@johnmerritt of interest?

I say it's better to say Sorry than ask for Permission. People learn more from Sorry too!
Communities of practice should be self defining, otherwise they are excluding of deviance, eccentricity, insubordination and other qualities that result in novelty and innovation

How about, as a starter for 6, a weekly email newsletter to members?

Could perhaps be loosely based around the "weekly stand-up" commonly found in lean/ agile development communities, e.g. "what we did last week, what we're planning to this week, what blocks mights stop us/ what we need help with" sort of thing? :)

We're actually about to send out an email newsletter, and it's taken quite a long time to put together (I've just spent a good couple of hours on sub-edits and formatting) and I know Mark has done a lot more as he wrote the thing. So right now we're probably running away from the idea of a newsletter, but something much more brief as you suggest could potentially be do-able. Thanks!

Perhaps there could be a longer monthly one and people could choose which to receive, either or both?

It's always been a part of my view of how P6 will work that anyone should be able to create a page on the website for their project, and thereby give it some visibility, both for its own benefit and also so that Platform 6 members and supporters can become aware of it and engage with it. It strikes me that one of the things that is weird with the way that co-op development happens at the moment is that most new start projects are largely invisible, and it can take a good deal of effort on the part of project owners to build some profile. So if project owners/promoters could easily and quickly set up a project information page on the website, just as we're beginning to do with co-op crowdfunding campaigns, that could be a fairly easy thing to start with. And once created we could help to promote it through our networks.

I wonder how many more cooperatives there would be if the very option was promoted, as well as supporting coop businesses?.
I recently enquired about support from a local EC funded enterprise agency. When I got to the drop down box for 'business structure' (sole trader, limited company, CIC etc) No mention of coop. I had to contact them & insist they add it, but the degree of ignorance among those offering mainstream business support about coops, especially workers' coops, is breathtaking.

A lot of this ignorance/lack of awareness/visibility stems from the creation by the Blair government of "social enterprise" as a label, and the subsequent creation of the community interest company (CIC), which served primarily to hide the 'co-op' brand.

@Emma I'd value your thoughts on using circles to organise in P6

I think that I am going to be proposing that we organise on a sociocratic basis, with circles relating to different functional areas or project areas of P6. There would likely be a central co-ordinating circle comprised of representatives of those other circles. This function is currently carried out by regular meetings of the Directors and a Slack channel of the Directors.

The reasons for this are:
1) The membership are currently not as involved as they should be in the exciting stuff happening in P6; and
2) The current Board of Directors are doing lots of stuff that should be shared.
3) It's totally aligned with a mission - to create an engaged community of practice around co-op development.
4) It fits with Graham's desire to create a space for projects to develop (see above).

My proposal would be that this co-ordination - an executive function - becomes the function of the central circle, which runs mainly thru Slack. The Board would still exist with its separate legal duties and would be elected from the members at General Meeting. The central Circle is effectively acting as a collective CEO.

Circles would be in most cases - double-linked - sub-circles of the central circle would have a rep. from the central circle and appoint a rep. to that circle.

Here's diagram of what this might look like.

I also think that sociocratic circles is the way to go but I'm not sure about the Central Circle idea. On the one hand it allows members to get more involved with executive functions, on the other hand it puts some serious barriers up. Example 1: Directors can't talk to the Finance team without going through 2 link people and Finance team can't talk to the Board without going through 2 different link people. That's up to 4 different people required to pass messages around. Example 2: Members' Meeting and Members' Loomio can't communicate without going through the Board and Central Circle. That involves up to 8 people and some significant time delay.

It would simpler if the Board and Central Circle were the same thing, but that would require those who want to be involved in governance to be Directors, which may be not be such a bad thing.

It would also be simpler, faster and less error prone if the circles were single- rather than double-linked - that's how we are doing it in CAN.

Having the Board as the central circle requires something akin to collective governance and also would require people to be Directors who may not want the responsibility. I've tried that with a co-op that I was working with and it caused blockage.

But the good news is that having a central circle doesn't stop comms. and co-ordination between functional areas within the organisation any more than everything having to go thru a CEO in a conventional organisation.

Mark Simmonds

[email protected]

www.culture.coop ( http://www.culture.coop )

0741 999 1506

Co-op Culture Ltd., Company reg. no. 9649522

Co-op Culture on Facebook ( https://www.facebook.com/coop.culture.coop ) Co-op Culture on Twitter ( https://www.twitter.com/coopsmark )

( http:/// )

Form follows function for me.What's the problem we are trying to solve? I'm agnostic about sociocratic approaches: there appear to be aspects that are highly beneficial, and there also seem to be bits of it that are troublesome. I'm thinking that the focus of this conversation could be a bit less about how we organise ourselves and more about what we want to achieve together. Would sharing a better understanding of our common objectives illuminate the pathway to the optimal organising principle?

Maybe some kind of members charter of shared beliefs and principles?. The worker co-operative code is more about the coop than the people within them. I can't help feeling that if there is a shared ethos, making decisions becomes so much easier without the need for a particular decision making structure. I've been thinking about writing something along such lines to help when I start recruiting. Does such a thing already exist that I have missed?

Quite agree @graham2 I meant to refer to an earlier discussion around our vision and mission, currently standing as:

Vision

“At Platform 6, we believe in a world where communities own and democratically control their livelihoods and common resources - a world built on the values of People Care, Earth Care and Fair Shares and the principles of Co-operation.”

Mission

“Through the provision of resources, events, collective funds and the building of partnerships, we will foster an inclusive co-operative community of practice open to all; a platform to support the growth of a sustainable co-operative, equitable and solidarity economy.”

Maybe we should start there, but I do feel that we need to address the issues of how we make decisions and share workload.

Sorry, no such thing as a typical day for me

Sorry I was not able to zoom in yesterday, just got bogged down with work. I had it in my diary but..... Time is not particularly relevant, notice is more relevant (even though it didn't work yesterday) :-(

I know what it's like, I've just decided reluctantly to miss the Webarchitects AGM today in Sheffield despite having it in my diary for over a month. Too much to do. For future Platform 6 meetings/calls we've agreed a regular monthly cycle, and I'm keen to ensure that there is something in each one that will set it apart and make it a must-go fixture.

I think that one of the outcomes from the members' meeting yesterday was that whilst we wouldn't hard-wire a sociocratic structure, we would operate in a way that could be described as sociocratic. With that in mind, I'd like to extend some of the other sociocratic ways of working, particularly the rounds and using them in decision making. We are using consent based decision-making IMO, but we do jump around a lot and I'm worried that some are passive spectators. This short video explains how we might use rounds in consent based decision-making: https://youtu.be/UiMObe6ssR0

Thanks, Mark. The video was very helpful.

Great idea Mark - to introduce little bits of sociocratic practice, one step at a time.

While keeping reviewing, getting feedback and adjusting - in other words using sociocracy to gradually introduce sociocracy!

Interesting related on-line workshop on co-operative decision making 30% discount with code "LOOMIO".

Here's a HackMD doc where I've been making notes and marshalling my thoughts on implementing sociocracy in co-ops. Originally intended as a way of getting the UK Co-op Governance Expert Reference Group up to speed on an emerging governance development, it also covers the issues around mapping traditional co-op structures to sociocratic circles. Feel free to pitch in with comments.

You might be interested in this @cliffmills

Thanks. Had a read through, which was helpful to my understanding. Corrected a few typos. My takeaway - the whole circle thing feels to me to have huge potential to over-complicate things, although I guess I'd need to see more of how it might actually work in practice.

Interestingly I was in a probono session with a co-op where I suggested they start adopting some sociocratic behaviours such as using rounds to discuss issues and circles to take issues out of the main meeting e.g. where only 2 people were concerned on that part of the business. The response I got was similar, @graham2 that it might mean more time and more meetings. I think overcoming that fear is a huge barrier. The idea is that decisions in the main meeting become better and quicker saving everyone time.

Don't get me wrong @nathanbrown - I like the whole rounds thing, and I've certainly no issue with the idea of delegating issues to a sub-group/committee/circle. Where I start toget concerned is the whole double-linking thing, where I can see a rsik that a good deal of time can be consumed. As I say, I may well be wrong on that, and of course also there's thing there about what's appropriate for the scale of the organisation.

Your concerns are shared by others and I think that is a key challenge. We need something that is accepted as workable and pragmatic rather than for cult members. (I am being tongue in cheek using that term)

There's always a trade off between direct democracy and efficiency. Maybe it's a matter of working out the combination that suits a particular group? How much can or should be delegated? How are people to whom it's delegated held to account? How big is the group in question? These are all issues. A simple guide to the options might be https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-operative_code_2nd_edition_0_0.pdf
Apologies if you're all aware of this already.

I agree with you Ian - it is very much about adapting and shaping these ideas to suit the specific circumstances of the organisation, rather than the other way round.

This is a helpful document @marksimmonds. I think it's useful to talk about and plan around this.

Another thing that can be done with Sociocracy is to slowly start to bring in some of its practices, which is often more effective than trying to 'design' something and then 'implement' it.

Including building on some of the existing practices and successes. So, for example:

• Surfacing concerns and addressing them one at a time
• Making small changes and iterating
• Constantly reviewing and learning.

And, yes, adapting to the specific situation.

Some (all?) of these are things that P6 is already doing, and they are all also important principles of Sociocracy. So in a way there is already some success to build on?

The concern/objection that a good deal of time can be consumed is really important @graham2 . One aim of sociocracy, as everyone knows, is to be effective and efficient. So that's a concern that goes against a common and important aim.

Using the sociocratic principle of exploring concerns means listening to concerns and enquiring into them. (Rather than trying to immediately fix them - which is also a common response.)

It's much easier to do this face to face, however. I wouldn't recommend trying to do it in a forum like this. Could be done on eg Zoom though.

The point is to use the practices of Sociocracy to explore and in a sense start to implement it.

BTW There's always been debate in the sociocratic world about double-linking and in my view it is no means essential - it all depends on stage and situation.

I am really interested in the role of sociocracy in the context of co-ops. I came across it indirectly through the Quaker Business Method, which has a fascinating approach based around some Business Principles. Reading these made me realise the extent to which traditional business meetings (co-op/public sector/private sector) the default approach is competitive and not co-operative. I'm beginning to see that this approach tends to be hardwired into governance documents (articles, rules etc) and that I don't think I have seen governance documents specifically designed to approach decision-making co-operatively.
So for me there are at least 3 important points.
1. The first thing to do is working out how it is that we want to approach decision-making and governance from a practical point of view - much of this debate so far which I am catching up on. It should be worked without necessarily being constrained by legal principles of governance which are based on a competitive approach to decision-making.
2. There is another really important distinction to make. There is a profound difference in nature between a co-op and a company, which I don't believe is reflected in how governance and decision-making are approached. A company is a legal entity which is intended to be and is a separate thing from its members/shareholders. They want that separation, the limited liability, and actually (I believe) the legal principle of the corporate veil to provide moral cover or protection from anything the company might do which they don't want to be associated with (or SEEN to be associated with). By contrast, a co-op IS the members. Yes, it has separate legal personality like a company, but the members aren't looking for that same separation of ownership and control which company shareholders seek.
3. I believe that that should impact significantly on governance and decision-making. My impression is that not much work has been done to develop bespoke arrangements for co-ops in their formal governance documents, and that they have tended to default back to traditional legal drafting which is tried and tested. Please forgive me if this is ignorance on my part, but I believe that we should be looking at a whole different style of formal and informal governance documents based around people co-operating rather than competing.
I'd love to spend a morning with you folk discussing this! It's a huge subject, and I feel that there's lots of energy and ideas out there which I think should be challenging conventional legal and governance thinking.
Sorry for such a long contribution!

Apparently Nathaniel Whitestone of Sociocracy UK has drafted model governing docs. for sociocratic co-ops.

I'd be interested to see that Mark

Yes, Nate is good on this. He tells me they are just refiling their articles and will have more examples available soon. He also told me that Graham Boyd (who you met in Nottingham @marksimmonds ) has an 'actual society model'.

I don't know if this is useful - legal structures are not my thing - but I would suggest speaking to Nate and/or Graham (Evolute Six).

I've written to Graham - watch this space. I'll be in touch with Nate too. I had a really positive response to this earlier in the week when I attended my first meeting of the Sociocracy for All Co-op Circle meeting.

Maybe we could discuss this further in a fringe at the Co-op College event in Rochdale - discussion [here](https://www.loomio.org/d/DYQqLzIM/what-about-a-platform-6-event-as-a-fringe-session-to-the-upcoming-co-operative-college-centenary-conference-in-rochdale-in-nov-)

Hi Cliff. I was wondering whether you would be up for a) tweaking this post into a public-facing blog post for the Platform 6 website, and b) holding that discussion online, as part of a forthcoming members' Zoom call?

Great observations Cliff. With CECOP Graham, Alex and others including Unicorn ran a three hour session at Co-op Congress on the morning of 22 June. Sion Whellens is doing a right up. The presentations on sociocracy, Smart freelancer co-ops, social co-ops from the Italian perspective and Union Co-ops plus Platform 6 really went well. I think your observations are really good Cliff.
Most people do not know the history of corporations and what the Charter is both in terms of Baron's Law (modern corporations and earlier with the Royal charter monopolies for colonial exploitation across the planet). The US revolution overturned this yoke and led to a return for decades to time limited companies with unlimited liability and Citizen's charters. This was in advance of the Chartists. See the link further below.

The pioneering work by Richard Grossman and Frank Adams in the USA is fabulous. The change to the concept of 'artificial personality' and unlimited liability happened from the 1850s - there were key legal decisions to reinstate Baron's law.. The Citizens Charters were based on the Hippocratic Oath idea of 'do no harm' and indeed between 1800 and 1850 the first US state's (the providers of company charters) accountable to voters cancelled charters of turnpike companies, canal operators and frequently banks. Indeed Directors were liable and charged regularly and frequently jailed.
The blog below at the link gives a summary of this Peoples Charters for corporations. Bear in mind the US had no King, so radical republicanism in the Tom Paine sense was here working in action. But Baron's law trumped Peoples Law after the US Civil War when plutocracy triumphed. A chance to go back to the Future, maybe?
Pat

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/

Somebody just referred me to this. I see you've been there. Another, more recent back to the future moment? :slight_smile: http://wiki.commonstransition.org/wiki/A_New_Alignment_of_Movements%3F_A_Report_on_A_Commons_Strategies_Group_Workshop

Yes this was a key gathering from many movements across Europe. David Bollier of the Commons movement and I co-edited this report on how to herd cats - get at least half a dozen social movements to find common cause for collaborating to co-develop co-op commonwealth. As Synergia (an educational co-op) we have since run three online Massive Open Online Courses (Moocs) over recent years. The latest one is just finishing. We attracted just over 1000 to this from 40 countries internationally and the quality of exchanges and participation has been inspiring. We are conducting a feedback survey now on Next Steps. Happy to share this when finished.

Thanks Pat, great link to the US history.

Really interesting thread - couple of things to contribute from our experience so far: rounds transform meetings. They are the single biggest contributor to the twin aims of effectiveness and equivalence. If I were only allowed to keep one thing, it would be that.
Double-linking - yep, take it or leave it. We've used this the least - we have it notionally but it's very difficult to implement in practice (more people to attend more meetings). The original purpose of double-linking as I understand it was to support the transformation of hierarchical organisations into less hierarchical ones. So there was this concept of worker & manager voice that turned into the double-link. In organisations that aren't starting from that premise, the double-link becomes less relevant. We're looking at reshaping the role of the delegate to lead on things like circle evaluations, checking in with other circles about how they're experiencing the work and what could improve. Rather than just being 'the voice of the circle' in meetings with the circle above - which also seems to be making less sense as a concept.

Circle Forward (https://www.circleforward.us/what-is-circle-forward/) have done some good work on connecting sociocracy & network governance - feels more intuitive when mapping a structure & iterating as you go rather than setting out to consciously design one.

Also where agile and sociocracy meet - keep iterating! :)

S3 deliberately integrates agile into sociocracy: https://sociocracy30.org/the-details/history/

Where agile and sociocracy meet is Sociocracy 3.0. Might be worth checking out S3 free and open source practical guide: https://sociocracy30.org

My favourite resource is S3 pattern index: https://patterns.sociocracy30.org/pattern-index.html

Also out of interest - has anyone used kumu.io for mapping their structure? Would love to hear from any others who've used it. I've looked at maptio as well but it's not right.

I'm part of a mapping experiment that uses summApp as a mapping tool, and then that's exported to Kumu to create visualisations. What we are experimenting with is called "social system mapping", more here: https://help.sum-app.net/portal/kb

I'm curious why would Maptio not be right for mapping the coop structure? :thinking:

Another tool of that kind is https://peerdom.org