On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:51:12PM -0400, Nathan Kennedy wrote: > Here I think you are off-base. If I understand it correctly you fear > that HCoop's current "power structure" is planning on leveraging their > incumbency and system knowledge into paid positions for themselves.
As I said before, I don't know what other people are thinking, so I could easily be wrong. Fear is the wrong word for my concerns. After several years in academia, I've learned to question other people's motives. Probably a better word would be 'perplexed." Hcoop was advertised as a cooperative, but from what I can see some of the planning is more corporate in nature. For example, corporations grow as fast as possible to stay ahead of their competition, but cooperatives tend to implode when they grow quickly, or they revert to a more authoritative structure. Another issue is that when taking in members rapidly, poor screening of applicants and rapid changes in group makeup can cause instability. Also, there's the question of unequal member contributions. Note Principle 3 here: http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html This is why I ask questions. Are we a co-op or a standard top-down organization? -- Michael Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ HCoop-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://hcoop.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hcoop-discuss
