Exciting news: dev.coops.tech is ready for your input!

Thanks @chriscroome and everyone who got the site to this point. I think it's looking amazing - a great sales and recruitment tool already.

I've added Outlandish's clients and a few more services including Big Data and Hosting. I've also added logos for the various clients people had added - can people make sure they add logos themselves in the future please or it makes the site look broken.

There's obviously more work to do to fix bugs and improve the way it works, but I'd say it's very nearly launchable.

We need everyone to go in and connect themselves to the relevant services, technologies and clients. Please also update your data including your turnover and number of employees. If that is wrong or missing it will make us look less successful than we really are.

There will need to be some discussion about what services should be included, etc. and what features we should add. There has been some discussion around a 'sector' section of the site (e.g. Education, Arts, Not-for-profit) etc. which I think could be really powerful.

We also need some sort of process that will enable us to deal with enquiries - @chriscroome is there some sort of ticketing system that might work?

Ditto on the 'sector' notion. Great idea.

@harryrobbins said:

We also need some sort of process that will enable us to deal with enquiries - @chriscroome is there some sort of ticketing system that might work?

At the moment contact@coops.tech is an alias for the the email list, I'd suggest seeing how that works for a while and if the volume of email is such that a ticketing system is needed then we look at what our options are then, rather than spending time putting a complicated (anyone know any non-complicated ticketing system?) system in place before hand, I agree that a ticketing system would make sense if we have a lot of enquiries...

I could set up a RT server if needs be, it is very good if you mostly want to interact with the tickets via email... Or perhaps there is a suitable WordPress plugin we could use? Anyone tried WordPress Advanced Ticket System?

We might also want to consider allowing people to provide a "Subject:" line to their messages by adding a "Title" form field so it's easier to keep track of the form submissions, or perhaps we could use a select list for this? I have collected some wishlist items for the forms on the wiki, that we can consider in the New Year.

One thing I just noticed is that the North Americian tech-coop list just had a request for a quote sent to their public list, see their archives for December 2016, it's the one with the subject line "[tech-coop] Cooperative Educators Network RFP" -- this shows that this kind of thing can be done in public, so perhaps the contact form on the site should give people the option to post to the open list if they wish, as suggested in another thread?

Looking great! Thanks to all involved!

I wonder if we could have subdomains for each of the member coops? e.g. outlandish.coops.tech

Easier to point someone to than coops.tech/co-op/outlandish

Good idea! 😃

This has been set this up using the domain names taken from the email addresses used for the user accounts on the site as a basis for the list of sub-domains (note that this is shorter than the list of co-ops on the site), with one exception (blakehouse rather than blake) :

1. https://agile.coops.tech/
2. https://blakehouse.coops.tech/
3. https://calverts.coops.tech/
4. https://broadband.coops.tech/
5. https://cetis.coops.tech/
6. https://webarchitects.coops.tech/
7. https://gildedsplinters.coops.tech/
8. https://glowboxdesign.coops.tech/
9. https://gofreerange.coops.tech/
10. https://mc3.coops.tech/
11. https://mediaco-op.coops.tech/
12. https://outlandish.coops.tech/
13. https://weareopen.coops.tech/

If any additional sub-domains are needed, for any of these co-ops, for example blake.coops.tech or media.coops.tech, let me know, ideally via a /msg chrisc in Slack.

Also note that the URL's on the site can be changed, for example Agile could edit https://dev.coops.tech/co-op/agile-collective/ to https://dev.coops.tech/co-op/agile/ -- if this is done please let me know so I can update the redirect.

When the site is made live we can change the redirects to go to www.coops.tech rather than dev.coops.tech.

These redirects are hosted on a VM that Webarchitects set up a couple of months ago specifically to host HTTP redirects (with HTTPS support) so this is a good test of the scripts we wrote to generate the Nginx config etc. -- thanks for providing a concrete task for this server! 😃

It's really great to see some co-ops adding content to the dev site, andI don't want to moan, but can I make a plea that we try not to:

• Duplicate services, eg Web Design and Website Design (I assume these are the same thing?) and Graphic Design and Graphic Design
• Add client logos without transparent backgrounds, I know it takes longer to edit them to make the background transparent but it does look better, if possible!
• Add services logos that are not #FFC531

And what about copyright and attribution of the logos? I have recorded links to the originals of the services ones I have added but they all have different copyrights -- I guess we should do this properly and have a page for this...?

Well moaned Chris :)

I can't imagine it would have been a design-focused co-op that would have made the site look bad - any ideas @sionwhellens ?

Can I suggest the best course of action in future is for people to un-publish duplicate or un-finished clients or services and contact the co-op that created them to ask they finish or amend?

For now I've removed the definite duplicates: printing, graphic design, branding, marketing communications, website design - all of these had existing categories which Calverts should add themselves to.

It seems that we could probably do with either a rationalisation of services (into fewer, larger categories) or possibly some categorisation (e.g. design, data, consultancy).

Perhaps a good topic for the next meetup which I'm about to start trying to organise.

A sound plan.

Suggest the meet also makes a start re messaging/positioning from a marketing /PR perspective too - there's some good ad-hoc work on this on the dev site already, but like graphic design, would benefit from some focus and refining

I've also trashed "forest stewardship council" which is not a technology by any stretch of the imagination. I've left @sionwhellens other blatant SEO hacks in place.

I've added all the co-ops to "Dualit" (kettle) but before we get asked, is there an ethical brand of kettles?

If there is we should let the Met know

Harry said:

I've also trashed "forest stewardship council" which is not a technology by any stretch of the imagination.

Fair enough, there is perhaps a case for something like a "member of" category for things like this? For example Webarchitects is a member of Nominet, Janet, Radical Routes, Co-operatives UK, ORG and I expect some other other organisations I don't recall right now.

Matthew said:

I would really like to see is a new post type called "collaborations".

I wonder if that might be best done using blog posts on the site, it could then contain as much or as little details as needed and screenshots, hyperlinks etc etc

Ditto to Matthew - eg GS & Calverts currently working together on .coop
Showing we 'walk the talk' is always good for confidence

Hah! FSC and ISO are both technologies (FSC for verifying the origin of materials through a certified chain of custody). But if course this brings us to the elephant of what we mean by 'technology' ...

Hey all - what I would really like to see is a new post type called "collaborations". This would reference:

• The 2 or more co-ops involved
• Which co-op was the initiator
• The client/s
• A short description of the collaboration

This would be really great to see as proof of the value of the network

Could we get the https://dev.coops.tech/ site ready for a launch party at the https://2017.open.coop/ social being planned on this thread?

That would give us a month to sort out the issues there are with the site, I think the main ones are:

• Getting the two forms working.
• Agreeing and signing off on the text on the "Our Manifesto" page, the "About CoTech" page and on the "Join CoTech" page.
• Removing (no need to delete they can simply be made to only show in the admin interface) all the co-ops who haven't got their pages into a presentable state.

Other minor issues like the slightly broken 404 pages are not critical, but I think the above things are.

How is that for a plan?

Sounds good to me. I believe I've got to get a flight on day two of the event to run a hackday so if the launch party could be Thursday that would be awesome :)

I think the site is awesome - hats off to the teams that made and launched it. The only other thing I've noticed is a bug where the menu sometimes goes a bit funky on scroll. I'll get someone here to have a look at it.

Does anyone object to me inviting the bona fide workers tech co-ops who were not able to attend the event to add profiles to the site?

A good plan we'd say - grow the family. Forza! #coops

I think the plan is for the social to be Thursday night, I also couldn't make it if it is on Friday night.

@harryrobbins said:

Does anyone object to me inviting the bona fide workers tech co-ops who were not able to attend the event to add profiles to the site?

Not at all, I assumed that this was always the plan, software.coop didn't come to the event and, as far as I know, have not been involved in this project in any way, and are on there... I'll chase them up to see if they can be encouraged to get involved, they really should be, they have been doing this for longer than most of us! 😃

Thanks Chris.

If the manifesto is only a call to cooperators, all good. Tho if one of the aims of CoTec is to compete in the non-coop market as a commercial resource/entity then I'd have thought this would be a good place to make that clear too

@roybrooks said:

If the manifesto is only a call to cooperators, all good. Tho if one of the aims of CoTec is to compete in the non-coop market as a commercial resource/entity then I'd have thought this would be a good place to make that clear too

I think we might still need to address this point if possible?

Currently the front pages has:

Strengthening the cooperative movement by working together through local, national, regional and international structures.

And if the site is primarily aimed at people who might join or setup tech co-ops then this is fine but if the site is also to be aimed at potential clients then perhaps some additional text needs to be added?

@shaunfensom you said you would have a go at editing the Join CoTech page, did you get anywhere with that?

I've tried, but everything I come up with loosens the definition. For example:

"Membership of the Co-operative Technologists network is open to all co-ops that sell technical/digital products or services and that promote and adhere to co-operative values and principles. This includes co-ops that are run and owned by their workers and multi-stakeholder co-ops where workers have a substantial or controlling stake."

But then what about consumer co-ops and consortium coops:
* The Phone Coop would be adamant that it meets the first part of the definition. Fine by me but not by @harryrobbins and others I believe.
* Brighton DX would also qualify but, for the avoidance of doubt, we have no control over the extent to which our members make a return for investors.

So, I can redraft, but I end up breaking the intention. I'd just leave it at:

Membership of the Co-operative Technologists network is open to all co-ops that sell technical/digital products or services and that promote and adhere to co-operative values and principles.

But that definitely allows in The Phone Coop and BDX.

So, stuck.

At the very least the existing wording should be changed to:

Membership of the Co-operative Technologists network is open to all co-ops that sell technical/digital products or services that are run and owned by their workers. Consortium co-ops and multi-stakeholder co-ops are also welcome so long as they (and their members) do not generate money for investors by exploiting their workers.

However, I don't personally agree with that.

Shaun

I think this is a very good point:

if one of the aims of CoTec is to compete in the non-coop market as a commercial resource/entity then I'd have thought this would be a good place to make that clear too

The two Get in Touch sentences address this somewhat, but I'm sure they could be improved so I have created a wiki page so we can work on them (I would have linked to this additional page from the proposal, but proposals can't be edited after someone has cast their vote, which is fair enough...)

I have made some minor edits to two of the pages, feel free to improve on these:

• Click here's removed on Our Manifesto page
• Click here's removed and "if you have some work for us" added to About CoTech page

I also have a problem with the first sentence of the Join CoTech page:

Membership of Co-operative Technologists is open to all co-ops that sell technical/digital products or services that are run and owned by their workers.

A strict reading of this would exclude Webarchitects, we are a multi-stakeholder co-operative with shares owned by workers, clients and investors and should anything ever come to a vote (we try to use consensus) our rules give 50% of the votes to workers and 25% to clients and partners and 25% to investors. I guess nobody wants to exclude multi-stakeholder co-operatives like ours, so how can the above be worded to include us?

Are Webarchitects not covered by the first part of the sentence: "is open to all co-ops that sell technical/digital products"?

@chrisroos said the following in reply to an earlier comment:

Are Webarchitects not covered by the first part of the sentence: "is open to all co-ops that sell technical/digital products"?

Yes, but that isn't the issue, the issue is that the rest of the sentence "that are run and owned by their workers" does, as this, to me, implies that only workers co-ops are eligible to be members -- Webarchitects is mostly, but by no means exclusively, run and owned by it's workers

As I said earlier Webarchitects, is a multi-stakeholder co-operative with shares owned by workers, clients and investors (workers could be a minority share holder in terms of the number of shares, ie by value) and should anything ever come to a vote (we try to use consensus) our rules give 50% of the votes to workers and 25% to clients and partners and 25% to investors.

So while, in practice, we are, to most intents and purposes, in essence, a workers co-op, this isn't strictly, formally, true.

Does that makes sense? And does anyone have a suggested wording that would include co-ops like ours?

Are Webarchitects not covered by the first part of the sentence: "is open to all co-ops that sell technical/digital products"?

Yes, but that isn't the issue, the issue is that the rest of the sentence "that are run and owned by their workers" does

My mistake @chriscroome. Reading back now I realise that I'd misinterpreted the sentence. Sorry!

I've not got Wiki access (can someone set me up with an account?) but a few bits of feedback from @opendatacoop folk:

About Page

Would suggest sticking to language of 'network' at this point, rather than 'collection of' etc. which create some ambiguity around structure of the group.

In particular, suggest replacing:

",a group of tech coops who have formed together to make one large collection of cooperatives,"

with

",a group of tech coops who have formed together to build a network,"

Join

Again, just clarifying the network part would help here. "Membership of Co-operative Technologists network is open to..."

I know there are discussions and possibly plans for other structures in future, but a couple of the team here spent a lot of time trying to work out if the ask was to join a formal co-op, or a looser network form of affiliation.

It might also be helpful on this page to have just a brief sentence or two about governance, even if just:

"Governance of the network currently takes place through a rough consensus process using Loomio and a wiki, and all members are invited and encouraged to get involved. As the network develops, we will explore changes to this governance model together."

Other pages needed / small bits

One of my colleagues pointed out:

• There is no Privacy Policy or T&Cs in the site footer. Does anyone have simple tried-and-tested versions that could be included?
• The use of the coop marque is slightly ambiguous in the footer - as could be read to imply that co-tech is itself a coop, rather than network of coops. (a) has there been a check that this use of the marque is ok; (b) it might be better to put a line just above it stating 'A network of co-operatives' to clarify the context of the marque.

Hope these points are useful. Looking forward to meeting many of you in a few weeks at the Open Coops event.

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback @timdavies1, you have made lots of valid points, let me, or anyone with an admin account on the wiki have your email address and a wiki account can be created for you.

Could someone volunteer to take on applying for the use of the co-op marque on behalf of Co-operative Technologists?

I have implemented the edits suggested by @timdavies1, specifically:

• Use "network" on about page
• Use "network" on join page
• Text Tim suggested for join page added to about page
• Links created for a Privacy Policy and some Terms and Conditions
• I have filled in the form at identity.coop regarding the user of the Co­-operative Marque (though there was nowhere on the form to explain the nature of Co-operative Technologists so I'm not expecting a yes without some follow up).

@timdavies1 @chriscroome Re good use of the 'coop' marque, I will take this on (Calverts designed it, advises domains.coop on compliance etc, wrote the guidelines).

I propose we register tech.coop and apply for the marque at the same time, via identity.coop - but either way I'm comfortable that we can use the marque now, since many of CoTech's members are already registered to use it.

The marque guidelines say that if reversed out of a colour background, it should be in white. Also, I suggest that we add one of the standard slogans - 'People together are stronger' or 'Cooperative enterprises build a better world' or a bespoke slogan such as 'Information technology for a better world'. Preferences?

If we agree to register tech.coop I will do the registration and Calverts will pay pro tem the first 24 months. We'll work up the preferred slogan/artwork and get application approval from the coop authorities, i.e. Violetta at domains.

If I get general approval for this approach, and depending on your slogan preference, shall I make this a Loomio proposal?

@sionwhellens we already have approval to use the marque but I agree that it would be better to use it in a way that complies a little closer to the guidelines. The Marque Register hasn't been updated to list Co-operative Technologists yet, but I have put a copy of the approval email on the wiki.

Regarding other domain names, I guess cotech.coop would the one to get?

Also note we have coops.tech and not coop.tech (which isn't available, "This domain has been reserved by the registry, and is not available for registration.", peahaps because it is a TLD).

Another possibility is coop.technology, but it is rather long and would perhaps only be worth getting to stop someone else squatting it.

@chriscroome and all involved, love the site, looking great, and powerful

I know you all know this, but there are in my mind two steps to this:

1) everyone agrees with what the manifesto, about us, and join pages say and mean
2) *how it is said" - make sure that the words are really clear and understandable by the audience we have in mind

It sounds as if we are nearly there on step 1 - I'd happily accept the proposal, personally.

But I feel strongly that the copy is not ready - step 2 hasn't been done yet - especially for a wider audience than all of us. If, as @roybrooks says, we want to make it relevant to a wider audience, which I think we do.

I like @timdavies1 suggestions but think it still needs more work.

I started editing it myself, then thought surely we must in the network have a professional copy editor who could do this? If we don't I will happily volunteer my partner who is such a person and I am sure will look at it pro bono.

@chriscroome E-mail address of: tim.davies@opendataservices.coop

I've made some changes to the Manifesto wiki page. I don't feel strongly about them, but I think they are an improvement. However, anyone should feel free to revert my changes - I felt a bit uncomfortable actually making the changes rather than suggesting them!

@jamesmead said:

I've made some changes to the Manifesto wiki page... I felt a bit uncomfortable actually making the changes

This is the nature of wiki's your edit will always exist in the history of the page so if needs be it could be reverted but it is important to be bold:

Be bold can be explained in three words: "Go for it".

Just like Harry has just been :-D

Sorry to stick my oar in without actually making a suggested effort, but how would people respond to a manifesto that is a bit more outwards facing?

Something along the lines of:

We believe in a fairer world in which wealth and resources are distributed to the people who need them rather than those best able to take them.

As Co-operative Technologists we aim to ensure the technology plays it part in creating a fairer world.

Our individual workers co-operatives have shown that workers who collectively own their companies and control their destinies make better workplaces, better suppliers and better digital products.

We call upon tech workers who share our vision to join us[link to join page].

We call upon consumers of digital products - including trades unions, charities, governments and private companies - to reject the assumption the tech companies must be private equity funded startups or multinational conglomerates. Technology is the lifeblood of our future not a gravy train.

We hereby give notice to technology companies that do not treat their employees fairly, do not give their workers control of their businesses and do not seek to create a fairer world that your days are numbered. We are more creative, more committed and more resilient. Join us.

Workers of the world, Swipe Left.

Go on @harryrobbins, Wiki it!

@sionwhellens the only way to Wiki it seems to be to overwrite all the work everyone else has done, which doesn't seem right.

@jamesmead I believe you made the last edit to the wiki version - how would you feel about it being overwritten by something a bit more vitriolic

@harryrobbins: Be my guest 😃

Done. Not precious about it though so feel free to hack it about.

Thanks Chris.

I felt I was replacing rather than editing, which seemed a bit un-wiki-ish.

Thanks for support @sion :)

x

@harryrobbins said:

I felt I was replacing rather than editing, which seemed a bit un-wiki-ish.

It's fine, the last version is still available for reference if needs be.