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!