Whether to invite consumer and consortium co-ops

I'd tick collaboration for (at least one) topic, but suggest, to be of max value for all, the overarching framing has to be outward looking - eg identifying the benefit/s a common/unified body has to offer clients

@roybrooks couldn't agree more - I just meant that having that as one of the issues clearly frames the event as "we're in favour of working with other types of co-ops" while also focusing on tech businesses that are owned and democratically controlled by their workers.

I'm sure there are hundreds of topics that need discussing which we should start capturing somewhere...

... that it does.

So, on topics, any thoughts on, and the best place to collate (here, to vote?) All?

1) How can worker co-ops collaborate better with other types of co-op and/or 'tech for good' businesses
2) What benefits would a common/unified body offer clients
3)...

1. Tech co-ops are where we can see a real chance of innovation, disruption and challenge to existing models. Love worker co-ops to bits but there are other forms that also disrupt.

2. The label ‘consortium co-op’ doesn’t really capture what’s interesting about ventures like Brighton Digital Exchange, which is introducing small tech companies to co-op ideals. Many of these small tech companies are very flat. Thinking back to my 20 years in a tech worker co-op we were actually very good at exploiting ourselves.

3. Freelancer co-ops like CBN are not technically worker coops, but what’s the difference? We don’t use PAYE that’s all.

4. I thought we were talking about inviting social enterprises eg Reason digital? Not a co-op at all.

Thanks for clarifying and furthering the conversation. I think it is a good idea to have a qualifying criteria, but that should be that. Our time is better spent getting down to business, not discussing politics and value-systems!

In principal, the 1-2-3 criteria outlined above works for Chapel Street Studio, however I can see an issue in that #3 only applies to the organisation and not the membership. I'd say the priority of all our members is to make a living. Its easily argued that the act of setting up a small business is a 'political' act in itself.

Two suggestions.
i) coop consortiums must be made up of freelancers and micro businesses only (like us).
ii) the question is not about how the purist worker coops work with others. This stinks of hierarchy, and let's be clear, the worker coop model doesn't work for everyone. The question should address the critical issue of diversity in the coop movement.

We plan to attend the gathering and I look forward to further discussion on this issue.

I go back to what I wrote earlier on this issue: that who is on the invite list should be primarily driven by the desired outcomes of the event. Looking again at @harryrobbins original post about the Megazord, it states: "a UK-based coalition of tech-focused co-operatives that pool their resources to achieve their shared aims – making the world better and fairer with technology".

Whilst Harry might be considered to be pre-empting what those shared aims might be by making the above statement, I for one am reasonably content to go along with it for the time being, given that it is broad enough to cover a pretty diverse set of ideas.

As someone who has been involved with cooperation and digital (and I'm assuming that in large part, when @harryrobbins talks about technology, he is referring to digital), and the junction where these two attempt to mingle, for nearly thirty years now, my own view is that up to now at least it has been a fairly unspectacular marriage, with some exceptions. The big consumer co-ops in the UK were very late to 'get' digital. Historically the big missed opportunity was the failure of the UK consumer co-ops to invest in Poptel at a time when that worker cooperative had the potential to become a very major player. In the UK, the likes of London Internet Exchange (a mutual rather than a co-op, but supportive nonetheless) and the nascent Brighton Digital Exchange, nurtured into being by @shaunfensom, may well be out biggest successes, notwithstanding the co-ops already in this conversation, about which I don't know much. Outside of the UK, and with a lot of government support, the rural telecoms co-ops in the US are probably the biggest player. Guifi.net in Spain (mainly), also comes to mind, and of course we have Loomio and some other up and coming projects. I'm sure there are other good examples of success, but on the whole I think we can probably agree that the huge potential of digital and online for building cooperation that was clear - to me at least when I first plugged a dial-up modem into a Demon account in the 90s - has really not been realised.

Where there has been extremely dynamic activity in the digital space, it is almost exclusively in the private sector, funded by VC money, and therefore almost by definition that model excludes cooperatives and has created a dominant model which is largely exploitative.

So, I'm very much interested in enabling a "coalition of UK-based tech-focussed cooperatives" and what that coalition might be capable of achieving in terms of "making the world better and fairer". For me the prize is about creating something that is big enough and innovative enough to be able to challenge the dominant exploitative model, and thereby change the world, albeit the online world (initially at least). that's why I'm interested in what Enspiral are up to, interested in what the P2P Foundation and folks like Michel Bauwens, John Restakis, David Bollier, Pat Conaty, etc., have been talking about, and that's why I'm interested in this event.

This post has rapidly mutated into something of a rantifesto. So be it. The point is that what we're aiming to achieve drives who we try to get to come along.

Thanks for that @graham2, I agree with you on the missed opportunities. I've been on a somewhat similar trajectory, from having to making long distance phone calls from Sheffield to London with a 14.4 modem to Greennet in order to get online (before Demon had regional POPs), getting deeply involved in the politics and potential of the Free software movement, I remember first seeing Michel Bauwens in Berlin in 2002 at the second Oekonux Conference... and so on... I still believe that co-operation and the mode of production of Free software indicate the way forward but it is also hard not to be somewhat less enthusiastic than in the past having lived through the trajectory from decentralised peer-to-peer protocols like Usenet to the current, near total, dominance of centralised corporate platforms... But I'm very much looking forward to the discussions at Wortley Hall :-)

Fully agree with both @graham2 and @chriscroome - we need to look very broadly at what we should be doing rather than what we have been doing. I'd definitely like that to be bold and revolutionary (with a small-ish R).

Personally I like the idea of having (for example) 3,000 people profitably employed in tech co-ops by 2020 and 100,000 by 2030 (1 in 4 of the current UK tech workers). That could generate huge revenues, better work, better outcomes, etc.

I've not had nearly as much exposure to the broader co-op movement as many others who are attending and look forward to finding more about it. I've always seen consumer co-ops as fundamentally different to worker-style co-ops, but I'm happy to be convinced.

I look forward to discussing at the event. We're going to do a phone around soon to start getting ideas for topics, etc. but it would be good if people post them on Loomio too.

It's also worth remembering that we're currently planning the first of many retreats/meet-ups so will have the opportunity to talk about this between the 14th- 17th and invite more co-ops after that.

so glad you'll already thinking this'll be the first of many because I can't make this one! :-D