[SSC] Location, timing, members
Joss Winn
joss at josswinn.org
Mon Feb 28 23:29:14 UTC 2011
On 28/02/11 12:15, Richard Hall wrote:
> Hi Rosie,
>
>
>
> Two interesting points.
>
>
>
> 1. Location – this has been written as a Lincoln model that other
> areas/subjects might utilise, mimic, re-use, re-purpose. Relocation
> might be a possibility, but this mirrors the usual HE model – depends on
> how the curriculum/learning is constructed/delivered. The
> politics/methods of the SSC are negotiable aren’t they? So might
> Leeds-based study be possible? Needs some thought.
I think that if you're willing to re-locate, then we should welcome
that. Lincoln, like any other place, is a dynamic space where people
come and go. If you will be resident in the area and can attend classes
face-to-face, then you are encouraged to apply. So far, the sentiment
has been that learning will be supported by technology but this isn't a
distance learning provision. I feel quite strongly about that. If we can
set up the SSC in Lincoln, then, frankly, any other urban area can
probably set up something similar, too. I'd rather encourage and support
a proliferation of co-ops like the SSC, rather than bring in students
and staff via Skype, etc.
>
> 2. Timing – my take was that negotiation is key here too. We are
> not looking to mirror usual academic sessions are we? So if we were an
> unincorporated cooperative by the summer, one might be able to negotiate
> a project/programme/MA-equivalent thereafter. Last week, we discussed
> with Charles a plan for contacting “staff”, sorting governance, set-up,
> membership, attracting “students”. We need to sort this so that we can
> let prospective interested parties know.
>
>
Agreed, but I do think that Rosie makes a good point about deadlines, so
that people can prepare their lives around when classes will start. Even
if they don't start until January, people need to know when they can
expect to begin classes.
A series of deadlines would be useful for everyone.
Off the top of my head, how about:
Formalise governance structure: 1st May
Send out letter to academics: 1st May
Advertise SSC for enrolment: 15th July
Develop curricula: 31st August
Classes start 1st October
There's a lot of other stuff to do (secure premises!), but these seem
absolutely key to me.
As for the schedule between October and October, this need not follow
the usual academic terms, but having a beginning and end that chimes
with the usual education cycle, seems practical to me.
>
> As these issues need more thought, I wonder if we need more than the
> monthly meetings proposed at the last meeting? I wonder if we need to
> create a issue log, and then aggregate these [e.g. maybe around
> organisation/governance, membership issues, curriculum] so that
> interested sub-groups can work on them and report back – like the
> sub-committee model in the constitution.
>
>
Good idea. Want to set it up on a Google docs spreadsheet, maybe?
Roise, you asked whether a list is being compiled of potential members.
I've just created one that everyone can add to:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AnDuUd71vXr4dGc3Wl9IaFZuUUh6VHg2Vk83SUo1Y0E&hl=en_GB&authkey=CNPW2uEL
Cheers
Joss
>
> Or I might be talking drivel. Happens.
>
>
>
> I agree that it has the possibility to be very exciting!!
>
>
>
> In solidarity.
>
>
>
> R.
>
>
>
> *From:*ssc-bounces at lists.aktivix.org
> [mailto:ssc-bounces at lists.aktivix.org] *On Behalf Of *Rosie Sherwood
> *Sent:* 28 February 2011 10:32
> *To:* ssc at lists.aktivix.org
> *Cc:* ssc-request at lists.aktivix.org
> *Subject:* Re: [SSC] SSC Digest, Vol 2, Issue 13
>
>
>
> Hello everyone,
>
>
>
> I also send my apologies for not making the meeting, currently working
> insane hours and based in Leeds.
>
>
>
> I know at a discussion on the SSC at the Reimagine the University event
> in Leeds a few months ago, the issue of locality was brought up,
> including that of potential students. I know that it has been emphasised
> that the SSC needs to be tied to a location and a physical space rather
> than being another online resource, and I agree completely, but I was
> wondering whether there are intentions to keep the SSC as a resource for
> the existing Lincoln community or whether members (especially students)
> will be encouraged to relocate to be part of it? There were mixed
> opinions at the Leeds discussion, but perhaps this has not been
> considered an issue so far. I am very keen to be involved in the SSC as
> a postgraduate student and I would be more than happy to relocate for
> this opportunity, but thought this issue best be discussed first.
>
>
>
> Also, do we have any sort of deadline for everything to be sorted by? I
> am just thinking about the logistics - people ideally need adequate
> advance warning to know whether they can commit to the project and if
> plans remain relatively vague until last minute, we may lose potential
> members, especially active ones. As someone who moved to Leeds for a
> MRes course which never materialised, I'm understandably wary on this point!
>
>
>
> Has a list been drawn up of academics we wish to approach or is this
> still being compiled?
>
>
>
> This is all looking very exciting.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Rosie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 7:57 PM, <ssc-request at lists.aktivix.org
> <mailto:ssc-request at lists.aktivix.org>> wrote:
>
> Send SSC mailing list submissions to
> ssc at lists.aktivix.org <mailto:ssc at lists.aktivix.org>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> ssc-request at lists.aktivix.org <mailto:ssc-request at lists.aktivix.org>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> ssc-owner at lists.aktivix.org <mailto:ssc-owner at lists.aktivix.org>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of SSC digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Membership types and contributions (Joss Winn)
> 2. Re: SSC constitution (Richard Hall)
> 3. Re: Membership types and contributions (Richard Hall)
> 4. Re: Membership types and contributions (Terry Wassall)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:19:32 +0000
> From: Joss Winn <joss at josswinn.org <mailto:joss at josswinn.org>>
> To: ssc at lists.aktivix.org <mailto:ssc at lists.aktivix.org>
> Subject: [SSC] Membership types and contributions
> Message-ID: <4D6A4154.2050309 at josswinn.org
> <mailto:4D6A4154.2050309 at josswinn.org>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> One of the things we discussed for some time in the pub after the
> meeting on Thursday is the need to decide what types of membership there
> will be at the SSC and how much we hope/expect people to contribute.
>
> Let's use this discussion thread to work that out. One question that I
> think Mike raised was that we might first ask what do we need the money for?
>
> As for membership types, these might be academic, student, general
> supporter, etc. or we might not distinguish between these at all.
>
> As for the amount of contribution, Mike (a Professor), thought it
> reasonable to ask that other Profs. contribute between ?300-?500/year or
> roughly ?30+ /month.
>
> I think the general agreement at the pub (outside of the formal meeting
> when some people were no longer present) was that people should
> self-assess their income and pay a fee that was matched to an income
> category roughly in line with what Profs. Snr. Lecturers and Lecturers
> (and possibly one more level) are earning. Low wage and unemployed would
> pay nothing.
>
> So, what do you think about all of this? Please send your ideas to this
> thread so we can come to a decision on this.
>
> Thanks very much
> Joss
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:46:09 -0000
> From: "Richard Hall" <RHall1 at dmu.ac.uk <mailto:RHall1 at dmu.ac.uk>>
> To: "ssc" <ssc at lists.aktivix.org <mailto:ssc at lists.aktivix.org>>
> Cc: CCooke at lincolnshirecda.coop <mailto:CCooke at lincolnshirecda.coop>
> Subject: Re: [SSC] SSC constitution
> Message-ID:
>
> <290C0FAF9352E54EB483CBA4ED12133C026B1CF5 at artemis.LEC-ADMIN.dmu.ac.uk
> <mailto:290C0FAF9352E54EB483CBA4ED12133C026B1CF5 at artemis.LEC-ADMIN.dmu.ac.uk>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> George raises a good point for it drives much of our *politics* and
> agenda, and whom we might approach/include. It might also connect into
> how we partner with other organisations.
>
> We focused upon the connections between the productive/consumptive
> nature of the Centre, the political basis rooted in consensus, and the
> emergent nature of our work. That stuff/projects/ideas/objects would
> happen/develop over time was, I think, central.
>
> Within our extant economic reality we noted that subs would enable us to
> develop our alternative[s], but that we would generally not take monies
> out - we might discuss expenses for travel, or employing an
> administrator. But perhaps we could swap subs-paid-as-cash for
> subs-paid-as-skilss [e.g. auditing accounts, managing membership
> database etc.] The main focus of our alternative thinking was, I think,
> on higher learning [HE equivalent but not HE in structure, accreditation
> etc.], negotiated co-production, and engaging with political
> differences. Nigel began this latter discussion when he asked about our
> subject scope. I then asked whether our political base/values/objects -
> as a scope for our work - might enable, for instance, neoliberals to join.
>
> R.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ssc-bounces at lists.aktivix.org
> <mailto:ssc-bounces at lists.aktivix.org> on behalf of Joss Winn
> Sent: Sun 27/02/2011 10:50
> To: ssc
> Cc: CCooke at lincolnshirecda.coop <mailto:CCooke at lincolnshirecda.coop>
> Subject: Re: [SSC] SSC constitution
>
> On Sun, February 27, 2011 9:30 am, George Roberts wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> Thank you for circulating the draft constitution of the SSC
>>
>> Drifting off the topic of formal organisation, I have a general question
>> about workers v. consumers co-operatives.
>>
>> I think workers co-ops have the aim of providing a living (or at least a
>> wage) for their members through the provision of goods and services to
>> others (e.g. Infinity Foods of Brighton), while consumer co-ops, which may
>> enable or even require members to work, have the aim of providing members
>> with benefits: goods and/or services on a preferential basis (e.g. Weavers
>> Way of Mt Airey, PA). There are of course many examples of both kinds, and
>> not all to do with food. And, I suppose there is a continuum between the
>> two.
>>
>> Education (higher or other) is an interesting and challenging good/service
>> to be provided on co-operative lines. If the co-op is to provide a living
>> (wage) for members, this presumes some exchange of value between members
>> and
>> others. If "others" are learners, and "members" are teachers, the
>> traditional institutional power divide appears to be replicated. If all
>> participants in the co-op are deemed
>> learners/teachers/researchers/scholars,
>> then there are no "others" with whom to exchange value. The co-op then
>> might
>> become dependent on third-parties (the state, charities or other
>> donor/patrons), or possibly the members themselves, i.e. members are
>> required to work for a living (wage) elsewhere. This latter model either
>> replicates the old state-funded "free" education model - students get
>> grants, teachers/researchers get wages, or is more like a consumer
>> co-operative, where members work for the benefit of the co-op, but do not
>> derive a living (wage) from it.
>>
>> George
>
> Hi George,
>
> To some extent, this issue was raised at our meeting last Thursday. In our
> case, we're proposing that all members, teachers, students and other
> supporting members, assume an equal membership in the governance of the
> co-op and that decisions are made by full consensus. This should mean that
> no one person or type of member (academic, student, etc - we've still to
> decide what the membership types might be) has any greater power than
> anyone else.
>
> The constitution being proposed assumes that no-one will make a wage from
> the SSC. We did discuss the possibility that some roles might receive
> payment, although this wasn't discussed in detail and I'm not sure of the
> implications of this. It was suggested that where possible, specific roles
> such as secretary, treasurer, etc. would be rotated, so that no person
> remained in the role permanently.
>
> My recollection is that Charles said that if we really wanted to make the
> distinction between what kind of co-op we were, it was closer to a
> consumer than worker co-op, but he felt that in the case of the SSC, the
> distinction was pretty meaningless. The SSC, at least initially, is a
> co-op where members provide services to themselves and what we are
> proposing is that members directly fund the co-op from external sources
> (i.e. wages brought in from elsewhere). This isn't fixed in stone of
> course, and it will be up to the members over time to decide on the
> funding model. The advice we received was to initially assume as little
> organisational complexity as possible, which is why we're also proposing
> that we are not incorporated until we find it necessary.
>
> Someone else at the meeting might recall what else we discussed on this
> issue, but it was put to us as a pretty obvious way to proceed initially.
> Your thoughts on this would be greatly valued.
>
> I've copied in Charles (who's not subscribed to the list) in case he wants
> to expand on answering your question.
>
> Best,
> Joss
> --
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SSC mailing list
> SSC at lists.aktivix.org <mailto:SSC at lists.aktivix.org>
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/ssc/attachments/20110227/8f1d216e/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:46:34 -0000
> From: "Richard Hall" <RHall1 at dmu.ac.uk <mailto:RHall1 at dmu.ac.uk>>
> To: <ssc at lists.aktivix.org <mailto:ssc at lists.aktivix.org>>
> Subject: Re: [SSC] Membership types and contributions
> Message-ID:
>
> <290C0FAF9352E54EB483CBA4ED12133C026B1CF6 at artemis.LEC-ADMIN.dmu.ac.uk
> <mailto:290C0FAF9352E54EB483CBA4ED12133C026B1CF6 at artemis.LEC-ADMIN.dmu.ac.uk>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 1. How much do we need to run the Centre for 20 students per annum?
> Costs of renting, expenses, journal subscriptions, library memberships,
> stationery, online provision etc..
>
> 2. Do we wish to maintain a cash surplus? Why is cash more important
> than, say, time in organising, developing curricula, auditing accounts
> etc.? Are we in danger of stratifying what does not need to be stratified?
>
> R.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ssc-bounces at lists.aktivix.org
> <mailto:ssc-bounces at lists.aktivix.org> on behalf of Joss Winn
> Sent: Sun 27/02/2011 12:19
> To: ssc at lists.aktivix.org <mailto:ssc at lists.aktivix.org>
> Subject: [SSC] Membership types and contributions
>
> One of the things we discussed for some time in the pub after the
> meeting on Thursday is the need to decide what types of membership there
> will be at the SSC and how much we hope/expect people to contribute.
>
> Let's use this discussion thread to work that out. One question that I
> think Mike raised was that we might first ask what do we need the money for?
>
> As for membership types, these might be academic, student, general
> supporter, etc. or we might not distinguish between these at all.
>
> As for the amount of contribution, Mike (a Professor), thought it
> reasonable to ask that other Profs. contribute between ?300-?500/year or
> roughly ?30+ /month.
>
> I think the general agreement at the pub (outside of the formal meeting
> when some people were no longer present) was that people should
> self-assess their income and pay a fee that was matched to an income
> category roughly in line with what Profs. Snr. Lecturers and Lecturers
> (and possibly one more level) are earning. Low wage and unemployed would
> pay nothing.
>
> So, what do you think about all of this? Please send your ideas to this
> thread so we can come to a decision on this.
>
> Thanks very much
> Joss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SSC mailing list
> SSC at lists.aktivix.org <mailto:SSC at lists.aktivix.org>
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/ssc/attachments/20110227/17a73b78/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:57:27 +0000
> From: Terry Wassall <T.Wassall at leeds.ac.uk <mailto:T.Wassall at leeds.ac.uk>>
> To: Joss Winn <joss at josswinn.org <mailto:joss at josswinn.org>>,
> "ssc at lists.aktivix.org <mailto:ssc at lists.aktivix.org>"
> <ssc at lists.aktivix.org <mailto:ssc at lists.aktivix.org>>
> Subject: Re: [SSC] Membership types and contributions
> Message-ID:
>
> <D327F9D8FBEF8449A9768C933870D93D019978F3D828 at HERMES8.ds.leeds.ac.uk
> <mailto:D327F9D8FBEF8449A9768C933870D93D019978F3D828 at HERMES8.ds.leeds.ac.uk>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear All
>
> Thanks Joss for sending round the notes etc. so quickly. As I said
> before, I am very sorry I was not able to come to the meeting. Sounds
> like you had a really interesting discussion. I have just got back from
> a weekend in an internet free part of Scotland, practically mobile phone
> network free as well. I will try to respond to the emails in reverse
> order over the next day or so startng with the first about membershipd
> fees/contributions.
>
> There is quite a broad band of professorial salaries, starting not much
> above the senior lecture salary. Some profs. also have additional
> incomes related to their professorial work. If the prof rate is used as
> a benchmark then presumably lecturers A, B, Senior etc. will be
> proportionate, say ?80, ?160, ?240 and ?300+. Some more junior academic
> staff may be on part-time of fixed term contracts, and so the a varity
> of circumstances will need to be considerd and allowed for. Then at any
> one time there will be different numbers of students with varying
> numbers of them able to pay anything. A general quesion is whether the
> 'fee's model is likely to be adeqate and equitable.
>
> Many academics might be willing to contribute, their subject expertises,
> their materials, their experience of being learners and researchers,
> their ability to be facilitators of discussion etc., maybe even their
> travel expenses to attend face-to-face sessions. They may not be willing
> to pay a fee to do so. One answer to this would be, of course, if they
> are not commited enough to the idea and the ethos, then the Centre
> doesn't want them. There could be differeing views on this.
>
> I agree with Richard's comments about the need to have some sort of
> costing and projections. I guess you could call this, between gritted
> teeth, a business plan. This would need some sort of consideration about
> sustainability, in terms of finances and objectives, and any obvious
> risk factors (for instance, under recruitment of paying students). Have
> a realistic idea of what the costs would actually be is another way of
> estimating contributions as these could be divided, suitably weighted by
> income, across the membership.
>
> As far as 'profit' or a surplus is concerned, I think there may be 2
> main reasons for needing this - the financial sustainability of the
> Centre for at least 3 to 5 years (to do right by the students who enrol
> and to give the project the time to develop and solve the problems and
> issues that will arise) and to fund the further development of the
> Centre. This may not only be in terms of social science activity. I
> understand there has been some discussion of embarking upon other sorts
> of activities and services in the Centre that may raise money.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Terry
>
>
> Dr. Terry Wassall
> Principal Teaching Fellow
> School of Sociology and Social Policy
> University of Leeds
> ________________________________________
> From: ssc-bounces at lists.aktivix.org
> <mailto:ssc-bounces at lists.aktivix.org> [ssc-bounces at lists.aktivix.org
> <mailto:ssc-bounces at lists.aktivix.org>] On Behalf Of Joss Winn
> [joss at josswinn.org <mailto:joss at josswinn.org>]
> Sent: 27 February 2011 12:19
> To: ssc at lists.aktivix.org <mailto:ssc at lists.aktivix.org>
> Subject: [SSC] Membership types and contributions
>
> One of the things we discussed for some time in the pub after the
> meeting on Thursday is the need to decide what types of membership there
> will be at the SSC and how much we hope/expect people to contribute.
>
> Let's use this discussion thread to work that out. One question that I
> think Mike raised was that we might first ask what do we need the money for?
>
> As for membership types, these might be academic, student, general
> supporter, etc. or we might not distinguish between these at all.
>
> As for the amount of contribution, Mike (a Professor), thought it
> reasonable to ask that other Profs. contribute between ?300-?500/year or
> roughly ?30+ /month.
>
> I think the general agreement at the pub (outside of the formal meeting
> when some people were no longer present) was that people should
> self-assess their income and pay a fee that was matched to an income
> category roughly in line with what Profs. Snr. Lecturers and Lecturers
> (and possibly one more level) are earning. Low wage and unemployed would
> pay nothing.
>
> So, what do you think about all of this? Please send your ideas to this
> thread so we can come to a decision on this.
>
> Thanks very much
> Joss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SSC mailing list
> SSC at lists.aktivix.org <mailto:SSC at lists.aktivix.org>
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> SSC mailing list
> SSC at lists.aktivix.org <mailto:SSC at lists.aktivix.org>
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc
>
>
> End of SSC Digest, Vol 2, Issue 13
> **********************************
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SSC mailing list
> SSC at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc
More information about the SSC
mailing list