What are tech worker coops?

In these discussions, we're using "tech worker coop" to mean a relatively stable, enduring group of people who work cooperatively, sharing resources and collaborating democratically to provide technology services.

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS

"Coop" suggests the verb "cooperate", meaning "to act together", as well as the noun "cooperative", meaning "an enterprise or organization owned by and operated for the benefit of its workers or users". Forming a legal cooperative is one way to work democratically and cooperatively with others, but it's not the only way. Many organizational structures can be used, each with their own unique character. When we say "coop", we mean them all:

Loose unincorporated network

Workers can connect with each other and share their resources without forming any legal or financial envelope to contain them. The tech underground is an example of this form.

Partnership

A partnership is run by its partners, who share ownership and profits. If an organization's workers are all partners, this form closely resembles a cooperative.

Cooperatives

Different governments have different definitions and requirements of formal cooperatives, but worker cooperatives are usually partnership-corporation hybrids that are owned by those who operate them.

Nonprofit corporation

Organizations formed this way are run for the public benefit by their staff; final authority rests with a board of directors. No one can be said to "own" a nonprofit, except perhaps the state; its entire revenue must periodically be spent in service of its mission. Special operational practices can somewhat democratize this form.

HOW TECH COOPS FIT INTO THE NONPROFIT TECH FIELD

One perspective on the field of nonprofit technology sees tech workers self-selecting themselves into one of three categories:
A. Tech activist organizations which provide services to people who can't pay or can't pay enough to feed the workers. Besides providing services to other activists, these groups may also engage in various forms of tech activism.
B. Worker coops: which typically take paying contracts from non-profits, unions, etc. Worker coops are operated democratically by their workers.
C. Non-profits which are run hierarchically and provide tech consulting to other non-profits. Non-profits are legally constrained to work for the "public benefit", which makes them eligible for tax-deductible donations and foundation money.
These three categories are distinguished primarily along the lines of finances, organizational structure, and politics.

Finances: Groups in A work for free, or for small donations. Groups in B/C earn enough to pay their workers, either from service fees alone or supported by auxilliary grants.

Organizational Structure: Groups in A/B are organized democratically, from the bottom up. Groups in C are organized hierarchically, from the top down.

Politics: The 'median radicalness' of clients served by groups in each category tends to decrease as you move from A (high) to B (medium) to C (low), in line with the 'radicalness' of the organizational structure.

And of course there are many exceptions to these clean categories--nonprofits which are organized democratically, nonprofits who serve more radical clients, etc.--to the point where it's probably smarter to think of the field as a continuum rather than any number of separate categories. But it seems to be a clumpy continuum, as financial, legal and political realities tend to preference certain configurations over others.

Pushed to the extremes, tech activist groups and nonprofit NTAPs rarely work together, in much the manner of the activist groups and NGOs they (respectively) serve. Can tech worker coops help bridge the gap?