motion.tools (Antragsgrün)

Collaborative amendment handling and resolution management, honestly reviewed. If your organization runs assemblies with dozens of amendments flying around, this might be the tool you’ve been looking for.

TL;DR

• What it is: Open-source (AGPL-3.0) platform for managing motions, amendments, resolutions, and candidacies at NGO and political conventions [README].
• Who it’s for: Political parties, NGOs, labor unions, youth councils — any organization that runs assemblies where members submit and debate amendments to documents. The Green Party (European and German), the European Youth Forum, and the National Council of German Women’s Organizations all use it [website].
• Cost savings: SaaS alternatives for parliamentary/assembly management don’t have clean pricing comparisons — this space is niche enough that most competitors charge custom enterprise rates. Self-hosting Antragsgrün on a $6–10/mo VPS gets you the full feature set for free [README].
• Key strength: Purpose-built for a workflow that generic tools (Google Docs, Notion, even Decidim) handle poorly — structured amendment submission, line-by-line tracking of changes against original documents, and live convention support with speaking lists and projector-ready displays [website][README].
• Key weakness: AGPL license, a PHP/MySQL stack, 137 GitHub stars, and essentially no third-party review coverage. This is a mature but obscure tool with a very specific audience. If you’re not running a parliamentary-style assembly, there’s nothing here for you [README].

---

What is motion.tools (Antragsgrün)

Antragsgrün — German for “motion green,” a reference to its origins with the Green Party — is a web application for managing the formal document workflow of a convention or general assembly. The English-facing version lives at motion.tools; the German version at antragsgruen.de; multilingual hosted versions at discuss.green [website][README].

The problem it solves is specific: you have a governing document (a party platform, a statute, an election programme), your members are entitled to submit amendments, and you need a system that tracks every proposed change, shows it in context against the original text, allows further amendments to amendments, and eventually produces a merged final version. Google Docs does collaborative editing but has no concept of formal amendment submission workflows. Parliamentary software from vendors like eSCRIBE or Legistar is enterprise-priced. Antragsgrün fills the middle ground — open-source, installable on a cheap VPS, and battle-tested at real conventions with hundreds of delegates and thousands of amendments [website][README].

The project has been actively used at political conventions for more than ten years and is backed by a clear domain owner (Tobias Hößl, reachable at info@antragsgruen.de) who offers professional support and custom development alongside the free self-hosted version [website]. The GitHub repository sits at 137 stars, which is low by general open-source standards but not a meaningful signal for a tool this specialized — the actual user base is measured in organizations, not individual developers [README].

---

Why people choose it

The third-party review landscape for Antragsgrün is thin. It appears in the awesome-selfhosted list under “Conference Management” [1][2][3], but independent reviews are essentially nonexistent in English. What exists are the real-world endorsements embedded in the project itself: the European Youth Forum, the German Federal Youth Council, the European and German Green Party, and the National Council of German Women’s Organizations are listed as active users [website][README].

The practical reason organizations choose it is that the alternatives are either wrong for the problem or cost too much:

Versus Google Workspace / Notion. These tools support collaborative document editing but have no formal amendment submission workflow, no concept of eligible submitters vs. general members, no automatic change-in-context display, no merge tooling. Organizations that try to manage amendment processes in Google Docs end up with spreadsheets of proposed changes and someone manually editing the master document. Antragsgrün automates that entire pipeline [website][README].

Versus dedicated parliamentary software. Enterprise platforms for legislative bodies (city councils, parliaments) tend to charge per-seat or per-event at rates that make no sense for a nonprofit. Antragsgrün’s self-hosted version is free, and the professional support model (hourly rate, contact for scope) is designed for organizations that need a custom feature once, not a monthly SaaS bill indefinitely [website].

Versus Decidim. Decidim is an open-source participatory democracy platform with overlapping territory — it also supports proposals, debates, and voting. The practical difference is scope and philosophy: Decidim is a broad civic engagement platform built for ongoing participation by large citizen groups; Antragsgrün is a narrower convention management tool optimized for the formal parliamentary amendment process. Decidim is more complex to deploy and configure. For a political party running an annual congress, Antragsgrün’s tighter focus is often the right tradeoff.

---

Features

Based on the README and website documentation:

Motion and amendment workflow:

• Submit motions, proposals, discussion papers, and election programmes online [README]
• Clear amendment process — members propose changes against specific lines of a document [website]
• Amendments displayed in context of the original, not as detached diffs [website]
• Accepted amendments can be automatically merged into the original document, even with many simultaneous changes [website]
• Configurable submission policies: deadlines, eligibility restrictions by user group, administrator screening [website]
• Support for comments alongside the formal amendment track [website]

Convention support (live events):

• Agenda management for in-person sessions [website]
• Speaking lists with full-screen projector mode [website][README]
• Roll calls and votings on motions, amendments, and arbitrary decisions [website]
• All relevant content has projector-ready display modes [website]

Export and administration:

• PDF, spreadsheet, and text document export [website][README]
• Email notifications on relevant events for both admins and participants [website]
• Responsibility assignment per motion/topic [website]
• Internal admin tools for decision-finding workflows [website]

Authentication and access control:

• SSO via SAML integration [merged profile][website]
• Two-factor authentication [merged profile]
• Configurable eligible submitter groups vs. general members [website]
• Per-instance user management [README]

Technical:

• REST API [merged profile]
• Docker and Docker Compose deployment [merged profile][README]
• Kubernetes support [merged profile]
• MySQL/MariaDB backend [merged profile][README]
• Redis [merged profile]
• PHP 8.2+ [README]
• Plugin system [merged profile]
• WCAG AA accessibility compliance [README]
• Available in German, English, French, Dutch, and Catalan [README]

---

Pricing: SaaS vs self-hosted math

Self-hosted (AGPL-3.0):

• Software: free
• VPS to run it: $6–15/mo on Hetzner, Contabo, or similar
• Your time: initial setup plus occasional updates

Hosted version (motion.tools / discuss.green):

• Available for testing free for at least three days (no contact details required) [website]
• For permanent hosted instances: contact info@antragsgruen.de — no public pricing listed [website]
• Professional support, hosting, and custom development: hourly rate, contact for scope [website]

SaaS alternatives: Specific pricing data for comparable parliamentary/assembly management platforms isn’t publicly available — this is an enterprise-sales category where vendors don’t post pricing. Organizations that have gone the enterprise route describe costs in the tens of thousands of dollars per year for large assemblies. Self-hosting eliminates that line item entirely, though you trade it for setup time and occasional maintenance.

The relevant savings math here isn’t Zapier vs. self-hosted automation — it’s “what does your organization currently spend on convention software or workarounds, and is it more than a $10 VPS?” For most NGOs operating on thin budgets, the answer makes Antragsgrün compelling on numbers alone.

---

Deployment reality check

This is a PHP application with a MySQL database, which is both a strength and a weakness. PHP is widely supported on shared hosting and VPSes, meaning deployment is more accessible than Docker-only tools. The README provides:

• A pre-bundled ZIP/BZIP2 release for simple web server installs [README]
• A source install path (git clone, Composer, npm build) [README]
• A community-maintained Docker image (devopsansiblede/antragsgruen on DockerHub) [README]
• Example nginx and Apache configs [README]

Requirements:

• PHP 8.2+ with several extensions (intl, gd, mysql, curl, xml, mbstring, zip) [README]
• MySQL or MariaDB
• Apache or nginx
• Redis (for some features) [merged profile]
• A domain and reverse proxy for HTTPS

What can go sideways:

• The Docker image is community-maintained by Jugendpresse Deutschland, not by the core project. It’s actively maintained (weekly builds), but it’s one degree removed from official [README].
• PHP extension dependencies can be annoying on minimal VPS images — the apt-get install block in the README lists 10+ packages [README].
• The web-based installer simplifies initial configuration; if you skip it, you’re editing JSON config files manually and “on your own,” as the README puts it [README].
• No hosted marketplace or one-click deploy exists. This is a do-it-yourself install.

Realistic time estimate: 1–2 hours for someone familiar with PHP deployments and nginx. 3–5 hours for someone starting from a blank VPS with no prior PHP hosting experience. For a non-technical founder: budget a full day or hire someone to do it once.

---

Pros and Cons

Pros

• Purpose-built for a hard problem. Amendment workflows for formal assemblies are genuinely complex. No generic tool handles the structured submission, in-context display, and final merge workflow that Antragsgrün has refined over 10+ years [README][website].
• Proven in production at scale. The German and European Green Party, the European Youth Forum, and other organizations with large annual assemblies have used this for over a decade. It’s not a prototype [website][README].
• WCAG AA accessibility compliance. Rare in this category and important for government-adjacent organizations [README].
• SSO and 2FA included. These are not paywalled features — SAML integration is listed as standard (configurable on request for hosted, built-in for self-hosted) [website][merged profile].
• Live convention features. Speaking lists, projector mode, real-time voting, agenda management — the tool covers not just the pre-convention document phase but the in-room event itself [website].
• Multilingual out of the box. German, English, French, Dutch, Catalan [README].
• Export options are solid. PDF, spreadsheet, text — generated automatically from the canonical documents [website].
• Active maintenance. The community Docker image is rebuilt weekly; the project has ongoing releases [README].

Cons

• AGPL-3.0 license. More restrictive than MIT. If you embed this in a SaaS product, you must open-source your full application. For internal use by an NGO or political organization, this is irrelevant — but it’s worth knowing [merged profile].
• Very small GitHub footprint (137 stars). Not a signal of quality, but a signal of community size. Bug reports, third-party guides, and community support are sparse [merged profile].
• PHP stack with manual extension dependencies. Not a deal-breaker, but PHP 8.x with 10+ extensions is more friction than a Docker-native tool on a clean VPS [README].
• No public pricing for hosted version. You have to email to find out what hosting costs. For organizations evaluating options, this is a friction point [website].
• Zero independent third-party reviews in English. The only external mentions found are in the awesome-selfhosted list [1][2][3]. No Trustpilot, no G2, no dedicated comparison articles. You’re relying entirely on the project’s own documentation and the implicit endorsement of its listed users.
• Niche-specific UI. The interface is built around parliamentary procedure. If you don’t know what a “motion” vs. an “amendment” vs. a “resolution” means in a formal meeting context, the UI will feel foreign.
• No SaaS free tier with meaningful limits. The test version expires in three days [website]. There’s no permanent free tier for small organizations that want to try before committing to self-hosting.

---

Who should use this / who shouldn’t

Use Antragsgrün if:

• You run a political party, NGO, youth council, or member organization that holds annual or semi-annual assemblies where members formally submit and debate amendments to governing documents.
• You’re currently managing this process in Google Docs, email, or spreadsheets and it’s becoming unmanageable at scale.
• You have at least one person who can set up a PHP/MySQL web application (or you’ll pay someone once to do it).
• You need WCAG AA accessibility compliance for your tooling.
• You need SSO integration with an existing identity provider.

Skip it if:

• Your organization holds informal meetings, not formal assemblies with amendment procedures. A project management tool or simple wiki will serve you better.
• You need a general participatory engagement platform (surveys, citizen proposals, ongoing feedback). Look at Decidim or Limesurvey instead.
• You need a commercially supported product with SLAs and enterprise contracts. The support model here is a single maintainer at an hourly rate, which is fine for a nonprofit but not for regulated industries.
• You’re a non-technical founder with no technical support. The setup process requires Linux server experience.
• You’re outside the NGO/political space. This tool solves a problem most organizations don’t have.

---

Alternatives worth considering

• Decidim — broader participatory democracy platform, more complex, better for ongoing citizen engagement rather than annual conventions. Open-source (AGPL), requires Ruby on Rails stack.
• OpenSlides — direct competitor, also open-source, also targets assemblies and conventions, more active English-language community. Worth evaluating in parallel.
• LimeSurvey — if you just need voting and surveys at events, not full amendment management. Simpler, well-documented, larger community.
• Pol.is — for open-ended opinion gathering rather than formal amendment processes. Different use case, but sometimes the right tool.
• GitHub — technically viable for amendment workflows (PRs against document files), used by some tech-adjacent organizations. No speaking lists or projector mode, but zero deployment friction and a familiar interface for developer communities.
• Enterprise parliamentary software (eSCRIBE, eScribe, Granicus) — if you need vendor support, SLAs, and your organization has the budget. Purpose-built for municipal and organizational governance, priced accordingly.

For a nonprofit or political organization specifically managing formal amendment procedures, the realistic shortlist is Antragsgrün vs. OpenSlides. Antragsgrün has the longer track record with European political organizations; OpenSlides has more English-language documentation and a slightly larger community.

---

Bottom line

Antragsgrün is a mature, unsexy, purpose-built tool that does one thing well: managing the formal amendment lifecycle for conventions and assemblies. It’s been doing this for over a decade for some of Europe’s largest political organizations. The GitHub star count doesn’t reflect the quality — it reflects the audience size. Parliamentary amendment management is not a large market, and Antragsgrün doesn’t pretend otherwise.

If your organization runs annual congresses where members submit hundreds of amendments, debates them, and needs a final merged resolution at the end — this is probably the best open-source option available, and it’s free to self-host. If that’s not your use case, don’t let the AGPL badge and “conference management” category tag trick you into evaluating something that solves a problem you don’t have.

For non-technical organizations that want the tool without the server management, upready.dev deploys and maintains self-hosted open-source tools for clients as a one-time engagement.

---

Sources

1. git.osmarks.net — mirrors/awesome-selfhosted (mirror of https://github.com/awesome-selfhosted/awesome-selfhosted). https://git.osmarks.net/mirrors/awesome-selfhosted
2. trackawesomelist.com — Track Awesome Selfhosted Updates Daily (awesome-selfhosted/awesome-selfhosted). https://www.trackawesomelist.com/awesome-selfhosted/awesome-selfhosted/
3. trackawesomelist.com — Track Awesome Selfhosted Updates Weekly (awesome-selfhosted/awesome-selfhosted). https://www.trackawesomelist.com/awesome-selfhosted/awesome-selfhosted/week/

Primary sources:

• GitHub repository and README: https://github.com/CatoTH/antragsgruen (137 stars, AGPL-3.0)
• Official website (English): https://motion.tools/
• Official website (German): https://antragsgruen.de/
• Multilingual hosted version: https://discuss.green/
• Community Docker image: https://hub.docker.com/repository/docker/devopsansiblede/antragsgruen