> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://modelcontextprotocol.io/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# SEP-932: Model Context Protocol Governance

> Model Context Protocol Governance

<div className="flex items-center gap-2 mb-4">
  <Badge color="green" shape="pill">
    Final
  </Badge>

  <Badge color="gray" shape="pill">
    Process
  </Badge>
</div>

| Field         | Value                                                                         |
| ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **SEP**       | 932                                                                           |
| **Title**     | Model Context Protocol Governance                                             |
| **Status**    | Final                                                                         |
| **Type**      | Process                                                                       |
| **Created**   | 2025-07-08                                                                    |
| **Author(s)** | David Soria Parra                                                             |
| **Sponsor**   | None                                                                          |
| **PR**        | [#931](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/pull/931) |

***

## Abstract

This SEP establishes the formal governance model for the Model Context Protocol (MCP) project. It defines the organizational structure, decision-making processes, and contribution guidelines necessary for transparent and effective project stewardship. The proposal introduces a hierarchical governance structure with clear roles and responsibilities, along with the Specification Enhancement Proposal (SEP) process for managing protocol changes.

## Motivation

As the Model Context Protocol grows in adoption and complexity, the need for formal governance becomes critical. The current informal decision-making process lacks:

1. **Transparency**: Community members have no clear visibility into how decisions are made
2. **Participation Pathways**: Contributors lack defined ways to influence project direction
3. **Accountability**: No formal structure exists for resolving disputes or contentious issues
4. **Scalability**: Ad-hoc processes cannot scale with growing community and technical complexity

Without formal governance, the project risks:

* Fragmentation of the ecosystem
* Unclear or inconsistent technical decisions
* Reduced community trust and participation
* Inability to effectively manage contributions at scale

## Rationale

The proposed governance model draws inspiration from successful open source projects like Python, PyTorch, and Rust. Key design decisions include:

### Hierarchical Structure

We chose a hierarchical model (Contributors → Maintainers → Core Maintainers → Lead Maintainers) that is effectively how the project decisions are made today. From there we will continue to evolve governance in the best interest of the project.

### Individual vs Corporate Membership

Membership is explicitly tied to individuals rather than companies to:

* Ensure decisions prioritize protocol integrity over corporate interests
* Prevent capture by any single organization
* Maintain continuity when individuals change employers

### SEP Process

The Specification Enhancement Proposal process ensures:

* All protocol changes undergo thorough review
* Community input is systematically collected
* Design decisions are documented for posterity
* Implementation precedes finalization

## Specification

### Governance Structure

#### Contributors

* Any individual who files issues, submits pull requests, or participates in discussions
* No formal membership or approval required

#### Maintainers

* Responsible for specific components (SDKs, documentation, etc.)
* Appointed by Core Maintainers
* Have write/admin access to their repositories
* May establish component-specific processes

#### Core Maintainers

* Deep understanding of MCP specification required
* Responsible for protocol evolution and project direction
* Meet bi-weekly for decisions
* Can veto maintainer decisions by majority vote
* Current members listed in governance documentation

#### Lead Maintainers

* Justin Spahr-Summers and David Soria Parra
* Can veto any decision
* Appoint/remove Core Maintainers
* Admin access to all infrastructure

## Backwards Compatibility

N/A

## Reference Implementation

See #931

1. **Documentation Files**:
   * `/docs/community/governance.mdx` - Full governance documentation
   * `/docs/community/sep-guidelines.mdx` - SEP process guidelines

## Security Implications

N/A