Loomio
Thu 23 Nov 2017

CoTech structure

HR Harry "Outlandish" Robbins Public Seen by 73

A place to store gather some thoughts about how CoTech should be structured in the run up to the 2017 Retreat

HR

Poll Created Thu 23 Nov 2017

How much should membership cost per year? Closed Tue 28 Nov 2017

This is a non-binding poll to gather opinions about whether CoTech should have an annual membership fee, and what that should be

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
£300 per co-op member 50.0% 2 HR CLF
£200 per co-op 25.0% 1 TD
£50 per co-op member 25.0% 1 G
Free 0.0% 0  
£750 per co-op 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 106 JA JD V SWS RS AHC FL ER MP SG AM RW M M KB MK CCC KB PB JT AW CL JC SF BW CB IP SBH DS MJS SF DU SB SG AM DU EO AV BS KWO JBA O AW JD THA TC RB OW LH DB SW ES MS RRD FLC AC GO CR JMF RP LL J KD LS INM N VN DS SP DU TD DU JTW MG AP OS BP TM JS BR EM GM MS N"A EB AC NS NS LMH JN SH PE AT A DU EM J DU ALP CAD AC LD DU CBF H DU

4 of 110 people have voted (3%)

HR

Harry "Outlandish" Robbins Thu 23 Nov 2017

£300 per co-op member

The network needs some capital to be able to organise the AGM and host its website, etc.

TD

Tim Davies Fri 24 Nov 2017

£200 per co-op

I've opted for non-free, but would suggest this might be a good place for a sliding scale based on turnover rather than membership numbers.

CLF

Chris Lowis (Go Free Range) Fri 24 Nov 2017

£300 per co-op member

The lack of central funds caused a whole load of work when organising Wortley Hall (collecting deposits, invoicing, applying to solid fund, long discussions about costs). I'm relaxed about how much.

G

Graham Mon 27 Nov 2017

£50 per co-op member

If fees are needed then they should be low as to not present a barrier, and if required can be topped up by a modest percentage fee from all paid work carried out as a result of the existence of the organisation.

HR

Poll Created Thu 23 Nov 2017

How formal should CoTech be? Closed Tue 28 Nov 2017

What sort of organisation do we want? A loose network or something more formal/structured

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
An informal network (current) 50.0% 2 TD DU
A non-trading secondary co-op run primarily on a voluntary basis 25.0% 1 HR
A more active secondary co-op where members commit resources to enable activities 25.0% 1 CLF
A fully trading entity that delivers commercial services 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 106 JA JD V SWS RS AHC FL G ER MP SG AM RW M M KB MK CCC KB PB JT AW CL JC SF BW CB IP SBH DS MJS SF DU SB SG AM DU EO AV BS KWO JBA O AW JD THA TC RB OW LH DB SW ES MS RRD FLC AC GO CR JMF RP LL J KD LS INM N VN DS SP DU TD DU JTW MG AP OS BP TM JS BR EM GM MS N"A EB AC NS NS LMH JN SH PE AT A EM J DU ALP CAD AC LD DU CBF H DU

4 of 110 people have voted (3%)

HR

Harry "Outlandish" Robbins Thu 23 Nov 2017

A non-trading secondary co-op run primarily on a voluntary basis

Members probably aren't in a position to commit a lot of resources at the moment, but a bit more clarity would be good

DU

[deactivated account] Fri 24 Nov 2017

An informal network (current)

The structure is not as relevant as what we do together. Our time and efforts are best used if we do not deal with additional paperwork.

TD

Tim Davies Fri 24 Nov 2017

An informal network (current)

I think form needs to follow function. As shared vision emerges in the network that needs structure, then is the time to develop that structure.

Is there an option to also formalise as an interest group within an existing body (e.g. Co-ops UK)?

HR

Poll Created Thu 23 Nov 2017

How should voting work? Closed Tue 28 Nov 2017

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
Consent - any co-op can block any motion 60.0% 3 TD CLF DU
Majority voting - one co-op member, one vote (larger co-ops get more votes) 20.0% 1 HR
Consent vote, +1 vote cycle Consent Vote, +1 vote cycle Majority. 20.0% 1 H
No formal decision making process (current) 0.0% 0  
Majority voting - one co-op, one vote 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 105 JA JD V SWS RS AHC FL G ER MP SG AM RW M M KB MK CCC KB PB JT AW CL JC SF BW CB IP SBH DS MJS SF DU SB SG AM DU EO AV BS KWO JBA O AW JD THA TC RB OW LH DB SW ES MS RRD FLC AC GO CR JMF RP LL J KD LS INM N VN DS SP DU TD DU JTW MG AP OS BP TM JS BR EM GM MS N"A EB AC NS NS LMH JN SH PE AT A EM J DU ALP CAD AC LD DU CBF DU

5 of 110 people have voted (4%)

HR

Harry "Outlandish" Robbins Thu 23 Nov 2017

Majority voting - one co-op member, one vote (larger co-ops get more votes)

I generally prefer consent, but I think this group is too loose at the moment and the risk of everything getting blocked is too high. I think it voting should be based on the number of people whose livelihoods depend on the decision.

DU

[deactivated account] Fri 24 Nov 2017

Consent - any co-op can block any motion

Consent could also be written as "all co-op have to agree" — the usual voting mechanism in sociocracy. In spite of being possibly a longer process, this mechanism implies clarity and good arguments which is is a sane default.

TD

Tim Davies Fri 24 Nov 2017

Consent - any co-op can block any motion

I think it might need a few procedures, such as co-op veto, but such that veto can be overruled by an absolute majority (e.g. 50% of co-op members) - and over-ruled members have option of exist before decision imposed.

CLF

Chris Lowis (Go Free Range) Fri 24 Nov 2017

Consent - any co-op can block any motion

I'm inclined towards consent-based, but we need to decide which issues require voting on. I'd prefer it if most things could be done on an advice basis.

H

Hamish Tue 28 Nov 2017

Consent - any co-op can block any motion

In my experience neither consent nor majority work. Accepting consent is ideal, but can also block progress, I have added another option. This allows discussion between vote cycles in order to reach consent.

H

Hamish Tue 28 Nov 2017

Consent vote, +1 vote cycle Consent Vote, +1 vote cycle Majority.

In my experience neither consent nor majority work. Accepting consent is ideal, but can also block progress, I have added another option. This allows discussion between vote cycles in order to reach consent.

CCC

For decision making I'd suggest using consensus where ever possible with a fall back to majority voting when consensus fails, which isn't an option in the current poll.

In terms of how formal CoTech should be I'd suggest that our main priority should be sorting out how we can organise ourselves best to win and deliver work for clients (once we have that solved we should have spare time and resources to address everything else) and that if this necessitates a legal entity then we should set one up and the question of membership cost would be determined by the nature of this organisation.

CLF

Chris Lowis (Go Free Range) Fri 24 Nov 2017

As these are polls, I'm sharing my own opinion not necessarily that of Go Free Range :-)

HR

Harry "Outlandish" Robbins Fri 24 Nov 2017

Yes indeed @chrislowis - it's just to gather opinions.

DB

Doug Belshaw Sun 26 Nov 2017

Thanks for this @harryrobbins - just to make the point that, at present, we're actually all in here as individuals. I think we also need a defined representative from each co-op.

G

Graham Mon 27 Nov 2017

The "structure" that has emerged over the last year, and which has been previously discussed, is a two-tier approach with a large and loose network of interested/supportive/aligned individuals and organisations coalescing around an inner group of people and orgs that have a more focused interest in what's happening and are moving the thing forward. I think this model has served well and should be maintained and encouraged.
Any more formal entity that might come out of discussions should be driven by decisions/discussions about what CoTech's purpose and short to medium term aims and objectives might be. The thrust of debate seems to be primarily about how to better work together to win business and to execute those contracts. If so, then any structure and details like common fund (how about paying a percentage of income earned through collaborative effort?) would be defined by those plans in my view.

AHC

Poll Created Wed 29 Nov 2017

Who would like to join the AGM (Wortley Hall) organising working group? Closed Sat 2 Dec 2017

This is a call for volunteers to help organise next year's event. It does take a fair amount of time, especially closer to the event. At an estimate, I think it will be a time commitment of about 10 -12 days (70 - 84 hours) - but it could be less! It mainly involves managing the booking and invoicing of accommodation, but also liaising with the wider network on member decisions (e.g. on facilitation) and submitting funding proposals (e.g. to Solid Fund).

Results

Results Option % of voters Voters
Yes 4% 4 LS CLF ALP AC
No 1% 1 FL
Undecided 95% 106 JA JD V SWS RS AHC G ER MP HR SG AM RW M M KB MK CCC KB PB JT AW CL JC SF BW TD CB IP SBH DS MJS SF DU SB SG AM DU SC EO AV BS KWO JBA O AW JD THA TC RB OW LH DB SW ES MS RRD FLC AC GO CR JMF RP LL J KD INM N VN DS SP DU TD DU JTW MG AP OS BP TM JS BR EM GM MS N"A EB AC NS NS LMH JN SH PE AT A DU EM J DU CAD LD DU CBF H DU

5 of 111 people have voted (4%)

AC

Aptivate Cooperators
Yes
Thu 30 Nov 2017

I'm down. I raised my hand that I'd like to help facilitate for next year. I'd need some training of course, but that is something that is appealing to me. I'm based in Rotterdam but I am sure I could help with all the digital stuff. +1

CLF

Chris Lowis (Go Free Range)
Yes
Fri 1 Dec 2017

At the very least I'd be happy to "hand over" some of the things we (Aaron/Agile/Go Free Range) learnt from organising this year's event.

LS

Louise Scott
Yes
Fri 1 Dec 2017

I would be up for helping with funding applications. If we consider holding one in Scotland at any point (New Lanark instead of Wortley Hall?) I'd be up for doing more hands on stuff, being on the spot and all that ...

ALP

Annie Legge (Dot Project)
Yes
Fri 1 Dec 2017

We couldn't commit to as much as 10 days due to there being only 2 of us, but certainly happy to help organise an aspect of the retreat for next year (cos it was great!)

SWS

To reiterate, this year's facilitation team (me, @peteburden and @laurahilliger) are in principle up for advising/supporting next year's facilitators.

RB

Roy Brooks Fri 1 Dec 2017

The summer camp was more in my line... so would tentatively volunteer for something similar if there is any interest

SWS

HI @roy, @louisescott is on it! Re structure next year, I'm leaning towards a) open space preceded by agenda-building discussion on Discourse b) if we can make good progress on process/governance in the next few months, try and make Wortley Hall slightly more collaboration/business building and shorten to two full days starting on a Sunday evening.