5.1 Issues
Issues are specific problems or topics that the platform is organized around. They exist on a continuum from lightly defined entries to fully active issue spaces, and some will never become hubs, which is still a valid and useful state.
1. Capture specific problems in people’s lives.
An issue names a concrete problem, who it harms, and where it shows up in people’s lives, so it is more than a vague theme or slogan. It can start from a single prompt, story, or question, as long as there is enough clarity that others can recognize themselves in it and decide whether to engage.
2. Provide a home for discussion and learning.
Issues give affected parties and allies a place to collect experiences, questions, and resources, whether that starts as a single page, a tag, or an active discussion space. Even when no formal plan is underway, they can still host learning, documentation, and mutual support that deepen understanding and keep knowledge from disappearing into one‑off conversations.
3. Host early analysis and plan ideas.
As activity grows, issues become places where people test framings, compare options, and sketch potential plans without yet committing to a full hub structure. This early analysis can remain exploratory indefinitely, or it can gradually solidify into a small set of shared priorities that point toward one or more concrete plans.
4. Connect to hubs and plans.
Issues are linked to any hubs and plans that touch them, so people can see both the ongoing discussion and the concrete work that has spun out of it. Over time, an issue may accumulate several related plans or hubs, or remain a stand‑alone issue that primarily connects to external work and resources rather than internal campaigns.
5. Mature into hubs when stewardship is in place.
When an issue has enough activity, a willing facilitator, and at least one concrete plan in motion, it can be formalized as a hub so that work has clearer roles, governance, and accountability. Many issues will never reach that point, and that is acceptable; the system is designed so that issues can stay as issues without being treated as failures, while still contributing to the overall map of harms, learnings, and potential future work.
5.2 Hubs
Hubs are structured containers for work on one or more issues, with a named facilitator, defined roles, and basic governance in place. They exist to turn shared concerns into concrete plans, implementation pathways, and enforcement, rather than hosting open‑ended conversation alone
1. Provide a stewarded home for work.
Each hub has at least one facilitator and a minimal structure so that work on its issues has a clear home, basic norms, and someone responsible for keeping things moving. This distinguishes hubs from issues, which can remain useful even without a dedicated steward.
2. Anchor plans, timelines, and accountability.
Hubs are where plans are drafted, adopted, and tracked over time, including who is responsible for which tasks and how progress will be reported. They connect the plan-to-enforcement pipeline for their issues, so people can see not just analysis but concrete commitments and follow‑through.
3. Coordinate roles and participation.
Within a hub, facilitators, affected parties, support team members, experts, and governance roles have clearer expectations and handoffs. This coordination helps avoid purely ad hoc work, while still allowing people to participate at different levels of intensity.
4. Interface with institutions and partners.
Hubs provide a recognizable point of contact for external institutions, partners, and funders that relate to their issues. They can host outreach, meetings, and formal communications, so that external relationships are not scattered across individual participants.
5. Emerge from issues, not by default.
Hubs typically grow out of issues that have sustained activity, a willing facilitator, and at least one concrete plan in motion. Many issues will never become hubs, and that is expected; the hub structure is reserved for cases where stewardship, governance, and accountability are needed to support ongoing work rather than for every mapped problem.
5.3 Hubs and issues at a glance
This table summarizes the main differences between hubs and issues for quick reference.
| Aspect | Hubs | Issues |
|---|---|---|
| Core purpose | Stewarded containers for ongoing work on one or more issues. | Named problems that map harms, learning, and potential plans. |
| Structure | Have a facilitator, minimal governance, and defined roles. | Can be loose entries, discussion spaces, or analysis without formal structure. |
| Work focus | Draft, adopt, and track plans, implementation, and enforcement. | Collect experiences, questions, resources, and early plan ideas. |
| Lifecycle | Usually emerge from issues with sustained activity and stewardship. | Many issues never become hubs and still remain useful on the map. |
5.4 Naming and scope conventions
1. Descriptive, not slogan‑based names.
Names are descriptive, not slogan‑based. Issues and hubs use plain names that describe what they are about (for example, “Eviction protections for renters”) rather than campaign slogans, which makes it easier to navigate and reduces confusion across contexts
2. Scope narrow enough to be actionable.
Scope is narrow enough to make action possible. When scoping issues, you aim for a size that allows for specific plans and measurable changes, adjusting boundaries if something proves too broad to act on or so narrow that it cannot stand on its own.
3. Avoid overlapping or duplicate issues.
Overlapping or duplicate issues are deliberately avoided. You watch for near‑duplicates and strongly overlapping scopes and either merge, split, or clarify them so that people are not doing the same work in slightly differently named places.
4. Consistent hub and issue naming patterns.
Hub and issue naming patterns are consistent. Simple conventions—like using nouns for hubs and “problem‑framing” phrases for issues—make the map easier to scan and help people guess where something belongs even before checking the details.
5. Criteria for splitting, merging, or renaming.
Criteria exist for splitting, merging, or renaming. When you do change structure, you follow basic guidelines about when it is worth splitting an issue into several, consolidating multiple issues into one, or renaming a hub, and you leave short notes about those decisions so future contributors understand what changed and why.
This article was researched and drafted with AI assistance under human review. See our full AI and editorial practices.