Toronto Workers Co-op Process Meeting

🗓 Calendar
📑 Retreat Planning Board

Time: 10 Sep 2018 4:30 pm EST
Attending: benhylau, yurko, ansuz, elon, dcwalk



  1. proposal timeline and PL review process
  2. Share things that only benhylau knows at the moment
  3. Establish mutual understanding about who we serve as contributors to
  4. Value proposition for
  5. Discuss risks in our submitted RFP

Notes proposal timeline and PL review process

Who do we serve as contributors to


Had nicopace look over our proposal, his feedback:

like the proposal. i feel that it is lacking a little bit of background… what motivates for this to happen what bring you to the conclusion that these needs to happen … who are you solving an issue to… not who can benefit, but who are you working for there is a slight difference there … yes… it feels broad that I feel needs to be clear you as a collective need to have a clear understanding of that too … some references:

Objective 1

Objective 2

Aaron’s proposal:
  1. get the innovative tech done as fast as possible so we can hand it off
    • generate leads on community integration while this is in progress
  2. hand off deployment to objective 2 facilitators
    • review deployment process with communities in order to better serve objective 3
  3. post-mortem deployment, unforeseen user requirements, etc.
    • facilitator program takes over here?
  4. invisible step to account for going over-time on other steps

Maybe let’s plan this out as a tree to see what depends on other objectives to see what we can parallelize, what we can reasonably accomplish within a period

Value proposition for


I’m not totally certain who’s reading this and perhaps I’m off about the baseline knowledge and values the reader may hold. My immediate thoughts are that the high-level framing can have more clarity. Some thoughts:

  1. Clear value proposition of an “offline system”:

    1.1 Can brings current communication technologies to locations that the market does not consider to be profitable 1.2 Alternative during service breakdown during or in situations of network congestion 1.3 Independently run local offline systems can be tailored to serve the needs of a community better than any top-down network

  2. It’s also not obvious why an offline system needs to be peer-to-peer. Perhaps we could make this more explicit and succinct:

    2.1 Secure p2p networks change the ownership model in favour of the users and are effective at limiting authoritarian control and censorship 2.2 Grassroots p2p networks are able to diffuse technical know-how rapidly empowering the whole community 2.3 Re-affirms the original vision of the web as a people’s platform

Share things that only benhylau knows at the moment

Discuss risks in our submitted RFP

Actionable Items

Off-topic chat (Sept 10)

Edit this page