A patch-native node (⊙) is born in a garden patch rather than grafted from the source garden. But “born in the patch” describes provenance, not destiny. What happens to patch-native nodes over time? The current architecture treats them all identically, but operational experience reveals at least two distinct trajectories:
Adopted upstream — The node was created in the patch context but proves valuable enough to be absorbed into the source garden. The persona nodes in the persona garden patch followed this path: designed as patch-native, now living in the source garden. At publication time, marking them ⊙ is technically accurate (they were born here) but misleading (they now live upstream).
Conversationally homed — The node belongs to a dialogue between gardeners, not to any single garden’s authority. The IFP garden patch contains glosses like “Gossip as Social Sensing Filter” and models like “Conversation Temperature as Protocol Cadence Spectrum” that emerged from Christopher Allen’s dialogue with Peter Kaminski about IFP’s design. These nodes interpret Peter’s specifications through Christopher’s garden lens. Neither garden alone is their authority — the patch, as a record of the conversation, is where they live.
Garden patches are presented as “portable forks” of a source garden, but they are also records of intellectual conversation. When two thinkers engage through a garden patch — one writing specifications, the other offering typed knowledge forms as a dialogue — the patch captures reasoning that belongs to neither individually.
If patches are only forks, then every patch-native node should eventually be adopted upstream or pruned. But if patches are conversations, then some nodes are permanently patch-native — their meaning depends on the dialogue context and cannot be extracted to a single garden without losing that context.
Does ⊙ need sub-categories? Should we distinguish “patch-provisional” (will be adopted) from “patch-homed” (lives here permanently)? Or does the ⊙ marker simply record birth provenance, with the Node Directory documenting current residence?
What happens to ⊙ markers after upstream adoption? If persona nodes now live in the source garden, should the published patch show them as grafted (accurate to current state) or patch-native (accurate to history)? The IFP patch marks them ⊙ because they were created there; the persona patch could mark them as grafted because the source garden adopted them. Which is correct?
Can a node have shared authority? If a node emerges from dialogue between Christopher and Peter, can both gardens claim it? The current model assumes one source garden and one direction of flow. Collaborative nodes challenge this.
How do conversationally-homed nodes interact with the Thousand Gardens vision? When nodes are content-addressable and gardens share peer-to-peer, does “conversationally homed” become a first-class provenance category alongside “authored” and “grafted”?