Hi @strypey good to hear from you thanks. This thread has been quiet but may warm up soon bcos we’re (fingers crossed) close to a working solution, in a partnership with WebTV @gcotnoir . Then we’ll be able to begin assessing here, what worked in meet. coop v1.0, and what was an aspiration too far. This would include reflecting on ‘architectural’ dimensions like you’re highlighting here. Basically what’s in formation is not dissimilar to the back-end/front-end distributed economy of attention you’re sketching. However, ‘contracts’ are problematic bcos meet. coop v1.0 has no formal coop entity - it’s pure voluntary FLOSS-style federation (!). And the viability of the front-end community-facing activity as a distinct economy of contributions (aka a coop with paid workers) is in question: see below.
I hope we can post more on this soon, and discuss it here: there’s plenty of learning to harvest. See also this thread: Evolution #2 - Infrastructuring through federating. You might want to drop in at this point Evolution #2 - Infrastructuring through federating - #16 by mikemh
For now here’s a recent clip from the private thread of the @evolution team of Ops and Board people.
@flancian enquired:
I’m unsure on the coop and governance “modes” being discussed and the tradeoffs involved; is there a document analyzing pros/cons?
Part of my response was:
My perception: our situation seems more to be that we have little scope for choice, and must adopt what is practicable for WebTV, platformwise, membershipwise. The supply of governance time/headspace/communication bandwidth in the community - and even, of internal ops time/headspace/comms bandwidth - is manifestly pretty thin now. … So migrating our membership into a modified (re-badged) version of one of WebTV’s current services… seems the most hopeful path right now…
The tradeoff basically - a big one - is that we adopt a ‘passive consumer platform coop’ model for meet. coop v2.0 and cease to pursue some original aims of v1.0: federated provisioning of infrastructure, active community strategic dialogue (via the forum) across diverse segments of membership, multistakeholder governance practice,
commons.hourvenue space. What we retain is FLOSS toolstack, coop governance form, provisioning infrastructure through livelihood work at a fair wage. That’s significant.
That’s just a sketch, hopefully more texture soon. Basically (my perception) we’ve flatlined on attention - both front-end community-facing and back-end tech. Too many key people have too many competing commitments - which prominently include earning steady family income. We now need to do something simple and stable to continue to provide User members with a sustainable coop FLOSS service. I hope we’re almost there. Then we can do some retrospective strategic philosophising around federated coop-commons infrastructure and transformative movement organising!