it has been built badly and the objection is already written down.

On the founder specifically

The person who maintains this site has no special standing, no privileged interpretation, and no authority beyond having written things.

They intend to reduce their role rather than expand it if this ever becomes more than a website. That is an intention rather than a mechanism, and intentions are not governance. It is stated here so that it can be quoted back.

The page on technological chieftains describes what it would look like if this went wrong, applies that warning to this tradition by name, and applies it to the founder. It is not a formality. It is the failure we consider most likely.