The Common Bond & Scaling Strategy of social.coop?
Let's use this thread to discuss our current and future scope of membership for social.coop. I am currently the primary member vetting applications, and my understanding of our grounds for admission is pretty loose. Basically, if someone indicates interest in at least one of the items on the poll in the intro survey, and something in their application doesn't scream SPAM, I let them in.
That loose screen nonetheless establishes that social.coop currently operates with a common bond that can be characterized as "affinity for the co-op model/movement."
I think this has contributed to our progress thus far by (1) creating a critical mass of mutually interesting content, which keeps members coming back, by focusing on the co-op movement, and (2) having a pool of expertise, energy, and interest to draw on for the work of actually constructing the platform.
As our platform matures, a key strategic question is how we scale beyond our present semi-intentionally gradual growth? Do we, when we hit a certain size/infrastructural capacity milestone, decide to drop the common bond (and thus the more curated feel of the local timeline) and start actively encouraging our networks not just to join Mastodon, but social.coop specifically? Or do we maintain an identity as a co-op movement social hub, and work to support other instances in adopting the organizational model we're developing?
Where are we going with this?