4 files changed, 155 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/project/governance.bb b/doc/project/governance.bb
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..e13f6218c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/project/governance.bb
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+[h2]$Projectname Governance[/h2]
+
+Governance relates to the management of a project and particularly how this relates to conflict resolution.
+
+This project uses a dual-governance model.
+
+The project as a whole and the repository were created initially by Mike Macgirvin; who controls the project copyright, and the project license, and manages the project as a Self Appointed Benevolent Dictator for Life. He holds veto power over any project proposal or decision and his word is final.
+
+That said, Mike has no interest in running the day to day activities of the project and influencing its direction, other than to protect his own work from sabotage. 
+
+The internal project structure contains multiple "configurations" known as 'basic', 'standard', and 'pro'. Mike's veto power extends to any proposal or decision which he feels might adversely affect the 'pro' configuration.
+
+The 'basic and 'standard' configurations are controlled completely by the community. If the proposal or decision is crafted in such a way that its effects are limited to these configurations, Mike will consider relinquishing his power of veto and convert it to a normal community vote.
+
+Mario Vavti has done an incredible amount of work on the usability and theming of the project and holds veto power over any proposal or decision which might impact usability and "look and feel"; and his decision is also final. 
+
+Mario's veto power is likewise restricted to anything using the standard project 'theme'. If a new theme is created and an otherwise vetoed decision is implemented entirely in this different theme and has no impact on the standard project theme, his veto [b]may[/b] also be turned into a normal community vote.
+
+This ability to work around a veto is at the discretion of Mike and Mario. They [b]may[/b] choose to relinquish their veto if the scope of the work is limited as described above, and in most circumstances they will leave the decision to the community. They are not obligated to do so. 
+
+[h3]Community Governance[/h3]
+
+Beyond those two special cases, the project is maintained and decisions made by the 'community'. The governance structure is still evolving. Until the structure is finalised, decisions are made in the following order:
+
+[ol]
+[*] Lazy Consensus
+
+If a project proposal is made to one of the community governance forums and there are no serious objections in a "reasonable" amount of time from date of proposal (we usually provide 2-3 days for all interested parties to weigh in), no vote needs to be taken and the proposal will be considered approved. Some concerns may be raised at this time, but if these are addressed during discussion and work-arounds provided, it will still be considered approved. 
+
+[*] Veto
+
+If a proposal is vetoed, it is not necessarily the final word. See above on how to convert a veto into a normal community vote. This can be done by framing the proposal so that it does not impact the 'pro' configuration or the standard theme.
+
+[*] Community Vote
+
+A decision which does not have a clear mandate or clear consensus, but is not vetoed, can be taken to a community vote. At present this is a simple popular vote in one of the applicable community forums.  At this time, popular vote decides the outcome. This may change in the future if the community adopts a 'council' governance model. This document will be updated at that time with the updated governance rules. 
+[/ol]
+
+Community Voting does not always provide a pleasant outcome and can generate polarised factions in the community (hence the reason why other models are under consideration). If the proposal is 'down voted' there are still several things which can be done and the proposal re-submitted with slightly different parameters (convert to an addon, convert to an optional feature which is disabled by default, etc.). If interest in the feature is high and the vote is "close", it can generate lots of bad feelings amongst the losing voters. On such close votes, it is [b]strongly recommended[/b] that the proposer take steps to address any concerns that were raised and re-submit.
+
+  
+
+ 
+
+
diff --git a/doc/project/history.md b/doc/project/history.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..99cbfec7a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/project/history.md
@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+Hubzilla History
+================
+
+Hubzilla is a community developed open source project based on work introduced in Friendica by the Friendica community and which previously was named Redmatrix. The core design, the project mission, and software base itself were created/written primarily by Mike Macgirvin and represent the culmination of over a decade of software design using variations of this platform and an evolving vision of the role of communication software in our lives. Many others have contributed to this work, both conceptually and in terms of actual code (far too many to list individually).
+
+##Mike Macgirvin -- Biography
+ 
+Mike Macgirvin is an American software engineer now living in Australia. He spent his early adult years designing and repairing semiconductor fabrication equipment for a number of companies as a self-described "machine wizard". In 1985 he became a research engineer at Stanford University for the Gravity Probe-B space mission and soon became a Unix systems administrator writing communication software and utilities; and becoming an expert in emerging internet technologies such as the now ubiquitous "World Wide Web". He authored an email "client" called "ML" which pioneered some advanced concepts in encryption, the ability to filter message streams into different "views", and multi-protocol support; and was an active proponent of and participant in the open source software *movement*. In 1996 he went to Netscape Communications to become tech lead on their Messaging Server and integrate this with Collabra (groupware) into a comprehensive communications server package. He stayed on after Netscape was acquired by America Online and was tech manager of the Groups@AOL project until 2001. 
+
+During a layoff round, Mike was let go from America Online in August 2001 and purchased a music store in Mountain View, California later to be known as "Sonica Music Company". Opening a retail store for non-essential goods at the beginning of a prolonged economic downturn was in retrospect probably not the wisest career move. Sonica eventually folded; in late 2006. Mike returned to working on software and systems support full-time and was employed briefly at Symantec before moving to Australia in early 2007. He currently lives on a farm "out in the middle of nowhere" and is employed as a Computer Systems Officer at the University of Wollongong. 
+
+
+##Hubzilla - The Early Years
+
+The software which went into creating Hubzilla has been through several distinct historical phases. It began in 2003 when Mike Macgirvin was looking for a content management system to power the website for his music store and found the available solutions to be lacking in various respects. The project was born as the "PurpleHaze weblog" under the nom de plume "Nerdware Communications". It was a multi-user PHP/MySQL CMS which provided blogs, forums, photo albums, events and more. Initially it provided the basis for a social community and shopping for customers of the store, but was also linked to Mike's personal weblog running on another domain. The distinguishing characteristic of this software was the ability for so-called "normal users" to re-assemble the components and choose different content feeds - and in essence create their own personal "multi-user CMS" as a view. Their custom view was able to communicate with anybody else that used the system, but could be partitioned so that adult sites and motorcycle enthusiast sites would not be visible to each other and not clash (or in this case Mike's personal website and the music store website). This software was developed primarily from 2003 until 2008.
+
+In 2006 this software was used as the prototype for Symantec's "safeweb" reputation and community site. It was developed and enhanced until about 2008. A rewrite took place in 2008 named "Reflection" but work stagnated as the community dwindled. The need for content management systems and communications software dropped dramatically during this time as humans flocked to the new social aggregrators - Facebook and Twitter.  
+
+
+##Mistpark/Friendica
+
+In early 2010, Mike left Facebook, concerned at the company's increasing hold and control of personal information. In his words "Companies die. We watched it happen in the dot-com years. When they do, their databases are sold to the highest bidder.". Mike used some remnants of the old CMS project to create a decentralised social communications platform. This was launched in July 2010 as "Mistpark". The name was chosen as a tribute to his new home in the Southern Highlands of Australia. The key innovation in this project was the ability to authenticate remotely and invisibly to other decentralised instances of the software so to allow remote viewing of private photos and provide "wall-to-wall" posting across website instances. The lack of simple remote identity *provenance* was a serious limitation of other decentralised communication protocols.
+
+In late 2010, the name was changed to "Friendika". The name Friendika had some symbolic issues, since the suffix was common with "swastika" and "Amerika", both having negative connotations, however the dot-com domain was available. Friendica was in fact the first choice but the 'friendica.com' domain name was already registered. It became available a year later and the project was renamed to Friendica in late 2011. 
+
+Soon after version 1 was released in July 2010 - providing basic social communications, the software also took on a new role - cross-service federation; which was first introduced in August and September 2010. Federation allowed the software to "behave as" a StatusNet site and friends and messages could communicate to the other service from their own platforms. It was also hoped to provide federation with Diaspora - a project with similar scope being developed in secret in New York and first released in November of that year. Over the course of the next year, the federation ability was extended to provide integrated communications from RSS feeds, to and from email, StatusNet, Facebook, Twitter, and the emerging Diaspora project. The software provided a single "view" of your entire social space no matter what provider you or your friends used. StatusNet and Diaspora were supported natively so that one account could access any of these services. Facebook and Twitter used "API federation" which required the person to have an account on those services with which to link.
+
+By July 2012, Twitter and Facebook had both changed their terms of service and essentially outlawed "API federation" in the way Friendica was using it. Diaspora announced they were changing their protocol and would not maintain compatibility nor provide any warning when compatibility would break (or documentation on the proposed changes). The creator of StatusNet was also leaving his project to create something new (pump.io). As the software's primary purpose by this time was "federation of different social services into one interface", this created a bit of a crisis. The federated social web was crumbling. Also of concern was that independent and decentralised social websites shut down frequently, requiring all their members to start over again on another site. Often the effort involved to do this seemed daunting - and many people ran back to the relative safety of the large corporate providers - Facebook, Twitter, and now Google+. 
+
+Mike realised he did not want to be held hostage to the decisions that other projects and companies and independent websites make. Friendica could operate on its own without attaching to these other networks, but its vision and implementation of a federated social world depended on federation with others for its project identity - so this created an identity crisis.   
+
+Mike had been working on this project for some time and there were a number of things which needed re-writing, including the base communication protocol which Friendica used (DFRN or the "Distributed Friends and Relations Network" protocol). These ideas were starting to emerge as a different method of communication he called "zot". Zot began as a way to create a common language for federated websites, but there was no interest in this ability and as mentioned, the federated web was crumbling. The first version was soon scrapped and zot was re-designed and re-ignited as a streamlined communication protocol which was location-independent; e.g. not tied to any website. This would allow people to carry on unaffected if their website operator shut down temporarily or permanently. They wouldn't have to make friends all over again, and permissions of everything on the system wouldn't have to be changed to allow bob@site1 to see something that was private to him, even though he was now bob@site2. This was a serious problem with decentralisation. People moved and their online identities were lost and had to be re-created from scratch and existing relationships destroyed and had to be created all over again. 
+
+
+##Redmatrix
+
+In July 2012, Mike left the Friendica project and began development of "zot" and a new base project called "red" in his somewhat elusive *spare time*. Red is Spanish for "network". It wasn't really a "social network" and especially not a "federated social network". It was just Red (technically "la red"), or "the network". Work began by removing all the "federation" components and going back to basics - communication and remote authentication. It was a major re-write and took roughly six months before even basic communication was re-established. It was also no longer compatible with Friendica - which had been given to the "Friendica community" and by this time (December 2012) was developing separately on its own track.
+
+It became clear during this time that the single most compelling feature of the project wasn't the social network at all, but the authentication layer and decentralised access control mechanisms. Combined with zot's location independence it created a new model for software which had never existed previously - decentralised identity-aware web publishing and single sign-on to any compatible provider across the web. These weren't *evolutionary*, they were **revolutionary**. One of the biggest flaws of the modern web is the reliance on different passwords for every service you use, or reliance on a single provider if you were to tie them to - say your Facebook login. Facebook can remove your account at any time. Gone. If you rely on their authentication for all your websites, your entire online identity - now gone. This is also what was missing from Friendica - a compelling software feature which could stand on its own, without requiring a social network and especially without requiring a federated social network with all the mentioned external dependencies.   
+
+An early visitor to the project noted that he had some difficulty finding the project on Google because of the choice of name - "red". Yes, this was a poor decision in retrospect. We were buried on page 23,712 of the search results. The concept that was emerging around this identity-aware publishing was that of "a matrix of inter-connected thought streams", since we didn't have a concept of "people" and "friends". All were just connected "channels" with different ways to connect. So "Redmatrix" was chosen to give it a searchable name. It had nothing to do with the Matrix film and red and blue pills, though that is frequently cited (erronously); and in fact isn't a bad analogy.  
+
+The concept of identity-aware content was alien to anything that existed previously on the web, so to make it useful we had to provide the ability to use it for content. It needed content publishing tools. This brought back concepts from the old "Content Management System" on which the software was originally based. To get it up and running quickly we created a markup language for webpages called "Comanche" which let you describe a page in high-level terms based on bbcode tags. We also added WebDAV so you could put decentralised access control on files and drag/drop from your operating system. So now you could have private photos, webpages, files, events, conversations, chatrooms - and they are visible to those you choose - no matter what site they use. All they need is zot. And your viewers could move to another site or just pop up at a different site any time they want and we don't care. And it **also** had a built-in social network; with lots of additional privacy and encryption features which were added even before the Snowden revelations gave them added urgency.
+
+Over time a few federation components re-emerged. The ability to view RSS feeds was important to many people. Diaspora never really managed to re-write their protocol, so that was re-implemented and allowed Redmatrix to connect with Diaspora and Friendica again (Friendica still had their Diaspora protocol intact, so this was the most common language now remaining on the free web - despite its faults). Diaspora communications aren't able to make use of the advanced identity features, but they work for basic communications. 
+
+
+##Hubzilla
+
+The Redmatrix project reached a point of stagnation in early 2015 as network growth leveled and active interest in the project declined. Mike met with several external high tech developers and innovators in a round of discussions that were called "Zotopia" in early 2015 to perform an independent review of the project and try to identify what had gone wrong and plan a route forward. The basic consensus is that the project suffered from bad marketing decisions which were compounded by mixed messages about the project goals and target audience. A "rival" project (Diaspora) was marketing itself as a Facebook competitor, but after some long discussions it was determined that Redmatrix wasn't a Facebook competitor at all, and too much emphasis was being placed on the "social network" and "anti-Facebook" features. It was a novel decentralisation platform with distributed identity and permissions, and as was pointed out, the "end user" was the wrong target market. These marketing mistakes were now identified with the project name and random sampling of various "customers" showed that none of them really had a clue about the software goals or target market segment. The mixed messages were associated with the brand identity and this was a problem. 
+
+The Redmatrix community held a vote and the project was renamed "Hubzilla", with a renewed identity and focus - to provide software for creating and ultimately linking together unrelated community websites or "hubs" into a global community. This is in fact what we were building all along, but didn't fully recognise it. The target audience for this software as it turns out is not the members or end users, but software integrators and digital community architects and builders. These in turn will be responsible for marketing their own product (their respective online communities) to end-users or members. The software solves a real world need of linking isolated and "walled garden" community sites together into a larger cooperative. The transition from Redmatrix to Hubzilla was complex and has taken several months as we consolidated the marketing and media assets to deliver a consistent message. It is still ongoing at this time, and should be completed in Q4 2015.       
+
+Mike stepped down as active coordinator for the project in early 2015 and turned management over to the community. He remains active as a Hubzilla developer.  
+
+##And Then...
+
+In 2016, the project was re-architected to support multiple server "roles". These correspond to sub-projects which can be isolated from each other in terms of supported feature sets, but all use and support the same code-base and developers are able to work together on common features and goals. The roles primarily differ in target audience, project [governance](help/project/governance) and decision making structures, and this results in slightly different features and idealogy. They all share a common code repository. 
+
+Those roles are:
+
+### Basic
+
+Entry level server. Supported by and governed by the Hubzilla community. Most advanced or complex features have been stripped away to ease federation with external services. It is best suited as a FOSS social network tool. 
+
+### Standard
+
+The standard Hubzilla server. This provides a wide range of useful features and is supported by and governed by the Hubzilla community. It is best suited as an open source community and cloud server. 
+
+### Pro
+
+This is a specially crafted server with a unique feature set. It is supported by and governed by Mike Macgirvin dba "Zotlabs". Federation with external services has been stripped away in order to support a wide range of more technically advanced and complex features; and also includes features and modes which may not have the support or backing of the Hubzilla open source community. It is best suited for business and workplace applications. 
+
+#include doc/macros/main_footer.bb;
diff --git a/doc/project/toc.html b/doc/project/toc.html
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..b9489de3d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/project/toc.html
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+<h3>Project Information</h3>
+<ul>
+<li><a href="help/project/governance">Project Governance</a></li>
+<li><a href="help/project/history">Project History</a></li>
+<li><a href="help/project/versions">Versions and Versioning</a></li>
+</ul>
diff --git a/doc/project/versions.bb b/doc/project/versions.bb
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..451cd0448
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/project/versions.bb
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+[h2]Versions and Releases[/h2]
+
+$Projectname currently uses a standard version numbering sequence of $x.$y(.$z), for instance '1.12' or '1.12.1'. The first digit is the major version number. Major versions are released "roughly" once per year; often in December.
+
+The second digit is the minor release number. If this number is odd, it is a development version. If the number is even, it is a released version. Minor versions are released (moved from dev to master) typically once per month when development is 'stable', but this is likely to increase. Going forward minor releases will be made somewhere between one and three months; corresponding to a stable code point and when there is general community consensus that the current code base is stable enough to consider a release.
+
+The final digit is an interface or patch designator. 
+
+The release process involves changing the version number (by definition the minor version number will be odd, and the minor number will be incremented). Once a year for a major release the major version will be incremented, and the minor number reset to 0. 
+
+The release candidate is moved to a new branch; and testing will commence/continue for a period of 1-2 weeks afterward or until any significant issues have been resolved. This branch is usually labelled with RC (release candidate); for instance 1.8RC represents the pending release of version 1.8. At this time, the minor version number on the dev branch is incremented to the next odd number. (For instance 1.9). New development can then take place in the dev branch. 
+
+Bug fixes should always be applied to 'dev' and from there merged forward (typically with git cherry-pick) to the RC branch and if necessary applied to the master or official release branch.
+
+At the time a release candidate is produced, the language strings file is frozen until a release is made. Translation work may continue, but all translations should be submitted to 'dev' and merged forward to RC.
+
+
+Once RC testing is completed, RC is merged to 'master' and the RC version designator removed; resulting in one final checkin to change the version number. The CHANGELOG file should also be updated at or just prior to this time. If there are merge conflicts during this final merge, the merge will be abandoned; and 'git merge -s ours' applied. This results in a replacement of master with the contents of the RC branch. Conflicts often arise with string updates which were made to master after the last release and cannot easily be resolved without hand editing. Since this is a release of tested code, hand editing is discouraged, and the replacement merge strategy should be used instead. It is assumed that RC now contains the most recent well-tested code. 
+
+Once the release is live and merged to master, the RC branch may be removed. 
+
+Fixes may be made to master after release. Where possible these should be made to dev and 'git cherry-pick' used to merge forward; which preserves the commit info and prevents merge conflicts in the next cycle. Only rarely does a patch only apply to the master branch. If necessary this can be made. If the change is severe, the interface version number should be incremented. This is at the discretion of the community. In any event, a 'git pull' of the master branch should always result in the latest release with any post-release patches applied. 
+
+The interface number (the $z in $x.$y.$z) should be incremented in dev whenever a change is made which changes the interfaces or API in incompatible ways so that any external packages (especially addons and API clients) relying on a the current behaviour can discover and change their own interfaces accordingly at the point that it changed.  
+ 
+
+
+
+
+    
+\ No newline at end of file