Membership/admission decisions

...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.