You may remember a while back I introduced myself and my idea for “Strategic Unions”, a type of worker cooperative that utilizes a hierarchical management structure for productive work, hopefully allowing some co-ops to grow into the larger, industrialized enterprises that a modern economy needs.
However, because the management model prioritizes worker-owner well-being and equity over profits, there will hopefully be a tendency toward socially and ecologically beneficial production projects.
To implement this management model I’ve got a repository and a project homepage at https://apoideaerp.org/. The project is currently aimed at the US, but it will support all currencies so I would welcome international forks to meet any other requirements that may come up for your region or country.
Pages with content include the Homepage, Dashboard, Settings, Documents, and everything in the footer. Most of the other pages are yet to be development and you will instead see a template with development instructions. The Terms of Use are short, as plain as I could make them, and include a glossary that can be helpful when reading the rest of the content.
Right now I’m hoping to start raising some donations so that I can pay others (you?) to help me with the development effort, and that can include outreach efforts. I’ll be updating the matrix chat periodically with fundraising records, and I won’t be paying myself unless the project starts to take on a significant amount of money.
Thanks for checking the project out, I look forward to reading your feedback!
There’s not one particular use-case for it. The first version of the software will just be the minimum viable product, think accounting+voting+projects. Later on I want to develop add-on modules like Logistics and Manufacturing (batch control) to increase the scope of the software.
To view the current list of possible modules check out the last section of the Development Plan on the documents page: Apoidea ERP
EDIT: Let’s see if it’s pastes in ok
Manufacturing and batch control module: Complexity: Medium/High
Logistics and shipping module: Complexity: Medium/High
My question was if there was a real coop that you thought could run this software. If I recall right, the aim is to use this system to run large businesses cooperatively, so I was wondering if you had a particular large business in mind as the first one to try it. Obviously it’s a bit chicken-and-egg because this tool is designed to enable it, but I wondered what the plan was there. Is it to find a small coop that wants to expand? Or a large non-coop business that wants to transform?
If it’s the second one, I think Coops UK do work around coop transitions, might be worth getting in contact with them
I’m not sure! Finding a small co-op that wants to expand is probably the better choice for simplicity, but really it will come down to who has interest in the project.
In order to demonstrate that the software is viable, the Beta version will include a test run with volunteers and “points” instead of money. It’s possible that these volunteers could decide to found a co-op based on their experience, or they may come from existing co-ops. The idea behind the beta test is to get the software ready and also to generate that interest you’re talking about.
Alternatively, I could attempt to found one of these co-ops myself by recruiting in my area. This would be the most difficult road, but still possible.
I will certainly reach out to Coops UK if I can, they may have some good insights for me.
For the licensing I was looking for the most permissive licenses I could find, mainly to encourage adoption among network admins and prevent situations where they may otherwise be required to share source code publicly.
My position on this is that co-ops should be able to develop their own internal code without needing to publish the source, especially considering how hostile the current economic marketplace is to cooperatives. In an ideal world? Yeah we would all share our source.
As far as sharing changes to the source internally within a co-op, that would likely be something that could be handled by the company Bylaws and would certainly be subject to audit.
Remember that even if the code-base is Open-Source, it only has to be shared if the software is being sold to external users.
If the software is just being used internally within an organisation, then the code does not have to be distributed externally.
The means that even if you use GPL licencing for your software, it does not mean that you have to publish your code.
Co-op’s can develop their own code for internal use, without needing to publish their code-base, even if that code-base is licenced under a version of the GPL.
That old myth about the GPL being a viral licence comes from a speech by Ballmer from Microsoft.
I’ve been working with Linux for a few decades, and this old argument keeps coming up.
My personal preference is for GPL v3, as that guarantee’s that the software cannot be enclosed the way that the Commons were stolen.
For my customers, it also acts as proof that I am working solely in their best interests, as if they don’t like what I am doing, they can take all of their systems, and get someone else to do the job.
That guarantee of bus-resilience is one of my main selling points, and, that has become even more relevant after I fell ill.
Well that’s certainly a perspective I hadn’t thought about!
I would welcome that kind of input on the team, we’re only at the alpha phase so there’s time to change licenses if we can come to a consensus about it.
As I mentioned before, my main concern here is for adoption. If the copyleft license is the better option and doesn’t hamper adoption I wouldn’t object to it, but I would want it to be a group decision with whoever is on the core team when we get to beta and/or release version.
