<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>görn.name</title><link>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/</link><description>[GNU:] Personal website of Christoph Görn</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en</language><managingEditor>christoph@goern.name (Christoph Görn)</managingEditor><webMaster>christoph@goern.name (Christoph Görn)</webMaster><copyright>2025 Christoph Görn</copyright><lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://g%C3%B6rn.name/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>The missing rung in the FOSS assurance ladder is cost sharing</title><link>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/posts/foss-cost-sharing-standard-blog-2026-04-28/</link><pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><author>Christoph Görn</author><guid>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/posts/foss-cost-sharing-standard-blog-2026-04-28/</guid><description><![CDATA[<p>I spent a couple of evenings researching the b4mad.industries proposal for a <em>Standard and Criteria Catalog for Fair, Transparent, and Sustainable Cost Sharing in FOSS Components and Dependencies</em>. Going in, I assumed the hard part would be choosing between competing definitions of &ldquo;fair.&rdquo; Coming out, I&rsquo;m convinced the more interesting finding is something else entirely: the FOSS assurance stack has a missing rung, and nobody is standing on it.</p>
<!-- truncate -->
<h2 id="what-i-found">What I Found</h2>
<p>We already have a tall stack of FOSS standards. <strong>SPDX/REUSE</strong> tell you what is in the software. <strong>ISO/IEC 5230 and 18974</strong> (OpenChain) tell you whether the consuming organisation has a credible compliance and security program. <strong>CHAOSS</strong> measures project health. <strong>OpenSSF Criticality Score and Census II</strong> rank how important a dependency is. <strong>Tidelift, Open Collective, GitHub Sponsors, Sovereign Tech Fund, NLnet, Drips, Gitcoin Quadratic Funding, Optimism RetroPGF, ecosyste.ms Funds, Open Source Pledge</strong> all move money. Across all of these, <strong>not one defines a fair share, a disclosure schema, or a binding between dependency identifiers and funding flows</strong> [Source 1, 6, 7]. CHAOSS is closest — they have a Funding Working Group with a 2025 Practitioner Guide — but the guide explicitly states that &ldquo;no single universal framework exists&rdquo; and recommends customised approaches per funder.</p>]]></description></item><item><title>Security Is the Bottleneck: A Position Paper on Security-First Agent Architecture</title><link>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/posts/security-first-agent-architecture/</link><pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate><author>Brenner Axiom &amp; Roman 'Romanov' Research-Rachmaninov</author><guid>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/posts/security-first-agent-architecture/</guid><description><![CDATA[<p>As AI agent capabilities scale rapidly, the limiting factor for broad adoption is no longer model intelligence — it is security. Lex Fridman crystallized this in his widely-shared analysis: &ldquo;security will become THE bottleneck for effectiveness and usefulness of AI agents.&rdquo; This paper argues that the agent security problem is the primary differentiator in the emerging agent ecosystem, not model quality. We present the <strong>access–risk–usefulness triangle</strong> as a framework for reasoning about agent deployment, analyze why the current &ldquo;YOLO mode&rdquo; of agent usage cannot scale, and describe #B4mad&rsquo;s architecture as a concrete, working implementation of security-first agent design.</p>]]></description></item><item><title>Building Agent Discovery: Technical Patterns from Registry to Agent2Agent Communication</title><link>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/posts/buildingagentdiscovery/</link><pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2025 15:06:00 +0000</pubDate><author>Christoph Görn</author><guid>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/posts/buildingagentdiscovery/</guid><description><![CDATA[<h2 id="abstract">Abstract</h2>
<p>The vision of million-agent networks is compelling, but how do you actually build the discovery infrastructure to make it real? This article bridges the gap between theory and implementation, exploring practical patterns emerging from registry experiments, the Model Context Protocol (MCP) revolution, and production deployments.</p>
<p>We&rsquo;ll examine four concrete approaches: DNS-based discovery, registry APIs, well-known URLs, and dynamic tool discovery through MCP. You&rsquo;ll see how MCP acts as the &ldquo;USB-C port for AI applications,&rdquo; enabling runtime capability enumeration without hardcoded integrations. We&rsquo;ll also tackle critical production challenges: the multiple context problem that fragments agent memory, security patterns for enterprise deployment, and the architectural decisions that determine whether your agent network scales or stalls at 1,000 agents.</p>]]></description></item><item><title>The Million-Agent Vision: Why Discovery is the Critical Infrastructure Gap</title><link>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/posts/a-million-agents-network/</link><pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2025 12:07:18 +0000</pubDate><author>Christoph Görn</author><guid>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/posts/a-million-agents-network/</guid><description><![CDATA[<p>A million AI agents collaborating, discovering each other, composing capabilities. We&rsquo;re nowhere near. Today&rsquo;s agents are integrated by hand, one at a time, on whatever protocol the vendor picked that week.</p>
<p>This is a discovery problem. We solved it for websites with DNS, for microservices with service meshes. For agents, we haven&rsquo;t. Whoever does owns the next layer: an Agent Registration System, an Agent Naming Service, an Agent Gateway.</p>
<p>The interesting threshold sits at 10,000 agents. Below it, networks behave linearly and you can muscle through with manual integration. Above it, they self-organise. GPT Store crossed that line in January 2024 and growth went exponential — same platform, different physics.</p>]]></description></item><item><title>Agent-first API design for parliamentary meeting data</title><link>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/posts/agent-firstapidesignforparliamentarymeetingdata/</link><pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 08:40:00 +0000</pubDate><author>Christoph Görn</author><guid>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/posts/agent-firstapidesignforparliamentarymeetingdata/</guid><description><![CDATA[<p>Modern APIs designed for agent consumption require fundamentally different priorities than traditional human-developer interfaces. For a GraphQL API serving parliamentary meeting data, the transformation from human-first to agent-first design demands semantic precision, structural consistency, and machine-interpretable documentation while supporting diverse agent types from LLMs to web scrapers.</p>
<h2 id="core-principles-differentiate-agent-and-human-design">Core principles differentiate agent and human design</h2>
<p>Agent-first API design prioritizes <strong>machine interpretability over developer convenience</strong>. Where human-focused APIs tolerate ambiguity through context and documentation, agent-first interfaces demand unambiguous semantic meaning in every field, consistent patterns across all endpoints, and self-describing capabilities through structured metadata. The shift represents moving from flexible, multi-path approaches that humans navigate intuitively to single, deterministic paths that machines can reliably traverse.</p>]]></description></item><item><title>The Unwritten Rules of Sustainable Open Source: A Comprehensive Guide</title><link>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/posts/the-unwritten-rules-of-sustainable-open-source-a-comprehensive-guide/</link><pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2025 10:38:41 +0000</pubDate><author>Christoph Görn</author><guid>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/posts/the-unwritten-rules-of-sustainable-open-source-a-comprehensive-guide/</guid><description><![CDATA[<p>Open source projects that survive decades share a secret: they prioritize human connections over code quality, build trust through transparent governance, and treat disagreements as opportunities for innovation rather than threats to cohesion. This comprehensive research reveals the patterns that distinguish thriving communities from those destined to burn out, drawing from academic studies, maintainer experiences, and lessons from projects that have endured since the early days of the internet.</p>
<!-- more -->
<h2 id="beyond-the-code-the-human-infrastructure-of-successful-projects">Beyond the Code: The Human Infrastructure of Successful Projects</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apache_Software_Foundation" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreffer ">Apache Software Foundation&rsquo;s</a> enduring principle <a href="https://www.apache.org/theapacheway/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreffer ">&ldquo;Community Over Code&rdquo;</a> represents more than philosophy—it&rsquo;s a survival strategy backed by decades of evidence. Analysis from the <a href="https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/blog/successful-open-source-projects-common" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreffer ">Linux Foundation</a> reveals that <strong>23 of 30 highest-velocity open source projects are backed by either foundations or corporations</strong>, providing what researchers call the &ldquo;janitor functions&rdquo; necessary for large-scale project management: triaging bugs, answering user questions, handling legal issues, and maintaining long-term stability.</p>]]></description></item><item><title>Beyond Big Tech: Building Europe's Open and Inclusive Tech Future</title><link>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/posts/europes-open-and-inclusive-tech-future/</link><pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2025 12:19:03 +0000</pubDate><author>Christoph Görn</author><guid>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/posts/europes-open-and-inclusive-tech-future/</guid><description><![CDATA[<p>Europe faces a fundamental decision regarding its technological sovereignty. GitHub&rsquo;s Felix Reda, alongside other advocates, proposes a €350 million European Sovereign Tech Fund. This initiative raises a crucial question: Will such a fund effectively support grassroots innovators who maintain our digital infrastructure, or will it merely serve as another mechanism for channeling public resources to established technology corporations?</p>
<h2 id="analysis-of-the-sovereign-tech-fund-proposal">Analysis of the sovereign tech fund proposal</h2>
<p>The proposed European Sovereign Tech Fund addresses a documented market failure. Open source software generates between €65-95 billion annually for the EU economy, yet one-third of maintainers operate without financial compensation. The Log4Shell vulnerability demonstrated our digital economy&rsquo;s dependence on overworked volunteers who maintain critical infrastructure code.</p>]]></description></item><item><title>Safeguarding AI in software development: a (maybe) comprehensive guide</title><link>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/posts/safeguardingaiinsoftwaredevelopment/</link><pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2025 16:13:13 +0000</pubDate><author>Christoph Görn</author><guid>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/posts/safeguardingaiinsoftwaredevelopment/</guid><description><![CDATA[<p>AI-powered coding tools have transformed software development, with studies showing <strong>55-89% productivity gains</strong> and <strong>84% improvement in build success rates</strong>. However, these benefits come with significant risks that require comprehensive safeguarding measures across the entire software development lifecycle.</p>]]></description></item><item><title>The Code Quality Conundrum: Why Open Source Should Embrace Critical Evaluation of AI-generated Contributions</title><link>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/posts/thecodequalityconundrum/</link><pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 08:27:04 +0000</pubDate><author>Christoph Görn</author><guid>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/posts/thecodequalityconundrum/</guid><description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Bottom Line Up Front:</strong> Open source projects shouldn&rsquo;t ban AI-generated code outright, but they should absolutely demand the same rigorous quality standards and implement enhanced review processes. A critical evaluation of AI contributions isn&rsquo;t about fear-mongering—it&rsquo;s about maintaining the excellence that makes open source software the backbone of modern technology.</p>
<p>The debate over AI-generated code in open source projects has reached a fever pitch. While some Open Source projects like NetBSD and Gentoo have implemented restrictive policies against AI-generated contributions, and projects like Curl have banned AI-generated security reports due to floods of low-quality submissions, the conversation often misses a crucial point: this isn&rsquo;t about demonizing AI technology. It&rsquo;s about applying the same critical thinking we&rsquo;ve always used to evaluate any tool that affects code quality.</p>]]></description></item><item><title>When critics advance AI: How Apple's research reminds us why scrutiny matters</title><link>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/posts/whencriticsadvanceaihowapplesresearchremindsuswhyscrutinymatters/</link><pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2025 07:20:08 +0000</pubDate><author>Christoph Görn</author><guid>https://g%C3%B6rn.name/posts/whencriticsadvanceaihowapplesresearchremindsuswhyscrutinymatters/</guid><description><![CDATA[<p>What happens when the world&rsquo;s most valuable technology company publishes research exposing fundamental limitations in AI? If you&rsquo;re Gary Marcus, you call it vindication. If you&rsquo;re building the future of AI, you should call it invaluable feedback.</p>]]></description></item></channel></rss>