Is Cooperative Technologists a network of co-ops or something else

Thought it would be good to have a place to discuss this properly.

I believe @graham2 @sionwhellens @shaunfensom and @vica have been championing the "anyone who's interested" corner while I've broadly been pushing the "network of co-ops" idea.

I would like to come up with something we can all consent to but falling that I'd like to make a decision that suits the majority so that we can get on with doing stuff.

My opening gambit would be "it's a network of co-ops and we'll support other interested parties to start a new freelancer-style co-op that can join the network"

Thanks for kicking this off on a clean page @harryrobbins

For my money I think there are two distinct yet overlapping aspects to Cooperative Technologists, and perhaps it is this that is leading potentially to a slight divergence of views about who's in and who's out.

On the one hand there is the network of cooperatives, potentially collaborating on projects, sharing work around between different member organisations, perhaps sharing some back office skills, costs, and infrastructure, possibly doing joint marketing under a shared brand. All good stuff, and for my money this network should be open to a fairly tightly and clearly defined group of organisations where these activities make sound commercial sense and add value for the members. I can't really see the point of interested individuals for example being part of this joint enterprise. I believe it should be structured as a cooperative. It should be open to other eligible organisations becoming members.

On the other hand there is second, and I think equally important facet to this project, which builds on the current interest in platform cooperativism for example, the whole post-capitalist Paul Mason/P2P vibe which is very much about cooperatives and technology, and I see lots of opportunities and interesting stuff going on in that emerging and fast changing space.

Where the first thing is perhaps characterised as an inward focus about the trading relationships between the member cooperatives, this is very much an outward-facing thing. I also see it very much as a looser, open network that, while I assume it would include and be of interest to the members of the CoTech cooperative (not least because it could provide some business opportunities) I think it would also be of interest to a wider group of individuals and organisations that may not meet the eligibility criteria for the CoTech co-op, and may well not see themselves as part of that at all, but they would support it and promote it and be interested in it and have ideas to contribute and - well a good number of them have already signed up as part of this Loomio group.

To lose the broader, looser grouping would in my view be a huge mistake, and i don't see why, if we're clever, we can't have both of these things working alongside each other symbiotically and synergistically.

Hi guys!

I've not been actively involved in the original banter, but I agree that it would be good to cater to both camps, and I can't see why this would be a huge issue.

An official membership based entity that could be a co-op of co-ops to promote to the wider world and share all the things as one (megazord) collective organisation would be fab.

But there is also the inclusive discussion about the ideas and concepts that could and I think should be available to a wider audience, to benefit new individuals as well as the wider movement by building momentum, capacity and energy.

I'd be interested to hear the arguments for keeping this more exclusive, I may be missing some key points.

That's all for now!

Cheers,

Finn

Finn's and Graham's thoughts sound very similar to the Outlandish model (at an individual level). Ie we have members and "outlanders" and collaborators. Collaborators don't always conform to the standards that one must meet to become a member, but are encouraged and supported to move in that direction - and are still a part of the Outlandish network even if they don't. What works for individuals should be plausible at the organization level too.

If we can all agree on this fundamental principle, the rest becomes just a matter of semantics, tools and rules.. . Who can call themselves a "member" of CoTech? Who can use Loomio? Who can participate in network-wide cobudgeting? etc. All important questions, but all tackle-able if we take them bit by bit

Simply, how about including bona fide tech coops as members by right, and others only by invitation or sponsorship? That way, we could include individuals or businesses that were not strictly coops, but were trusted by us as able and willing to collaborate in a genuine cooperative spirit.

Thanks @harryrobbins for grasping this nettle and all above for contributing

For Gildedsplinters, the nub of the issue seems to be; 'what's 'tech'?

If it's 'bits & bytes and the kit that enables it', then membership shouldn't be difficult to determine - it's 'anyone' (whether that's individual and/or body corporate TBD) whose day job is wrangling that 'cooperatively' (again, meaning TBD)

If the definition includes 'the product of that wrangling' then, as I suspect 'everyone' here 'uses' that in some form, we all qualify.

Gildedsplinters currently doesn't, beyond a bit of web design and related development, 'do' bits & bytes. So, if that's the base criteria, we're happy not to be seen as a 'tech' coop and also comfortable with being at one remove from the 'core' membership of CoTech - as, say, 'affiliates' whose skills and facilities the core members can make use of on a 'cooperative' basis. (Again, what that might mean in practice TBD) - but don't, eg, have voting rights.

This is the approach we've adopted for Gildedsplinters; the essential criteria for membership is a member 'does' ideation (our 'bits & bytes'). Any other facilities/skills a member may have to offer are available to, and through, our coop, but membership is not dependent on them being so.

If the definition is the second above, or similar, then we fit the bill and are keen to be full members.

This may be over simplifying things, but hopefully it's a positive contribution to finding a resolution.

Forza!#coops

Maybe rather than worrying about using identity criteria to define the boundary between the inner "do" coop and the outer "interested" group, why not allow people to self-select - but with a cost? Why not have some loose definition "involved in tech/digital, working using co-operative principles" and then charge a membership fee?

That's a fairly well-tried approach to resolving membership criteria arguments.

Then if someone joins who is a bit marginal, we don't care too much. They contribute the fee so maybe that's their choice. Maybe they understand why they are members. We could have a code that says you must support cooperative principles and leave it at that. Pays your fee, gets your vote.

Oh, and then we'd have a fund to pay the Loomio fee.

As far as I see its pretty simple.

There is a global conversation going on about cooperatives and technology and their relationships. This includes the discussion around platform cooperatives and alternative working structures and how they might transform broader social relations.

There is also the specific network of worker cooperatives working in and around technology that was more or less established at Wortley Hall in November, that chose the name Cooperative Technologists to operate under. This is a specific institution that is part of the wider conversation. People are welcome to be interested in its working or join it under criteria that are to be established by the group itself. This is an output of the global conversation, but is far more concrete. Therefore I feel joining criteria should be more concrete.

I would have personally chosen a clearer name than Cooperative Technologists to clearly establish this distinction over the very generic name that was chosen, but this was not the decision of the institution as a whole.

I'm content with @shaunfensom's idea about a relatively loose set of criteria (not least because I'm struggling for a clear definition of the 'tech' word), and for me the decision about joining the co-op is primarily driven by the services and benefits that members can access.

A membership fee, even a fairly modest one, would act as a coarse filter to avoid clogging the wheels, but my guess is that for most would-be members, the value added as a result of membership will need to outweigh the costs of membership (both financial and in terms of time commitment). So I think a detailed discussion to define what those services and benefits are is central to this.

@alexwa states "People are welcome to be interested in its working" - yes, and as I hope my earlier post communicated, I see this outward-facing broader engagement as a very important aspect of the development of the entity. By which I mean that we should be actively encouraging that engagement.

Charging any fee may have a psychological impact, changing the nature of how members perceive a service. Sometimes it can work, sometimes not. Great care needed. Also, a fixed fee, even if small, will bias membership towards those with more spare money. Having a contribution alternative to money might be worth trying, but honestly I shudder at the thought of how to monitor and evaluate that.

So for me group membership would still best be based on voluntary contributions of time and/or money, but regulated by reputation as well as category membership. How exactly to implement that, I'd like to know!

Thanks @harryrobbins ry for starting this thread, I think a lot of good points are coming out of it.

I just wanted to clarify my position.

I am not coming to this as someone simply “interested in tech and coops” but someone who works in the space of “tech and coops”. I am interested in doing stuff in this network, not watching and chatting about it on the side.

I believe we should think of it as an eco-system of different players that can all contribute in their own way based on their skills and interests. Tech cooperatives are not only made of developers. They thrive on people that are good at selling, good at networking, good designers, good project managers, good facilitators etc.

If we are thinking of the CoTech as a co-operative consortium, then we should aim to include all these skill sets.

I can see myself for example tacking on some of these roles for the network, as well as offering my own services to the co-ops in the network (I have already collaborated with at least 3 of them).

My second point is that I think there would be added value in including what I would call “co-operative freelancers”. By that I mean freelancers, who work based on co-operative principles.
Why? Not everyone works at the same scale, so not every activities actually needs to/can be set up as a co-operative, at least at the start. That does not mean that those individuals do not fit in with the aims of CoTech.

For example I could see myself being passed on clients that need very basic websites that are not worth developing for the bigger companies in network, and vice-versa, when I get approached for websites that are out of my reach I could pass them on.

Also, companies are fluid entities, and employees move from one to the other voluntarily or because forced to. I would find it a pity to lose some people from the group just because they stop working for company X. I actually thought that the value in this network would be share resource between us, including people working on each others projects.

So all I am suggesting is the co-operative technologists also includes co-operative freelances that work in the tech ecosystem.

Hope that makes my position clearer.

Having just seen the test-website (thanks @amil !) , if it does make it easier, I wouldn't be against having a grouping called "CoTech freelancers", which includes people here who are not currently part of an existing coop, but are part of this network. Similarly to what Harry was proposing at the start of this thread, but without setting up another official entity for it. It would just be a grouping of the freelancers within the network, and whoever is in that group would be allowed to participate in the network as anyone else. Creating an official "freelancers coop" could end up being a product of the CoTech network in the future, rather then a per-condition for being part of the network.

I think one of the main purposes of this organisation is to encourage the formation of new co-ops. I believe Enspiral are heading towards something more like everyone being in a co-op with their "life pods" or whatever they're called.

What are the reasons that you don't want to start or join a co-op?

I think one of the main purposes of this organisation is to encourage the formation of new co-ops.

I guess that could be seen as a reason for including people who were trying to form a co-op, as well as those in a co-op.

Part of the problem here is the unhelpful ambiguity around the framing of the topic question. The answer, of course, is it depends what we mean by a 'network of co-ops'.

If we mean that we're creating a co-op of co-ops, then that sounds like a members-only discussion.

If we mean that we're creating a loose network of conversation between people interested in co-ops and tech, that sounds like a network discussion.

There's actually no reason not to have both. For example, We Are Open co-op runs two Slack channels (#solidarity and #backchannel) for those in our orbit, and two private channels (#members and #tweets) for members.

Loomio is great for decision-making, but there's better options for open, threaded, discussions (e.g. Discourse. Perhaps we need a mission statement here?

Hi Doug, i was trying to get at "who are the members of CoTech". I'd previously understood that the members are worker co-ops that sell tech/digital services and thought this had been clearly articulated but @vica had suggested that freelancers should be allowed to become members and potentially people would like to include other non-co-ops, or co-ops that don't sell tech services.

@dougbelshaw 'Perhaps we need a mission statement here?'

Indeed. Increasingly important to address (with specific reference to CoTech only at this point);

What is 'tech'
Who / what constitutes a coop

Well, it may be a cheap point, but I have to say anyone watching from outside who is familiar with the coop movement would say “here they go again, obsessing with definitions and structures!”.

Here's a proposal:

1. That we form a cooperative called Cooperative Technologists with coop consortium rules

2. That its objects are to promote and develop the use of the cooperative model in digital-tech-creative business

3. That anyone may join on these conditions:

a) They are working in digital-tech-creative and actively applying the cooperative model
b) They will actively support the objects of the coop and abide by a code of practice
c) They pay the membership subscription

Then I would propose separately that the membership subscription be set quite low, perhaps £50 per year.

Such a coop could additionally have a special interest group of worker coops working in digital-tech-creative.

If I simply put that proposal, now, would I be guilty of attempting a bounce/abusing Loomio process?

Hi Shaun,

as @graham2 and others have pointed out there are basically two organisations that are being discussed here: one like you describe and one more narrowly focussed that is a co-operative made up exlusively of worker-controlled co-ops that provide tech services. I think we all seem to agree that both would be useful.

I (and the rest of Outlandish I believe) are particularly keen on having the more narrowly defined network, though we're supportive of both efforts.

As we kicked this off and have invested somewhere in the region of £20k so far in making it happen, would it be reasonable for us to keep the Co-operative Technologists name, Loomio group, etc. for the narrower network we're keen to create and for the broader network find a new name, Loomio, etc?

I personally would like to join whatever the other group is as it's something I'm interested in. Perhaps you, @vica and others who are more focused on that organisation could get the ball rolling?

Many thanks,

Harry

Agree with Harry's two org description. I also liked the idea of a compromise with a (at first loosely-defined) freelancers coop, which can "sweep up" any individuals. But it all comes back down to voting and that's where I lose the thread of my argument. Surely if that freelancers coop grows to say 40, 50 people it will hold huge sway over the network, despite not sharing many of the networks concerns (as it has no organisational-level financial risk, employment issues, etc). That doesn't seem sensible to me.

For that reason (unless anybody can explain to me a solution that includes everybody, but doesn't disrupt the democratic balance), I am still in favour of an inner and out org.

Trying to borrow language from @shaunfensom's proposal, I've summarised where my head's at in the attached.

And if you are somebody reading this and thinking "here they go again, obsessing with definitions and structures!” may I suggest to you that you try creating a national network of organisations in a non-authoritarian manner and then re-read this thread :)

Here's the editable diagram: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1CUzip1mQuAgE7cNfFVb7vJE9tsGFkn9oy0BOAg0PcY4/edit?usp=sharing

I've already edited to "worker coops" in the inner circle.

Fair riposte :)

I think what Outlandish has done is fantastic. You have done what people like me merely talked about. And my anguish certainly wasn't levelled at Outlandish but at us all.

I think it would be a shame/mistake to have two organisations. One of them (the looser one) will die. I hoped my proposal might cut the Gordian knot.

@brianspurling sounds pretty sensible to me, and fully agree with the challenge to others to do it better :)

For what it's worth I'd envisaged that voting would be a consent-based process in which co-ops rather than their members vote. Co-ops could decide their own rules for how they cast their votes (consent, consensus, majority voting, etc). That level of detail is obviously something to be addressed at a later date.

+1 to the visual clarity of the diagram @brianspurling has produced. In any future version of this diagram, please can we retain the labelling of the outer rectangle? ;)

Thanks Harry.

If the co-ops have one "vote" each then the idea of one of many CoTech members orgs being a (at first loosely-defined) freelancers cooperative become much less problematic.

In Harry's opening gambit, in Vica's follow on points, and in my and others' comments, we all seem to agree in principle on participation from a "freelancers cooperative".

I think it's safe to say at this point that, if a freelancer coop already existed, CoTech would not block its membership.

Which is to say, I am now fully on board with my own diagram :), edited very slightly and re-attached for clarity.

I feel that leaves us with one outstanding question, which I'd appreciate @vica's thoughts on:

Can we move ahead with a proposal which would, in the short term, exclude freelancer membership, provided we include in the proposal a commitment to a) allowing membership from a loosely-defined freelancer coop ["loosely", so as to avoid having to go through a horrendous legal and organisational battle before it can join] and b) actively supporting the creation of such a body

?

We're all largely in agreement here, which is nice. In part I think the nuances of difference are perhaps a bit about semantics. @shaunfensom, myself and I think @brianspurling - judging by the diagram, are talking about a single multilayered organisation, one inside the other on the image, with all those in the green blob also being involved in the pinky-purpley blob, whilst the language from @harryrobbins speaks about two separate but linked organisations.

For me the key here is about the level and directionality of permeability of the membrane between the green blob and the pinky-purpley blob. And we don't particularly need to define that right now as it will change over time. But it doesn't hang together for me if it is two organisations, and will lose the added value that i hoped I'd made clear near the top of this thread.

Happy for them to be linked groups or concentric circles, etc. As long as one of the gross is a consortium of tech co-ops I'm happy.

I think @brianspurling has a good suggestion. I'll try to put some ideas/suggestions/options down and share them with the group.

Perhaps we could arrange one or more meet ups to discuss and revise. Happy to arrange the London one. Any one up for organising and hosting one in the North or elsewhere?

"level and directionality of permeability of the membrane between the green blob and the pinky-purpley blob"

Brilliant.

Can I suggest we slow this conversation back down a bit. Harry is an important voice in this conversation, especially given he opened the thread, and he is currently chugging around Vietnam on a moped. We're unlikely to resolve this before Christmas, and I'm not sure it would be a good idea to try. But we have made great progress.

Are other people happy to pause for a bit, allow some new or less time-rich voices to comment, and try to move to a proposal maybe in the new year?

Perhaps we could roll in here some of the discussion from the "Welcome" thread, to work in communicative needs explicitly with this discussion on who are our different constituent groups? A Venn diagram is a good start -- can we go on from there to a concept map, for example, illustrating the different kinds of relationship (etc., in a very broad sense) between different kinds of player? I think that would really help us to have more insight into the question of how to use which communicative techologies.

There's some discussion re mapping CoTech on Slack #onlineplatform 23/11. Be good to mash the two threads?

Isn't a Multi-Stakeholder Co-operative the answer here? There are two sets of UK model rules I'm aware of:

• Somerset Rules
• Co-operatives UK Rules

We could, for example, have two categories of members, Co-operatives and Associates and the organisation could be structured so that if anything came to a vote (I'd suggest we continue to try to move forward on the basis of consensus and only resort to voting if that fails) the Co-operatives have a total of 75% of the votes and the Associates have 25%.

Webarchitects uses the Somerset Rules, workers have a 50% say in the running of the organisation, even though there are only 4 of us, and the clients and partners have 25% (there are about 60 or so, members in this category -- a mixture of individuals and organisations) and investors have 25% (there are only a few members in this category).

My suggestion of Co-operatives and Associates is inspired by Radical Routes -- they have a core of full members and a periphery of associate members.

I think that something along these lines could work for Co-operative Technologists 😃

I put some notes together on the debate so far: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HsCEhJG2kGgNEaH1u_r1xGVdsYrjysVvO0_noZjHfcQ/edit#

My main concerns with this approach are:

• harder to organise (if we keep it to just co-ops we can call all the members and have them sit around a table which isn't possible if individuals can join)
• a bit confusing and fractal - it's a multi-stakeholder consortium co-op made up of multi-stakeholder consortium co-ops
• is less directed (its beneficiaries are more diverse)

Can I suggest that we start with a co-op of co-ops but use a consortium model so that we can add other stakeholders later if we want to?

I'm very up for supporting the creation of a freelancers tech co-op so that anyone who feels excluded can still get involved.

Sorry - doc wasn't shared properly. I've shared it now.

Thanks @harryrobbins for putting this together. It reads very well balanced. Would you mind setting the permissions so we can comment on it? I have access as "view only" even if I'm logged into google. (please note, I might not be able to comment before the weekend due to travel commitments)

Thanks @vica

Permissions updated so everyone should be able to comment now.

Yes, thanks @harryrobbins for this very lucid exposition, which makes a lot of sense.
As I haven't been to any of the physical meetings, could I just ask for a recap, that the main purpose of CoTech itself is to "do" Principle 6? Or is there a clearer formulation of an agreed purpose?

Personally, I think it's easier to define meaningful membership boundaries based on clear formulations of purpose, than it is on formal status. The basis of implementing Principle 6 falls rather in between, because the purpose is dependent on co-op status. That supports Harry's narrow definition.

If the main aim were, on the other hand, to create "Enspiral UK" I for one would need to understand in more detail just how Enspiral works, and therefore who would be candidates to join under what conditions. The boundaries would be, I suspect, somewhat different. Some genuine Tech Co-ops might not want to co-operate in that way, but rather in some other ways. Other people might be eligible to co-create the organisation but not actually be tech co-ops.

So I guess I'm suggesting, as an evolution of this already very helpful document, to focus more on purpose (or at least, a more salient re-statement), and on the prerequisites to be co-operating in seeking to work that purpose out.

One broad purpose that I suggested at the meetup was "increasing the number of people who work in tech worker co-ops in the UK from ~500 to 10,000 by 2020 and to 100,000 by 2030".

I put my more immediate idea of the role/function/purpose of CoTech in a blog http://outlandish.com/blog/co-op-of-software-co-ops-arise-er-megazord/

Personally I think that Enspiral are an amazing and inspirational organisation but we should learn from them rather than copy them. They're currently trying to get everyone into 'life pods' or some such which are basically little co-ops.

I think I finally get what @vica and @shaunfensom have been getting at based on @vica's comments in the document I shared.

Perhaps this is an obvious win-win compromise:

(there would be many other bubbles within the broader "Enspiral UK" bubble such as services, coding schools and interest groups)

Enspiral have recently set up Enspiral Labs in the UK with the purpose of creating more Enspiral-like organisations. I suggest we approach them and ask if they'd be interested in "adopting" something like the above.

Just to chime in...

I'm in the "one org/ network" or "loose" camp :)

And I can't help wonder if the model Enspiral uses might be relevant again too...

Basically they have:

• Members (where ultimate legal power and authority lies)
• Contributors (not actual legal members but nevertheless still allowed and encouraged to participate in decision-making, including cobudgeting - because the greater diversity they bring improves the outcomes of such processes)

See this diagram and this page of their handbook for the difference.

As I understand it, in the Enspiral model, only actual people can be members of the Enspiral Foundation at the centre of it all, not ventures/ co-ops, individuals.

@harryrobbins seems to be suggesting (at least in earlier posts - I'm not entirely sure what the most recent "Enspiral UK" post/ image is suggesting/ proposing?) that a "restricted" Co-op Tech is basically a "secondary co-op" (i.e. a co-op whose only members are other co-ops) and only those co-ops (and not directly the people in them) will have governance/ voting powers.

That certainly could work, but is that what other people (or even @harryrobbins himself) in the "restricted" camp actually want? :) (should e.g. a two person co-op have as much power as a 50 person co-op? or will voting in the secondary co-op be weighted somehow?).

Anyways, leaving specific detail about voting rights etc aside for the moment, perhaps the Members/ Contributors model (much like the Members/ Associates used by Radical Routes and proposed by @chriscroome) is a way to combine both "restricted" and "loose" models?

i.e. perhaps the actual legal structure is restricted to just "tech worker co-ops" (however that ends up being defined) Members, but that a looser groups of Contributors (which could conceivably by either individuals or orgs) is also allowed to play and to fully participate?

I think that'd work for me (although if I'm honest I think I'd still prefer the multi-stakeholder co-op approach where Contributors are also able to be actual legal members too - unlike in Enspiral - but would be happy for Members to have >75% so long as Contributors have <25% so they can legally protect for rule changes that go against their interests). I wonder if it'd work for @vica too?

I guess it should also be noted that in Enspiral I think their participatory culture is strong enough, and contributors are involved enough in decision-making, that the fact contributors have very little legal voting power (none, as far as I can tell, but I'm not sure that is correct because they do delegate nearly all decisions to consensus by the whole network) is actually almost irrelevant.

PS UnitedDiversity LLP kinda already is a freelancer tech co-op (of two), who are at least as "tech" (actually much more so) as e.g. Calverts - can we play? :P

@josefdaviescoates said:

PS UnitedDiversity LLP kinda already is a freelancer tech co-op (of two), who are at least as "tech" (actually much more so) as e.g. Calverts - can we play? :P

I can't think of any reason why not and I'd love to have you fully on-board, so I'd suggest you add your co-op to the wiki ( I checked and you already have an account) and find whoever has permissions to add @uniteddiversity.com as an allowed domain for slack and shout when you want an account on the WordPress site :-)

A small observation as a marketer; if Cotech is to be, in part, business-facing - we pitch and work on commercial projects in the non-coop space under the CoTech brand - having a structure that is easily explained to 'regular businesses' and doesn't compromise our opportunities because we're seen as being organizationally overly complex or 'novel' will be important

Thanks @harryrobbins and @josefdaviescoates for your comments.

As I wrote in the google doc, I think I will keep out of the conversation for now, and let the current members decide what they think best. I don't want so much of the debate to be focused on me, this was never my intention when joining the group. I was simply surprised to be asked to leave after I had been invited to join the group on multiple occasions by different people and had been involved in conversations about it over the last year.

Having now joined, I can see that there are multiple ways this could develop and all have a lot of potential.

My stepping back is also due to the fact that I will be in NZ for 2 months, so there is not much I can lead on until I'm back in London in April.

The only thing I do feel I can offer remotely is a bit of help in facilitating the discussions that come up on loomio to help the group make decisions a bit more swiftly (probably only on the other threads though, as not sure I would be considered a "neutral" facilitator in this one!).

My experience of using loomio in various groups is that at least at the start this can be useful. If done in the right way, as time goes on and practices established, an external facilitator can become redundant, as all members become co-facilitators. A neutral facilitator can always be called in again for topics that become contentious.

Let me know if that's something you might be interested in.

As a minimum viable model (and this won't be viable without Outlandish), I think this is pointing towards a new coop whose objects are to expand the coop economy by e.g.

• taking business and workers from non-coops
• developing new socially useful products and services
• starting new coops
• converting non-coop projects and businesses to coops
• strengthening existing ones and
• anything else its members want to do, including propaganda and campaigning that are legal and in line with coop values.

A consortium coop of worker coops, other coops and individual cooperators (freelancers or supporters) with multistakeholder Somerset rules that give the worker coop members 75% of the voting rights. We could form as an unincorporated association on this basis, while we hammer things out, and incorporate when it looks like we're ready or we need to start trading (basically we would need weighted voting on Loomio).

I mostly agree with @shaunfensom and @graham2 but this has always been a worker coop initiative, and I think if we try to self-transcend at this stage, it will stumble.

I'm not too familiar with Somerset rules and have heard arguments from principle both for and against, but such a multi stakeholder would give significant ownership and control to non-worker tech coop members and individual cooperators (freelancers and supporters) while keeping it worker-based.

The real work, before and after we've put the rules away in the filing cabinet to gather dust, will be creating the culture, communication and commitment to make it work (i.e. bring benefit to the members by meeting their diverse needs and aspirations - financial, political, social).

There needs to be a membership fee and a clear description of what it takes to be a member. The process would be to write a manifesto/prospectus, kick it around, invite coops and individuals to self-identify as the prospective founder members, and get to work on the business plan. Not necessarily in that order.

This is linear and legalistic thinking I know - in reality it will always be an intersection of circles and interest groups.

On the subject of 'what do we mean by tech', see my comment today in the Welcome thread. I like @seanfensom and @brianspurling's digital-tech-creative formulation, partly because I think it will be elastic in practice and partly because it might get @josefdaviescoates off Calverts back :/

I always suggest to getting on and doing it and the legal model comes later, but If your looking for a legal model then Cooperatives UK is currently talking to the http://www.fairshares-association.com about taking on their society rules as one of our approved model rules (I think it looks better than the somerset rules).

Its multi-stakeholder model (producers, consumers, investors, founders) but with the twist that you can be a member in more than grouping and effectively get a vote more than once.

@johnatherton said:

Cooperatives UK is currently talking to the http://www.fairshares-association.com about taking on their society rules

Do you have a URL for these rules? I looked on their site and found the FairShares Co-operative page that links to a PDF from 2014 -- is this the set of rules we should be comparing with the Somerset Rules?

Yes, we are currently helping them review/update them but will likely be minor updates the core characteristics will be unchanged.

There is a rules generator for V3 of FairShares rules here https://sites.google.com/view/fairsharesrules although not all versions completely finished yet I don't think, I think the English co-op society ones are pretty much there.

Great to hear about this Co-ops UK & FairShares stuff :-D be really excellent to have Co-ops UK as a sponsor of their society rules (and helping them get them past the FCA) :-D

Any idea of the timescale for the Fairshares UK Co-operative Society model rules being FCA approved? I guess this is one advantage that The Somerset Rules have -- they could be used straight away...

No, but as I understand it Co-ops UK are currently going through them before submitting them to FCA... so I'd guess likely 2-3 months or something like that... or longer if Co-ops UK / FCA don't like bits of them... /me shrugs but yeah I've been waiting for FCA approved model FairShares society rules for a while (nearly started a crowdfunder a while ago to cover the FCA costs)

Can anyone link to an actual example of the FairShares society rules or Company Articles? Not everything I've heard about them is positive, and I want to check 'em out without having to fill in Mr Ridley-Duff's webform.