thanks, @benhylau! By changing the event we lost last weekās event. Maybe for next time we could open a new topic with the event?
I will see you in a few hours then, looking forward.
thanks, @benhylau! By changing the event we lost last weekās event. Maybe for next time we could open a new topic with the event?
I will see you in a few hours then, looking forward.
I just started drafting a proposal for that āone-pagerā (or two pages if needs be ;-)) on a pad. Itās co-creation, please jump in, or if you consider weād better do it different, go ahead. During the meeting we can tweak and afterwards we can move it into the wiki.
https://pad.femprocomuns.cat/meetcoop-model
After 24 hours gestation I feel that although we had a good meeting yesterday : and clarified some dimensions, we havenāt yet nailed the complex relationships between
I feel what matters most is how things look from the user end - the account-holding organisationās admin role. But we spend so much time - for understandable reasons - focusing on server admin and software tool behaviour on the server, rather than account admin and platform-facilitated capability out there in the world of non-geek cooperators (= āuse casesā).
I feel we need to develop a well-matched three-way focus on
Some gloss on all of this will be needed to make a convincing marketing pitch to early-adopter account-holder members in the alpha phase - bcos its the whole vision and long-term intention (and ability to contribute to this) that will attract the kinds of collaborating/coproducing participants that we need in the medium and long term (ie for beta relaunch). We would need to be able, for example, to have a discussion around this with MayFirst, or social.coop. Or the (UK) Coop University. All, significant potential users of meet.coop accounts, all quite large and complex, all wanting more than just a room or two occasionally.
The front-office stuff is about ensuring reliable service delivery according to fair-use service-level agreements, for paying account holders: so that when they turn the tap on, water comes out. Even among committed ānew economyā activists, this is what account holders mostly will want - they said this at Open2020. They might be willing to pay premium, crowdfunder rates for services. This is basically āconsumer coopā stuff.
The back-office stuff is about nitty-gritty worker coop coproduction, teamwork and capability to nail operational problems, evolve better working arrangements, and meet actual user needs thro multi-stakeholder co-design of nonāgeek oriented digital tool bundles. In familiar coop terms this is basically worker-coop culture - this makes meet.coop mutli-stakeholder, with heavy worker loading.
The assembly stuff is about stewarding commons of digital infrastructure, and their strategic contribution to an evolving commons-cooperative economy . . which is all a new kind of practice (beyond typical coop scope), and needs puzzling out.
All of this is basic launch pitch? The practice will take years to evolve but the picture is short-term urgent, to bring in the early-adopter visionary-contributors, to become development partners (back-office coproducers) for the long haul?
If this seems like an issue in Thursdayās meeting, Iād be willing to do a presentation-for-starters that attempts to (visually) pinpoint these things, and with others here, to co-host a 90min discussion session (maybe Sunday/Monday?). If this seems too āfutureā oriented rather than ānowā . . Iāll shut up and stop striving for design-thro-protocols (to enable organisation-hacking in the medium term) as distinct from a short-term āalpha stack-hackā to get some users on the servers and money in the kitty.
I consolidated what we discussed so far, and from yesterdayās meeting, into this that I hope to receive feedback on Thursday. If we can get this sorted, we can move on to drafting what our Circles are and decision-making and voting in the next Governance meeting.
Meet.coop, The Online Meeting Co-operative, is a meeting and conferencing platform powered by BigBlueButton, stewarded by co-operatives across the world.
We have two types of membershipsāOperational Members and Beneficiary Members. One may apply to one or both membership types as an organization or as an individual.
Operational Members steward all operational aspects of Meet.coop.
Beneficiary Members use the Meet.coop platform for internal meetings or resell Greenlight accounts.
All membership starts with an application to contact@meet.coop. Upon approval, in addition to the responsibilities and rights for the type of membership, the new member may also participate in the Assembly, Forum, and other member spaces. All memberships carry voting rights with voting strengths as according to membership type and level of participation.
Currently, the following organizations and individuals meet the application criteria above based on Contributions page:
The following organizations and individuals are unclear:
SĆ©bastien, Melissa, and Yasu are all involved, itās just unclear from the Contributions page whether they intend to commit to the threshold of being an Operational Member.
really liking this
not sure if u missed The Open Co-op or left it out for some reason?
Think we need to define what a All Hands meeting isā¦?
Not sure about the ā¬ levels or where these came from / what they are based onā¦?
I was not assuming that an individual Beneficiary member got anything other than a room to make video callsā¦ i.e. they might just pay ā¬10/month as per What services can we offer from 1st July 2020? (not needing to commit to ā¬200 / year - this is too much it will put individuals off ) - plus they donāt need reseller abilitiesā¦ etc
I am basing most data on Contributions page on wiki. Thatās why The Open Co-op isnāt in there, we can easily clear that up. The orgs are for example, as I imagine contributors like Melissa would also qualify, just not evident based on the wiki pageās info.
The All Hands is meet.coop - The Online Meeting Cooperative but we can change the cadence later.
Operations Member ā¬500 also from the wiki, and for Beneficiary Members I feel the barrier to entry can be low as involves a rev share. This also allows us to honour our commitment to May First.
Then they are not a member. Instead, they should register an account resold by a Beneficiary Member. Meet.coop doesnāt want to manage all these little accounts (@chrisā point all along).
This is looking really good to me @benhylau - more heroic labour Hope youāre logging hours on these key contributions?
This goes a long way to resolving what above I called front office issues - service levels remain the key thing to be defined there? So yes, we then can focus in on back office (circle work organisation and priorities) and assembly protocols (all-hands weekly, discourse forum, annual confluence, etc).
When we have a one-pager in each area, we can then expect to seriously recruit membership, and have proper discussions with organisations that have already become Beneficiary members (eg MayFirst) to clarify our relationship. With these early adopters, it will be important to recruit them to our medium-to long term development purposes (an economic capability project) and not just to ad-hoc room use. They will be our prime source of outcome-oriented back office volunteer workers, and medium-term steering at circle and assembly levels.
In this draft I feel only one area needs critical focus and that is reselling. I think we should not leave any door open to profit making on the back of our precious server infrastructure and back-office labour. I feel it should be dedicated for the use of movement and coop organisations in enabling federated coworking, as part of a distinctive economic project, and not seep into the gig economy or private enterprise.
I also believe reselling should be under the meet.coop brand and meet.coop governance - so reselling would be on an āagency basisā, I guess, as a federated arm of the meet.coop project rather than some other kind of project. Discussion with ppl like MayFirst would be important in getting this right? They would have a very firm stance on roots community support, private profit and federation, for example.
Great groundwork ben
Yep. Cascade this down to a beneficiary member.
Hypha members are tracking time here Time tracking with Kimai - #7 by benhylau someday I may have to import into the Meet.coop thing
Yup! I agree. I think we can even encode this into the Fair Use Policy. e.g. never sell service to Amazon and fascists. Until we have this codified, I think we should trust Beneficiary Members, by approving only value-aligned membership applicants. Later, we can be more specific.
By yea, I agree one key discussion point is service levels and restrictions around reselling so it doesnāt become a price competition (at the moment we fix the service levels everyone must adopt, but clearly they are too restrictive) or private enterprise (how do we share the clients).
Looking forward to cancelling my Zoom account this week, on the basis of member status now being clear. Actually, Iām an organisation/beneficiary in this context (Living Economy college network) rather than an individual worker member. Waiving a complimentary account as an operational member (committed 40 hours) with a ā¬120 annual crowdfunding contribution to the project. (my organisational Zoom subscription).
[Edit] Were going to need some clear book keeping, straight away. The contribution accounting circle needs to kick in asap?
On Matrix chat I asked @hng:
I wonder if this thinking around membership could work for you Governance Model - #53 by benhylau obv thereās a line between ācollocall businessā vs. āmeet.coop businessā as you have own well developed pipeline alrdy
His response was:
Yes Iāve just read it and I think this would work for us
@mikemh do you want to take a stab at drafting out the circles here before the meeting? Like names + one sentence to describe scope of responsibilities. I feel like you have some ideas on what they would be. Maybe having this in the meeting notes will help us concretize what āCirclesā are and how together they will serve all of Meet.coop operations.
Hey @benhylau, great work for drafting this text! I think things are getting much clearer now. Although I also would like to point out some aspects that Iām not confident with:
ābeneficiary memberā was proposed by @mike last Tuesday IIRC as a substitution of āconsumer memberā. @osb wasnāt happy with that term, so old skool, right? And I think most agreed with that, so we had the option of āUser Membersā reflecting the USAGE. After a night sleep or two I must say the term ābeneficiaryā can refer to many things that are now user related. Parties in a grant proposal are also considered ābeneficiariesā and that has to do with their paid work in the contract. Rather different from āusersā or those who benefit from a service.
Now I read your proposal of what Beneficiary membership entails and I got more confused:
In my understanding, but maybe wrongly understood, those organisational members contributing work actively, be it in DevOps or in attracting and onboarding new members, should be in the same class, what we now call āOperational membersā and previously āproduction membersā.
The User Members, or maybe Beneficiary members (but Iām not convinced about that term) is for organisations and people willing to enjoy the services and maybe participate a little but donāt take responsibility for real work to produce whatever it takes to make this project sustainable in the long run.
Iād suggest we define it like this:
User Members use the services of the Meet.coop platform
The aspects you describe about reselling I think should go to Operational Members willing to be resellers.
How do you feel about this? I know Iām a stubborn Dutch engineer But with good arguments I can adjust as well, hehe.
I have worked on the One-Pager in the pad, adding an Intro on our sustainability model:
https://pad.femprocomuns.cat/meetcoop-model
There is still a lot to refine/reach consensus on, and especially the Reselling & Room provisioning isnāt described all too well, if anyone can contribute there, thatād be wonderful.
First stab, seven circles . .
[Edit] Maybe also
I would also suggest to limit reselling (of individual accounts?) to operational members.
Oh and I should also add that this all looks so much clearer now than a few weeks ago, congrats and thank you all for your work
Thanks for these comments. As we discussed in the meeting, where everyone is onboard with @wouterās revision, and along with a couple small things others mentioned, I will adjust the text and move this into a new voting thread.
Which Circles do the following work, just so I am clear
I propose this as a topic for next weekās discussion.
I have integrated all the feedback and setup a vote. Since we have not decided on formal voting mechanisms yet, or even membership, I am just allowing everyone on this forum to vote.
If you are not familiar with this type of voting, Agree means you like the plan, Abstain means whatever yāall decide Iām fine with, and Block means I am unhappy with it and we need to discuss more. This is consensus-based language and is not a majority-win vote, so if you are Blocking please write a message underneath as to why and how we can make you happy with it. Thanks!