Whether to invite consumer and consortium co-ops

LOL!

Excluding people or organisations is not going to help establish a network based on principle 6. If you want to see a world built on cooperative values, get off your high horse and stop judging people!

Martyn Johnston,
Founder of Chapel Street Studio Co-operative Ltd; a consortium of creative entrepreneurs and businesses based in Bradford, West Yorkshire.

Let's not get purist about which types of co-op should be invited. Let's instead be focussed about the goals of the exercise, and that will in turn help to define the target audience. I agree that involving too diverse a group can lead to a wasted opportunity, if that's what you are getting at. There may well be people from other bits of the co-op movement, or outside the co-op world altogether, that could be invaluable.

Well said and thank you Graham.

I think what Harry was getting at was that some people or organisations are not coop enough for this network.

Can we re-frame this issue with a proposal that asks for ideas towards a simple, bass-line criteria for participation in the network? For me, it should be about good and honest intentions, and a will to participate, not what you look like or what colour rosette you wear.

Yep, can we reframe the proposal? Much as I agree worker co-ops are the only true way, we're talking about inviting orgs that are not co-ops at all - which is fine, but excluding, for instance, @bevangelist's co-op on the grounds that they are consortium (freelancer) rather than employed could be a bit self-defeating!

@martynjohnston @graham2 I'm completely in favour of working with other types of co-operative including non-tech co-operatives and non-worker co-operatives but, as it stands, there is no collaboration happening between tech worker co-operatives who seem to have a lot in common.

@sionwhellens outlandish is a consortium co-op too. What I was getting at is that consortia made up of non-co-ops (for profit privately owned companies) do not qualify if their workers do not to control and own the companies.

Happy to re-frame the proposal to address your concerns. Anyone want to suggest some wording?

I think a previous proposal from Josh Vial had something along the lines of:

1) worker owned & controlled
2) asset locked
3) explicitly aiming for/focused on social change

Qualifying organisations must be two (and ideally all three) of the above. Basically that allows proto-co-ops like Folk Labs (meets 1+3) and maybe social enterprises like Reason Digital (meets 2+3). I think it disqualifies most privately owned businesses that are not co-ops or social enterprises as they're unlikely to meet criteria 1 or 2.

From Outlandish's perspective, we started organising the retreat because we're keen to meet other organisations like us - basically co-operative digital agencies. We're certainly in favour of collaboration with other types or organisation but we're particularly interested in the reasonably large number of organisations (30+) who are in the same boat as us.

Would that work for you @sionwhellens @graham2 @martynjohnston ?

btw I believe @shaunfensom is keen for non-worker co-ops to be included - just looping you in Shaun.

If we made one of the topics for discussions "How can we as worker co-ops collaborate better with other types of co-op and/or 'tech for good' businesses?" would that help frame the retreat?

For what it is worth, Webarchitects isn't a workers co-op, we are a multi-stakeholder co-operative made up of workers, clients, partners and investors. Formally, worker members have 50% of the vote, if anything does come to a vote (almost nothing has) , however, practically, in terms of the day-to-day decisions, we do essentially operate as a workers co-op.

I'd tick collaboration for (at least one) topic, but suggest, to be of max value for all, the overarching framing has to be outward looking - eg identifying the benefit/s a common/unified body has to offer clients

@roybrooks couldn't agree more - I just meant that having that as one of the issues clearly frames the event as "we're in favour of working with other types of co-ops" while also focusing on tech businesses that are owned and democratically controlled by their workers.

I'm sure there are hundreds of topics that need discussing which we should start capturing somewhere...

... that it does.

So, on topics, any thoughts on, and the best place to collate (here, to vote?) All?

1) How can worker co-ops collaborate better with other types of co-op and/or 'tech for good' businesses
2) What benefits would a common/unified body offer clients
3)...

1. Tech co-ops are where we can see a real chance of innovation, disruption and challenge to existing models. Love worker co-ops to bits but there are other forms that also disrupt.

2. The label ‘consortium co-op’ doesn’t really capture what’s interesting about ventures like Brighton Digital Exchange, which is introducing small tech companies to co-op ideals. Many of these small tech companies are very flat. Thinking back to my 20 years in a tech worker co-op we were actually very good at exploiting ourselves.

3. Freelancer co-ops like CBN are not technically worker coops, but what’s the difference? We don’t use PAYE that’s all.

4. I thought we were talking about inviting social enterprises eg Reason digital? Not a co-op at all.

Thanks for clarifying and furthering the conversation. I think it is a good idea to have a qualifying criteria, but that should be that. Our time is better spent getting down to business, not discussing politics and value-systems!

In principal, the 1-2-3 criteria outlined above works for Chapel Street Studio, however I can see an issue in that #3 only applies to the organisation and not the membership. I'd say the priority of all our members is to make a living. Its easily argued that the act of setting up a small business is a 'political' act in itself.

Two suggestions.
i) coop consortiums must be made up of freelancers and micro businesses only (like us).
ii) the question is not about how the purist worker coops work with others. This stinks of hierarchy, and let's be clear, the worker coop model doesn't work for everyone. The question should address the critical issue of diversity in the coop movement.

We plan to attend the gathering and I look forward to further discussion on this issue.

I go back to what I wrote earlier on this issue: that who is on the invite list should be primarily driven by the desired outcomes of the event. Looking again at @harryrobbins original post about the Megazord, it states: "a UK-based coalition of tech-focused co-operatives that pool their resources to achieve their shared aims – making the world better and fairer with technology".

Whilst Harry might be considered to be pre-empting what those shared aims might be by making the above statement, I for one am reasonably content to go along with it for the time being, given that it is broad enough to cover a pretty diverse set of ideas.

As someone who has been involved with cooperation and digital (and I'm assuming that in large part, when @harryrobbins talks about technology, he is referring to digital), and the junction where these two attempt to mingle, for nearly thirty years now, my own view is that up to now at least it has been a fairly unspectacular marriage, with some exceptions. The big consumer co-ops in the UK were very late to 'get' digital. Historically the big missed opportunity was the failure of the UK consumer co-ops to invest in Poptel at a time when that worker cooperative had the potential to become a very major player. In the UK, the likes of London Internet Exchange (a mutual rather than a co-op, but supportive nonetheless) and the nascent Brighton Digital Exchange, nurtured into being by @shaunfensom, may well be out biggest successes, notwithstanding the co-ops already in this conversation, about which I don't know much. Outside of the UK, and with a lot of government support, the rural telecoms co-ops in the US are probably the biggest player. Guifi.net in Spain (mainly), also comes to mind, and of course we have Loomio and some other up and coming projects. I'm sure there are other good examples of success, but on the whole I think we can probably agree that the huge potential of digital and online for building cooperation that was clear - to me at least when I first plugged a dial-up modem into a Demon account in the 90s - has really not been realised.

Where there has been extremely dynamic activity in the digital space, it is almost exclusively in the private sector, funded by VC money, and therefore almost by definition that model excludes cooperatives and has created a dominant model which is largely exploitative.

So, I'm very much interested in enabling a "coalition of UK-based tech-focussed cooperatives" and what that coalition might be capable of achieving in terms of "making the world better and fairer". For me the prize is about creating something that is big enough and innovative enough to be able to challenge the dominant exploitative model, and thereby change the world, albeit the online world (initially at least). that's why I'm interested in what Enspiral are up to, interested in what the P2P Foundation and folks like Michel Bauwens, John Restakis, David Bollier, Pat Conaty, etc., have been talking about, and that's why I'm interested in this event.

This post has rapidly mutated into something of a rantifesto. So be it. The point is that what we're aiming to achieve drives who we try to get to come along.

Thanks for that @graham2, I agree with you on the missed opportunities. I've been on a somewhat similar trajectory, from having to making long distance phone calls from Sheffield to London with a 14.4 modem to Greennet in order to get online (before Demon had regional POPs), getting deeply involved in the politics and potential of the Free software movement, I remember first seeing Michel Bauwens in Berlin in 2002 at the second Oekonux Conference... and so on... I still believe that co-operation and the mode of production of Free software indicate the way forward but it is also hard not to be somewhat less enthusiastic than in the past having lived through the trajectory from decentralised peer-to-peer protocols like Usenet to the current, near total, dominance of centralised corporate platforms... But I'm very much looking forward to the discussions at Wortley Hall :-)

Fully agree with both @graham2 and @chriscroome - we need to look very broadly at what we should be doing rather than what we have been doing. I'd definitely like that to be bold and revolutionary (with a small-ish R).

Personally I like the idea of having (for example) 3,000 people profitably employed in tech co-ops by 2020 and 100,000 by 2030 (1 in 4 of the current UK tech workers). That could generate huge revenues, better work, better outcomes, etc.

I've not had nearly as much exposure to the broader co-op movement as many others who are attending and look forward to finding more about it. I've always seen consumer co-ops as fundamentally different to worker-style co-ops, but I'm happy to be convinced.

I look forward to discussing at the event. We're going to do a phone around soon to start getting ideas for topics, etc. but it would be good if people post them on Loomio too.

It's also worth remembering that we're currently planning the first of many retreats/meet-ups so will have the opportunity to talk about this between the 14th- 17th and invite more co-ops after that.

so glad you'll already thinking this'll be the first of many because I can't make this one! :-D

It will definitely be the first of many! This is going to be an engaged and united community, and these getaways will provide a space for us to have productive conversations and allow us to reach outcomes from initial ideas.

GreaT :) As you likely know, Enspiral do a retreat every 6 months and Radical Routes have quarterly gatherings (I wonder if it'd make sense to have one of these future Digital Co-op meetups at/ alongside a Radical Routes gathering too...)

Indeed, we're having a chat with Enspiral on Monday about it (a few of us spoke to them about it for the first time about two months ago and it was really helpful, they said that biannual retreats were vital to maintaining their ethos alive and healthy) and I've got in touch with Cath Muller, so perhaps in the future we will end up teaming up with them.

@harryrobbins '... idea of having 3,000 people profitably employed in tech co-ops by 2020 and 100,000 by 2030. That could generate huge revenues, better work, better outcomes, etc' a reality' seems to me to offer a sound basis for a very constructive four days and a concrete goal which the process of working towards realising will bring into focus many of the other issues raised so far (nature of membership eg)

@roybrooks the other advantage of taking over such a large part of the market is that it drives up the cost of tech workers to capitalist businesses which reducing the costs to co-ops (who provide better employment). The difference could be high enough to make it almost impossible for private companies to compete against us and then capitalism will be brought to its knees.

Still got to organise this piss-up in a stately home first though... sigh. Small steps.

... move it to a brewery?

really hope Dan or someone from Founders and Coders can make it along (see they are already on the list but not confirmed yet) because you'll likely need all their alumni to get involved to hit those targets and take down capitalism :)

how do people feel about inviting someone from John Lewis's digital team?

They are a workers co-op (according to co-ops uk) but are not really a tech/digital co-op (though I guess they might become increasingly tech driven).

Any strong feelings either way?

Do it. JLP aren't a worker co-op in our sense but anything we can do to engage them/blow their minds is positive.

I agree, invite John Lewis team, ditto the great new team at Coop Digital (at Co-op Group) who were pretty much all previously at Government Digital Service (GDS)

Ditto to @sionwhellens on that

@josefdaviescoates I'm a little cautious/sceptical about The Co-op Group (as we are about The Government) though agree it would be good to involve them (The Co-op) somehow.

The digital team at The Co-op aren't members of the co-op any more than I am by virtue of having paid a pound and bought some sausages. I know we're new to this whole co-op thing and I'm sure we'll leave with a warm glow about all co-ops great and small but the news of them paying their disabled worker 69p an hour didn't go down well here. I hope (and am pretty sure that) that wouldn't happen in a worker co-op.

Very much agree on Founders and Coders - I'll give them a push, and we might try to create a bursary for some of their alumni.

I'd say your scepticism is warranted but also note e.g. on the most recent blog post on https://digital.blogs.coop/ it says

"Claire will be working alongside Emer Coleman and Ian Dunnett developing our relationships with civic technology partners, businesses and organisations, helping us to create a truly co-operative digital hub in Manchester".

Stuff like that sounds positive.

I'm already chatting to Emer on Monday about https://2017.open.coop/ so I might mentioned this gathering to her then too... ;)

Although I also note that their latest newsletter mostly reads like an ad for BT and other big evil corps http://coopdigitalnewsletter.tumblr.com/post/150813974272/hello-this-is-the-coopdigital-newsletter-this :-/

Co-op Group:
1. The 69p story was about Midcounties Co-operative, not the Co-op Group. Welcome to complex consumer coop world. These are big businesses - easy to find examples of bad behaviour - John Lewis and its cleaners for example, but...
2. The new leadership in Co-op Digital, as they call themselves, has big ambitions for the Co-op to intervene in the digital-tech sector and promote growth. They are talking a language we've never heard from them before about a special role for co-ops on the Internet. If we also have ambitions then we need to talk to them. We probably need to line our ducks up first though.

@shaunfensom I'm sure I've got a long journey ahead to understand the intricate internecine struggles of the co-op movement :)

re: Co-op Digital do you feel we should
a) not invite them and keep it secret
b) not invite them but tell them about it and explain we're just lining up our ducks
c) invite them as observers (only for the wednesday?) and let them watch us line up ducks
d) invite them to assist with duck arrangers (or ducks? I'm lost in the metaphor)

re a) they already know about it. I spoke with Emer Coleman yesterday and mentioned it and she'd already heard about it via @bevangelist :)

b) : they would be impressed

Impressed by Strangelove, the Ducks or .... lost(?)

Ha. They'll be impressed that we got ourselves organised first.

Ah yes...

@josefdaviescoates keeping it secret is a pretty daft idea anyway

https://youtu.be/2yfXgu37iyI?t=4m13s

hahaha