Membership/admission decisions

Good initiative. Would it be better to keep applications here, but have the discussion about membership policy over at CoTech Community, then bring it here for decision once drafted?

Thought it would be good to collect this stuff together.

My understanding of the current situation is thus (see also https://coops.tech/join):

• self-identifies as a worker co-op that sells technology and conforms to Worker Co-op Code = automatically accepted
• multi-stakeholder co-ops where workers make up at least 50% controlling interest = proposal via Loomio
• not worker-controlled, not a co-op, not based in UK or not selling tech = can't join

Organisations that have not been allowed to join so far include:

• Brighton Digital Exchange - not a worker co-op (made up of privately owned companies)
• GreenNet - currently owned by a charity and therefore not technically autonomous. Asked to reapply once conversion to worker co-op complete
• Protozoa - based in New Zealand (an Enspiral venture) - we'll notify them if we go international
• Digital Life Collective - not a worker co-op - instead a meta-co-op-network-network which CoTech could join
• Buy Smart - consumer rather than worker co-op

Organisations that have been allowed to join that are not strictly worker co-ops include:
* Outlandish - constitutionally a consortium co-op, though only has worker members and no plans to change this
* Web Architects technically a multi-stakeholder co-op split 50/50 between employees and clients
* We Are Open - technically some sort of consortium/freelance co-op
* The Dot Project, Go Free Range, FolkLabs and others - proto-co-ops with articles that are compatible with worker co-ops, that work as co-ops and meet all the guidelines from the Worker Co-op Code but which are not formally/legally constituted as worker co-ops

Also CBN, a freelancer coop, is a member

Re: Developer Society: do the workers have a controlling interest?

I don't want to be pedantic but at Webarchitects (one word, we are not legally Architects), the workers have 50% of the votes, clients and partners have 25% and investors have 25%, see our rules for the full details...

Having said that I think this thread is a great idea -- these things should be transparent and clear 👍

I don't think the coops.tech site links to the Workers Co-operative Code and perhaps it should (I 'm not sure I even knew this document existed...)?

I created a table on the wiki to list all the members co-ops and their types, it would be great if other could help complete it and then keep it up date 🙂 Also best follow up discussion on this on the community site so as not to derail this thread.

Graham asked:

Re: Developer Society: do the workers have a controlling interest?

The document the FCA has available to download for £12 might answer that, note that they are a Community Benefit Society (rather than a Co-operative Society) and this is usually a legal form used by community co-ops that need to raise shares, eg a community pub or wind turbine or something, it'll be interesting to hear about the details of their structure.

"Outlandish is not technically a worker coop" - my view is that a worker coop can be made up of self-employed people or a mix of emloyed and self-employed (including through service companies) if they identify as such and the primary coop relationship of the members is around decent work. CICOPA and Coops UK prefer to define worker coops as strictly employee, and freelancers as consortia (like buying groups of family businesses, farmers' coops, etc) which I think is too rigid and certainly outdated given the changing nature of work.

Link to the Worker Coop Code: https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-operative_code_2nd_edition_0_0.pdf

I would also suggest that we require prospective members to share their top level document of incorporation (articles if company, rules if society, partner agreement if LLP, etc) to see how far it embeds coop ownership and control principles.

Fully agree @sionwhellens - the key thing is that it is a business owned and controlled by its workers which adheres to co-op principles.

...owned and democratically controlled...

Which takes us back to my earlier question, is the Developer Society owned and democratically controlled by the workers? If this is the essence of the rule for membership of Cotech, then presumably we need to know the answer to this question before anyone can vote on the proposal. If the ''client and 'founder' stakeholder groups can outvote the workers, then it could be argued that the workers don't have control, and therefore that the organisation doesn't meet the criteria for membership. Or are we saying that we are aren't concerned about this, because they "seem" like a good fit. (Note that I'm raising this point not to be bloody minded or obstructive, but because I want some clarity, and some solid information on which to base my decision).

@graham2 is of course correct. Are they or aren't they?

FYI I have requested the relevant documents and extended the deadline for voting for Friday so we can discuss the various questions people have raised.
There's a bit of a flaw to discussing these things in a place where non-members can't comment.
Does anyone know co-op development advisor Alex Bird who helped create their structure?

My bad - they sent them to me ages ago and I failed to post them. Please review and update your responses @thomasparisot @chrislowis @graham2 @chriscroome

As far as I can see it's a classic employee/customer multi-stakeholder co-op with specific provision for the Founder Members having seats on the board of directors. If there is a provision for different types of members having different voting powers I can't find it but this isn't my area of expertise.

"If there is a provision for different types of members having different voting powers I can't find"

I can't either, regarding Graham's question:

"do the workers have a controlling interest?"

It would appear to me that they do as long as the founders are workers.

@graham2 @chrislowis @thomasparisot I believe all the information that's been requested has been posted now. Could you update your votes if necessary? I guess we'll take abstentions as abstentions otherwise (e.g. they'll be allowed to join)

We probably don't have time or the expertise to do a proper review of the documents you shared @harryrobbins before the deadline. More than happy to go with the majority on this one, they seem great!

As @harryrobbins, no expert on co-op constitutions, but they do seem to tick all the important boxes... and working for good.

An admittedly quick scan through the rules for Developer Society indicates that employees have no inbuilt majority on the board of directors. The rules do suggest that the directors should aim for a balance on the board that reflects the size of the three membership groups (Founders, Employees, and Supporters), and that seems to be the only aspect of the rules that might tend towards giving employee members the balance of power, on the assumption that Founder members will gradually resign or die off over time and become a vestigial grouping with the society, and the second assumption that Supporter members would not seek to act against the interests of the employees. My recommendation would be to modify the rules to ensure a board majority for employees at all times whilst still recognising the governance value of board representation for founders and supporters. On balance, and in practice, I can go with the notion that the employee members have control, but it is certainly not written into their rules.

Can they share their governing doc/constitution?

Articles of association and Co-ops UK certificate from Alpha Co-op

I know Alpha since before the War. Bona fide worker coop.

Certainly well known in this parish since well before the turn of the century.

Digital Liberties appear to be some sort of community/multi-stakeholder co-op rather than worker controlled according to their articles. I'd be happy for them to join on the basis that they are worker controlled, but on the understanding that if they later turn out to be something other than worker controlled they may be asked to leave.

The governing document for Digital Liberties provides no certainty or guarantees that workers will control the business. If I were their advisor I would probably encourage them to address that. So i don't think they can be allowed membership under the first criterion.

However, the statement at https://www.coops.tech/join also reads: "Secondary co-ops and multi-stakeholder co-ops are also welcome so long as all they (and their members) do not generate money for investors by exploiting their workers." (I think this probably reads better without the "all" in there, but that's anohter story).

Again I didn't spot anything in the governing document for Digital Liberties about worker exploitation, from a quick reading. Nor would I expect there to be. What there is, is a clear statement of adherence to the ICA values and principles. On that basis MC3 will support their membership of CoTech.

I do think this criterion referring to secondaries and multi-stakeholder co-ops is a bit flimsy and rather difficult to ascertain in practice, so would benefit from a bit of thought.