LOL!

Excluding people or organisations is not going to help establish a network based on principle 6. If you want to see a world built on cooperative values, get off your high horse and stop judging people!

Martyn Johnston,
Founder of Chapel Street Studio Co-operative Ltd; a consortium of creative entrepreneurs and businesses based in Bradford, West Yorkshire.

Let's not get purist about which types of co-op should be invited. Let's instead be focussed about the goals of the exercise, and that will in turn help to define the target audience. I agree that involving too diverse a group can lead to a wasted opportunity, if that's what you are getting at. There may well be people from other bits of the co-op movement, or outside the co-op world altogether, that could be invaluable.

Well said and thank you Graham.

I think what Harry was getting at was that some people or organisations are not coop enough for this network.

Can we re-frame this issue with a proposal that asks for ideas towards a simple, bass-line criteria for participation in the network? For me, it should be about good and honest intentions, and a will to participate, not what you look like or what colour rosette you wear.

Yep, can we reframe the proposal? Much as I agree worker co-ops are the only true way, we're talking about inviting orgs that are not co-ops at all - which is fine, but excluding, for instance, @bevangelist's co-op on the grounds that they are consortium (freelancer) rather than employed could be a bit self-defeating!

@martynjohnston @graham2 I'm completely in favour of working with other types of co-operative including non-tech co-operatives and non-worker co-operatives but, as it stands, there is no collaboration happening between tech worker co-operatives who seem to have a lot in common.

@sionwhellens outlandish is a consortium co-op too. What I was getting at is that consortia made up of non-co-ops (for profit privately owned companies) do not qualify if their workers do not to control and own the companies.

Happy to re-frame the proposal to address your concerns. Anyone want to suggest some wording?

I think a previous proposal from Josh Vial had something along the lines of:

1) worker owned & controlled
2) asset locked
3) explicitly aiming for/focused on social change

Qualifying organisations must be two (and ideally all three) of the above. Basically that allows proto-co-ops like Folk Labs (meets 1+3) and maybe social enterprises like Reason Digital (meets 2+3). I think it disqualifies most privately owned businesses that are not co-ops or social enterprises as they're unlikely to meet criteria 1 or 2.

From Outlandish's perspective, we started organising the retreat because we're keen to meet other organisations like us - basically co-operative digital agencies. We're certainly in favour of collaboration with other types or organisation but we're particularly interested in the reasonably large number of organisations (30+) who are in the same boat as us.

Would that work for you @sionwhellens @graham2 @martynjohnston ?

btw I believe @shaunfensom is keen for non-worker co-ops to be included - just looping you in Shaun.

If we made one of the topics for discussions "How can we as worker co-ops collaborate better with other types of co-op and/or 'tech for good' businesses?" would that help frame the retreat?

For what it is worth, Webarchitects isn't a workers co-op, we are a multi-stakeholder co-operative made up of workers, clients, partners and investors. Formally, worker members have 50% of the vote, if anything does come to a vote (almost nothing has) , however, practically, in terms of the day-to-day decisions, we do essentially operate as a workers co-op.