Solidfund for the movement 2022

I would not like to close down provision to one organisation. Some P6 Members are not Development Coop Members but are providers of co-op development expertise. Not just Co-op Development Bodies but also co-ops who are leaders in their sector and might be able to provide the right technical support.

I don't think that P6 is proposing that it should provide the development expertise, which exists across the movement rather than within any one organisation.

@Nathan Brown (Co-op Culture) The thrust of my point is that Dev Coop is a multi-stakeholder Consortium Coop for Development Bodies, Co-operative Development Workers and supporters, created to deliver Coop Development Services, Platform 6 was created to provide resources (especially finance) for Co-op Development. Duplicating roles and services can be less effective than specialisation, though of course, not always.

As a consortium DC has many bodies, and is not just one. Furtther the multi-stakeholder rules allow for other Development Service providers to be members (we have so far unsuccessfully tried to attract legal and accounting services), so perhaps the sector leaders of co-op development services in tech, housing, agriculture etc. should be encouraged to join DC as well. However, I do think some of the funds should be accessible by organisations that arent members of DC (including coops that arent CDB's) and my point was P6 was not created to deliver Cooperative Development Services (though I know at times the thought has been discussed).

I still do think that Dev Coop members should be prioritised or be in some beneficial position vis a vie P6, in order to encourage co-operative working amongst CDB's, Coop development service providers and supporters.

However, it may be that like Trade Unions and Credit Unions there will be various groups that align and dont align to a mainstream associations, and I do think we should be looking at DC and P6 being mainstream leaders of English Co-operative Development workers and resources.

Although I was not 'in the room' when DC was set up, I am sure I am revisiting some of the same things that were discussed at the time. My understanding is that P6 was set up to address the short comings that lack of contracts created for DC and I think it would be helpful to stay with these purposes for the time being.

I never understood that P6 was set up to address shortcomings in DC.

Telling my co-op - a Co-op Development Body - that it has to sign up to DC to provide services to P6 of which it was a founder member is coercive IMO. I have other words to describe it

Hi Nathan and all,

I think the short comings were in coop development income streams not in DC.

Also, there was no intention of implying only members of DC can provide CDB services to P6 or anyone else. The thread, I believe is about the 'Solid Fund for the co-operative movement'. My position remains that the fund should be ambitious in its attraction to the wider cooperative movement and should support Co-operative Development on a wide scale.

DC was created to provide that bigger scale co-operative development offer and Platform 6 and DC should be working together to make this work.

I don't disagree that DC and P6 should work together but I don't subscribe to prioritisation for DC Members. Being a P6 Member should be enough.