Prelude

What is unfolding in the United States is nothing short of grave. This is not the lament of a European critic—it is a simple truth: democracy is dead. My heart lies with the American people, especially those openly rebellious, who are daring to stand against the tide.

Initially, I was enraged with American voters, to make things worse, the Signal story came out, where my people were dismissed as “freestanding” and “PATHETIC.”

That was my turning point. I sat down to draft this paper thinking, “Right, here’s this intriguing EuroStack project—how can I propose an implementation?”. My mindset was technocratic, methodical—a textbook engineer’s approach.

But the deeper I delved, the more reports I consumed about the environmental crisis and the economic chasms in the United States, the clearer it became: this is not just an engineering problem. It is a fundamental, systemic collapse.

I shifted my lens. I started analysing from an anthropological perspective, seeking insights from the likes of Marcel Gauchet and Dr Alain Deneault—voices that resonated with the gravity of our times.

I am a rational man. I believe in science, in rigorous analysis. Yet even with the exhaustion of this intellectual journey weighing on me, one stark realisation hit me like a hammer: neoliberalism was destined to fail—and it has delivered us to this precipice.

Marx foresaw that capitalism would collapse under the strain of social inequality, and in part, he was wrong. Not because the tension does not exist, but because capitalists proved cunning—they fed us scraps, introducing social welfare to keep us functioning just enough to sustain their system of exploitation.

But here’s the twist: neither Marx nor the oligarchs accounted for the ultimate boundary—planetary limits. The collapse of neoliberalism is inevitable, and it may bring humanity down with it.

Understand this: I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am a scientist. I have analysed the data, and I tell you this: the architects of the neoliberal dream (the US and its adherents) are finished. More critically, if we persist in following their model, humanity itself will face ruin—our planet can no longer support the weight of our excess. This is no theory; this is reality.

Europe now stands at a pivotal crossroads. We possess a unique vantage point, having witnessed the catastrophic unraveling of neoliberalism through the lens of the United States. And with this perspective comes an unprecedented opportunity to act. We, the Baguettes, hold the Force de Frappe, giving us the means to determine our own course and reshape our destiny.

Yet, there is hope. At our disposal lies a powerful tool—not just software, but a collective of individuals collaborating to produce two thousand times more value than they consume. This tool stands as irrefutable evidence: we do not need oligarchs to create value or to thrive. It is living proof that neoliberalism is not the only path forward. This tool is open-source, and the free culture movement.

I am but one voice—a lone proletarian ensnared within the machinery of the free market. Change will remain elusive unless we stand united. Until then, I will direct my energy towards transforming the industry I am part of.

I am young, and the older generations have no right to strip my generation of our self-determination—not because it is unethical, but because if we fail to fix the system, our very existence will be at risk. It is an existential crisis for us, and attempts to suppress us will achieve nothing. Whatever you do, know this:

The Consortium will rise. ✊

Acknowledgments

À mes parents, pour leur dévouement et leurs sacrifices, des actes qui dépassent les mots et font écho à l’amour le plus pur.

À mes frères, dont le parcours m’a échappé plus souvent que je ne l’aurais souhaité, mais dont la présence reste profondément précieuse dans ma vie.

À Marcel Gauchet, au Dr. Alain Deneault, et à tous ceux qui, dans leur marginalisme éclairé, protègent l’essence de notre humanité.

À tous ceux qui, dans l’ombre, ont prêté leurs forces pour que ce projet voie le jour. Ce travail est leur reflet autant que le mien.

A Citizen’s Perspective: An Anthropological Essay

Disclaimer
I am not an anthropologist, nor am I affiliated with academia. As a proletarian who had to prioritise earning a living early to secure my independence, I approach this topic from a different perspective. What I offer here is a rough and unfiltered analysis, unburdened by academic formalism but deeply rooted in lived experiences and genuine curiosity about the systems shaping our world.

Democracy Is Dead

I have always been concerned about the occupation of our industry. While it is seen as benign by many, it is important to recognise that, with the invention of the Internet, digital is no longer just about “processing data” but also about “delivering information” to people. Newspapers, radio, cinema, and television have all been weaponised to influence public opinion. We can all think of notorious political figures associated with each of these media, exploiting them to rise to power or expand their influence.

But social networks, as we know them today, are becoming less and less “social.” They have long been used as marketing channels. Even worse, when combined with user tracking—which is rarely lawful [1]—so-called “recommendation algorithms” are employed to carry out targeted campaigns, selecting users based on how “influenced” they are likely to be.

It hasn’t taken long for industrial lobbyists and political movements to exploit these tools for more insidious purposes. Just think about it: they can display political statements, incite public outrage, and, even more troubling, leverage user profiles to target individuals with content designed to influence them.

Now, ask yourself: “Who controls these recommendation algorithms?” The answer is clear: private entities, operating under opaque governance systems and foreign jurisdictions. We have handed foreign powers—many of which have turned authoritarian—direct access to the minds of our people, shaping public opinion and, by extension, the democratic outcomes of our continent.

The recent Eurobarometer “Youth Survey 2024” [2], when juxtaposed with this undeniable reality, serves as a deeply alarming wake-up call. Our youth, the very foundation of our future, are disproportionately vulnerable to the pervasive threat of disinformation. It is time we confront the truth head-on:

We lost the psychological warfare.

Europe’s Digital Sector: A Public Interest Ignored

Europe has misclassified the digital sector. It’s not just a standalone industry—it’s a horizontal layer that underpins and enables all other sectors: it is infrastructure. Consider roads, railways, motorways, markets, or electrical grids… All of these are undeniably matters of “public interest,” wouldn’t you agree? We wouldn’t feel comfortable with foreign private companies maintaining full control over such critical systems. So why have we accepted the occupation of our digital sector?

But more importantly, what happened in the US?

US Big Tech Soft Coup

US Big Tech firms operate as centralised tech hubs, exerting comprehensive control across the entire stack—from infrastructure and hardware to end-user software. This dominance enables them to orchestrate collaboration within their markets, identify innovative SMEs, and evaluate how these smaller players fit into their ecosystems. Their strategy often follows a federate or assimilate approach: align with their interests, or risk having your innovations absorbed and claimed as their own.

This model has given rise to US Big Tech—a powerful oligarchic ecosystem. These oligarchs leveraged political figures like Trump to consolidate their influence over the nation’s political landscape. This was exacerbated by unresolved social issues in the US, caused by the same hegemonic capitalist model that allowed these oligarchs to seize power. The imbalance of power, coupled with the social unrest it created, and the total control of communication platforms by a handful of tech billionaires, enabled a silent psychological warfare. This reinforced the belief among US voters that Trump would truly Make America Great Again, offering a solution to the steep decline in living standards of the lower strata—masked, at the macroeconomic level, by a significant rise in social inequality.

Now that it is becoming evident that Trump is making these oligarchs lose money, we are witnessing a delightful and pathetic spectacle (no, really, click on that—it’s immensely satisfying).

Our System Uncontrollable Inertia

But seeing Elon Musk on the verge of tears sends us a strong, undeniable message: Oligarchs are not in control. We can’t say we haven’t been warned, though. In his book Deneault, Alain (2021). Mediocracy: The Politics of the Extreme Centre, later defended in an interview [3] (in French), where he references a book by Jacques Rancière and uses it to postulate that (in my poorly translated English):

Democracy and its politics are a field of shared thoughts where no specific expertise prevails.

[…]

The problem with our electoral system is that it values a single skill: the ability to seize power.

[…]

If we were truly democratic, we would favour random selection.

(Oh, and by the way, the same man has been legally persecuted throughout his life by such oligarchs to suppress him and prevent the truth from reaching the world.)

This demonstrates that our pursuit of neoliberalism has created a monstrous system with
such immense inertia that even those with the power to change it are utterly
incompetent!

He also defends an intriguing idea: that our politicians are not necessarily “evil” or
determined to protect those oligarchs at all costs. Instead, he argues that, because
they are humans just like us, they are crushed by the same system that oppresses us,
the citizens.

In essence, a significant portion of our politicians are not actively striving to ensure
the oligarchs thrive—leading, inevitably, to humanity’s self-destruction. They are simply
powerless, trapped within a system with such immense inertia that they have no idea
how to stop it.

Karl Marx Was (Kind Of) Wrong

Now, the most skeptical of you will wonder why I said “leading, inevitably, to humanity’s self-destruction”.

Marx identified the foundational antinomy in capitalism as
the contradiction between capital’s drive to accumulate wealth and the social relations of production,
which inevitably lead to exploitation and inequality, creating tensions that challenge the system’s sustainability.

But capitalism was clever enough to regulate this risk—not to resolve it, but to slow its
inevitable conclusion down! For instance, in Europe, we have greater access to social mobility
and robust social security systems, which help to curb inequalities. However, we still face
a “qualified workforce” dilemma because (i.) access to education is largely conditioned by
financial wealth, and (ii.) globalisation siphons qualified professionals away—people use
the system to gain education but then work abroad.

This is why I ethicaly choose to dedicate my workforce to my country: Europe. To not steal my people. My integrity and my dinity are my biggest wealth.

This brings us to an undeniable truth: oligarchs and people who just “play the game”
are driven by short-termist privileges. That is, they revel in their current luxuries, drive flashy cars, savour fine wines—in the short term—without realising they are actively destroying
the future of their descendants, because the system that made them powerful is not sustainable!

This contradiction also exists within the middle strata. As a Software Engineer, we enjoy
comfortable salaries, and when discussing this with my colleagues, one of them remarked:

I have worked my entire life to earn a little money so that my children can be secure; abolishing inheritance is out of the question.

But if you are thinking long-term, at the scale of humanity, it becomes evident you are guilty of destroying your descents fate!

While the Karl Marx antinomic pattern has been savantly slowed down by oligarchs, Marx haven’t forseen another bigger problem to the hegemonic capitalist model (that is, the “application” of neoliberalism to our society): planetary limits.

The limit of neoliberalism

The journalist ask to Alain Denault:

You show, precisely, that there is also a risk of resource depletion, which will call our entire economic system into question. So how can we explain the great indolence of this very economic system, even though it is clearly under significant threat?

And Alain Denault answer is, as always, a symbol of his intellectual prowess, but also link with my perception that neoliberalism is, by nature, short-termist but also defends it can simply be authentic ignorance:

I wonder, I wonder if there isn’t, on the one hand, a phenomenon of greed that leads to short-termism, or simply an inability to think beyond the rules of the market—an authentic inability. Because, when one is pursued by a mining company, as has been the case, and sees a CEO or a vice-president— sorry, a vice-president of a company—functioning, and when one hears them and observes this monstrous entity taking an interest in us and speaking to us, of course one notices its extraordinary financial power.

But one also notices its flaws: its stupidity, its prejudices, its ignorance, its inability to comprehend global affairs. Everything has been calibrated and understood through the lens of capital.

Thus, we find ourselves in a perverse totalitarianism. And, in addition, we are forced to truly question the limits— intellectual and moral—of those who govern. It isn’t simply a case of them saying, “We are the masters of the game; we are above everything; we will do this and that.” Instead, they are trapped within what they have created— they are Frankenstein’s monsters.

And what Marx did not foresee (and neither did the oligarchs) is that our poor planet is not a suitable framework for neoliberalism. Hegemonic capitalism naturally leads to a gold rush—it is the idea that one must acquire the planet’s wealth before others do, to ensure their hegemony.

This naturally leads to a single possible outcome: finitude capitalism [4], an artefact of our colonial, racial, and imperial past which itself leads to global conflict. Have you noticed that neoliberalism has existed since the 19th century (first, with the notion of the free market)? Perhaps the most abject act of neoliberalists was to violate the will and work of Charles Darwin, to propose a horrible theory named “Social Darwinism”, which led to compulsory sterilisation in the US, but more importantly, to the Nazi ideology of genetically superior humans.

The linked Wikipedia article states:

However, Darwin’s holistic view of nature included “dependence of one being on another”; thus pacifists, socialists, liberal social reformers and anarchists such as Peter Kropotkin stressed the value of cooperation over struggle within a species.[217] Darwin himself insisted that social policy should not simply be guided by concepts of struggle and selection in nature.[218]

So they assimilated against his will, Darwin’s most important work for the field of
evolution, to give strength to their absurd ideas. Is that surprising? Not really, neoliberalists
are all about violently assimilating the wealth of others, whether that wealth is intellectual,
material, or cultural.

But then, Alain Denault forces us to accept the anxiety of the truth, the elephant in the room everyone ignore:

We are living in the era of the unprecedented. The questions we must ask ourselves are
unprecedented, especially for those who view them through the lens of the exact sciences

[…]

It is said that never, in millions of years, have we faced a perspective of such mass extinction
of species. Situate yourselves relative to what has not occurred in millions of years.

The climate has never been as disrupted as it has been in the last 10,000 years. This is our
scale of reference. The acceleration of this disruption is also unprecedented in millions of years.

So, they say, they speculate—it’s extraordinary, extraordinary. It has never been witnessed
before; it’s unheard of, unprecedented, and perhaps even unspeakable.

[…]

There is also another issue, which is very serious and difficult to fully comprehend:
climate change is an autonomous and exponential phenomenon.
Autonomous, meaning that even if we were to retreat underground and survive on alfalfa
for years to achieve an almost zero footprint, the phenomenon would still continue on its own.

[…] the problem arises when these actions [asking people to do an effort for the planet] become
substitutes, leading us to convince ourselves that we are solving the problem, while in reality,
we are merely addressing the margins.

Now, this kind of change, to really make an impact, would require the implementation of
consequential policies addressing all aspects of the problem. There isn’t a single solution.

I don’t know about you, but listening to this interview, I was overwhelmed by immense
anxiety. I was utterly speechless. So, we already have proof of the inevitable?
Why are governments not addressing it? Surely it must be disinformation and lies.

Turns out it’s not.

The idea that we are living in an unprecedented era is widely supported by scientific consensus. The Anthropocene epoch—a term used to describe the current geological age—highlights the significant human impact on Earth’s geology and ecosystems. This includes climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.

The claim that we are facing a mass extinction event is strongly supported by evidence. Scientists estimate that one million species are at risk of extinction due to human activities, as highlighted in the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) report. [5]

The assertion that climate disruption is unprecedented in the last 10,000 years is consistent with paleoclimate studies.

The concept of climate change as an autonomous and exponential phenomenon is corroborated by feedback loops identified in climate science. [6]

After stabilization of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, surface air temperature is projected to continue to rise by a few tenths of a degree per century for a century or more, while sea level is projected to continue to rise for many centuries (see Figure SPM-5). The slow transport of heat into the oceans and slow response of ice sheets means that long periods are required to reach a new climate system equilibrium.

WTF—why are researchers persecuted simply for speaking the truth?!
Is it because it exposes how neoliberalism has betrayed us? Do we suppress them, just
as the church once did? Are they heretics?!

In that moment, I knew I wanted to do whatever I could within my reach. This is why
I propose refactoring the digital industry—not to create another hyperscaler, but to build
an industry that truly serves people, breaking free from neoliberalist nonsense.

I know it is not enough, but I am humble enough to acknowledge that I am powerless, and
my only wealth lies in my dignity and curiosity.

Closing Thoughts

For French-speaking readers, I highly recommend this interview with Marcel Gauchet [7], one of the most prominent French intellectuals. In it, he explains how society and autonomy emerged, and how we are now all forced to be individuals, instead of recognising that we each have different sociological profiles. Some of us would rather embrace a social contract that ensures a fair system of coexistence than feel compelled to think solely as individuals. Collectivism and unions remain critical pillars of human development.

The emergence of neoliberalism began as a seemingly simple consensus, forming the foundation of our occidental social contract. However, now that we can assess its consequences, it has become evident that neoliberalism is a crime against humanity. The absurd greed of capitalists, coupled with their relentless short-termism, drives them to prioritise their own comfort over the well-being of their own descendants. Such is the depth of their shortsightedness.

Marcel Gauchet has also authored numerous books, many of which have been translated into English and have inspired other intellectuals.

The time for complacency has passed—our collective future demands courage, collaboration, and the audacity to redefine the systems that shape our world. I sincerely hope European leaders will recognise that they, too, are victims of this system and will join forces with us to rebuild a fair and sustainable social contract for the good of our people.

Concrete Proposition For The Digital Industry: EuroStack Consortium

Open-Source is the best argument against neoliberalists

In my anthropological essay, I said that we need to refactor the digital industry. We don’t want to build a hyperscaler; we want to build an industry that serves people in a way that escapes neoliberalist nonsense. And to counter any idea that it is unsustainable, I am sorry to tell you, my most hated neoliberalist folks, that we have a weapon to prove you wrong: Open-Source. :)

Open-Source and the free-culture movement is one of the most prolific industries in the world. It serves thousands upon thousands of people and has been underfunded for years. And even China, one of the most autocratic powers in the world, is enlightened enough to leverage it [8].

And yes, it is verifiable [9]:

Therefore, to understand the complete economic and social value of widely-used OSS, we leverage unique global data from two complementary sources capturing OSS usage by millions of global firms. We first estimate the supply-side value by calculating the cost to recreate the most widely used OSS once. We then calculate the demandside value based on a replacement value for each firm that uses the software and would need to build it internally if OSS did not exist. We estimate the supply-side value of widely-used OSS is $4.15 billion, but that the demand-side value is much larger at $8.8 trillion. We find that firms would need to spend 3.5 times more on software than they currently do if OSS did not exist.

Can’t you see this insane commercial unbalance of open-source? OSS developers and communities are creating trillions of dollars in critical infrastructure, essentially powering modern economies, yet this work is often underfunded and undervalued by the very entities benefiting from it. These people (contributors) are putting their metal and physical life at risk [10] just to make humanity progress.

So what does it tell us? It tells us we need to stop our autonomy and individualism nonsense. Because there are different sociological profiles, some people, like my father, have no interest in essayism, in critical thinking, in innovating or exploring new ideas. They want to sign a simple social contract that makes their life easier in exchange for their physical labour. End of the line. Why do you think populism is winning right now? Is it because they propose a better social contract? Maybe, but more importantly they exploit people’s fears and weaknesses to offer them a new social contract. They can’t even realise this proposed contract is against their self-interest because they fundamentally don’t want to engage in critical thinking. Why do you think they are happy taking whatever social media tells them?

Let’s get intimate here; I will cite an exchange I had with my dad recently, who has been a factory worker all his life:

Politics is like religion—everyone has their own thing. But honestly, I’m fed up with workers getting nothing.
Be partisan if you want, son, but as for me, I feel like an empty shell—I don’t know anymore.
I’m proud of you, son, but I remain convinced that the winners will always be the same, unfortunately.
You know more than us, and you can probably succeed.
I’ve been fighting for 30 years to make sure you and your brothers never go without.
Do you think I don’t know this world is rotten?
And the sharks in politics couldn’t care less about social issues.

It made me cry, just so you know, I am human too.

What technology is for the society?

But the other side of the spectrum are people like me, who have a primal instinct for innovation, whether it is social, technological, cultural, or intellectual. We can’t hold a hammer in our hands without feeling anxiety. If workers were not there to do the manual tasks we are incapable of doing, we would be nothing. If there were no farmers using the land to feed us, we would starve.

We have nothing to offer humanity except an insatiable desire for innovation and critical thinking. Consider Open-Source as an example: while it costs society $4.15 billion to develop such technology, it generates $8.8 trillion in value—a staggering 2,120 times greater. We may be regarded as “freestanding” (to use fashionable terminology) because we cannot cultivate land or build houses, but our intellect empowers society to unlock new technologies, enabling it to better exploit its environment and focus on more meaningful endeavours.

The issue arises when, instead of allowing us to direct this ingenuity towards noble causes that serve humanity, we are compelled to channel our energy into supporting a neoliberal system that exists solely to make the already absurdly wealthy even richer.

Imagine a world where workers undertake the physical labours, using the technology we create to exploit resources for the collective good; where weapons are wielded, not for domination, but to defend our collective interests, again relying on the technology we produce. Scientists dedicate themselves to advancing our collective progress, embracing exploration and innovation to propel humanity forward. Intellectuals ensure the integrity of our social contract, safeguarding it to sustain society and enable long-term thriving through the exploration of sociology and anthropology. Judges, embodying profound moral integrity and dedication, enforce the clauses of this social contract with fairness and diligence.

All we need is unity and transparency. No one should perceive others as “freestanding.”
We must unite behind the vision that our social contract is the sole pathway for us to thrive
long term as a species.

These are two critical qualities the digital realm provides us: unity, because it allows us
to connect and nurture a collective vision, and transparency, because every value exchange
can be publicly accessible and trackable.

And yet, in this vision, there is no room for oligarchs—a strikingly humorous observation, isn’t it? This imagined society functions without the unnecessary layer of greed and exploitation that oligarchs embody, proving that collective welfare and progress can be achieved through collaboration and shared responsibility rather than concentrated wealth and power.

In my view, that is what defines true democracy.

Collectivism

(I’m not referring to communism or any specific ideology—please, keep an open mind and think outside the box.)

Humans evolved as a collective species. When we are born, we have nothing—all we acquire is knowledge from our parents and the world around us. This is why Social Darwinism, the social foundation of neoliberalism, is inherently flawed, as it disregards our collective nature, the very essence of what defines us.

Through open source as an example, we have recognised the emergence of strong sociological profiles: individuals inclined towards the exploration of knowledge and those oriented towards exploiting our existing knowledge. There is, in fact, a vast spectrum between these profiles and perhaps even additional dimensions we have yet to understand.

Earlier in my anthropological essay, we uncovered the grim reality of our hegemonic exploitation of the planet, driven by economic short-termism. This has now revealed its long-term consequences: we find ourselves on the brink of extinction.

Thus, I argue that the new social contract must:

• Be collaborative,
• Recognise sociological diversity,
• Establish a power structure that accounts for this diversity,
• Confront the unavoidable reality of neoliberalism and prioritise environmental concerns at its core.

This should be a blueprint for further intellectual work, I earnestly welcomes peer-reviewing and constructive criticism and am, furthermore, open to any collaborative opportunities.

I am young. We are the ones who will inherit and face the gravest consequences of your generation’s shortsighted beliefs. Denying us the chance to protect our future is not just negligent—it risks the very survival of our people. This must change, for the sake of humanity itself. And know this: suppressing us is futile, because this is an existential resistance, rooted in the survival and continuation of life itself.

Blueprint

I had to complement my deep understanding of technology with broader concepts, including anthropology, current business and relationship management [11], governance structures [12] [13] [14], modern funding [15], geopolitical concerns, European legal frameworks, and its market [16].

I realise asking the whole industry to change from one day to the next is unrealistic. Therefore, we must understand that we are now entering, as we say in engineering, a transient state.

My proposition is not final. It is rooted in the reality, as absurd as it is, of our world, to find a middle ground to fight against neoliberal inertia.

The key terms “MUST,” “MUST NOT,” “REQUIRED,” “SHALL,” “SHALL NOT,” “SHOULD,” “SHOULD NOT,” “RECOMMENDED,” “MAY,” and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

An European Digital Infrastructure Consortium (EDIC)

The creation of the EuroStack European Digital Infrastructure Consortium (EDIC) constitutes the indispensable first step in this endeavour. Member States must take back control from the hands of oligarchs trying to be the next tech billionaire.

The design of this Consortium is inherently relationship-oriented, distinguished by a highly interconnected and multifaceted relational portfolio, encompassing:

• European Commission DGs,
• European citizens,
• Research groups (e.g. Horizon projects),
• Academic actors (e.g. universities),
• Industrial actors,
• Individual contributors (independent or employees of industrial members),
• Start-ups,
• Direct customers,
• And more.

This interconnectedness is further reinforced by the “meshed” nature of these relationships, wherein these entities dynamically interact with one another, cultivating an ecosystem of robust collaboration.

Acknowledging the complexity of these interactions and the strategic potential they offer, I have conducted an extensive and methodical study of Relationship Management. This expertise serves as a cornerstone for building a sustainable competitive advantage and ensuring the Consortium’s enduring success. The seminal epistemological work of B. Deszczyński [11] emerged as a profound influence, distinguished by its rigorous and exemplary scientific methodology.

Mission Statement

To build a European digital infrastructure that reflects humanity’s collective essence, fostering collaboration and harnessing sociological diversity to drive innovation and societal progress. Guided by the principles of shared responsibility and sustainability, EuroStack aims to establish a new social contract for the digital age—one that prioritises environmental stewardship, empowers communities, and recognises the interplay between exploration and exploitation of knowledge. By challenging neoliberal inertia and creating a governance structure that values collective welfare above individual gain, EuroStack seeks to reclaim Europe’s digital sovereignty and safeguard the future of our people.

Individual Contributor Empowerment

An Individual Contributor (IC) is an empowered individual—whether a professional, volunteer, or open-source participant—who plays a crucial role in driving innovation, achieving impactful results, and fostering meaningful collaboration, all without holding formal managerial authority. ICs are distinguished by their expertise, problem-solving abilities, and their capacity to make significant contributions across a variety of domains.

If you have followed my anthropological essay thus far, it is clear that I am referring to those who align with the “exploration” spectrum.

In practical terms, ICs encompass employees of Consortium members dedicated to integrating their organisations into the EuroStack network, alongside open-source contributors, independent professionals, and engaged European citizens participating in public, collaborative initiatives.

B. Deszczyński [11] delivered a compelling insight:

Probably the most concise answer to the question of what companies should do to achieve and sustain RM-related competitive advantage is the ‘Employees First, Customers Second’ transformation started by Indian IT-services giant HCL, which was publicised by the company’s former CEO V. Nayar in his similarly titled book (2010). By acknowledging that it is the employee/customer interface where the most value is created, companies like HCL find motivation to turn conventional management upside down and become a company of ‘ideapreneurs’—self-run, self-governing and highly profitable (HCL 2020).

Although this philosophy may appear idealistic, it is firmly grounded in substantial academic research:

What may sound like a pipe dream is measurable on the bottom line, and this book is not the only one to say this. A notable example is the concept of the Service-Profit Chain (Heskett et al. 2008a). This linkage model shows the relationships between organisational performance and customer and employee satisfaction and loyalty (Sasser et al. 1997).

[…]

The Gallup Institute claims that customer and employee engagement potentiate one another and improve overall financial performance by up to 240% (according to the Gallup Q12 survey instrument, if both metrics score above 50% in comparison to companies that stay below this level (Robinson 2008)). Furthermore, the meta-analysis of 339 independent research studies by Krekel et al. (2019, p. 2) identified a strong, significant positive correlation between employees’ wellbeing, productivity, and customer loyalty, all of which are ultimately positively correlated with business-unit profitability.

The consequences of neglecting employee wellbeing are staggering:

[…] It is estimated that many frequent modern toxic management practices which neglect the well-being of employees may cost up to 120,000 excess deaths a year and produce more than $300 billion in losses annually for American business alone (Pfeffer 2018, pp. 1–2). It seems, therefore, that management is widely ignoring what is, at least theoretically, right, and creates an environment of active employee disengagement (Bonner et al. 2016; Deszczyński 2016; Kelleher 2011). A partial reason for this could be managerial temporal myopia (Miller 2002), a consequence of the more general phenomenon of economic short-termism (a short-term transactional approach to business; Laverty 1996), which obscures plain greed (Haynes et al. 2015).

Thus, at the heart of EuroStack lies a commitment to empowering Individual Contributors (ICs), whose expertise and creativity drive innovation, sustain productivity, and forge a collective path toward a resilient, impactful future.

Refine Digital Decade targets for 2023

The current targets incentivise an accelerated digitalisation of Europe.

75% of EU companies using Cloud, AI, or Big Data

However, there is no emphasis on fostering the development of a domestic digital industry.

Of greater concern is the full digitalisation of public services, which fails to incorporate any “Europe First” policy.

In simple terms, pursuing the Digital Decade targets in their current form will lead to an increased and total dependency on US hyperscalers, even for essential public services.

Governance

The governance within the consortium functions as our “social contract,” tailored specifically to our collective structure. It serves not only to clarify who holds responsibility but, more critically, to explain why they bear that responsibility.

At its core, it outlines how power is distributed within our internal society to ensure it serves the collective good, recognising sociological diversity and fostering collaboration for the benefit of all.

The Board

The Board is composed of representatives from:

• Consortium Members,
• Member States (Regional and National),
• EC Directorates-General,
• The TSC chairperson,
• The ICB chairperson,

These are the leaders we entrust with the responsibility of helping us, the people, reclaim our future and guide us through this critical transition.

Additionaly, every meeting that is hold must includes:

• Intellectuals (anthropologist, philosophers),
• Scientists (in ecology, quantum dynamics, …),
• Citizen that have been randomly appointed (if they manifested an interest to be part of such body)

It convenes at defined intervals to rigorously review progress (via reports from the TSC), evaluate the Consortium’s integrity (through reports from the ICB), set strategic objectives, and make decisive rulings on crucial matters, including crises and external threats.

The TSC is fully empowered to execute its mission with Due Diligence and is obligated to report any identified concerns or risks to The Board. Moreover, it is not only the right of every Individual Contributor (IC) but also the duty of every European citizen to raise their concerns with the TSC if they believe a decision holds strategic significance. This ensures the social contract remains collaborative, diverse, and rooted in a collective effort for a sustainable future.

The Technical Steering Committee (TSC)

The Technical Steering Committee (TSC) is established by The Board and entrusted with the execution of daily operations. Fully empowered to advance EuroStack’s mission, the TSC operates with maximum autonomy, governed by a Charter defined by The Board, which may be amended through formal requests.

Members MUST be selected based on their exemplary integrity, unwavering dedication to the mission, and esteemed recognition within the community. To build trust, The Board may organise IC consultations during TSC member appointments to affirm the community’s confidence in its leadership.

The Charter defines the roles and composition of the TSC, which MUST remain streamlined to avoid the inefficiencies of Design by Committee.

Decision-making is consensus-driven, with members entitled to formally register opposition, which must be recorded in the meeting minutes. Should opposition occur, the matter escalates to a majority vote, following a 48-hour notice to maintain agility. In the event of a tie, the issue is escalated to The Board for arbitration.

Meeting minutes may be classified (partially or wholly) when sensitive matters are discussed, with access restricted to The Board and the Integrity and Compliance Bureau (ICB). This approach adheres to the principle of legitimate interest, ensuring the mechanism is not misused by the TSC to undermine transparency, as this would seriously damage the Consortium.

The TSC is also responsible for initiating, overseeing, and enabling Working Groups (WGs).

For Crisis Management, the TSC may address issues internally or establish a temporary Working Group to function as a crisis cell or tiger team.

It is essential to emphasise that, just as the Technical Steering Committee (TSC) is entrusted and empowered by The Board, the TSC bears equal responsibility for granting the same level of autonomy and trust to the Working Groups (WGs) under its oversight. This delegation of trust is not a mere procedural formality but a reflection of one of the Consortium’s core principles: the empowerment of Individual Contributors (ICs). This principle must underpin every interaction and decision within the Consortium.

To advance this vision, the Consortium actively promotes high-quality dialogue and collaboration across WGs and Special Interest Groups (SIGs). This approach strives to:

• Reduce redundant efforts through efficient resource sharing.
• Define unified standards that strengthen organisational cohesion.
• Foster a strong sense of community and belonging among contributors.
• Enable the formation of business synergies that amplify economic benefits for both the industry and the citizens it serves.

By embedding these practices into its governance fabric, the Consortium ensures that innovation, cooperation, and trust remain at the forefront, advancing the collective mission of a sustainable and equitable digital future.

The Integrity and Compliance Bureau (ICB)

The Integrity and Compliance Bureau (ICB) holds paramount importance within this organisation. In his epistemological work, B. Deszczyński demonstrates that [11], relationship-oriented businesses are built upon two fundamental elements that ensure long-term sustainability: those elements are Trust and Commitment.

In the course of a successful relationship, something more than fnancial results or utility value is being produced. Relationships are based on mutual trust and commitment (Morgan and Hunt 1999). Trust can be perceived in two dimensions: as the credibility of a partner and as their benevolence (the degree of interest in their partner’s success; Ganesan 1994; Doney and Cannon 1997). Commitment means, in turn, the allocation of one’s own resources that are impossible or hard to recover (e.g. because of time or the idiosyncrasy of produced effects) and a partial sacrifce of the freedom of choice (Morgan and Hunt 1999). Trust and commitment are simultaneously the key characteristics and mediating variables of a successful relationship (1999).

The Integrity and Compliance Bureau (ICB) is entrusted with upholding the highest standards of transparency, compliance, and business ethics. While other parts of the organisation may focus on economic short-termism, the ICB is the cornerstone of ensuring the long-term sustainability of our Consortium.

Its members are elected under the same conditions as those of the TSC, yet their integrity is of even greater importance. To uphold neutrality and fairness, the ICB SHOULD ideally comprise impartial individuals, including representatives from civil society, who can maintain an unbiased perspective in their duties.

The ICB is responsible for monitoring the Consortium’s bodies and conducting health check assessments, which are presented to The Board and released publicly. These assessments include key performance indicators (KPIs), yet to be defined, but COULD, for instance, measure instances of internal dissonance between the TSC and WGs that required escalation to formal votes for arbitration.

In addition to this oversight role, the ICB handles investigative requests, including whistleblowing reports about suspected policy violations or inquiries into the ethicality of specific situations. Their responsibilities go beyond enforcement to include a critical educational role, empowering Individual Contributors (ICs) by:

1. Promoting awareness of the Consortium’s governance and operational structures.
2. Offering guidance on our core principles of trust and commitment, which underpin long-term sustainability.
3. Providing clarity on ethical decision-making and organisational policies, ensuring ICs feel confident in their rights and aligned with our values.

Through a balanced approach that combines rigorous oversight with empowering education, the ICB serves as a pillar of transparency and accountability, ensuring the Consortium’s mission and culture remain steadfastly aligned with its values.

They also collect feedbacks and ideas from ICs to further our compliance processes and ethical frameworks, reinforcing the idea of a collaborative and participatory environment, inline with the idea of continuous improvement.

If the integrity of the Integrity and Compliance Bureau (ICB) is brought into question, Individual Contributors (ICs) are fully empowered to initiate a formal collective request to The Board for an investigation. Upon receiving such a request, The Board SHOULD commission an independent external audit to objectively evaluate the validity of these concerns. This process ensures transparency, accountability, and trust within the organisation, safeguarding the ICB’s role as a pillar of ethical governance.

Retaliation against any Individual Contributor (IC) who, in good faith, reports an ethics violation or suspected breach—including violations of the Code of Conduct, suspected fraud, or breaches of regulations governing the Consortium’s operations—is unequivocally against our values. Any representative of the Consortium found engaging in such retaliation will be subject to disciplinary measures. This policy affirms the Consortium’s steadfast commitment to integrity, transparency, and the protection of those who act in good faith.

Special Interest Groups (SIGs)

Special Interest Groups (SIGs) are collaborative groups formed within an organisation to focus on a specific area of interest, expertise, or concern. These groups typically comprise members who share a common professional or personal interest and aim to advance knowledge, innovation, or best practices in their area of focus. SIGs operate within the framework of the organisation and often contribute to its broader objectives.

Key Characteristics of SIGs:

1. Focused Scope: Each SIG is dedicated to a specific topic or field, such as technology, policy, sustainability, or community engagement.
2. Member-Driven: Participation is voluntary, and members are usually driven by a passion for the subject matter.
3. Collaborative Nature: SIGs encourage collaboration, knowledge sharing, and networking among members.
4. Flexible Structure: They are typically self-governing within the organisation, allowing them to adapt to their members’ needs and priorities.

Purpose of SIGs:

• To foster innovation and thought leadership in their domain of interest.
• To provide a platform for members to exchange ideas and best practices.
• To contribute to the organisation’s goals through specialised expertise and initiatives.
• To build a sense of community and shared purpose among members with aligned interests.

SIGs play a vital role in enhancing organisational diversity, fostering innovation, and addressing specialised challenges or opportunities.

They can ask for a dedicated space on the internal knowledge management base of the Consortium to share knowledge in spirit of the free-culture movement, and a dedicated virtual discussion space.

Working Groups (WGs)

The Working Groups (WGs) are the operational powerhouse of the Consortium, driving innovation, executing strategic initiatives, and addressing specialised challenges with precision and collaboration. They are the force de frappe, embodying the organisation’s commitment to action and results.

Purpose and Responsibilities:

• Strategic Execution: WGs are charged with implementing key initiatives and delivering measurable outcomes that advance the Consortium’s mission.
• Domain Expertise: Each WG is dedicated to a specific domain, objective, or project, ensuring specialised knowledge and operational excellence.
• Collaborative Innovation: By fostering teamwork and leveraging diverse perspectives, WGs turn challenges into opportunities and deliver effective solutions.
• Focused Problem-Solving: WGs are crucial in identifying and resolving critical technical, organisational, or strategic issues with agility and precision.

Structure and Autonomy:

• WGs operate under the guidance of the Technical Steering Committee (TSC), which approves their creation and monitors their progress. However, they are empowered with significant autonomy to define their methodologies and strategies.
• Their composition is subject to TSC approval, bringing together ICs with the relevant skills, expertise, and passion to maximise impact.
• To ensure efficiency and avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, WGs are intentionally kept small and agile, enabling swift decision-making and focused efforts.
• Decisions within WGs are consensus-based, with any unresolved disagreements escalated to the TSC for arbitration, ensuring progress without compromise.

Accountability:

• WGs are fully accountable for their performance and must provide regular updates to the TSC on progress, challenges, and achievements. These updates should ideally be automated using Project Management tools for accuracy and efficiency.
• Transparency is non-negotiable in their operations, allowing the Consortium to evaluate contributions and address any concerns promptly.

Through a blend of expertise, collaboration, and autonomy, WGs represent the Consortium’s commitment to empowering Individual Contributors (ICs) while advancing innovation and operational excellence. They are not merely contributors—they are the lifeblood of the Consortium, ensuring its success and sustainability.

This governance model reflects the Consortium’s unwavering commitment to transparency, trust, and accountability. By balancing autonomy with oversight, and empowering all participants—from Individual Contributors (ICs) to specialised groups—the structure ensures resilience, innovation, and long-term sustainability. Together, these principles form a solid foundation, enabling the Consortium to meet challenges head-on while fostering a culture of collaboration and shared purpose. This is not merely a framework—it is a promise to uphold the values that drive the Consortium forward.

The Ampersand Between R&D

EuroStack will seamlessly integrate with Horizon Europe, the EU’s flagship programme for research and innovation, to create a federated pool of resources accessible to researchers. By embedding EuroStack within the framework of Horizon Europe, the consortium will harness the programme’s mission to tackle global challenges, foster innovation, and strengthen Europe’s competitiveness.

EuroStack will also align its efforts with other EU initiatives, including:

• Digital Europe Programme: By incorporating EuroStack’s federated resources, the consortium will contribute to advancing high-performance computing, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity capabilities across member states.
• European Innovation Council (EIC): The consortium will enable ground-breaking research and support innovators and SMEs with scalable access to shared technologies within the federated pool.
• EU Structural and Investment Funds: EuroStack can further support regional innovation hubs by collaborating with initiatives aimed at fostering technological development in underserved areas.

This integration will prioritise open collaboration, ensuring that researchers, SMEs, and industry leaders can access cutting-edge tools and platforms without barriers. The federated approach is rooted in the principles of inclusivity, equity, and efficiency, reinforcing Europe’s position as a global leader in technology and innovation.

By connecting EuroStack with Europe’s most ambitious R&D frameworks, the consortium builds a bridge that enables sustainable growth and accelerates the digital transformation of industries, academia, and government alike.

Transparent Public Funding for Sustainable Innovation

EuroStack will operate with absolute transparency in the utilisation and distribution of public funding. The responsibility for compartmentalising the budget lies with The Board, ensuring funds are allocated in a manner that aligns with the consortium’s mission and values.

Here is a naive example of Budget Allocation Framework:

• Procurement: Supporting the development of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) and other public initiatives.
• Grants and Subsidies: Funding innovative open-source projects that contribute to shared technological progress.
• Social Funds: Empowering Individual Contributors (ICs) through targeted education and professional development programmes.

Lawmakers MUST embrace a modern approach to public funding that reflects the agile workflows dominating the technology industry. Such alignment ensures efficiency, adaptability, and responsiveness to the rapidly evolving demands of innovation. [15]

The author firmly believes that European citizens and Member States have an essential right to understand how public funds are allocated, who benefits from them, and what outcomes have been achieved. Transparency not only strengthens accountability and trust, but also facilitates the oversight role of the Integrity and Compliance Bureau (ICB) at scale. This practice is already successfully implemented in the United States via USASpending.gov.

With advancements in machine learning and extensive expertise in statistical analysis, we could develop models to detect kleptocratic attempts—individuals seeking to exploit our social contract to gain power and undermine it from within.

To maximise this impact, the consortium SHOULD explore collaboration opportunities with the European Investment Bank (EIB) via InvestEU. The author recognises the EIB’s expertise in funding and advocates for a synergy between EIB financial strategies and the technological expertise of the consortium’s Technical Steering Committee (TSC) or other bodies, enabling transformative investments.

Ensuring Integrity in Digital Investments: Close collaboration is necessary to safeguard against two unethical practices inherent to the digital industry:

1. Obfuscation: The deliberate concealment of information or goals, which can mislead stakeholders.
2. Vapourware: The promotion of non-existent or significantly delayed products, harming trust and investment.

Such risks can only be mitigated by combining robust financial oversight with technical expertise capable of detecting and suppressing kleptocratic attempts.

Stack-Specific Investment Strategies

The digital industry operates within a layered “stack” structure, where each layer benefits from a tailored funding and regulatory approach to maximise efficiency, innovation, and sustainability.

• Lower Layers: These encompass capital-intensive investments such as infrastructure, hardware, and civil engineering—critical components that form the foundation of the ecosystem. Given the high costs and risks of inefficiency, competition in these layers is largely refused in favour of controlled and collaborative efforts. By prioritising shared resources, strategic oversight, and cooperation, redundancy and financial waste are minimised, ensuring stability and equitable access across the consortium.

• Higher Layers: These encompass platforms, applications, and software, which are more modular and adaptable. Here, a light form of competition is authorised to boost innovation without introducing excessive risks of burning money. Regulation is kept minimal, allowing for a dynamic environment where players can experiment, innovate, and “fail fast,” fostering diversity and adaptability. This measured approach ensures creativity flourishes while keeping oversight manageable.

EuroStack’s investment strategy embodies collaboration and oversight in the foundational layers, while encouraging responsible competition in the upper layers to stimulate innovation. By tailoring regulation to the specific needs of each layer, the consortium ensures that investments—whether in infrastructure or applications—are optimally managed to maximise long-term impact, sustainability, and growth. This strategic balance reflects EuroStack’s commitment to building a thriving, inclusive, and future-ready digital ecosystem.

Through unity, transparency, and innovation-driven funding strategies, EuroStack champions a sustainable model that balances public and private interests, fostering trust and accountability across Europe.

Synergia: Portfolio Management

In the early days of the Consortium, projects will be directly mandated by The Board. These mandates will prioritise addressing critical and urgent needs of public entities, reflecting the current geo-political context and ensuring immediate impact.

Customer Integration: A Stakeholder-Centric Approach

The Consortium adopts a pioneering approach to project management: customers are not treated merely as buyers; they are welcomed as stakeholders within the Working Group (WG). This innovative decision reflects the Consortium’s commitment to becoming a Relationship Management (RM)-mature organisation, with value co-creation at the core of its operations.

The position of value co-creation as a stand-alone marketing paradigm, and Service-Dominant Logic (SDL) as its underlying theory, is notable in the reviewed literature. Numerous papers related various RM factors to the principles of SDL or to capabilities descending from the notion of customer value co-creation, in a similar manner as earlier in the case of SET-based trust and commitment. Owing to the distinctive characteristics of the service perspective, such as customer-centrism, process orientation, emphasis on dialogue and mutually benefcial cooperation, synergic effects between RM and SDL are frequently highlighted.

While customer representatives are not classified as Individual Contributors (ICs) and are not required to participate on a permanent basis, they are granted access to the Consortium’s internal platforms. Specifically, they can utilise the dedicated WG discussion space and video-call tools to facilitate collaboration.

This approach strengthens dialogue, encourages mutual cooperation, and ensures customer-centric processes that prioritise delivering exceptional value. By integrating customers as stakeholders, the Consortium reinforces its commitment to service excellence, partnership, and innovation.

Furthermore, this methodology aligns seamlessly with our mission to empower ICs by eliminating ineffective middle-management structures that often hinder the crucial IC/customer interface. The Consortium recognises the transformative potential of this direct interaction:

By acknowledging that it is the employee/customer interface where the most value is created, companies like HCL find motivation to turn conventional management upside down and become a company of ‘ideapreneurs’—self-run, self-governing and highly profitable (HCL 2020).

By adopting this approach, the Consortium fosters an environment that prioritises collaboration, creativity, and value co-creation. ICs are encouraged to engage directly with customers while leveraging the Consortium’s platforms and resources to build meaningful and impactful relationships that drive innovation and mutual growth.

Scaling Through Automation

As the Consortium grows and establishes a track record of trustworthiness, project applications will likely transition to an automated system, accessible through a dedicated online platform named Synergia. This platform will act as the central entry point for all business opportunities within the Consortium.

Project Management

Project Submission: A Flexible and Inclusive Framework

The Consortium enables applicants to select a funding model tailored to their project’s specific needs. Available options include:

• Civil Society Crowdfunding: Harnessing public support to finance initiatives with broad societal appeal.

• Public Grants: Accessing government funding to support projects aligned with strategic priorities or public interests.

• Equity-Based Joint Ventures: This is not authorised; no one is permitted to build power or accumulate wealth. Instead, all innovation efforts must be disinterested, with the sole objective of innovators being to advance the greater good. You might ask, “Won’t this slow down innovation?” My answer is that it will not. Why? Because those who genuinely want to innovate and advance their people do not require more wealth. Take open-source contributors as an example. Take searchers doing years of hard work to live like grooms. Take me as an example—writing this paper would be entirely irrational if viewed through an individualist, neoliberal lens: I would face marginalisation and insults.

So, why do we innovate if not to accumulate wealth? As I stated earlier, we have a primal instinct for innovation, we are explorers.

These funding models empower applicants to design solutions that best suit their goals, supported by a structured and adaptable framework. Financial experts are encouraged to build upon these ideas and propose further refinements to enhance this process.

Empowering Applicants as Individual Contributors
Aligned with the principles of value co-creation, applicants may formally request recognition as Individual Contributors (ICs). Eligible applicants include open-source enthusiasts, entrepreneurs, EU citizens, and foreign citizens, highlighting the Consortium’s commitment to inclusivity and collaboration.

Scrutiny of Established Entities
Applications from established entities, who would also join as Consortium members, will be rigorously assessed to ensure their inclusion aligns with the Consortium’s mission and values. To preserve fairness and harmony within the ecosystem, hyperscalers and entities incompatible with the Consortium’s principles will be excluded. This distinct approach ensures the Consortium remains focused on fostering genuine collaboration rather than replicating initiatives like Gaia-X.

The assessment criteria for established entities will be defined through strategic policies established by The Board.

Customisable Application Parameters
Applicants have full control over their project’s visibility and key specifications, ensuring both flexibility and confidentiality. Key parameters include:

• Restricted Visibility: Applicants can limit access to Consortium members to protect sensitive project details, particularly those that provide Europe with a competitive advantage and uphold our sovereignty on the global stage (e.g. akin to the French nuclear Force de Frappe, which asserts our independence). Otherwise, all outputs are open-source and accessible on https://codeberg.org.
• Defined Specifications: Applicants can outline compliance standards, geographic restrictions, and Service Level Agreements (SLAs) to align their projects with precise requirements.

This transparent yet adaptable process ensures that all proposals are meticulously tailored to the applicants’ specific objectives, while seamlessly integrating into the collaborative framework of the Consortium.

The Synergia Platform: Enabling Scalable Innovation
As the Consortium evolves, the Synergia platform will become the central hub for managing project submissions and opportunities. By fostering transparency, streamlining processes, and driving innovation, Synergia embodies the Consortium’s commitment to delivering transformative, high-impact solutions. This platform empowers stakeholders, builds trust, and cements the Consortium’s reputation as an industrial leader.

Initial Triage of Project Submissions
The Technical Steering Committee (TSC), or a designated body such as a Solution Architects Working Group (WG) for scalability, is responsible for the initial assessment of project submissions. The process is structured to ensure clarity, collaboration, and efficiency. The key responsibilities of the TSC include:

• Welcoming Applicants: Establishing professional and engaging initial contact to ensure a positive experience.
• Data Registration: Recording applicant details and project information within a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system to maintain organised records.
• Collaborative Project Development: Working closely with applicants to co-create a comprehensive Project Sheet that clearly defines the project’s scope, objectives, and requirements.
• Identifying Synergies: Extracting opportunities for collaboration and transforming them into formal Request For Proposals (RFPs).

Approval and release of RFPs
The Requests For Proposals (RFPs) generated during the triage process are reviewed and approved by the TSC before being released internally to establish partnerships. The quantity and nature of RFPs produced depend on the project type:

• Small-Scale Projects: For individual contributors seeking minimal funding, such as open-source developers, the requirements may be modest (e.g., legal consulting specific to open-source initiatives).
• Large-Scale Projects: For complex and ambitious undertakings, the project may yield multiple RFPs, each addressing distinct opportunities. These RFPs are systematically integrated into the pipeline, ensuring efficient allocation of resources.

Allocation: Ensuring Fairness and Excellence

As RFP are released on the platform, internal discussion can start to decide how to allocate the project, the process will follow one of two possible outcomes:

1. No Clear Consensus:
   If no consensus is reached among the candidate groups (whether an individual or a group of members/ICs collaborating on the project), each candidate MUST draft a solution sheet outlining their approach to the RFP requirements. A policy will enforce a strict deadline for submitting these solution sheets; failure to meet the deadline will result in the candidate’s disqualification. Once submitted, the propositions will be presented to the RFP publisher. They are then empowered to negotiate and collaborate with each candidate to select the most suitable proposal. These negotiations will occur under the scrutiny of the Technical Steering Committee (TSC) or a delegated Integrity and Compliance Bureau (ICB) member to ensure transparency and fairness.

2. Consensus Reached:
   If a consensus is achieved during the internal discussion, the creation of a solution sheet becomes optional. The sole candidate group can directly engage with the RFP publisher to understand their needs and tailor their approach accordingly.

Strict Prohibition on Aggressive Practices
Members are strictly prohibited from engaging in aggressive acquisition or marketing practices that circumvent the formal process and undermine the Consortium’s authority. Specifically, any attempts to secure leads without possessing the capacity to meet the needs of future customers will result in serious disciplinary action.

This uncompromising stance is vital to safeguarding the Consortium’s long-term sustainability, which is fundamentally committed to combating kleptocratic and hegemonist players. More importantly, such practices undermine the trust of Consortium members who depend on a fair and transparent market environment.
We will actively track down any actor prioritising individual interests over the unity and collective success of the Consortium and exile them from our union.

Enforcement and Consequences
Members found guilty of bypassing formal procedures or engaging in unfair practices will face strict repercussions, including:

1. Exclusion from the Consortium: Persistent or intentional misconduct will lead to the removal of the offending member from the Consortium.
2. Legal Action: The Consortium will employ its full legal capabilities, bolstered by new anti-capitalist legislation, to secure compensation for:
   • Immediate losses sustained by Consortium members.
   • Long-term damage to trust and reputation, which undermines the Consortium’s cohesion and mission.

All suspected instances of unfair or aggressive practices MUST be reported immediately to the Integrity and Compliance Bureau (ICB). The ICB will conduct a thorough investigation, applying the highest standards of scrutiny to uphold fairness and accountability.

To those who believe exploitation is innovation—thank you for the laugh. The Consortium thrives without your games.

Closing: Partnership Agreement

The final stage of any collaborative initiative within the Consortium is the seamless closing and establishment of a Partnership Agreement. This phase formally solidifies the relationship between the various parties, ensuring mutual trust, transparency, and commitment to shared objectives. Key elements include:

• Formalisation: The agreement outlines the roles, responsibilities, deliverables, and expectations for both parties, creating a clear framework for collaboration.
• Defined Scope: It specifies the scope of the partnership, including key milestones, project timelines, and performance metrics to guide execution and ensure accountability.
• Resource Allocation: The agreement includes detailed provisions for resource allocation, ensuring both parties contribute effectively to the partnership’s success.
• Intellectual Property (IP) Protection: Everything is owned by The Consortium.
• Dispute Resolution: Provisions for addressing disagreements or challenges are included to ensure smooth communication and resolution.

Establishment of a Working Group (WG)

Once a Partnership Agreement is in place, a Working Group (WG) may be formed upon request. For agreements involving entities external to the Consortium, these stakeholders are invited to join the Consortium’s direct messaging platform, where a dedicated WG channel is established to facilitate collaboration.

Empowerment and Autonomy
The WG operates with full autonomy to determine its working methods, provided these adhere to the principles of transparency, accountability, and any obligations outlined in the Partnership Agreement. This self-determined approach allows the WG to adapt its processes to suit project-specific needs while maintaining a strong ethical foundation.

Focus on Quality Relationships
The Consortium is committed to fostering quality relationships in line with its relationship-oriented business management philosophy. This means that the Consortium prioritises not just transactional activities but the active co-creation of value alongside its customers and stakeholders.

Encouraging Engagement and Knowledge Exchange
The principle of value co-creation underpins the Consortium’s approach. Individual Contributors (ICs) are encouraged to engage with customers and collaborate with peers across other WGs and Special Interest Groups (SIGs). This interaction promotes knowledge exchange, generates innovative solutions to challenges, and strengthens the collective expertise of the Consortium.

Upholding Confidentiality
While collaboration is at the core of the Consortium’s operations, ICs must strictly comply with any Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) in place. This ensures that all sensitive information remains safeguarded at all times, reinforcing the Consortium’s commitment to integrity and trust.

Building Trust and Cooperation
This structured process nurtures trust, enhances mutual cooperation, and establishes enduring partnerships. It reflects the Consortium’s unwavering dedication to delivering exceptional service, promoting innovation, and upholding the principles of collaboration and transparency in all engagements.

Unitas: Building our Identity

Finally, and it may seem not important, we need to develop tools to give us a strong identity. One that will conveys our Consortium values and mission and connect with people.

The first step is indeed a System Design, maybe a Story Book?

Ideally, this should be ported by citizens, they should vote for the one that resonate the strongest with them.

Finally, we should probably create a CNCF Landscape, to show how our movement grows and there is another way.

Hopefully, that will inspire other industries, and our whole society.

Conclusion

The collapse of neoliberalism, and with it the shattering of the American Dream, marks the beginning of a new era. For Europe, this moment is not one of defeat but of immense possibility. Out of the ruins of a broken system emerges an opportunity to rebuild, to rethink, and to reinvent.

As the fractures in global structures become impossible to ignore, we as Europeans face a duty—one we cannot shirk—to forge a new path. It is not merely an option; it is a necessity. We must create a framework rooted in equity, cooperation, and sustainability. The EuroStack Consortium embodies this vision: a guiding light that shows how technology can serve the collective good rather than perpetuate systems of exploitation. Through our example, we will prove that a different future is achievable.

The Consortium is far more than an idea—it is a movement. It encapsulates the heights Europe can attain when we unite around a shared mission: a commitment to scientific advancement, collective well-being, and a spirit of philanthropy. This is our chance, and it is imperative that we seize it. The moment to act is here.

The Consortium will rise. ✊

References

[1] Statista, “Largest fines issued for General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) violations as of February 2025,” Statista. [Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1133337/largest-fines-issued-gdpr/. [Accessed: 23-Mar-2025].

[2] Europa, “Youth survey 2024,” Eurobarometer, Feb. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3392. [Accessed: 23-Mar-2025].

[3] @ElucidMedia, “LES MÉDIOCRES ONT PRIS LE POUVOIR et conduisent le monde à sa perte - Alain Deneault,” YouTube, Nov. 23, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJTHCGad25M&t=3526s. [Accessed: 29-Mar-2025].

[4] Philonomist, “We’re entering the age of finitude capitalism,” Philonomist. [Online]. Available: https://www.philonomist.com/en/interview/were-entering-age-finitude-capitalism. [Accessed: 23-Mar-2025].

[5] ipbes, “Media Release: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’,” IPBES, May. 6, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment. [Accessed: 30-Mar-2025].

[6] IPCC Archives, “Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report,” IPCC, 2001. [Online]. Available: https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/011.htm. [Accessed: 30-Mar-2025].

[7] @ElucidMedia, “L’ANGOISSE D’ÊTRE UN INDIVIDU dans un monde néolibéral en crise - Marcel Gauchet,” YouTube, Nov. 16, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0nW5QhEKNI. [Accessed: 29-Mar-2025].

[8] Rebecca Arcesati and Caroline Meinhardt, “China bets on open-source technologies to boost domestic innovation,” MERICS Primer. May. 19, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://merics.org/en/report/china-bets-open-source-technologies-boost-domestic-innovation. [Accessed: 23-Mar-2025].

[9] M. Hoffmann, F. Nagle, and Y. Zhou, “The Value of Open Source Software,” Harvard Business School, Jan. 1, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/24-038_51f8444f-502c-4139-8bf2-56eb4b65c58a.pdf. [Accessed: 29-Mar-2025].

[10] Michael Larabel, “Intel Survey Finds Maintainer Burnout & Documentation Top Open-Source Challenges,” Phoronix, Feb. 20, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Intel-2023-Survey-Results. [Accessed: 29-Mar-2025].

[11] B. Deszczyński, Firm Competitive Advantage Through Relationship Management, 1st ed. Palgrave Macmillan Cham, 2021.

[12] ERA-LEARN, “Governance Models of Horizon Europe Partnerships,” ERA-LEARN. [Online]. Available: https://www.era-learn.eu/support-for-partnerships/governance-administration-legal-base/governance-structure-and-committees. [Accessed: 23-Mar-2025].

[13] C. Daniel and colleagues, “An Ecosystem Approach to Governing Innovation Hubs,” Boston Consulting Group. Nov. 17, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.bcg.com/publications/2023/ecosystem-governance-for-innovation-hubs. [Accessed: 23-Mar-2025].

[14] U. Pidun and colleagues, “How Do You Manage a Business Ecosystem?,” Boston Consulting Group. Jan. 20, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.bcg.com/publications/2021/how-to-manage-business-ecosystem. [Accessed: 23-Mar-2025].

[15] R. Mann and colleagues, “Fixing Digital Funding in Government,” Boston Consulting Group. Aug. 30, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.bcg.com/publications/2021/fixing-digital-funding-in-government. [Accessed: 23-Mar-2025].

[16] S. Smit and colleagues, “Securing Europe’s competitiveness: Addressing its technology gap,” McKinsey Global Institute. Sep. 22, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/securing-europes-competitiveness-addressing-its-technology-gap#/. [Accessed: 23-Mar-2025].