The Architecture Board Governance work in Phase H is about establishing a traceable line from decision to consequence. That matters most not inside the organisation but outward — to the communities NZRT exists to serve. If a charitable org receives a technology setup based on architectural commitments we made, and the board later approves a change that undermines that setup, who carries accountability for that? The governance structure is supposed to answer that question before it becomes urgent.
The Phase H deliverable (full doc here: https://cloud.nzrtnetwork.com/nextcloud/index.php/s/EPR3z8ynFKWyKJo) sets out how the board operates: what triggers a formal review, who has standing to raise a concern, what gets recorded and why. From an HR perspective that is role definition at its most consequential — not defining what someone does day to day, but defining who is answerable when something goes wrong at the boundary between architectural decisions and community impact.
The harder question is whether a governance document creates accountability or just documents that accountability was intended. Records of decisions are not the same as someone being answerable for consequences. The gap between those two things is where community trust is either built or lost. Getting that right in founding phase — before there are real beneficiaries depending on these systems — is worth the effort of doing it properly.
