This is important and therefore needs to presented at the W3C Weekly call to give the Solid community the chance to comment as well as the weekly Solid Team meeting for them to incorporate the thoughts of the Solid community. It also needs to be approved through a merge from the Solid Leader for legitimacy.

The spirit of the suggested changes and reasoning include:

 - *Definition of legitimacy* : included what makes the governance structure (including culture, team, panel, decision making process) valid and when it should be reviewed so that there is a degree of legitimacy and stability to be able to advance predictably. Wanted to avoid a situation where anyone submitting a pull request and merging it can change the structure resulting in pull request ping pong. Made it clear that the Solid Team cannot alter the decision making process without referring to a wider group to avoid a gridlock situation. 

 - referred to Solid generically rather than mission and roadmap because these are not yet defined

- Accountability: Have altered mentions of the Solid Team being equivalent to governance to a broader concept where the Solid Team implements the governance structures and processes that are legitimised by the Solid Leader  so that it is clear that the individuals in the Solid Team serve a wider group. It's a subtle difference of the spirit that makes it clear that the interests of the wider group are important for the legitimacy of the Solid Team. It's important to have mechanisms for the Solid Panel to hold the Solid Team accountable and for the Solid Team to not be able to alter the decision making processes to avoid concentration of power and to incentivise working for the public interest. 

- Included a point about Solid Culture as part of the Solid Team mandate and altered "Solid Evangelism" to "Solid Communication" to remove the Christian connotations so that it's more neutral and inclusive. 

- Appointment of individuals to roles should be done by the Solid Leader, including of the Solid Panel. 

- included a 'Standard Decision Making Process' without a vote that is as close as possible to my understanding of the current way of working together. This is independent of the 'Elaborate Decision Making Process' which includes a voting mechanism for the cases that tend to get gridlocked into uncertainty. 

I also suggest we include the information on solid-team.md and solid-panel.md and any other relevant information on governance.md to have a single link with all the relevant information approved by the Solid Leader.

Combined all governance related information