The Common Bond & Scaling Strategy of social.coop?
Matthew Cropp
Public
Seen by 60
Let's use this thread to discuss our current and future scope of membership for social.coop. I am currently the primary member vetting applications, and my understanding of our grounds for admission is pretty loose. Basically, if someone indicates interest in at least one of the items on the poll in the intro survey, and something in their application doesn't scream SPAM, I let them in.
That loose screen nonetheless establishes that social.coop currently operates with a common bond that can be characterized as "affinity for the co-op model/movement."
I think this has contributed to our progress thus far by (1) creating a critical mass of mutually interesting content, which keeps members coming back, by focusing on the co-op movement, and (2) having a pool of expertise, energy, and interest to draw on for the work of actually constructing the platform.
As our platform matures, a key strategic question is how we scale beyond our present semi-intentionally gradual growth? Do we, when we hit a certain size/infrastructural capacity milestone, decide to drop the common bond (and thus the more curated feel of the local timeline) and start actively encouraging our networks not just to join Mastodon, but social.coop specifically? Or do we maintain an identity as a co-op movement social hub, and work to support other instances in adopting the organizational model we're developing?
Where are we going with this?
Michele Kipiel Mon 16 Apr 2018 2:14PM
Any chance you have a link to that dissertation? :D
Edward L Platt Mon 16 Apr 2018 4:33PM
"InterTwinkles : online tools for non-hierarchical, consensus-oriented decision making"
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/91432
Clayton ([email protected]) Wed 18 Apr 2018 4:13PM
I agree with empowering other instances to form and grow. What do folks see as the threshhold for our own instance? We're at 979 users. If more of the existing users were active I'd say we've already hit it, for me at least. Maybe we should focus on engaging and activating our existing community.
Matthew Cropp Mon 27 Aug 2018 10:06PM
I'm formulating more coherent strategic thoughts that I will share soon, but I'm feeling like the critical mass of new members coming in a short period of time in this recent wave is putting strain on the capacity of our common bond dynamics to maintain the level of mutual trust for much of the informal, volunteer-driven and ad hoc systems we have in place to operate effectively.
So, I'm thinking we need to go after the formalization work that has been ongoing in the CWG with increased urgency and speed, or put a pause on accepting new members until we've and thoroughly revisited our on-boarding process so that we're only accepting new members with an affinity for the co-op movement beyond vaguely liking the idea.
Or something else, but the latest round of tensions is definitely feeling like a sign of structural strain to me that needs to be approached strategically.
Arini Suhono Mon 27 Aug 2018 10:27PM
i'm strongly in favour of this. Not to say I think we should slow down "moving forward" as such, but I definitely think there should be a pause on accepting new members until we've hammered things out.
Simon Grant Mon 27 Aug 2018 10:34PM
Yes, I've been quite taken aback by the forcefulness and dismissiveness of some recent comments. As .coop, we can always refer back to the ICA principles, and Principle 5, the education one, is important to me in a new light, not the normal way you might expect. I'm longing for people to take the time to educate themselves and each other about other people's needs and realities, not typecasting them or imagining negative stereotypes. I know this is a personal weakness of mine, but I do feel pretty upset when people imagine I have some negative intent, or that I am culpably ignorant of something. We've been focusing, in a very stressful way, on stress from outside this instance, but how about charity beginning at home?
Matthew Cropp Mon 27 Aug 2018 10:52PM
I'm longing for people to take the time to educate themselves and each other about other people's needs and realities, not typecasting them or imagining negative stereotypes.
The challenge with this, @asimong is, when dealing with strangers, or almost strangers, that "taking the time" is a commitment of labor and energy in a world that demands more of both than anyone can reasonably provide, so we all have to ration it, and stereotyping is one blunt, but often effective, rationing tool.
If we're a tight-knit community of people with a shared set of interests around which we often interact in other contexts (say, other co-ops, conferences, etc.), it makes sense to ration a decent amount of that energy into developing nuanced understandings of each other. If we're more of a general purpose instance on track to scale to thousands (or more) users, it's functionally impossible, and so we'll have to rely on such tools as formal rule structures and empowered s/elected sub-groups of members that can afford to develop that deeper level of mutual understanding and trust.
Simon Grant Mon 27 Aug 2018 11:01PM
I think I can see your point, @matthewcropp -- to me, the opportunity to get to know someone is itself one of the most important features and outcomes of interacting on social media such as this. Maybe I'm in a minority on this -- that's OK. I mean, if I have any time, that's how I would like to be spending it. Making new friends, discussing things with old and new friends. It doesn't have to be so tight-knit, a thousand people is fine, but to me it just means treating people as part of one's virtual neighbourhood, not slagging them off. Particularly if you have a problem, then especially take the time to find out a little. That's what I would like, and that can take as much or as little time as one has.
Tao Tue 28 Aug 2018 11:55AM
FWIW I really like that there's so much discussion of coops in the local timeline -- it's a big part of why I chose social.coop.
I'm not sure I see the value in trying to be more general-purpose than we currently are, and I think we we should avoid having growth as any kind of goal. If an influx of users is straining our finances or our moderation capacity, I think it's reasonable to close sign-ups temporarily. There are lots of cool instances out there, and if someone really wants to, it's relatively easy to migrate once we open back up.
Edward L Platt · Mon 16 Apr 2018 1:09PM
I've seen this called replication-based decentralization. For instance, in Charlie DeTar's phd dissertation on consensus.