Charter first, price tag later: thoughts on a Drupal Federation

At the Drupal Association's public board meeting in Rotterdam, one message stood out. The DA strongly supports the idea of a Drupal Federation. It will not drive it. Board and staff are happy to consult, but somebody else has to pull the strings.

That's a call for a grassroots initiative. I won't be the one answering it. I wasn't part of past efforts, and most likely can't join future ones. So these are thoughts, not recommendations. The people who did the work know things I don't.

I do have an opinion about where to start, though. Of course I do. I'm German.

The reasons were never the hard part

The International Drupal Federation Initiative started in May 2025. The plan: a membership-based international nonprofit under Belgian law, an AISBL, with Drupal associations from around the world as members. It would work alongside the US-based Drupal Association and regional nonprofits, not replace them.

Money comes first. A legal body in Europe can apply for public funding from European governments and from the EU itself. Europe increasingly funds open source as digital public infrastructure. Those programmes usually expect a European applicant.

Then safety. Drupal.org, DrupalCon and the trademark need a safe harbour that doesn't depend on a single country. The same goes for legislative risk. If one government passes laws the project can't live with, Drupal shouldn't be stuck in that jurisdiction. Not relying on a single legal system is insurance you buy before you need it.

And governance. Decisions built on participation from more people and more organisations are better decisions. They are also harder to dismiss.

Much of Drupal's contribution comes from Europe, which may have helped pick the location, too.

What I saw from the outside

The DA went full speed. A working group, webinars, surveys, a draft business model. And one clear condition: this only goes ahead if local associations take part.

Fair condition. A federation without members is a letterhead.

Participation also made things more complicated. From the outside, many local and national associations seemed to start with two questions. What's in it for us? And how much is it? Classic return on investment.

Legitimate questions. I know them well. In a German Verein, the agenda item "membership fees" reliably eats the whole evening. The actual purpose of the meeting moves to next year.

The questions were in the brief from day one. The original pitch said openly that local associations would have to decide what they get out of it. Right question, wrong moment. Each association answered from its own position. The answers didn't add up to one organisation. They added up to complexity.

Then the ground shifted. The DA changed CEOs. Financial constraints tightened. Staff had to focus even harder on other priorities. Maybe legal constraints kicked in as well. I don't know.

Hence Rotterdam: support, yes. Driving, no.

Define the organisation before anyone joins it

With this many stakeholders, there's one trap. If each of us starts the discussion, or the manifesto, with our own stake at the centre, we won't get anywhere. Then we can save the effort and spend it elsewhere.

So I'd split the work in two.

Phase one is about the new entity only. It answers seven questions:

• What do we want to achieve? Not who, not how.
• What are the Federation's objectives?
• What are its responsibilities?
• How are decisions made?
• What's the legal framework?
• Who can become a member?
• How are conflicts resolved?

None of the seven is about money.

The answers go into a charter. Until that charter exists, it doesn't matter what it means for future members: local or national associations, maybe individuals, maybe others. Phase one keeps everyone's own stakes out of the room on purpose. It describes the organisation Drupal needs, not the one each of us can afford. Call it the perfect organisation. Perfect is a fine target for a document. Reality brings its compromises soon enough.

Phase two starts when the charter is done. Every eligible prospective member decides for themselves whether they want in. That's where "what's in it for us?" and "how much is it?" belong. As the basis for a decision to join, not as input to the design.

Developers know this pattern as contract first. Define the interface, then each implementation decides whether it can fulfil it. An API negotiated with every future consumer ends up serving none of them.

The risk: phase one produces something nobody joins. Then we know, quickly and cleanly. That's a result, too.

Somebody has to pull the strings

The DA has stated its position and offered to consult. The working group left survey results and a draft business model behind. A new effort doesn't start from zero.

What's missing is a small group willing to write the charter first. Ideally people who come as individuals, not as delegates with a mandate to defend.

Why write this from the sidelines? Because I think the Federation is extremely important for all of us in the Drupal community. I wish I could do more than write about it. Others are far better qualified to do the actual work. This post is for them.

If that's you, start with the charter. The bill will find you anyway.