Harry said:

I've also trashed "forest stewardship council" which is not a technology by any stretch of the imagination.

Fair enough, there is perhaps a case for something like a "member of" category for things like this? For example Webarchitects is a member of Nominet, Janet, Radical Routes, Co-operatives UK, ORG and I expect some other other organisations I don't recall right now.

Matthew said:

I would really like to see is a new post type called "collaborations".

I wonder if that might be best done using blog posts on the site, it could then contain as much or as little details as needed and screenshots, hyperlinks etc etc

Ditto to Matthew - eg GS & Calverts currently working together on .coop
Showing we 'walk the talk' is always good for confidence

Hah! FSC and ISO are both technologies (FSC for verifying the origin of materials through a certified chain of custody). But if course this brings us to the elephant of what we mean by 'technology' ...

Hey all - what I would really like to see is a new post type called "collaborations". This would reference:

• The 2 or more co-ops involved
• Which co-op was the initiator
• The client/s
• A short description of the collaboration

This would be really great to see as proof of the value of the network

Could we get the https://dev.coops.tech/ site ready for a launch party at the https://2017.open.coop/ social being planned on this thread?

That would give us a month to sort out the issues there are with the site, I think the main ones are:

• Getting the two forms working.
• Agreeing and signing off on the text on the "Our Manifesto" page, the "About CoTech" page and on the "Join CoTech" page.
• Removing (no need to delete they can simply be made to only show in the admin interface) all the co-ops who haven't got their pages into a presentable state.

Other minor issues like the slightly broken 404 pages are not critical, but I think the above things are.

How is that for a plan?

Sounds good to me. I believe I've got to get a flight on day two of the event to run a hackday so if the launch party could be Thursday that would be awesome :)

I think the site is awesome - hats off to the teams that made and launched it. The only other thing I've noticed is a bug where the menu sometimes goes a bit funky on scroll. I'll get someone here to have a look at it.

Does anyone object to me inviting the bona fide workers tech co-ops who were not able to attend the event to add profiles to the site?

A good plan we'd say - grow the family. Forza! #coops

I think the plan is for the social to be Thursday night, I also couldn't make it if it is on Friday night.

@harryrobbins said:

Does anyone object to me inviting the bona fide workers tech co-ops who were not able to attend the event to add profiles to the site?

Not at all, I assumed that this was always the plan, software.coop didn't come to the event and, as far as I know, have not been involved in this project in any way, and are on there... I'll chase them up to see if they can be encouraged to get involved, they really should be, they have been doing this for longer than most of us! :smiley:

Thanks Chris.

If the manifesto is only a call to cooperators, all good. Tho if one of the aims of CoTec is to compete in the non-coop market as a commercial resource/entity then I'd have thought this would be a good place to make that clear too

@roybrooks said:

If the manifesto is only a call to cooperators, all good. Tho if one of the aims of CoTec is to compete in the non-coop market as a commercial resource/entity then I'd have thought this would be a good place to make that clear too

I think we might still need to address this point if possible?

Currently the front pages has:

Strengthening the cooperative movement by working together through local, national, regional and international structures.

And if the site is primarily aimed at people who might join or setup tech co-ops then this is fine but if the site is also to be aimed at potential clients then perhaps some additional text needs to be added?

@shaunfensom you said you would have a go at editing the Join CoTech page, did you get anywhere with that?

I've tried, but everything I come up with loosens the definition. For example:

"Membership of the Co-operative Technologists network is open to all co-ops that sell technical/digital products or services and that promote and adhere to co-operative values and principles. This includes co-ops that are run and owned by their workers and multi-stakeholder co-ops where workers have a substantial or controlling stake."

But then what about consumer co-ops and consortium coops:
* The Phone Coop would be adamant that it meets the first part of the definition. Fine by me but not by @harryrobbins and others I believe.
* Brighton DX would also qualify but, for the avoidance of doubt, we have no control over the extent to which our members make a return for investors.

So, I can redraft, but I end up breaking the intention. I'd just leave it at:

Membership of the Co-operative Technologists network is open to all co-ops that sell technical/digital products or services and that promote and adhere to co-operative values and principles.

But that definitely allows in The Phone Coop and BDX.

So, stuck.

At the very least the existing wording should be changed to:

Membership of the Co-operative Technologists network is open to all co-ops that sell technical/digital products or services that are run and owned by their workers. Consortium co-ops and multi-stakeholder co-ops are also welcome so long as they (and their members) do not generate money for investors by exploiting their workers.

However, I don't personally agree with that.

Shaun

I think this is a very good point:

if one of the aims of CoTec is to compete in the non-coop market as a commercial resource/entity then I'd have thought this would be a good place to make that clear too

The two Get in Touch sentences address this somewhat, but I'm sure they could be improved so I have created a wiki page so we can work on them (I would have linked to this additional page from the proposal, but proposals can't be edited after someone has cast their vote, which is fair enough...)

I have made some minor edits to two of the pages, feel free to improve on these:

• Click here's removed on Our Manifesto page
• Click here's removed and "if you have some work for us" added to About CoTech page

I also have a problem with the first sentence of the Join CoTech page:

Membership of Co-operative Technologists is open to all co-ops that sell technical/digital products or services that are run and owned by their workers.

A strict reading of this would exclude Webarchitects, we are a multi-stakeholder co-operative with shares owned by workers, clients and investors and should anything ever come to a vote (we try to use consensus) our rules give 50% of the votes to workers and 25% to clients and partners and 25% to investors. I guess nobody wants to exclude multi-stakeholder co-operatives like ours, so how can the above be worded to include us?

Are Webarchitects not covered by the first part of the sentence: "is open to all co-ops that sell technical/digital products"?

@chrisroos said the following in reply to an earlier comment:

Are Webarchitects not covered by the first part of the sentence: "is open to all co-ops that sell technical/digital products"?

Yes, but that isn't the issue, the issue is that the rest of the sentence "that are run and owned by their workers" does, as this, to me, implies that only workers co-ops are eligible to be members -- Webarchitects is mostly, but by no means exclusively, run and owned by it's workers

As I said earlier Webarchitects, is a multi-stakeholder co-operative with shares owned by workers, clients and investors (workers could be a minority share holder in terms of the number of shares, ie by value) and should anything ever come to a vote (we try to use consensus) our rules give 50% of the votes to workers and 25% to clients and partners and 25% to investors.

So while, in practice, we are, to most intents and purposes, in essence, a workers co-op, this isn't strictly, formally, true.

Does that makes sense? And does anyone have a suggested wording that would include co-ops like ours?

Are Webarchitects not covered by the first part of the sentence: "is open to all co-ops that sell technical/digital products"?

Yes, but that isn't the issue, the issue is that the rest of the sentence "that are run and owned by their workers" does

My mistake @chriscroome. Reading back now I realise that I'd misinterpreted the sentence. Sorry!

I've not got Wiki access (can someone set me up with an account?) but a few bits of feedback from @opendatacoop folk:

About Page

Would suggest sticking to language of 'network' at this point, rather than 'collection of' etc. which create some ambiguity around structure of the group.

In particular, suggest replacing:

",a group of tech coops who have formed together to make one large collection of cooperatives,"

with

",a group of tech coops who have formed together to build a network,"

Join

Again, just clarifying the network part would help here. "Membership of Co-operative Technologists network is open to..."

I know there are discussions and possibly plans for other structures in future, but a couple of the team here spent a lot of time trying to work out if the ask was to join a formal co-op, or a looser network form of affiliation.

It might also be helpful on this page to have just a brief sentence or two about governance, even if just:

"Governance of the network currently takes place through a rough consensus process using Loomio and a wiki, and all members are invited and encouraged to get involved. As the network develops, we will explore changes to this governance model together."

Other pages needed / small bits

One of my colleagues pointed out:

• There is no Privacy Policy or T&Cs in the site footer. Does anyone have simple tried-and-tested versions that could be included?
• The use of the coop marque is slightly ambiguous in the footer - as could be read to imply that co-tech is itself a coop, rather than network of coops. (a) has there been a check that this use of the marque is ok; (b) it might be better to put a line just above it stating 'A network of co-operatives' to clarify the context of the marque.

Hope these points are useful. Looking forward to meeting many of you in a few weeks at the Open Coops event.

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback @timdavies1, you have made lots of valid points, let me, or anyone with an admin account on the wiki have your email address and a wiki account can be created for you.

Could someone volunteer to take on applying for the use of the co-op marque on behalf of Co-operative Technologists?

I have implemented the edits suggested by @timdavies1, specifically:

• Use "network" on about page
• Use "network" on join page
• Text Tim suggested for join page added to about page
• Links created for a Privacy Policy and some Terms and Conditions
• I have filled in the form at identity.coop regarding the user of the Co­-operative Marque (though there was nowhere on the form to explain the nature of Co-operative Technologists so I'm not expecting a yes without some follow up).

@timdavies1 @chriscroome Re good use of the 'coop' marque, I will take this on (Calverts designed it, advises domains.coop on compliance etc, wrote the guidelines).

I propose we register tech.coop and apply for the marque at the same time, via identity.coop - but either way I'm comfortable that we can use the marque now, since many of CoTech's members are already registered to use it.

The marque guidelines say that if reversed out of a colour background, it should be in white. Also, I suggest that we add one of the standard slogans - 'People together are stronger' or 'Cooperative enterprises build a better world' or a bespoke slogan such as 'Information technology for a better world'. Preferences?

If we agree to register tech.coop I will do the registration and Calverts will pay pro tem the first 24 months. We'll work up the preferred slogan/artwork and get application approval from the coop authorities, i.e. Violetta at domains.

If I get general approval for this approach, and depending on your slogan preference, shall I make this a Loomio proposal?

@sionwhellens we already have approval to use the marque but I agree that it would be better to use it in a way that complies a little closer to the guidelines. The Marque Register hasn't been updated to list Co-operative Technologists yet, but I have put a copy of the approval email on the wiki.

Regarding other domain names, I guess cotech.coop would the one to get?

Also note we have coops.tech and not coop.tech (which isn't available, "This domain has been reserved by the registry, and is not available for registration.", peahaps because it is a TLD).

Another possibility is coop.technology, but it is rather long and would perhaps only be worth getting to stop someone else squatting it.

@chriscroome and all involved, love the site, looking great, and powerful

I know you all know this, but there are in my mind two steps to this:

1) everyone agrees with what the manifesto, about us, and join pages say and mean
2) *how it is said" - make sure that the words are really clear and understandable by the audience we have in mind

It sounds as if we are nearly there on step 1 - I'd happily accept the proposal, personally.

But I feel strongly that the copy is not ready - step 2 hasn't been done yet - especially for a wider audience than all of us. If, as @roybrooks says, we want to make it relevant to a wider audience, which I think we do.

I like @timdavies1 suggestions but think it still needs more work.

I started editing it myself, then thought surely we must in the network have a professional copy editor who could do this? If we don't I will happily volunteer my partner who is such a person and I am sure will look at it pro bono.

@chriscroome E-mail address of: tim.davies@opendataservices.coop

I've made some changes to the Manifesto wiki page. I don't feel strongly about them, but I think they are an improvement. However, anyone should feel free to revert my changes - I felt a bit uncomfortable actually making the changes rather than suggesting them!

@jamesmead said:

I've made some changes to the Manifesto wiki page... I felt a bit uncomfortable actually making the changes

This is the nature of wiki's your edit will always exist in the history of the page so if needs be it could be reverted but it is important to be bold:

Be bold can be explained in three words: "Go for it".

Just like Harry has just been :-D

Sorry to stick my oar in without actually making a suggested effort, but how would people respond to a manifesto that is a bit more outwards facing?

Something along the lines of:

We believe in a fairer world in which wealth and resources are distributed to the people who need them rather than those best able to take them.

As Co-operative Technologists we aim to ensure the technology plays it part in creating a fairer world.

Our individual workers co-operatives have shown that workers who collectively own their companies and control their destinies make better workplaces, better suppliers and better digital products.

We call upon tech workers who share our vision to join us[link to join page].

We call upon consumers of digital products - including trades unions, charities, governments and private companies - to reject the assumption the tech companies must be private equity funded startups or multinational conglomerates. Technology is the lifeblood of our future not a gravy train.

We hereby give notice to technology companies that do not treat their employees fairly, do not give their workers control of their businesses and do not seek to create a fairer world that your days are numbered. We are more creative, more committed and more resilient. Join us.

Workers of the world, Swipe Left.

Go on @harryrobbins, Wiki it!

@sionwhellens the only way to Wiki it seems to be to overwrite all the work everyone else has done, which doesn't seem right.

@jamesmead I believe you made the last edit to the wiki version - how would you feel about it being overwritten by something a bit more vitriolic

@harryrobbins: Be my guest :smiley:

Done. Not precious about it though so feel free to hack it about.

Thanks Chris.

I felt I was replacing rather than editing, which seemed a bit un-wiki-ish.

Thanks for support @sion :)

x

@harryrobbins said:

I felt I was replacing rather than editing, which seemed a bit un-wiki-ish.

It's fine, the last version is still available for reference if needs be.

I have sent a follow-up email to identity.coop pointing out that several of the co-ops listed on their approved spreadsheet are involved with Co-operative Technologists, specifically:

• Agile Collective Ltd
• Altgen
• Blake House Filmmakers Cooperative
• Brighton Digital Exchange Co-operative
• Calverts
• Gildedsplinters
• United Diversity
• Wave Design Ltd
• We Are Open
• Webarch Co-operative Ltd

Did I miss any co-ops approved to use the Co­operative Marque?

Well, without wishing to reopen the what sort of coop debate, Brighton Digital Exchange (a consortium rather than worker coop) is approved to use coop marque.

We have been approved to use the co-op marque :-)

So we just need to get the text for the site agreed!

I used "that are run and owned by their workers" as opposed to "worker co-ops" because I thought it did include Webachitects - apologies it didn't work.

How about adding a line to make it explicit that Webarchitects and similar organisations are welcome. Something like

Membership of Co-operative Technologists is open to all co-ops that sell technical/digital products or services that are run and owned by their workers. Secondary co-ops and multistakeholder co-ops are also welcome so long as all they (and their members) do not generate money for investors by exploiting their workers.

That phrasing does allow Webarchitects to join but not consumer co-ops or secondary co-ops made up of exploitative businesses (I hope).

Thanks @harryrobbins, I think that covers it and have added it to the wiki version of the page :-)

You have been absolutely consistent on this point @harryrobbins

I don't want to slow things down but I feel a strong urge to make a couple of points:

Consumer coops - The Phone Coop being an obvious case in point - would assume that the definition is open to them since they don't "generate money for investors by exploiting their workers". We can have a debate about whether they exploit their workers (I shall remain silent). We can also have a debate about the enrichment of executives. However no one can argue that any exploitation, whether there or not, is for the enrichment of investors. It simply isn't. Not in The Phone Coop, nor in The Co-operative Group.

Secondary coops - by which I assume you mean consortium coops - in the case of the Brighton Digital Exchange, most if not all members would qualify. They are tiny, flat teams of people who are more interested in what they are doing than the money. If you asked them whether they exploit workers to enrich investors they'd laugh. The point I'm making is that the language wouldn't make sense to them. If we are going to be outward looking, spreading the coop ideal to other digital-tech businesses (which I think BDX does) then we need open, accessible language. The notion that capital expropriates value from workers is completely valid. But it's not great comms.

In my view.

@shaunfensom can you suggest some alternative wording and ideally edit the wiki page with it?

@chriscroome I'll have a go. Difficult because I don't really agree with the limitation in the first place. But will attempt something that @harryrobbins and others with the 'worker coops only' view can accept. In the spirit of compromise!

TBH I'm fairly sure phone.coop employees are paid more than we are at Webarchitects... so I wonder who is most exploited... my main grumble with them would be that they mostly resell other peoples things rather than host their own services, for example email...

@chriscroome totally with you there. There was a time when it ran multiple servers, offered co-lo etc. Just a retailer now.

@shaunfensom I think I'm gradually softening :-!

I'm not trying to say that we should never have consumer co-ops etc. Just that we should start with a clearly identified group and work outwards rather than starting with something loose and watching them drift apart.

Do you think the members of Brighton Digital Exchange would be interested in converting themselves into co-ops? I've got a target to make 20 new tech co-ops by May so any leads greatly appreciated.

RE: The Co-op - do they not pay their checkout assistants something close to minimum wage (below the average wage) and redistribute it to the consumers (who have closer to the average wage). I'd see that as redistribution of money from poor to rich and as a form of exploitation.

@harryrobbins I have sympathy with the idea of controlled growth (also softening!)

I can think of at least one member of BDX that might consider converting. I don't think that's the point though: BDX introduces a different form of B2B value exchange using a co-op model. Less 'exploitative' if you like. Asking how these small businesses operate internally is a bit like asking whether the members of a coop are individually racist: it's important, but the impact of the coop is not (directly) at that level.

You are right that the Co-op group underpays its staff, along with the rest of the retail sector. However, whether that is a transfer of wealth to better-off customers is a stretch. After all, they'd just take their business to Sainsbury's or whatever. Do all CoTech members have to sell to customers worse off than their workers? It certainly isn't a transfer of wealth to investors which is the language you used.

Anyway, not advocating that Co-op Group joins.

@chriscroome @roybrooks the Manifesto has been completely changed since @roybrooks raised that. It might still be an issue, but worth re-checking. It does specifically address people who might want to hire us as well as join us now.

@harryrobbins I realise that, it was more the first sentence at the top of the front page -- it seems more aimed at people in existing co-ops and those who might be encouraged to join or set up co-ops, perhaps missing a possible audience of potential clients?

Strengthening the cooperative movement by working together through local, national, regional and international structures.

Don't worry, it's not a big deal.

I think the only key thing that needs addressing is the blue on blue text for the input fields on the "Get in Touch" form when using Firefox and the white on white for the input fields on the "Join Us" form. I could have a go at fixing that by adding CSS via the theme web interface if nobody has a chance to edit the CSS in via git?

Also perhaps we need to hide the co-ops who haven't added any details to the site?

RE: editing CSS - I believe Matt Kendon is doing some work on it. Drop him an email or slack. Changes made via web UI will very likely get overwritten I believe.

@harryrobbins adding CSS to the theme via the web intreface does work, it is added as inline CSS at the top of the page, I have fixed the black labels on the front page form by adding this:

/* Front page form */
div#wpcf7-f1463-o1.wpcf7 form p label {
  color: white;
  background: transparent;
}

However I haven't been able to make the front page form input fields change -- the Your Name and Your Email fields are still unusable with Firefox as they are blue text on a blue background and on the join form the same fields are white on white.

I have raised this quite a few times in Slack and it is at the top of the wishlist on the wiki -- I'd class this as a blocker to the launch.

div#wpcf7-f1463-o1.wpcf7 form p label span input[type="text"] is set to background: transparent'
from what I can see. Maybe change that to background: white; or somesuch might do the trick?

@graham2 I have tried setting it to black and white and even red I think, nothing changes apart from the cursor colour...

I can get the background of the fields to change colour, but still can't see anything I type into them.

@graham2 exactly, this is the problem, you can't see what you are typing.

The 'Your Message' field works. Not sure why the other two don't.

@chriscroome re: The strapline on the homepage

I agree that this should be focused our broader aims rather than just the co-op movement. How about something along the lines of

"Building a tech industry that's better for it's workers and customers through co-operation, democracy and worker ownership"

The previous about page is also currently quite inward facing - I've had a go at a new version of the about page which hopefully addresses some of those concerns.

@harryrobbins thanks for the updated strapline, I have created a wiki page for it and made the suggested edit.

@shaunfensom thanks for clarity. I would indeed prefer not to loosen it to that extent for now but very happy to keep discussion going about how to involve/interact with the broader co-op movement.

I'm very much not saying 'i will never be persuaded that they should join' but I currently feel that 'co-operative principles' are too broad for effective action - hence The Co-op, Co-ops UK and Phone Co-op not setting something like this up despite their considerable resources and long existence.

Chris has updated the text to the "very least" version you've suggested. Thanks very much for raising the issue here rather than getting into an editing war on the wiki. Perhaps we can discuss further at the CoTech launch on Thursday?

Indeed. I didn't see my thoughts as wiki-ready.

Alas I can't make it on Thursday. Hope it goes really well.

But, yes, let's continue the discussion.

To confirm before I make any observations, this https://dev.coops.tech/manifesto is the latest/current iteration of the Manifesto?

@roybrooks no, we are working on a copy of it on the wiki.

Ta Chris

Changed.

• to reject the assumption that tech companies must be multinational conglomerates or private equity-funded startups.

for
- to reject the (false) assumption that only multinational conglomerates or private equity-funded startups can be great tech companies.

Syntax/punch

Sounds good to me - add it to the wiki.

x

Changed;

Technology is the lifeblood of our future not a gravy train.

For

Technology is the lifeblood of our all our futures, not just a gravy train for the (fortunate) few.

Punch

Changed:

plays it part

For

plays its part

Sp

Should we hide the co-ops who haven't yet edited their pages?

• https://dev.coops.tech/co-op/altgen/
• https://dev.coops.tech/co-op/cbn/
• https://dev.coops.tech/co-op/founders-and-coders/
• https://dev.coops.tech/co-op/software-coop/
• https://dev.coops.tech/co-op/we-are-open/

What's ETA on getting access to the source code? Many of us could help fix these issues.
cc: @amil

I have set the co-ops who don't appear to have edited their pages to Draft, so the pages still exist but are not public, they can be changed to Published if the co-ops edit them.

Just an NB on the Manifesto - anything I added in (brackets) is for (emphasis) - in or out depending on how strong we want it to read. Strong - leave in, remove brackets. Less strong - remove

I agree whole heartedly with the sentiments expressed in the manifesto and would (and I guess will sign up) but without wishing to sound critical/dismissive, I think we need to get real. To take money out of the hands of the rapacious capitalists, ensure our members earn a decent living, redistribute technological wealth and resources, etc, etc; we need to be able to compete and demonstrate that we provide a compelling business benefit to potential customers - over and above the conventional suppliers. Maybe this manifesto isn't the place to address this. Maybe it's taken as read by us - in which case will we build a customer facing site to get this message out?

I guess CoTech is not actually a thing yet and so can't (and maybe never will) pitch for work - e.g. we're not a client facing brand in that sense. It's our individual co-ops that need to offer the compelling business case.

Personally I think the about page is the more moderate 'why you should hire us or work for us' page and the manifesto is something more political and aspirational.

I think most people in the network would prefer to work with the sort of clients that would also sign up to the manifesto.

It includes the line

"We call upon consumers of digital products - including trades unions, charities, governments and private companies - to reject the (false) assumption that only multinational conglomerates or private equity-funded startups can be great tech companies. Technology is the lifeblood of our all our futures, not just a gravy train for the (fortunate) few."

And that

"Our individual workers co-operatives have shown that workers who collectively own their companies and control their destinies make better workplaces, better suppliers and better digital products."

Other than showing our clients, size, expertise, etc. do you have a view about what a "compelling business benefit" would be?

I have copied the latest versions of the documents on the wiki to the site and also moved it to a live server (the dev server didn't have reverse DNS setup and some mail servers wouldn't accept email from it causing issues with password resets for some people).

I have also given up trying to hack the CSS to get the input fields to display -- I think this might be a JavaScript issue rather than a CSS one, so since the forms were unusable I added this CSS via the web interface to hide them:

/* Hide forms while they are not working */
form.wpcf7-form { 
  display: none 
}

div#wpcf7-f1463-o1:before,
div#wpcf7-f1484-o1:before {
  content: "Contact us at: contact@coops.tech" 
}

This can be removed when they are fixed.

Typo in https://wiki.coops.tech/wiki/About_CoTech:

"democratically run by it's workers" should be "democratically run by its workers" - elementary!

https://wiki.coops.tech/wiki/Join_CoTech really should change "Secondary co-ops and multi-stakeholder co-ops " to "Consortium co-ops and multi-stakeholder co-ops " as I suggested. Secondary coops by definition only have co-ops as members.

We should discuss at some point but I can't see the difference between a consortium co-op made of private businesses and any other capitalist business. Co-ops should be made of people or they're just consortia with seven rather vague 'principles'.

I've offered several times to help those that want a broader group to help set one up but no one seems to be interested/willing/able.

Yes @harryrobbins your kind offer is welcome. I am still interested and willing to help with a two-tier structure as has been suggested and discussed. So are others. But I agree that the priority is getting this done first, and I am not voting against.

Just for info, I could be wrong, but I think that technically We Are Open Co-op who are already involved is actually a Consortia Co-op whose members are non-co-op private businesses. @bevangelist @dougbelshaw @laurahilliger am I right? Sure I read that somewhere.

If they have humans employed directly by the co-op, or by their member companies who are not eligible for membership then I don't think it's right that they should be part of this.

That said, there are only six members of Outlandish at the moment as the vast majority of our workers (all but one) have not clocked up the 240 days' work required for membership.

Then again, we don't take dividends and the members all put what was previously their money into the co-op so anyone who's worried that we're extracting surplus value is welcome to come and audit our accounts.

Can I just chuck a little spanner into the works for the manifesto and propose that we ditch the brackets around (false) and (fortunate) as I feel they soft-pedal the matter and reduce readability for no significant improvement in clarity.

@chriscroome Shall I just dive in and make this change?

Roy put them in to show that he was suggesting optional bits of the text.

Either remove the brackets or remove the words + the brackets. I believe it's your call as you're the first to flag it.

@alexwa sure :-)

From earlier;

'Just an NB on the Manifesto - anything I added in (brackets) is for (emphasis) - in or out depending on how strong we want it to read. Strong - leave in, remove brackets. Less strong - remove'

Just to clarify above points from @harryrobbins and @josefdaviescoates, it's, er, complicated...

So, according to our articles of incorporation, we're not a consortium of limited companies. However, for our first six months of operation we acted as if we were, restricting membership to limited companies. They are:

• Visual Thinkery Ltd. (Bryan)
• Dynamic Skillset Ltd. (Doug)
• Go Fast Turn Left Ltd. (John)
• Zythepsary of Thought UG (Laura)

The only other person employed by these companies is my wife, who does admin and finance for Dynamic Skillset Ltd. She is also We Are Open's company secretary, but she opted not to be a member of the co-op itself.

In the last few weeks, prompted by the joys of German tax law, Laura's decided to move from being a limited company to a sole trader. This, in turn, has meant that we've decided to allow both individual persons and limited companies to be part of our co-op.

I hope that makes sense to someone! :)

Nerd intervention (I did draft your articles!) - WeAreOpen is a consortium (open to sole traders, freelancers, companies, partnerships, etc) coop where workers (employees) also have a path to membership. Of course what your actual member qualifying requirements are, and how you actually operate, is a matter of policy - but that's what your governing doc says!

Alas tech.coop has gone @sionwhellens - registered in Germany

Actually BC Canada

Just checked and tech.coop is taken (you probably knew this!) but technology.coop and technologists.coop are available. Should we just stick with coop.tech or get a dot coop domain name?