I was travelling and unable to participate in the recent conversation. I feel strongly enough about the proposal as drafted to have Blocked it (never done that before - there's always a first time)

I feel strongly that to specify 'User-owned' is unnecessary and rules out ab initio other forms of Co-op such as a Platform Cooperative co-owned by users and other stakeholders such as staff and management in particular.

Experience of sizeable user-owned Co-ops in the UK - particularly in recent years - has been negative, in that they invariably become corporate in behaviour (eg in treatment of staff) and run for the benefit of management, privatised or worse. cf Coop Bank.

So I would be happy to support this proposal if the phrase 'user-owned' is deleted because its use closes off Co-op options which IMHO could be left open and explored at no cost to the proposal.

Thanks, Chris. I appreciate the concern.

Good news: The phrasing has already been changed to make the idea more open-ended, if you look at the revised petition at https://wearetwitter.global

@chriscook1 @timothyamcdonald I would just note that this proposal is quite open-ended, and it doesn't preclude employee ownership as part of the mix. In a document we're preparing for shareholders, we encourage considering employee owners as part of the process.

However, Twitter generally has a well-compensated, highly skilled workforce who have not so far expressed grievances about a potential sale, as users have. The company also has the data of hundreds of millions of users who have no say in the fate of that data. Users also represent a capitalization opportunitiy (which is crucial for making the case to shareholders), while the employee pool is likely not large enough to do so. I think it's strategic to emphsize users in the publicity (which needs to be as simple and direct as possible, appealing to the broadest number of people), but in the details to make sure that employees are part of the conversation as well.

In the event that this isn't satisfying to you, @chriscook1, can you specify what you intend with your block? That nobody in this group should be participating in supporting the current shareholder proposal? A block is obviously very serious, and so it's crucial that we understand what your intention is, given the ongoing progress and process of this campaign, rather than simply using it as a form of protest vote.

@ntnsndr Naturally the Twitter user base is a great place to look for investment, and I take your point about employees.

Simply put, provided it is clear that ownership will be democratic but will not be exclusive to users - which is how 'user-owned' speaks to me - I'm cool and withdraw the block.