Yes. It requires however letting go of starting from the tech as a single plaform or the presumption of scale, and starting from community and network. The group once formed shapes/defines the tech tools used. Then link those tools used up into a federated whole, that in turn may need its own governance structures. Vgl [[Waardevol op zich, waardevoller verbonden 20190513163855]] (valuable on its own, more valuable connected)

https://web.archive.org/web/20220916075836/https://rachelcoldicutt.medium.com/the-case-for-community-tech-report-launch-and-fund-news-35784b6498f8

Alberto says of this https://twitter.com/alberto_cottica/status/1570357027485925378 'most communities gravitate towards tech minimalism: "community tech" is 95% community, 5% tech. And then funders lose interest.' Unless funders are from within the community I suppose. Goes back to networked agency / and the need for tech to be smaller than us, to be within scope of control of the people using the tech for a specific purpose.