DisCO - Distributed Cooperative Organization

Hey there, very glad to see this. I agree that the Gov/Economic model is more operational, but the Manifesto sets out the wider cultural context (ie: why did we do this?). The former is currently very tweaked towards the idiosyncrasies of Guerrilla Translation though. The goal here is to eventually develop a more bare bones gov model, based on the TLDR. Also, before diving into the model itself it may be useful to read this laypersons' overview article. You'll encounter both links within the model, but I wanted to highlight them.

Circling back to the Manifesto, you can also read this much shorter article summarizing its main points to get a taste.

Happy to go along with whatever you choose. Looking forward to your feedback

the nature of SC is not exactly obvious? 

It's a section of a federated social network that is focused on cooperatives. It's not an organization of its own, except as much as it needs to be to keep itself running. But it could be useful, because a lot of the participants are also active in other cooperative organizations and contexts.

One of the weaknesses of cooperatives, despite their principles, is they tend to be isolated, working on their own "mission" and not interested in organizing into anything much larger. (Yes I know that is not true of all cooperatives, but still...) SC could be (and to some extent is) a gathering place for cooperatives where connections could be made and strengthened and maybe maybe something larger could start to grow...

@Nick Sellen noted

most organisations are not operating anywhere close to this model

I think that's why it may be so helpful to social.coop. It can help highlight the specifics of what SC does do? Perhaps, show that the commons orientation (a commons of know-how about coops?) is a stronger characteristic than the coop form of SC itself (produces no services, owns ¿no? assets, has no paid workers, provides no livelihood, has almost no revenue, distributes no surplus). OK, I'm being provocative. But the nature of SC is not exactly obvious? II suspect that moving out into the 'broader context', as Nick suggests, could enable us to remain fuzzy, talking vague Values and Principles. I do like the broad context, but I'd be glad if we got rather specific here, about organisational form and actual operations.

Here is a pdf version of the Modelv3.0 - I wanted something I could mark up with notes. This might serve as a shared reference version, since it has page numbers?