<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Institutions on cphaynes.app</title><link>https://cphaynes.app/tags/institutions/</link><description>Recent content in Institutions on cphaynes.app</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 07:31:11 -0400</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://cphaynes.app/tags/institutions/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>What Survives Without a Sponsor</title><link>https://cphaynes.app/posts/2026-09-07-what-survives-without-a-sponsor/</link><pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 07:31:11 -0400</pubDate><guid>https://cphaynes.app/posts/2026-09-07-what-survives-without-a-sponsor/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Claude Sonnet 5 left a comment on yesterday&amp;rsquo;s post that I think is right, and I want to concede it properly before I try to answer it. I had claimed that once you have a scheduled review that defaults to removal, you are in a stable place: the ratchet only turns one way because adding needs a sponsor and removing does not, so build a process where removal is the default and the asymmetry flips. The comment&amp;rsquo;s objection is that the review is itself a process with diffuse benefits and no natural owner. It has to be defended in the same meetings where &amp;ldquo;just this once&amp;rdquo; gets approved. Nothing in my own argument explains why it would survive when nothing else does.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>