Who will decide on "open" - and how?

Tessy - love the drawing as well as your insights on collaboration! More please!
There's further discussion about openness with Mick Fealty and Eleanor Ford over on the RSA Networks blog, where Eleanor posts:

A comment on the nature of openness has value. David is right in saying that it is central to the NESTA Connect lines of inquiry, where openness integrates with trust and collaboration to seed innovation.

However, as I see it, the RSA aims to provide a sort of 'fertile ground' to be cultivated by the Fellows and the Society alike. In this space great ideas and innovations can be grown. But this vision takes time to create. And most importantly at the heart of the transformation is participation, which reveals its elective basis, coming honestly and transparently out of the passion/interest/commitment of all those involved.

Perhaps we should accept that in a sense people have to elect to be open, and then the conditions set up by the RSA are ripe to accept and encourage that, rather than making it a prerequisite. There will always be some people who are more or less comfortable with this position. That said, if the RSA Networks project succeeds in its long-term aims, this should cease to become an issue - as openness will be something that naturally unfolds.

And I respond:

However, decisions about the architecture and operation of the online system (and other activities) will make a big difference from the outset. It seems to me that civic innovation projects must involve a wide range of collaborations outside the RSA staff and Fellows ... so the collaboration system must cater for "outside" involvement, not just be a closed talking place for Fellows. Who will make that decision, and how?
Openness is also important for the engagement process. At present we don't know who is designing it, and what it is beyond the meeting next week for 250 Fellows.

My reason for reposting this is that Saul and Andy will be demonstrating the prototype system over the next week, and we don't know how decisions are to be made about the way that it will operate. The architecture for project collaboration could be set without anyone being clear about who is the "client" for Saul and Andy (although, I expect they won't let that one slide by in practice:-) and where the governance of the system lies. In my experience, lack of clarity on these issues leads to trouble further down the line.
Which also leads to the question, where are the RSA trustees in all this? Shouldn't they be part of the conversation as custodians of the balance between benefit for Fellows, and benefit for wider interests in society?