To some extent this depends on the direction of travel of the CoTech network.
If the goal is to move towards more formal structures, then (1) and (2) are more appropriate. If CoTech was a formal organisation, then there would be rules that determine how major decisions should be made, and in general those rules might involve (a) major decisions only being made within an OGM or AGM; (b) OGMs/AGMs being formally called; © agendas and papers on decisions being published in advance.
If the goal is to maintain a more loose network, then (3) or (4) may be more suitable.
Between these I might suggest an option (5):
- Changes are staged but there is 14 day delay before they go live. During that period, co-ops not present where the changes were decided upon may suggest ‘friendly amendments’ - and have the option of withdrawing their presence from the website before the changes go live.
The idea of ‘friendly amendments’ here would be that the 14 day period is not for re-opening the whole debate on major substance of changes: organisations who have major objections have the option of withdrawing.
This may require the creation of some sort of ‘observer’ status that organisations not comfortable with a set of changes can switch to without withdrawing completely from the network.