Open Source Mirrors European Governance: Why Standards Fit Our Structure

Two Models of Governance

The European Union represents a governance model that differs fundamentally from centralized nation-states. Multiple sovereign entities collaborate through shared standards and frameworks. No single nation controls the EU; decisions emerge from negotiation and consensus among peers.

This isn't always efficient. It's often slower than top-down decision-making. But it creates resilience through diversity: no single point of failure, no single point of control.

Open source infrastructure follows remarkably similar patterns.

How Open Source Governance Works

Consider Kubernetes, governed by the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF):

Multiple implementations: Kubernetes isn't a single product. It's a specification with implementations from Google (GKE), Amazon (EKS), Microsoft (AKS), Red Hat (OpenShift), Rancher, K3s, and dozens more. No single vendor controls the standard.

Standards bodies: The CNCF operates through working groups, special interest groups, and technical committees. Decisions emerge from consensus among contributors representing different organizations. Over 88,000 contributors from more than 8,000 companies across 44 countries participate.

Distributed decision-making: No single company can unilaterally change Kubernetes. Even Google—which originated the project—must work through community governance processes.

Federation over monopoly: Rather than one massive Kubernetes implementation, the ecosystem consists of many implementations that interoperate through common APIs and standards.

Contrast with Proprietary Cloud Models

US technology platforms tend toward different organizational patterns:

Single platform dominance: AWS holds roughly 32% of cloud infrastructure market. Within its ecosystem, AWS makes unilateral decisions about features, pricing, deprecations.

Proprietary control: Vendor lock-in by design. Services like Lambda, DynamoDB, and SQS are available only from AWS. You can't take these workloads elsewhere without rewriting.

Winner-takes-all markets: Network effects favor the largest platform. The biggest gets more customers, which provides data to build better services, which attracts more customers.

Centralized decision-making: Corporate hierarchy determines product direction. Customers can request features but can't participate in governance.

This model optimizes for efficiency and rapid scaling. It doesn't optimize for customer independence or distributed control.

Why This Alignment Matters

When European organisations build on open source infrastructure, they're working with governance models that mirror their own political structures. This isn't superficial—it's structural compatibility.

Both value:

Distributed sovereignty over centralized control
Standards and interoperability over proprietary lock-in
Consensus decision-making over top-down mandates
Federation over consolidation
Resilience through diversity over efficiency through monopoly

European political culture already understands these tradeoffs. We accept that EU decision-making is slower than nation-state unilateral action because we value the resilience that distributed governance provides.

The same reasoning applies to technology: we accept that open standards evolve slower than proprietary products because we value the independence that multiple implementations provide.

Practical Implications

When choosing technology for foundational infrastructure, ask:

Who governs it? A foundation (CNCF, Linux Foundation, Apache) or a single company?
How are decisions made? Community consensus or corporate mandate?
How many implementations exist? One implementation means one point of control. Multiple implementations mean genuine standard.
Can you participate in governance? Can your engineers contribute to direction, or just consume what's provided?

For critical infrastructure—the stuff that's expensive to change—prefer truly open governance:

Kubernetes over proprietary container orchestration
PostgreSQL over proprietary databases
Prometheus over proprietary monitoring
OpenTofu over license-restricted infrastructure tools

For higher-level tooling, commercial products can be fine—if you understand the tradeoffs: Using proprietary services isn't wrong. But understand what you're trading: convenience and features for increased dependency and reduced optionality.

The European Opportunity

Europe won't out-compete US tech companies by copying their centralized, winner-takes-all model. We don't have the capital, the market scale, or frankly the cultural inclination.

But Europe can lead in federated, standards-based, distributed governance—because this aligns with our existing political structures and cultural values.

Open source infrastructure isn't just compatible with European thinking. It's the natural technical expression of European political philosophy: multiple sovereign actors collaborating through shared standards.

This is why European organisations building on Kubernetes, PostgreSQL, and open standards aren't just making technical choices. They're building infrastructure that aligns with European values and governance models.

Sources:

#opensource #europeanvalues #governance #standards #cloudsofeurope