Having just had a useful discussion with @harry, one of the points Harry was stressing was putting some kind of quantification on how good someone is at any particular skill, rather than just listing minor interests equally with expert specialisms. One of the things we could discuss, alongside the basic structure for a skills framework, would be some kind of peer rating system, which should work much better for us as co-operating co-ops than it would do for competitive capitalist companies. Of course, to do this absolutely needs us to have a shared vocabulary (or taxonomy, or dare I say it ontology) and one of the things I’d like to focus on is how to create and (flexibly) maintain that vocabulary, as a commons.
But I write this without further consultation with @jdaviescoates, so please Josef feel free to disagree or add your own slant on this. What is clear from discussion with Harry is that it’s not practical to require everyone to attend a short session. It would be helpful, but maybe not helpful enough, given that many co-ops aren’t going to be there. So we can focus on the principles, the framework, and the processes (including motivations) for getting co-op members to fill in something that could be a real help to potential clients.