List of Operational Members


We never formally voted on Operational Memberships since we decided on its criteria. As a result, some orgs/people who have been participating are left in a “kind of a member” state… so I proposed to formally vote this in on here.

Operational Members

  • Autonomic Co-operative (40h from Luke)
  • (50-100€/month for renting servers + hours from Petter)
  • Digital Life Collective (2x E5440 @ 2.83GHz (8 core) 16GiB ram 2TB machine at
  • femProcomuns (40h from Wouter, David)
  • Hypha (40h from Ben, Yurko, Elon)
  • Webarchitects (40h from Chris, Graham)
  • The Open Co-op (40h from Oli)
  • Koumbit (production server discounts + hours from Sébastien)
  • Collocall (software and server management services + hours from Henning)
  • @melissamcnab (individual, 40h)
  • @Yasuaki (individual, 40h)

This list is based on Governance Model and adding @melissamcnab, Koumbit, The Open Coop, and Collocall, who have indicated their interest in becoming an Operational Member.

These are some orgs/individuals that I believe are not Operational Members:

  • Animorph Co-op (€500, User Member)
  • Free Knowledge Institute (€500, User Member)
  • May First Movement Technology (£225, User Member)
  • Mike Hales (individual, €120 + hours, User Member)
  • Agile collective (unclear membership)
  • Remix the Commons (unclear membership)

If I missed anything please comment below and I can update the list here.


  • Agree
  • Abstain
  • Block

0 voters

I would like to be ‘Operational Member’ - 40hours :smile: - Yasu (Sorry I thought I was? I have been in Product and Technology circles)

1 Like

Yes I think you are eligible, but last time we were on this topic you said you prefer to observe for now so I wasn’t sure. Thanks for confirming here. Updated.


Understood, sorry for confusion :sweat_smile:

1 Like

I love the tidying and clarification of who is which type of Member - this is good work :slight_smile: I have been trying to do this on the server too - and have created a matching spreadsheet of Members here in NextCloud which I hope we can ALL use as THE master list of Membership.

But I’m not entirely clear hat we are voting on here…?
I don’t think we need a vote about who is a Member… we should be able to figure that out by who has paid / is contributing…

If the votes is about the criteria for becoming an Operational Member then I would suggest it is titled as such and contains the full ‘proposed’ text, and is not conflated with who is currently in / out of Membership. For example, in the thread you linked to above I am not sure we ever got to the bottom of whether it should be a €500 or 1000 one-off contribution? So I think all proposals need to contain the full text of the proposal to make it really clear what we are voting on. Another example: in the thread on Membership Wouter refers to a “Permanent Assembly” - and the “All Hands” meeting - but I have no idea what the “Permanent Assembly” is!? - this makes our Org inaccessible to others, and it harder to get involved, so I’d also suggest any and all terms which are not 100% obvious need clarifying too…

1 Like

I would like this we to be a formal vote here because we are essentially voting ourselves in to bootstrap. Also when we voted to add Collocall at an all hands, @wouter claimed that he would’ve preferred that these membership additions be voted formally on the forum.

This is not voting on the criteria, but the actual list of members. The criteria was formerly voted in here. I understand the wiki contains a modified version @wouter posted, and in the thread I disagreed with the process it was modified and think we need to formally vote in those amendments, €500 vs. €1000, but that’s an aside.

I have a link to a previous decision on the criteria, there is a clear record trail. I don’t expect to reproduce the entire text here.

We need to designate a place for final and current records. That place is the wiki. Forum threads contain in-progress terms (e.g. Producer, Permanent Assembly) and is a point of confusion.

  1. This is why it’s especially important to not modify text when we move final agreed text to wiki, because then it defeats the whole purpose of our consent process.

  2. I have made a point about using consistent and exact words across spaces, and have been going into our tools to update outdated references (e.g. you will see Producers text is now Operational Members). This is a futile feat if we don’t collective adopt this practice.

We can call it either All Hands or Permanent Assembly, but not whatever you want when you want.


thanks @benhylau
I’d like to make one correction wrt FKI:

With FKI we have expressed the commitment to be Operational Member and contribute 500€ + 20 hours (of Wouter). This covers work for the first grant proposal we submitted for in July. The idea is that FKI could continue be active in The Netherlands to mobilise its network and find new targets to join


Thanks for clarifying. So you are both femProcomuns and FKI, whereas David is only femProcomuns, and the intention is for both to independently be Operational Members right?

By the way, many people raised concerns around this list an the process, so @Graham is working on a new (pending) process that we will first adopt. This proposal thread itself will be moved to the #decisions:rejected category once we decide the new process will supercede this.

1 Like

David and myself are in both FKI and femProcomuns. FKI is a foundation in the Netherlands with a mission to spread “free-as-in-freedom knowledge and technology” and femProcomuns is a multistakeholder cooperative we’ve set up between several people and organisations in Barcelona. My plan is to work with femProcomuns to spread in Catalonia/Spain and with FKI in The Netherlands and possibly Italy where one of our teams is active.
Note that femProcomuns and FKI were among the first organisations to set up

I totally agree that we need a more structured process for new operational members to join.