Follow

I'm thinking about a concept to distribute money in what is currently a volunteer project.

Maybe there are some existing "solidarity payments" ideas around.

My initial idea is a monthly "pay day" call where you discuss how much to distribute in total, what you worked on, and what costs you had in the month.

With some form of consensus process to raise up concerns and then agree it.

Assumptions are low numbers of people (prob <5) and high trust within the group.

Any existing models?

Β· Tusky Β· 3 Β· 2 Β· 1

@adrianheine no? It just means a bidding process / auction? Or something more specific in this context?

@nicksellen A bit more specific. For example, for hour rent everyone gives a green, yellow and red bid based on whatever criteria they like and we add first the green ones to see if they are enough for what we need, then yellow, then red.

@adrianheine ah interesting. Let's see I understood it: you might say green €50, yellow €100, red €200. Then add up everyone's green bid, and see if that will cover costs, if not, go to yellow bids?

@nicksellen Exactly. It's not perfect, but it somewhat works for us and people feel comfortable to a certain degree to adapt their rent to what they can and want pay. Currently we have rents in the range for 240€ to 450€.

@nicksellen As a fallback we also have a very technical and strict scheme for rent calculation that's based on flat size and number of inhabitants, in case the Gebotsverfahren fails. We didn't need it in four years, though.

@adrianheine is there a discussion place too? (For example if somebody feels somebody else is paying too much/little, or other concerns). Sounds in the spirit of what I'm thinking though.

Wondering what the equivalent would be when it's for income, not rent. The monthly income is meaningless as currently the money is just a funding lump sum.

I like the "traffic light" levels though. Maybe gesture/token, subsistence, and comfort needs.

@nicksellen We could discuss it in plenum, but we generally try to accept the outcome as it is. I feel like it's pretty fragile in our case and only works because the results are borderline acceptable for everyone so that we don't have to discuss feelings, thoughts or reasons.

@nicksellen

I have no personal experience, but I would guess that with #collectiveOwnership within a group and your assumption ( low numbers of people + high trust ), the money that is there could be just handled like everything else (e.g. food, clothing, equipment)

1/2

@nicksellen

Examples:
- Want to cook for you or others? -> Go to the food-chamber, respectfully take what you want.
- want something to wear? -> go to wardrobe, respectfully take what you like.
- need some money? -> go to the moneybox, respectfully take what you need.

"respectfully" e.g. if there is little left, don't take it all; maybe reflect on you needs/desires and value them against those of others....

@el_joa those things still need some processes around (e.g. can you take the clothes away from the house forever?), and some place for the discussion to happen.

Personally, I benefit from loads of explicit clarity or I get anxious I'm "doing it wrong", and without detailed rules (tricky), discussion seems a good option.

In this case everybody is remote so it's not quite the same as physical resource access, and the money is in a bank account, not a pot.

@nicksellen
Existing models I know of are a lot more complicated than you need, but include Sensorica's value equations and KTorn's Value Distribution Protocol (VDP) and Fair Coops Open Coop Work (OCW).
Value equations required people to log their work and other contributions. VDP is for software dependencies. And OCW required people to log their work and get it validated by 2 other people.
Let me know if you want more details on any of those.

But your method seems better for your situation.

@bhaugen thanks, I've been aware of some of those, but got a bit overwhelmed when reading more!

I feel quite a strong urge to not track time, in the spirit of moving away from wage labour, and also trying to not introduce a hard line between volunteers and paid workers.

Within a trusted group, minimising numerical calculation of value seems a good idea to me.

@nicksellen
> got a bit overwhelmed when reading more!

No need to read more, you clearly got some of the main ideas (and their drawbacks)...

> I feel quite a strong urge to not track time, in the spirit of moving away from wage labour,

Altho we have participated in those experiments, we agree.

> and also trying to not introduce a hard line between volunteers and paid workers.

In a value network, there is no distinction. (And no automatically paid workers. Which can be a problem.)

Sign in to participate in the conversation
social.coop

social.coop is a cooperatively-run corner of the Fediverse. The instance is democratically governed by its members, who generally share an interest in the co-op model, but topics of discussion range widely.

If you are interested in joining our community, please review our Bylaws and Code of Conduct. If you agree with them, you may apply for membership on our instance via this link

Our instance is supported by sliding scale contributions of $1-10/mo made via Open Collective. You must have an active Open Collective account to apply for membership; you may set one up here