So, the comments seem to have stopped. I wonder if it makes sense to stick with the original deadline of Feb 26, or just put together a revised proposal now and open a round of voting so we can practice objecting and determining which objections are valid in this framework.

Again the purpose is both a) to think about adopting integrative consent and b) to practice the integrative consent process.

@mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

@Matt_Noyes 1of3
Responding here not loomio so as to be more lightweight. I find I don’t have much enthusiasm for formal group ‘democratic’ process. I’m happy to be guided thro by a skilled facilitator with goodwill, but have reluctance to internalise and be bound by formal group process of any kind, for any purpose. That’s just temperament - not a large group person, a pair or trio person, responding to actual dynamics of that actual pairing.
@michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

@Matt_Noyes 2of3
So
a) I wouldn’t expect this personal thing to weigh much in the vote. But wonder how many social.coop ppl may be in my ‘camp’?
b) When I want to move something significant in the world I approach it as a matter of skilled teaming, with others more ‘groupish’, oriented to accommodation across differences, and we do a lot of diverse ’touching base’. The team does the work, case by case. Builds multi perspective (= consensus??)
@michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

@Matt_Noyes 3of3
Yes labour intensive, only for significant initiatives. No not practicable for admin in a loose coupled community with small things being frequent. But I am unsure how realistic the expectation of formal group process is, or how many ppl in fact subscribe to the model. I respect that it’s de rigeur w some but believe this to be a temperament ’bubble’ rather than a matter of ’science’. And that’s OK but not guaranteed to work.
@michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

Follow

@mike_hales @Matt_Noyes @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

I'll try explaining my reaction to this proposal here, first, but may repeat on loomio, depending on responses.

Is social.coop an organization or is it one instance (server) in a federated social network, where people signed up for accounts, maybe due to some affinity with the ideas of cooperatives?

part 1 of 2

@mike_hales @Matt_Noyes @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

Part 2 of 2

Or does an organization maintain social.coop the instance?

Is it realistic for the members of the instance (the users of the server) to have the same basis of unity as the maintainers?

What democratic protocols are appropriate for which subset of the members of social.coop?

@mike_hales @Matt_Noyes @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

Part 3 of 2

I should add that I have no problem experimenting with this proposal, but it does make me think of those questions.

@bhaugen @mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

This is one reason DisCO interests me. In GT, they have a clear model with three concentric rings: the innermost ring is the co-op members who do the work and admin/management of the co-op. The outermost ring is non-members who do some work but no admin/management. The middle ring is people who are "dating" the co-op, working more closely with the core group and deciding to join (or not).

Could this apply to social.coop?

@Matt_Noyes
> Could this apply to social.coop?'

I don't think so, but I am not sure I can explain why, and I could also be wrong.

In GT, the work is translating. And the admin/management is about the translating work and its relationship to the source of the material to be translated, where it gets published, why those sources were chosen, how they fit into some political-cultural context, etc etc.

Part 1 of 2

@mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

@Matt_Noyes @mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

Part 2 of 2 (wait, make that 3)

In social.coop, the work is maintaining and moderating a Mastodon server. The moderation got very contentious for awhile but then seems to have either settled down or the people who were unhappy left.

Would have been good grounds for a democratic protocol then.

But to try a democratic protocol just for the sake of it seems lifeless.

@bhaugen @mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

Eager to see part 3 of 2 ;-), but meanwhile. I think the "work of social.coop" is not so narrow as you suggest - again, DisCO is interesting because it integrates care as work. And everyone who toots is producing content and creating (reinforcing) relationships, network building...

@Matt_Noyes
I think for some people social.coop has more going on than for others. Some of you work and organize and meet together.

I got a few people I work with who are also in social.coop, but it's not the focus of our work.

@mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

@bhaugen @Matt_Noyes @mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

I love this thread and the corresponding one on loomio. I think there are a lot of big questions that point to a lot of unfinished discussions we had during the meltdown last year.

I also find myself feeling a slight existential panic about social.coop (similar to during the meltdown) and hope others aren't also feeling that way.

@emi
> slight existential panic
Yep. This seems to me natural bcos social.coop has been a slogan and an ethos and a loose distributed cultural formation, and is still attempting to become an organisation of some kind, which might warrant the description 'coop'?
@bhaugen @Matt_Noyes @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

@mike_hales @emi @bhaugen @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

Interesting! I think of SC as "pleasantly emergent" - whether and how it becomes more formally organized remains to be seen. In the meantime a variety of people, practices, and relationships find space here.

@Matt_Noyes @mike_hales @emi @bhaugen @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @johnkuti I'm following along with this thread and finding it interesting. I do not feel any existential panic wrt social.coop and see it more as "pleasantly emergent", to use Matt's nice turn or phrase. (For me it is primarily an experiment in collectively governed social media platform, the fact that it attracts folks interested in cooperatives is a pleasant side effect.)

@emi @bhaugen @Matt_Noyes @mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin has social.coop created a set of shared principles yet? One that all members have understood and actively opted into? The focus on process seems misguided until there is a shared understanding of purpose and principles.

@elplatt @bhaugen @Matt_Noyes @mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin

Hmmm what a conundrum! How should facilitate a process in which we decide on shared principles and purpose?

@bhaugen Things in Scuttlebutt seem to resolve into 'the project leadership'. Benevolent dictators like so much FLOSS practice? I don't see anything there on evolutionary process. Just principles. I'm not disparaging, just saying I don't see the kind of process framing we're seeking.

@elplatt @emi @Matt_Noyes @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin

@mike_hales
Scuttlebutt relied on a couple of founding leaders for a long time but things have evolved into multiple related projects with different leaders that are still recognizably in the same network.

They don't use the kind of process framing you are seeking, but the question was about decentralized networks and principles.

They have several times iterated on a set of principles and seem to mostly live by them.

@elplatt @emi @Matt_Noyes @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin

@bhaugen The key thing w Scuttlebutt seems to be that it is a development community (based in 'projects') at least as much as it is a digital-social community. And to an extent, they do have a geography dynamic or context too (NZ?) even though globally distributed?
@elplatt @emi @Matt_Noyes @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin

@mike_hales
My laptop died so I'm typing this on my phone.
Scuttlebutt has actual work to do. But I think that is what is missing in social.coop except for the people who maintain the place.

@elplatt @emi @Matt_Noyes @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin

It seems like the question lurking beneath the discussion here is; is social.coop a customer co-op, in which all instance users are voting citizens in all decision-making? Or is it a worker co-op, in which users who aren't involved in core maintenance and admin work are just customers? What @Matt_Noyes seems to be suggesting, with his reference to DisCO's 3 ring structure, is a kind of multi-stakeholder co-op.

@bhaugen
@mike_hales @elplatt @emi @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin

BTW if you want to include large numbers in fediverse discussions about social.coop, without filling all posts with addresses, you could get everyone interested to follow @social.coop and tag that address in all posts instead of:

@Matt_Noyes @bhaugen @mike_hales @elplatt @emi @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin

Thanks for the tip @Matt_Noyes . I didn't realize you already had a mechanism for this and thought it might be useful to demonstrate what Guppe can do.

@bhaugen @mike_hales @elplatt @emi @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin

@Matt_Noyes

I'm not sure that adding @SocialCoop helps with conversation tracking/discoverability (other than for the few folks that operate that account)

Think is more useful

I've got a column open which displays toots which contain that hashtag

Saw your first toot in this interesting mega thread, but until now @strypey @elplatt @bhaugen @mike_hales @emi @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin - 1/3

Show newer

@strypey
Good clarification. I don't know how many of the non-workers are engaged in co-op governance vs how many are just users.
And then all the federated chatter affects people's perceptions too

@Matt_Noyes @mike_hales @elplatt @emi @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin

(1/2)

Tried to avoid screen time this weekend, but catching up on this thread now!
@strypey I think that's a critical question that comes up so much with platform coops (also part of our post-platform coop conference happy hour). I think the idea of a platform coop gets applied to so many forms of coops with different stakeholders that sometimes we forget to clearly define who those coop stewards are.
@bhaugen @mastodon.nzoss.nz @Matt_Noyes @mike_hales @elplatt @emi @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin

(2/2)

I think multistakeholder platform coops can be the most powerful structure, but it takes a lot of intentional organizational management (by laws about which stakeholder makes which decision) that's lacking a bit here. But I think it's something we could (and maybe should) do!

@bhaugen @Matt_Noyes @mike_hales @elplatt @emi @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin

Show newer

@wyatwerp @strypey @anaulin @bhaugen @emi @mattcropp @Matt_Noyes @michaelafisher @mike_hales @Zee holocracy is highly formalized and requires training and discipline, so there would probably need to be a clear divide between the organization and users, but that might run counter to the idea of participation.

Holocracy is very much on the formal side of the process spectrum, so it requires training and discipline. It seems like it might pose an obstacle to participation and open membership, but might work for certain subsets of members in a multi-stakeholder model. In any case, it's a good place to look for inspiration.

@wyatwerp @strypey @anaulin @bhaugen @emi @mattcropp @Matt_Noyes @michaelafisher @mike_hales @Zee

I mention this because you can't do effective democracy without a clear definition of who the demos is. Fuzzy boundaries are OK in networks (in the social sense of the word), which may use processes like spokescouncils to consult, but don't attempt to make decisions that bind their constituents. But to make binding decisions, you need to be clear on who has a vote (or veto power), and who is only consulted.
@Matt_Noyes @bhaugen @mike_hales @elplatt @emi @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin

@Matt_Noyes @mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

Part 3 of 3

What if social.coop, or some people in social.coop, started to use the social medium to organize something cooperative (beyond the social chatter, that does something in what kids these days call real life?

My fave would be a cooperative of cooperatives, but you may have other ideas.

Might have more grist for the mill?

@bhaugen ‘organise something cooperative’?
Yep. That’s the sort of thing I was proposing with my ‘core list’ of shared concerns in our broad discussion some months back. I think it will involve expanding into other tools/platforms - wiki/fedwiki maybe. A repo of commoned coop knowhow. So not a coop of coops perhaps (since individuals would participate too) but a cultural commons. One of the things DisCO is built for.
@Matt_Noyes @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

Sign in to participate in the conversation
social.coop

A Fediverse instance for people interested in cooperative and collective projects.