Loomio
Fri 11 Nov 2022 3:21PM

Co-ops joining social.coop

V Vica Public Seen by 186

Hi all, I'm new to the community so I would like some guidance on a question I have. I might be wrong, but looking through social.coop members, it looks like it is mostly formed by accounts of individuals, rather than organisations. With the recent takeover of Twitter, there will be co-ops looking for an alternative. Should we be encouraging them to join social.coop? Or would that change the culture of the organisation? Would social.coop have the capacity to absorb a large influx if a lot would join? And would we allow coops to cross-post from twitter (I think large co-op would likely go for that) - and therefore not really engage in the community? Or should we encourage larger co-ops to set up their own instances instead?

V

Vica
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

Thanks for setting this up!

BM

benjamin melançon
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

Agreed this should be made clear and welcoming for non-individual accounts, since there have been various claims that it is against "Mastodon" or "fediverse" culture not to have any kind of brand account— when that's simply not true, collective identities have been on the fediverse, Mastodon, and social.coop from the start.

Wait should we be voting as @[email protected] for this? Let's say Agaric (the account) abstains!

CCL

888 Co-operative Causeway Limited
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

This sounds good - was a bit unclear when we joined as an organisation whether it was the "done thing"

RJ

Rich Jensen
Disagree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

I'm a relatively new participant in the culture here and perhaps not entirely informed about the mission, but might 'other organizations' may be too broad an addition? My understanding is that this space is dedicated specifically toward cooperative and democratic social forms. Do we mean to invite @[email protected]?

JA

Joseph Andriano
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

Agreed. Makes sense to me.

L

Luke
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

I'm new to this instance, but seems to me cooperative organisation is about recognising groups as well as individuals, so sounds good to me and maybe making the implicit explicit as Casey says.

AW

Aaron Wolf
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

Very strong support! Social.coop should be the hub of cooperatives online.

H

Harris
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

Strongly support. We might consider a different membership dues structure for institutions at some point, but I don't feel strongly about the need to do so now.

EM

Eduardo Mercovich
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

Because we are stronger together. :)

AS

Arnold Schrijver
Abstain
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

Because this was a minor text change I was about to just Agree, but I Abstain now after reading @Rich Jensen argument which I agree with but is maybe tackled in some other manner I do not know about.

JC

juniper cameryn
Disagree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

"Other organizations" seems too broad and unclear. Do we have code of conduct regarding organizations specifically? What kind of orgs? Can they advertise? If so what are they advertising etc.

SG

Shauna Gordon-McKeon
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

Agree, but echo the other commenters who say that guidelines or rules for which organizations can/should join join would be a good idea.

LF

Lynn Foster
Abstain
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

I support this in general. My concern is can the software properly support ActivityPub Group yet? I heard a rumor that there is some money to implement groups in a couple of apps, perhaps including Mastodon (?). That is great, but not here yet afaik. So that leaves groups to sign up as individuals and become an ActivityPub Person. And share passwords, etc. So, should we wait for proper software support and some standardization across the fediverse before explicitly encouraging groups?

NG

Noemi Giszpenc
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

Co-ops and other organizations use social media to reach folks who are interested in similar things, so why not let those groups have memberships? Would it cost more?

EL

Eliot Lash
Abstain
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

Might need to flesh out CoC on what acceptable behavior for groups is first. I think the idea is good overall.

BS

Billy Smith
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

While co-op members are welcome to join as individuals, when they are operating as a co-operative, it helps to have a main-point-of-contact, that you can approach directly. :D

I also means that the Succession functionality of the ( 5 Needed Functions ) won't be tied to any single individual, which helps reduce the potential for burn-out. :D

N

Nic
Abstain
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

Can we require them to be of Activity Pub type Organization rather than Person? I think Mastodon has supported that since 2018 - https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/6973 - tho I'm not sure how that's handled at an interface level.

CB

Christina Bowen
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

Socialroots.io is excited apply to join as a coop member of this group! agree with the language getting a bit more specifically cooperative.

JK

Jonas Kanafani
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

While members of coop organizations are welcome to join, I interpret this as organizations being able to onboard all of their members all at once. another interpretation might be that coops are able to create a "main" account representing their coop. If this is the case, it should be phrased as a separate allowed use case.

Edit: changed vote based on clarification by Nathan. Thanks :)

MN

Matt Noyes
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

We have a number of organizational members already. We should encourage members of organizations to join, too, if they like.

BMH

Benjamin Mako Hill
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

I'm part of a collective that is already on social.coop so I don't see any reason we wouldn't want to codify this.

B

brainwane
Disagree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

I'd like more clarity on allowed/aligned orgs. Related recent conversation with potential member: https://mastodon.social/@b0rk/109309598903058486

She asked: "i’m a bit confused by 'Promote products or services provided by individuals, cooperatives, or aligned communities over those provided by non-co-op, for-profit companies.' in [the CoC] like i run a for profit company, does that mean i shouldn’t join and promote my things?"

-Julia Evans, an indie educator who makes and sells comics.

BM

Boris Mann
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

we might suggest that organizations provide support at a higher minimum level. Alternatively, also then support in onboarding individuals from the organization.

TR

Tod Robbins
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

I think this is a lot clearer than the existing copy

TB

Thomas Beckett
Agree
Wed 16 Nov 2022 6:27PM

I would like to create an account for my cooperative development center.

A

andia
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

In theory, I like this idea. But I would also like to see more language around what this means for orgs that aren't co-op aligned so it's clear who can apply and who should look elsewhere

M

mutineering
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

Sensible provision that aligns with principle 6. BUT perhaps before enacting we need to support this with a clear stance on co-operative identity and be clear there is a policy requirement and obligation for those organisations that join through a simple claim to "identify with the cooperative movement" . Without this, we would be open to extractive spammers.

I

Isabel
Disagree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

I generally like the idea of coop orgs being able to have accounts, but I feel strongly that only individuals, not organizations, should be able to vote on loomio.

AM

Antony McMullen
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

I think co-ops and other 1 member 1 vote democratic enterprises should be encouraged to join. This will build cooperation amongst co-operatives, solidarity and idea sharing for the common good.

TR

Tom Resing
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

Agree. Should the recommended monetary contribution be higher or should there be an alternative to trade services?

S

sef
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

Good for coops lacking capacity and/or capability to host their own instances. In the future I'd like to investigate relaying fully cooperative instances for both including SocialCoop organizational members and self-hosting coops alike. ("The idea behind a relay is that instances explicitly agree to federate all posts between each other")

M

mariah
Agree
Mon 14 Nov 2022 5:45PM

I am curious though if coops and other organizations would need to abide by an added set of standards and how organizational voting is weighed versus votes by people.

NS

Nathan Schneider Mon 14 Nov 2022 11:19PM

@Rich Jensen to your point, applicants would still be asked to introduce themselves and explain their interest in joining.

RJ

Rich Jensen Tue 15 Nov 2022 12:09AM

Thanks @Nathan Schneider. I'm sure it'll all work out. No coops nor admins will be harmed. :) For the sake of good protocol I see should have offered a solution with my 'nay'. Was thinking of a slight revision like: Individuals, cooperatives and other organizationssupporting cooperativesare welcome to join. I understand it may be redundant and unnecessary under the circumstances. Let the will of the people prevail!

NS

Nathan Schneider Tue 15 Nov 2022 12:20AM

I like this. Maybe "who identify with the cooperative movement"?

RJ

Rich Jensen Tue 15 Nov 2022 12:43AM

Maybe "...that identify with the cooperative movement.." ?

RJ

Rich Jensen Thu 1 Dec 2022 11:56AM

Looks great w/amendment! Can't seem to change my vote, but I would if I could. Appreciate you NS and the collectivity of the beings present.

SW

Sam Whited Tue 15 Nov 2022 12:06PM

I think the home page text is becoming less prominant in Mastodon 4.0 (eg. see fosstodon.org when you're not logged in), so it might be good to stick this on the wiki homepage or somewhere similar too.

NS

Nathan Schneider Wed 16 Nov 2022 12:04AM

@jicka The proposal states that an organizational membership provides one account, not accounts for all of the co-op's members. The language is that org membership is "on a similar basis to individual membership, one membership = one account, on Loomio, Mastodon, and other services." Would you consider changing your vote?

JK

Jonas Kanafani Wed 16 Nov 2022 12:11AM

I don't see where it is specified, but I'm on mobile and probably missed it. Thank you for the clarification!

Vote updated.

NS

Nathan Schneider Wed 16 Nov 2022 5:18PM

I'd like to surface a dissenting comment by @brainwane:

I'd like more clarity on allowed/aligned orgs. Related recent conversation with potential member: https://mastodon.social/@b0rk/109309598903058486

She asked: "i’m a bit confused by 'Promote products or services provided by individuals, cooperatives, or aligned communities over those provided by non-co-op, for-profit companies.' in [the CoC] like i run a for profit company, does that mean i shouldn’t join and promote my things?"

-Julia Evans, an indie educator who makes and sells comics.

I forgot this language is in the CoC, and I worry it is a bit draconian. I think we should express cooperative commitments through cultural signaling, not constraints on speech. I wonder if we should add another proposal here, something like:

  • Remove the above language from the CoC. There are certainly cases when a cooperator might ethically feel obligated to advocate a superior non-cooperative service over a cooperative one.

  • Add a question to the registration form like this: "What is your relationship to the cooperative movement?" This would encourage more self-selection among members who are active friends of cooperativism.

  • Add language to our wiki like this: "Social.coop stands in support of the broader cooperative movement, in alignment with cooperative Principle 6, cooperation among cooperatives."

AW

Aaron Wolf Wed 16 Nov 2022 5:34PM

The key term in the CoC is "over". It doesn't say that someone can't promote products and services from non-co-ops. It says not to tell people to use those over using co-op options.

NS

Nathan Schneider Wed 16 Nov 2022 5:59PM

But what if, for instance, it is something like this: An activist wants a secure communication tool. I tell them, you can use DMs on Social.coop, but really you should probably use Signal instead, because it has stronger security protocols. I recommend Signal for this use-case over Social.coop.

I think it is pretty extreme that we would discipline people for a case like this.

AW

Aaron Wolf Wed 16 Nov 2022 6:28PM

The quote is from a positive mandate, that members will actively promote co-op and related options. I do agree that we would do well to adjust the language so it doesn't imply "promote co-op options even if they are worse in some ways". I think the ideal we want is that people should mention co-op options and highlight them for being co-op options. Signal is non-profit FWIW, and it doesn't itself have corporate ads etc, so it's closer to co-op values than something like WhatsApp.

Anyway, there's a separate fundamental problem I have with your reply. The entire idea that the CoC implies "discipline" as though that's some imposition of top-down power which is therefore extreme… that is a totally dysfunctional (but the widespread unfortunate view) of CoCs. A good CoC should embrace principles of restorative and transformative justice. It should celebrate learning and conscious-raising. And it should be celebrated when someone points out how I missed a chance to follow a mandate from the CoC, not be seen as a threat. "Oh thanks! I'm glad this experience reminded me to learn about and promote the co-op options!" and I edit my post accordingly, and everything is just better. There's nothing extreme and no top-down-discipline needed, and I strongly oppose the interpretation that a CoC is inherently about top-down discipline and should only apply when we need to impose some harsh penalty or something. A restorative CoC is what enables us to maintain higher standards than "don't be grotesquely toxic" or something.

Granted, newcomers will come often to see a CoC as "if I mess up, I'll be in big trouble" because that is the toxic horrible way that many communities use CoC. So, we do have to do the diligence of framing the CoC to acknowledge this common impression and deal with it before people then review the CoC itself.

NS

Nathan Schneider Thu 17 Nov 2022 4:02PM

Thanks for this, and I appreciate your reflections on the spirit. Even then, though, I think that part of the CoC is not something I support. I spend my life advocating the co-op movement, but there are often times when I have to be honest with people about what co-ops can do. And an edge case like Signal is precisely the kind of reason why the wording is weird. Regardless of how the CoC is practiced, I don't think that's a statement we need in it.

AW

Aaron Wolf Thu 17 Nov 2022 5:25PM

We're in agreement. CoC like everything else should be continually iterated and improved. This language definitely could be better. Let's just improve it keeping clearly in mind the idea of pursuing this vision that people don't get super anxious about any possible CoC issues. We want the CoC to highlight things that everyone can wholeheartedly support the spirit of and that we all welcome the feedback and learning opportunities if we have a place to improve our conduct. The key to making that work is clearly expressing that CoC issues get addressed by just asking people to fix things, not by top-down censoring and banning and tracking flags as some judgment of members. All those punitive approaches must be reserved for exceptional cases of persistent bad-faith conduct.

NS

Nathan Schneider Wed 16 Nov 2022 5:20PM

@Lynn Foster I'm not sure I understand your concern. I think what we are proposing is that organizations would manage their own credentials for their account. Why would they need additional software first?

LF

Lynn Foster Wed 16 Nov 2022 7:54PM

There are co-ops and other groups that use social.coop now. Like DisCO, like Codeberg. So we have that now, and I'm sure they understand they need to manage their group-ness themselves, e.g. credential sharing. I just thought if we are going explicitly encourage co-ops to join, that is something different, and it would be good to be able to actually support them as co-ops. I just re-read the original proposal, and see it is only about culture and capacity. So I guess my concern isn't really valid for this proposal, and it is assumed that explicitly inviting them doesn't mean there is any particular support for them as a co-op. Which is probably fine, I'm not on twitter, but expect there isn't any support there either. I'll change my vote to abstention, since I don't know enough to have an opinion of the culture or capacity questions. Thanks for checking!

NS

Nathan Schneider Wed 16 Nov 2022 5:23PM

@juniper cameryn @Rich Jensen @brainwane I have modified the proposal in a way that I hope addresses the bulk of your concerns. Would you consider changing your vote?

Thanks so much for raising good concerns here!

RJ

Rich Jensen Thu 17 Nov 2022 3:15AM

Hi Nathan!

Just saw the Loomio via email to [email protected]... which, I think (?), is the account I used to cast my vote previously.

But now I cannot access that vote page from this account.

I think I have messed things up, some way or another, by also registering with a social.coop ( http://social.coop ) account (perhaps Loomio, or Open Collective, or both, or some other?) via [email protected]. "Wires crossed" may be my nickname in the metaverse, pluriverse and all such environments, forever... sigh.

Will seek to disentangle myself and change my vote. I appreciate your diligence.

In cooperation,

~r

WM

Will Murphy Thu 1 Dec 2022 2:26PM

I'm concerned about the disruption of our democratic governance by allowing organizations to be full members. If my coop Immers Space were to setup an account on social.coop, I would then have more than one vote on polls in loomio.