Manifesto for sharing and commons

Wonderful. I'd add to point 2) "Call for and support open-source and source available tech development, based on open standards, to ensure standardisation doesn't pave the way only for commercial platforms." [added "source available"]. I'm also thinking about the reality of the ICA that is more presiding than proactively pushing concrete projects, as far as I can see. Therefore, I'd keep the ask small and concrete and for that, shared standards seem like a great start. Cooperative infrastructure is key but can the ICA do much or anything about that? They have hardly any resources but they can suggest items. An appeal to government to that end may be useful for inclusion.

@Trebor Scholz good points. When i'm thinking big, perhaps the ICA can lead the way to an alliance of alliances. There probably is in any continent something similar, in different sectors, like https://www.rescoop.eu/, which connect to national cooperative alliances. Could we call for a Coop Open Source Program Office (CO-OSPO). Much like an OSPO, but then for coops. We could call for a cooperative transnational digital governance body, aimed at producing interoperable digital cooperative solutions.

Agree with a small / concrete ask, but not sure if shared standards/protocols are that, as there is already quite a lot of standardisation working groups around the world, which are highly technical groups that include industy and governments. Curious what you @Steve Ediger (ChiCommons) think about this. Perhaps the ICA could ascribe to certain standards as coop friendly, a digital commons coop label.

Perhaps a smaller start is to be a library, central point, where different initiatives come together and the standards and their tech is reviewed, approved and shared, and you quickly see if its open-source and/or coop-source (coopyleft - license only available to coops) software, whether it is interoperable, in which language, countries, used by how many coops etc.

Perhaps something like this?

In future, this transnational body could support translation and organise developers meetings (e.g. gitlab instances, discord channels, arranging workgroups), while ensuring what @Noemi Giszpenc mentioned, that one of the things the ICA would do, is to make sure all groups (also non-tech) can use it.

I am happy to go along with what Noemi and Thomas have written. Calling for the creation of coordinating organizations could be good but I would like to offer my practical take:

What can the ICA do? As a board representing 320 co-ops, its primary function is to set standards and provide guidance. Tech competency is not their main strength.

A powerful document issued by the ICA, probably the best near-term outcome we can hope for, could significantly impact co-ops, as they see the ICA as an authority.

To achieve the greatest practical effect, I propose the following:

Encourage a data commons approach, specifically calling for sectoral data commons.
This has the potential to create a significant impact.

Emphasize the importance of replication and federation of platform co-ops, so that fewer people start from scratch.

Urge co-op associations to offer practical support for platform co-ops, such as funding and creating spaces for experimentation and incubators. Many of these organizations are already engaging in outreach and raising public awareness but few have taken any concrete action.

Advocate for co-op associations to lobby municipalities and federal governments to ensure parity between platform co-ops and other digital startups. It could also include a mention that they should be open to include municipalities as part of the co-op with a non-controlling share.

While promoting Open Source is a worthy goal, it's important to recognize that smaller co-ops may struggle with implementation due to costs. Many small platform co-ops have been hindered when starting with open source, resulting in few examples. I’d include a call for open source but also consider advocating for source available software with a peer production license.

As the ICA President is particularly concerned with the cooperative identity of platform co-ops and adjacent projects, initiating a global discussion about cooperative principles in the digital economy might be an excellent starting point we could propose too.

Shall we try to finish this by the end of the week?

I am happy to go with whatever the group feels would makes sense. Can we push it forward?

Hi @Trebor Scholz , fully agree, I think the manifesto should be in line with most of your comments and we can put your suggestions in as clear actions, in stead of the 4 points I mentioned.

To clarify some points you mention: what standards can the ICA set? Maybe I got confused with "technical standards".

You say "Encourage a data commons approach, specifically calling for sectoral data commons." Data commons and digital commons might be confusing terms. I made digital commons as sharing code (either open-source, or through peer production and coop licences) is not necessarily part of a data commons, and a Public Digital Infrastructure, or to encourage to work on a Cooperative Digital Infrastructure, might be clearer. What do you think?

I'll rewrite the doc now. Should we mentioned examples like drivers.coop, ONDC, Start.coop, CoopCycle etc.? Or should names not be in a manifesto.

Just rewrote it a bit again with the input from @Trebor Scholz. I'm ok as it is now. @Steve Ediger (ChiCommons), did you receive any feedback?

@Noemi Giszpenc I also invited sophie from commonsnetwork to this thread, hope that's ok, she was keen on help drafting the manifesto. She apparently knows @Trebor Scholz already. Hope that's ok! And hope we can push forward with the manifesto soon

@Thomas van Dijk of course, that's great!

Dank je wel!

@Sophie Bloemen welcome!

Please see Noemi's upcoming comments about Data Commons input. ChiCommons will review this in our monthly owners meeting tomorrow.

Hey everyone, @Trebor Scholz and @Thomas van Dijk and @Sophie Bloemen , we at the Data Commons ( @Steve Ediger (ChiCommons) , @colombene and I) spent some quality time with your comments and the manifesto draft at our meeting today. With apologies, we made some changes: added a small introductory preamble about who we are and where we're coming from, and trimmed some of the examples (kept in a section "trimmed content") to keep the main body to about a page long. There are also some minor clarifications and additions to the 4 requests.

We think that all the content is good, and can possibly find its way into the awesome white paper that the ICA commissions from us one day 😆

One thing we are wondering about, @Trebor Scholz , is what is the motivation for trying to get this out this week? We appreciate the energy to get this moving, but in order to complete even approval within our cooperatives will take time, and shopping this around to other potential signatories -- including some Argentinean tech co-ops that might have bigger influence with Ariel Guarco -- will definitely take some time.

Eager to hear if you think our changes are good improvements!

Wow, that manifesto looks fantastic!

I would add to foster cross-sector collaboration and partnerships among cooperatives (P6): To accelerate the development and adoption of cooperative digital solutions, encourage cooperatives from various sectors to collaborate, share knowledge, and pool resources. This would enable cooperatives to leverage each other's strengths, learn from one another's experiences, and develop innovative, scalable solutions that address common challenges and meet the unique needs of their respective sectors.

Hey guys, it's wonderful to see this idea come to fruition!

I took the liberty to edit the open letter (as a writer) pasting it below previous edits. Feel free to accept/reject any changes.

Hi all, I feel that the letter does not follow a clear logic now. I would remove this section "We believe that people have a right to privacy of their information. We believe that the current dominant regimes fail to protect people's right to privacy. We believe that within the bounds of privacy, cooperatives should be able to collect and inter-operably share data with each other for the advancement of cooperative benefit. We believe that the power of tech to mediate our every relationship, while controlling and extracting a maximum of surplus, needs to be restructured so that we are enabled to relate on our own terms. Both governments and private corporations have not demonstrated these values, and are increasingly intruding into our private and business lives." I think it's great but I'd remove it because what follows is not a clear response to this section. What we are suggesting is not solely (or mainly) about privacy. Thoughts?

It'd indeed have a more purposeful approach, @Trebor Scholz . I like that.

If it's the will of the people, we can remove the preamble text. You are correct that we should not conflate privacy with data collection and sharing. I thought to include it because they are so related in surveillance capitalism.

After review ChiCommons stands behind this. However, since it's a manifesto, we believe that addressing it only to ICA confuses the issue. We're OK with leaving the reference to ICA in the body of the text. The cover letter should certainly be addressed to ICA and others. I just came across this very interesting UN Global Digital Compact. Comments are due by April 30. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1okAwM6KE4tD6RDSSJgeaiE0vi45y5a93EUK2uAGw9rY/edit?usp=drivesdk

Hi Steve,
Happy to move ahead with this.

Hey @Trebor Scholz , @Eu , @Thomas van Dijk , @Sophie Bloemen , @colombene , @Alex Stone , @Marcelo Avelar Cohen -- @Steve Ediger (ChiCommons) and I met today and we are fine with removing the "we believe" preamble material. What we would like to add, though, is a sentence about the need for us grassroots efforts to coordinate with each other. So, here is the hopefully final version, with that sentence added toward the bottom (and also an ask to ICA and apex orgs to support that coordination). I bolded the new parts, see below.

Open Letter to Ariel Guarco, President of the International Cooperative Alliance 

Final Draft: EDITED 28APR

We are a group of cooperators interested in the development of digital platforms and structures that support cooperation.

In the current digital landscape, large tech companies dominate the collection, processing, and selling of user data. As we write this, large tech companies are already approaching farmers from upstate New York to Gujarat and dominate most major e-commerce platforms, ride-hailing services, energy-sharing platforms, and delivery services, to mention a few. 

While new cooperatives emerge globally in many fields, such as energy, mobility, agriculture, and health, many face a choice: make use of digital centralised platforms or set their own standards to develop cooperative solutions. 

Sharing solutions amongst cooperators ultimately saves resources, time, and money, but the initial set-up of shareable code and data takes greater resources, challenging co-op initiatives even more. 

To counter this, we urge ICA and cooperative apex organizations to call for global cooperative digital infrastructures and strengthen cooperative principles in the digital economy.  

It's our honor to present some ideas for this purpose:

1. Encourage standardization and interoperability, focusing on cooperative and citizen needs, (collective) consent, and democratic open (API) structures, within the cooperative economy and its various sectors.

1. Call for and support open-source and source-available tech development, based on open standards, to ensure standardization doesn't pave the way only for commercial platforms. 

1. Promote solutions that are FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable).

1. Create knowledge and support hub(s) that educate cooperators and developers on these issues, and that cooperatives can turn to for finding open-source solutions and asking questions concerning the use of them. 

1. Call upon (local) governments for support: invest a percentage of innovation budgets in the cooperative digital commons, support cooperative start-ups, and make policies that favor platform cooperatives.

This approach requires thoughtful, democratic, and powerful motivation from cooperative apex bodies such as the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) and support for and coordination among grassroots efforts.

The task is complex, but we must all act quickly together to avoid losing a great opportunity for the cooperative movement we all love.

We, the undersigned, pledge to work together in the spirit of Principle Six to coordinate our efforts to build cooperative digital tools, platforms, standards, and agreements.

PCC, Data Commons Cooperative, ChiCommons, (and other cooperatives that sign on to this Manifesto)

And, as for next steps:

1. first, we need to publish this letter and get signatures from a bunch of data and tech co-ops

2. we want to send this letter to Ariel Guarco, in addition to other apex co-op organizations, such as NCBA and USFWC in the US, and ones in Europe, Canada, South America, Asia, and Africa.

3. we also should encourage signatories, allies, and the recipients of the letter to publish it on their own websites.

Right?

In that case, should we title the letter differently? Instead of an open letter to Ariel Guarco, should it be a data commons manifesto? a digital cooperative manifesto? a collaborative tech manifesto? Something like that :)

Hey all,

It looks good to me, nothing to add or change.
Great work!

Eugenia

Em sex., 28 de abr. de 2023 às 13:44, Noemi Giszpenc (via Loomio) escreveu:

Looks good, all. Shall we share it on our various platforms and ask others to sign it, too? We could put it on PCC and you'd put it up on your sites.

Would a more centralized signature process be acceptable to gather signatures in one place? It would not take long to spin up datamanifesto.chicommons.coop, with a signature block (and possibly an opportunity to comment). Then we could introduce the manifesto on our own sites and link to the signature page on the central site. An alternative would be for us to collect 'signatures' locally and merge everything as this team. However that would introduce some costs in reformatting them.

@Steve Ediger (ChiCommons), @Trebor Scholz Sounds good to me. Let's do it.

I just noticed that we have some mis-numbering on the solution ideas. We'll need to fix that. Should they be bullets or is a priority implied?

@Steve Ediger (ChiCommons) @Trebor Scholz I don't think we discussed prioritization, so I guess bullets are fine.

Hi all,
We put it up here. I hope the photo finds your approval. If not, let me know.

https://platform.coop/blog/open-letter-to-ariel-guarco-president-of-the-international-cooperative-alliance/

If you get more co-signers, let me know. And then we could send it to Guarco. It'd be nice to have 20 or
so orgs sign on though.

~ Trebor

We (Data Commons and ChiCommons representatives) would like to change the title to "Open Letter on the topic of Cooperative Digital Infrastructure to Ariel Guarco, President of the International Cooperative Alliance, and other Apex Organizations". The image seems rather Eurocentric and Agricultural. We would go with something more techie and global. Noemi will try to finde another image within the next few days. -Steve, Noemi, Barry, Marcelo, and Colombene

@Steve Ediger (ChiCommons) @Trebor Scholz I'm looking for a better pic -- not easy! Here is one: https://www.stocksy.com/4580843/black-woman-showing-data-to-colleagues, here is another: https://www.stocksy.com/5165357/planet-earth-hud-hologram--digital-data-and-technology-3d-globe?zs=1, and this one: https://www.stocksy.com/4048285/geometric-background-of-connected-lines-and-points?zs=1, this one: https://www.stocksy.com/4479428/business-collaboration-concept or this one: https://www.stocksy.com/4479473/three-hands-and-social-network?zs=1. Thoughts?

@colombene @Marcelo Avelar Cohen see above

The BIPOC women could work!

@Noemi Giszpenc, thank you for searching for a different picture. The theme we are working on in this letter aligns very much with the "Planet Earth Hud Hologram, Digital Data And Technology 3D Globe".

Thanks @Marcelo Avelar Cohen! @Steve Ediger (ChiCommons) , @colombene , @Trebor Scholz , @Thomas van Dijk , @Eu , @Barry Feldman , between the three women and the digital globe images (see above), which do you prefer? I'm inclined to go with the globe one...

@Noemi Giszpenc, I'm new to Loomio, thanks for the call-out! I meant to respond to you but seem to have instead responded to Marcelo.

I feel that both "Planet Earth Hud Hologram ..." and "Three Hands and Social Network ..." are appropriate images to complement the manifesto through abstract representation of global networks and cooperation.

"Business Collaboration Concept ..." makes me uncomfortable since it seems to show white-handed dominance through control of the touch pad.

"Black Women Showing Data ..." conveys cooperation and good feeling but feels too particular in a number of ways, including that of showing a small non-diverse group of people in a private space.

I like "Planet Earth Hud Hologram, Digital Data And Technology 3D Globe". Some of the other images concepts are over-used. This one is about global data and looks fresh.

Thanks @Steve Ediger (ChiCommons). @Trebor Scholz , if you want to move ahead with the Earth Hologram pic, I think there is some consensus for that.

Also, I invited Tom Ivey from dotCoop and Colm Massey from Digital Commons Cooperative to this thread and to review the manifesto. I am hoping that they will like it and want to sign on their organizations. @Trebor Scholz , @Steve Ediger (ChiCommons) , @Thomas van Dijk , @colombene

All good, looks nice! I check with the team of Waag Futurelab if we want to sign. Keep you updated! Is there space for additional feedback on the text or is this it?

@Thomas van Dijk I think we want to keep the text as it is now -- but at the same time, to make this a more participatory process, if you do have feedback that would make it more straightforward to buy in to the final letter, please share it. @Trebor Scholz , this is my first time doing an open letter/manifesto of this kind -- do you have thoughts on the process?

Thanks, Naomi. For an open letter like this, the purpose and audience (the ICA President) really matters. The language should be appropriate for him. We may want to translate it into Spanish as he does not speak English as far as I know.

We want to have a clear and very focused objective and the letter should not be longer than one page. Once we (as many organizations as possible) are on board, we should format the letter professionally, on letterhead, and then email it (but also publish it on the blog).

We should clearly state what we want the ICA to do in the end.

Lastly, we send it to him and then, after 2-3 weeks, follow up.

~ Trebor

@Trebor Scholz and @Noemi Giszpenc -- I don't know where/how you're planning to post the open letter/manifesto, but perhaps a built-in translation tool would increase access? I don't have experience with these, and haven't looked into costs. Back in the early days I used Google Translate for my blog. It didn't get used much (if ever, lol) except by me - and then it required extensive back-translation (going back and forth, phrase by phrase, between two translation tools).

Here's a review article I just found: https://www.unite.ai/best-ai-translation-software-tools/

@Stephanie Jo Kent Thanks, this looks useful!

Sounds good! Waag Futurelab is happy to sign it! Sander van der Waal (research director) would like to be included in the loop if this is send by mail or followed up. ([email protected])

@Thomas van Dijk That's great! Thank you very much.

Hey all, I've started to draft some brief explanatory text to go along with the letter, which we can use in emails or as italicized text above the letter. It's in the riseup pad (at the end) and I'm also pasting it here:

Some context for circulating the letter:

    While technology is changing rapidly, the basic contours of extractive and harmful systems remain the same. Cooperatives have long represented a more humane and responsible way to conduct business, placing people and principles at the heart of their purpose and operations. Today, cooperatives must do everything possible to offer their members ways to conduct business digitally that are in line with cooperative principles. In order to do so successfully, there needs to be focused attention and resources from cooperative apex organizations and from grassroots cooperative efforts, to coordinate, invest, and offer solid alternatives that work for our members. 

    This open letter / manifesto is a joint call from several digital and platform cooperatives and organizations that worked together to formulate our vision of the problem and our suggestions for necessary action. We are continuing to gather signatures and will send this letter to Ariel Guarco, President of the International Cooperative Alliance, on DATE TBD.

@colombene @Steve Ediger (ChiCommons) @Trebor Scholz @Thomas van Dijk What do you think? Should we add whether we are looking for signatures from individuals also, or just organizations?

@Noemi Giszpenc I would actually try to frame it more positively. Almost as if the cooperative way is actually the next way of doing things digitally, but that the cooperative sector needs to buckle up for it. Something like: We've had big centralised platforms using proprietary software but that also laid the foundation for open-source infrastructure. But many of the large central platforms show that they have difficulty to meet local needs, which is not surprising if you press global standards, rules, norms and automations on vastly different communities. Cooperative principles can be build on top of the digital global infrastructures demonstrated by these big proprietary platforms and separate what can be shared worldwide with solutions that need to be adapted in a responsible way to the needs of local communities.

@Thomas van Dijk Thanks, I like the idea of framing things more positively, especially implying that the cooperative way IS the future of digital, but we need to be ready for it. How's this -- I removed the first sentence and added the bolded sentences:

Cooperatives have long represented a more humane and responsible way to conduct business, placing people and principles at the heart of their purpose and operations. In the digital domain, cooperative solutions can respond better to local needs and protect members' interests. We have a lot of hope that the cooperative way of owning and operating platforms is the most sustainable and beneficial option. Today, cooperatives must do everything possible to offer their members ways to conduct business digitally that are in line with cooperative principles. In order to do so successfully, there needs to be focused attention and resources from cooperative apex organizations and from grassroots cooperative efforts, to coordinate, invest, and offer solid alternatives that work for our members. 

@Thomas van Dijk @Trebor Scholz any next steps at the moment? Thomas, what did you think of our edits based on your comments? Trebor, what about swapping out the image on https://platform.coop/blog/open-letter-to-ariel-guarco-president-of-the-international-cooperative-alliance/ for https://www.stocksy.com/5165357/planet-earth-hud-hologram--digital-data-and-technology-3d-globe?zs=1? Happy June!

@Trebor Scholz Looks like this project has stalled a bit. How's this: Data Commons will happily publish the manifesto/open letter as approved, with a form for collecting signatures, using the digital hologram image, on Aug 31. Any issues, please let us know!

sorry didnt reply yet! looks good! Maybe add/rephrase "we have a lot of hope..." --> to "We have a lot of hope, and reason to believe, that the cooperative way of owning and operating platforms is the most sustainable and beneficial way.

@Thomas van Dijk I like that, I'll add it in! Thanks.

Hi everyone, the official page for signatories is live! Here it is: https://datacommons.coop/cooperative-digital-infrastructure-manifesto/. Please sign as individuals and get your organizations to sign on as well. Thank you!

Today, I put notices out to Patio (the international federation of tech cooperatives), NCBA in their co-op circles communications site, USFWC (both to the Tech Peer Network and to the general membership), and an international tech coop meetup in which I participated this morning.

AND GUESS WHAT? We already have signatures rolling in from indivduals, cooperatives and coalitions/federations/apex bodies.

Please sign soon as you'll want to be in the top of the signatory list. We're pushing it all over the place.

Thank you Naomi.Â

Why is the manifesto not really demanding anything in terms of software licenses?

. 2. Call for and support open-source and source-available tech development, based on open standards, to ensure standardization doesn’t pave the way only for commercial platforms.

Corporations like Apple, Amazon and Google, support, develop and release open source software, Microsoft makes Windows source available — as far as I can see, as it stands, the manifesto makes no software license related demands that these corporations don't already comply with?

Shouldn't we be calling for copyleft (and perhaps also copy far left) software licensing? Don't we want to see more co-operation and sharing? None of these corporations support copyleft software licenses because they don't want to be forced into sharing, they want the freedom to be able to privatise code, what is the point of co-ops also advocating for the same thing that the big tech corporations are already doing?

Are people aware of this project and report from 2022?

• Proposal for a Cooperative Model for Digital Infrastructure and Recommendations to Adopt It

I thought this was interesting:

all of the licenses of each of the DI projects made and / or maintained by co-ops have a free, open or public domain license; but above all it says a lot that the vast majority are compatible with the General Public License (GPL). The commitment of the cooperatives to the free and open software movements is evident. Although in some cases they are subject to the requirements of the clients and have to work with proprietary systems, all the DI they make and maintain is free and open.

I’m aware. We did that research at my coop :)

I have read most of the thread and consider the following as my opinion based on the research we made plus what I understand is part of the discussion here.

Cooperatives as you know not only develop free and/or open source software. Many develop closed source too, for varied reasons. The software that the report refers to is a particular type of software that is considered Digital Infrastructure (definition in the report). We found 21 projects like this made by 12 coops and the majority of that is compatible with GPL; the rest has other open-source licenses. It is not all of the software that these coops do not all of the software developed by all tech-coops.

Now going back to the manifesto-open-letter. I understand that non-tech coops specially big coops like big credit unions, retail stores and the like pay software development firms (not always coops, probably in very few cases) to develop their custom software (banking, online stores, erps, etc) and this is often licensed as closed-source (surely for varied reasons also).

I think that if one of the intentions of the manifesto-open-letter is that the ICA and other apex organizations promote and support in whatever way they can the development of free and or open-sources software among bigger coops, whether these coops paying for the development of new software or customizing already available free software and this results in GPL compatible software that can be shared between smaller coops in their same sector, it would be a big improvement in relation to what I can see that we have now. Whether the manifesto-open-letter asks for a more far-left license that would have to be considered taking into account the particular reasons big coops have chosen to do it like they have so far and I don’t have first hand information from their part on this. That would be good to know.

In summary, I consider this manifesto has its particular destination and what I would change only would be to add free to open-source and leave both options open but I would not stop it if it’s underway, I prefer to move it forward.

If "source available" stays in it then I won't support any co-op or network of co-ops I'm involved with putting their name to this statement.

When a precious few of us started developing this, we realized that it would only be a start. We did not expect to get embroiled in a controversy about software licensing. Jorge, thank you for your voice; it does reflect where we intended to get to at this early time in the discussion. @Chris Croome (Webarchitects Co-operative) would you accept the following? "Call for and support tech development, based on open standards, to ensure standardization doesn’t pave the way only for commercial platforms." It's rather late to be changing the language of the manifesto, as we would need to contact all those that signed and get their consent to make that change. We hope to get this out in time for Mr Guarco to implement these issues in his remaining term.

@steveedigerchicomm Yes I would, however if you are going to ask all the organisations and co-ops that have already signed to agree a different wording why don't you also ask them if they would agree to the document being improved with a wording something like this?

Call for and support free libre open-source tech development, based on open standards, to ensure standardization doesn’t pave the way only for commercial platforms.

This discussion appears not to be going anywhere but for the sake of clarity I'd like to point out that further up this thread @Trebor Scholz said on the 11th April 2023:

I'd add to point 2) "Call for and support open-source and source available tech development, based on open standards, to ensure standardisation doesn't pave the way only for commercial platforms." [added "source available"].

And the next day, on the 12th:

I’d include a call for open source but also consider advocating for source available software with a peer production license.

The term "source available" is a term used to describe code bases such as Microsoft Windows where as "source available software with a peer production license" covers things like the CoopCycle code base, these are very different things, one is the product of one of the richest corporations on the planet and the other is the product of a small workers co-operative, I would suggest that this group need to be clear and concise in the use of these terms in the manifesto in order that it is not misunderstood, currently this is not the case.

@Chris Croome (Webarchitects Co-operative) Thanks. So what I understand from Wikipedia is that there's source available software that is Free and/or OS compatible but other is not:

Free software and/or open-source software is also always source-available software, but not all source-available software is also free software and/or open-source software.

So it's better to be precise on this.

@Jorge so what is to be done as the current wording:

open-source and source-available

precisely means:

1. Excluding Free software, I know open source encompass Free software but when open source is used without the Free part it implies opposition to CopyLeft licenses like the GPL and AGPL, whereas these are one of the types of licenses that we should be promoting as they prevent code from being made proprietary and enforce sharing. This is why the big corporations like Apple and Google hate the AGPL and why the co-operative movement should be supporting strong CopyLeft licenses.

2. Endorsing the moves away from open source licenses that we have seen happen with MongoDB, Elasticsearch and most recently Terraform, these moves by private corporations should not have the support of the co-operative movement, but calling for source-available reads as if the co-operative movement should be supporting this.

If the Cooperative Digital Infrastructure Manifesto is supposed to be a call for co-operation and sharing then it should be calling for the use of CopyLeft and Peer Production licenses, currently it doesn't do this, it calls for the style of software licensing that has been embraced by some of the biggest capitalist corporations on the planet -- I'm afraid to say that as it stands it is not deserving of support.

@Chris Croome (Webarchitects Co-operative)

The thing is that there is not a previous consensus on software licensing from all tech-coops. I’ve seen some doubts and skepticism but also assumptions on both sides (so to say) that don’t hold on different contexts. Guess there are varied reasons for this as many as different coops there are but without a more organized deliberation and a coordinated plan it's hard to know. In my opinion, for now it’s good to carry on with the formation of spaces where it can be discussed further without narrowing too much to where each of us draw the line too early. For me it’s good to leave free and open-source software and/or add peer production license to source available.

There are also other good things in the letter that could even help in that direction:

“Create knowledge and support hub(s) that educate cooperators and developers on these issues, and that cooperatives can turn to for finding open-source solutions and asking questions concerning the use of them.”

For me it’s good to leave free and open-source software and/or add peer production license to source available.

That is fine but clearly this is not what the current Cooperative Digital Infrastructure Manifesto calls for, the current formulation is totally different, free has been omitted and so has peer production and this results in a totally different meaning:

Call for and support open-source and source-available tech development

As I have been trying to explain, open-source and free open-source are different, the latter is generally used to include copyleft whereas the former is used to exclude it and using the term source-available without the clarification that this is referring to a peer production license such as the coopcycle one makes it a call for co-ops to support proprietary software development.

A Manifesto with wording so sloppy that it can not only be easily misunderstood and misinterpreted but actually appears to have a very different meaning than the writers of it intended is not helpful, it is potentially harmful.

I'm also in favour of a discussion within the co-operative movement regarding source code licensing, this is why we have had a category for this on the CoTech forum since 2019.

@Jorge and @Chris Croome (Webarchitects Co-operative) Thanks for continuing this discussion. It's a key issue that we need to address. Given that we have a goal of gettting this INITIAL draft to ICA and other APEX organizations and federations shortly after October 31st, it's probably not possible to change the language on this version at this point. So Chris, you'll not sign this version. Thanks for your signature Jorge, and I hope to see you this week at our Patio Big Picture and Coordination meeting.

I would encourage you to continue and broaden the discussion in this and other forums, so that we can come to some consensus on the next version of the Cooperative Digital Infrastructure Manifesto.

@Steve Ediger (ChiCommons) it would be far better to get the wording right, rather than submitting bad wording, currently it reads as if it is a call for co-operatives to oppose copyleft and support open-source and proprietary software development and I don't believe this is your aim is it?

@Chris Croome (Webarchitects Co-operative) thanks for your suggestions and pressing on this. At this point, I would have to say that the language in the manifesto has to stay for this round. If that means that you will not support it, that's your decision. I would support adding language to the letter of introduction accompanying this manifesto to surface that there is not consensus on the language "open-source and source-available" and that it will be addressed in future versions of the manifesto.

Having been following this thread with interest, here's a possible suggestion for a way forward that might enable wider support:

The manifesto text as it currently stands would in my view be clearer if the 5 "ideas" were removed from the manifesto statement, and instead added as an accompanying/supporting 'discussion document' or similar, as a potentially useful guidance note to suggest to readers/adopters possible ways that they could take action in support of the manifesto.

This would not change the thrust or text of the primary manifesto statement - in my view it strengthens it - but would disengage it from the 5 idea statements (which, in my view don't really fit in a manifesto anyway).

I would be very surprised if any of the current - relatively small number of - signatories would take exception to such a technical/structural modification given that all of the so far agreed wording remains intact, and it could also be made clear in an introductory note that it is hoped and expected that more contributions will be received, both in terms of developing the manifesto itself into a successor version, and in terms of refining/improving and expanding on the 'ideas'' piece. In this way, others could support the cleaner manifesto text whilst at the same time not being tied to the additional ideas, some or all of which they may not agree with for a whole range of reasons, including the very important issues around licensing.

I would go further and suggest that such an approach would be much more likely to gain wider support for the manifesto. If I were a major cooperative apex organisation I would be very wary of signing up to a manifesto that explicitly talked about the creation of "knowledge and support hubs" - not because they are not a good idea (they may well be), but because there is then an expectation that my organisation will create such a hub when I very likely don't have the budget or capacity to do so.

@Graham This sounds like a good idea. @Chris Croome (Webarchitects Co-operative) @Jorge @Steve Ediger (ChiCommons) , what do you think?

My main concern is that the current version of the manifesto contains a call regarding software licensing, that is a call for "open-source and source-available tech development" and this doesn't appear to be a wording that reflects the discussion the group developing the manifesto had — peer-production and free have been omitted, the result being a text which calls for something that nobody is willing to justify other than to say that it "has to stay" because people have signed it already, I think this is an absurd situation and that supporting it as it stands is potentially harmful and therefore the individuals and organisations who have signed it should withdraw their signatures and others should not sign it.

@Chris Croome (Webarchitects Co-operative) If you think having those words will bring more signatures we could try but sadly I don't see much support for free software from coops really. At least not from the majority and with enough push. Hope we can move in that direction though. I can sign both ways anyways. What I think is most important is to move forward on any consensus and coordination attempts that we may have.

I don't see much support for free software from coops really

I know, even most tech co-ops in the UK are totally dependant on services, platforms and software from the planets biggest capitalist corporations — for example AWS, Google Workspace, Office 365 etc. — I'm keen to work with other co-operators to try to turn this around, the sharing and commons aspects of copyleft software appear to me to fit well with the core principle of cooperativism and they should be working together.

@Chris Croome (Webarchitects Co-operative) Completely agree with that. I'm happy to join in any attempts to improve that.

Idk, I think what is causing doubts is calling it a manifesto. Why would we remove the practical steps to take if those are the ones that we need apex organizations support from?

@Jorge I don't think it matters what you call it, if you want cooperators to support it then it needs to be supportable. I've suggested that including a call for support hubs might make some orgs wary of lending their support. @Chris Croome (Webarchitects Co-operative) makes a pretty clear argument about one of the other 'practical steps' - suggesting that it is in effect counter-productive. That's two decent reasons for taking specific asks out of the core statement.

@Graham I don't understand how proposing practical steps can be counter-productive. I think that is the problem with many initiatives that call for any kind of good-willed demands but without proposing how to achieve them. They usually fall short

@Jorge In my experience many so-called apex organisations have very limited resources, for example to fund or otherwise practically support the creation of things like a knowledge and support hub (whatever that might look like in practice. I'm sure that's not true across the board, but it should be recognised. It's certainly the case with orgs like the ICA and Cooperatives Europe. The main power of many of these organisations is often the ability to convene. If the call asks them to support a statement that implicitly includes the creation of these hubs, then by supporting the statement, they are implicitly supporting the creation of the hubs, thereby creating - albeit unwittingly - an expectation among their constituents that a hub will be created.

In order to counter that expectation, the apex org has two options from what I can see. It can choose to say something like "we support the manifesto but we need to make clear that we ain't about to create a hub" - but where's the PR win for them in making such a statement? It doesn't work. The other alternative is to ignore the whole thing.

By removing the specific asks from the core statement, it makes it a lot easier for these orgs to express their support.

And as an added bonus, it removes the unhelpful and vague ask about open source which is clearly highly contentious.

@Graham I guess they have a limited budget, some more than others, but I see organizations such as ICA, CICOPA and the like organize events, do campaigning on different issues, update their web-portals and publish materials frequently. I don't know why this can't be done for supporting the actions on the letter.

This is a good introductory article on the differences between open source and source available and so forth:

https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/27/open_source_vs_sort_of_open_source/

thanks for the invite to join this group @Steve Ediger (ChiCommons) !

Folks at CoLab were excited to read and sign onto the manifesto, and have been exploring many of the concepts and needs that were presented in it for awhile. We'd love to figure out how we can advance some of these goals, especially around how we can build useful tech and digital tools that cooperatives and values-aligned groups can benefit from in an open-source ecology and eliminating financial and technical barriers to do so.

For instance, we build lots of amazing bespoke tools for clients, but there are so many more groups that would benefit from using similar tech, and we'd like to see these tools we build be more widely available for different folks. We'd love to stay connected to this effort and support as we are able. And we'll be curious to know more about where this goes and who else signs onto the effort.

Best,

David Abramson

My experience is that a lot of folks who pay for us to build them tech, apps, tools, etc. are hesitant to build using an open-source license. I'm sure there are some folks here who understand this better than I do, but I know, as @Trebor Scholz pointed out in the PCC brainstorming call yesterday that there are legitimate reasons to not want to completely go open-source, and there are probably also many dogmas and cultural constructs that would be best to do away with in the name of building cooperative tech infrastructure. But I think that finding the best way to address this problem and get buy-in from the folks who make these projects happen (by funding and commissioning them) would go a long way. Curious to hear other folks thoughts on this, and sorry if this is not the right place to pose these ideas - I'm new here! :D

Hi everyone, we had a good discussion about all this at the DCC board meeting today, and here is what we propose:

We would like to have a discussion on this Loomio thread, between now and 5 pm UTC December 1, about moving forward thusly:

• removing the language "open-source and source-available" from idea 2 in the Manifesto

• Idea 2 would now read "Call for and support tech development based on open standards, to ensure standardization doesn’t pave the way only for commercial platforms."

• If there is consensus here on this Loomio thread with that change, after the deadline, we would make the change on the Manifesto page and send out "opt-out" emails to all current signatories, alerting them to the change and telling them that unless we hear from them by Dec 31 we will keep their signature when delivering the letter.

Please make your views on this way of moving forward known! Thanks so much!

@Trebor Scholz @Chris Croome (Webarchitects Co-operative) @Steve Ediger (ChiCommons) @Thomas van Dijk @Jorge @David Abramson @Graham @LA Simons

I think it is better without the contentious call for the use of source-available licenses, however I don't think it is much of a Cooperative Digital Infrastructure Manifesto if it doesn't make any call around licenses, is the intention to remove any reference to licenses as an interim measure and to then have more discussion and add something back that does cover licenses or is this topic going to be one that this group isn't prepared to engage with in the future?

Yes, it would be our intention to remove this language temporarily to continue getting signatures and add some version back after discussion and consensus.

In fact, I'm inclined to rename this Cooperative Digital Infrastructure Manifesto v1.0 and then begin work immediately on a Cooperative Digital Infrastructure Manifesto v2.0 so that we can expand and deepen our common understanding of the needs.

Seeing as there seems to be agreement about removing the "open-source and source-available" language from Idea 2, we're going to go ahead and do that. We hope that more people will feel comfortable signing on now!

Hi all, I just learned about this via an update sent to the social coop loomio group.

I'm curious if anyone involved in this project is working on translation capabilities, so that the information about it -- and more importantly the infrastructure itself -- doesn't require English fluency?

I know code has largely been developed by the English-speaking world, but we're a small percentage of the world's population (with disproportionate power).

@Stephanie Jo Kent That would be a great feature of code and platforms built by and for cooperators. Right now, we have the manifesto in Spanish (see https://datacommons.coop/es/manifiesto-de-cooperativo-infraestructura-digital/), but we don't have a translation of this Loomio thread into any other languages. Do you know of tech infrastructure that would allow that?

@Noemi Giszpenc - hi Noemi, no - I'm not aware of any.

It's a conversation that needs to be grown. There are already AI architectures that are being used (especially in business localization) - most of which still require a human-in-the-loop - however, the accuracy rate is now basically equivalent to human translations. Not for all languages, only the select few deemed "large" or "influential" enough.

The need is real. And the potential seems massive. Auto-translation of Twitter from Ukrainian into other European languages is what pressured the EU to get involved. I'm not thrilled that the primary example is military, but it makes the point. When we (the general citizenry) understand and can communicate with each other easily across languages, this leads to new alliances.

Hi All,

I'm very happy to have discovered this thread and the work on the Manifesto [thanks @Noemi Giszpenc ;) ]

the open letter to the ICA reads like it was specifically designed to get the ICA to support Murmurations (and other projects!) so it is music to our ears - I have signed up.

Murmurations is an open protocol (which we have been developing for 3 years) which enables easy sharing of data across platforms - making it interoperable with data from other networks...

We have developed a range of tools which are all open source and free to use, to help you map your networks, build directories, share offers and wants and any other kind of open data...

We're running a demo on the 16th Jan - please join if you would like to learn more.

We will be demonstrating the new Wordpress Plugins we have developed, which show how co-ops can connect and share more with each other, by bypassing the big tech giants - i.e. the perfect answers to points 1, 2 and 3 in the open letter ;)

In cooperation!

Oli

Hello @Oli SB and everyone, my neighbors in our small town in Japan are considering proposing for https://dataempowerment.fund/#open-call , based on the idea of town mapping, promoting democratic and vibrant town building through community control of data. (@Oli SB, I will contact you separately on this!)

I have known about this initiative through @Steve Ediger (ChiCommons), but I feel that instead of singling out and asking the ICA to take action, it's more effective to establish a democratic institution and invite any interested party, including potentially the ICA?

Maybe I am lacking some background knowledge but just wanted to share with you my impession!

Hi @Yasuaki Kudo - thanks for the info and your email, I tried to reply but messages to your @yasuaki.com address seem to be bouncing back for me... :(

Dear Noemi, I already signed the manifesto but I see the last posts are form February this year, I don´t know where is the actual discussion. By the way, I would like to know where did you got my name and interest?

Thank you very much!,

Martha Giraldo

MINGAnet ( http://www.minganet.org/ ) coordinator

De: Noemi Giszpenc (via Loomio)
Enviado el: domingo, 29 de septiembre de 2024 3:09 p. m.
Para: [email protected]
Asunto: [cooperative-digital-infrastructure] Manifesto for sharing and commons

@Martha Giraldo Hi, Sorry, I did not see this post earlier. I'm not sure how we got connected, but thank you for joining! We are intending to deliver this manifesto/open letter this month at the International Cooperative Alliance meeting in New Delhi.

Greetings. We have not been very active on this channel, because we've been out gathering signatures. Here's the tally as of this moment, and more individuals, cooperatives and federations are signing on daily.

We are pleased to announce that we are arranging to deliver the manifesto in person to Mr Guarco at the International Cooperative Alliance General Conference (25-30 November 2024).

This signifies only the beginning of our work. This call will be followed up with actions and opportunities to get involved in building technology for the ecosystem. Also, we'll be starting on follow-up actions and a new version of the manifesto, with more teeth, and to a larger set of stakeholders.

The UN has declared 2025 as the International Year of the Cooperative. We believe that technology cooperatives can provide the tools to make 2025 truly the International Year of the Cooperative.