 And this is the build OGM call for the last day of August, 2021. September begins tomorrow, despite everything we might do. Cool, I tried to send a zip file. Yeah, there's a problem with the server. Oh, OK. So I shouldn't keep trying. Well, I mean, I thought it was a problem on Maya. It's like, it's not me, it's you. Yeah, exactly. OK, sounds great. Hey, Hank. Hello. How's the beach? Yeah, yeah, it's nice and wet. Lots of little tidal bugs. You know, where I often like to go in reflective moments. You can't get to the real one. I like the phone go anyway. Excellent. So I'm going to do in-screen sharing when I couldn't do by file sharing. And I'll be able to share them also. And then I kind of forgot to scan the image. But I was trying to draw the mosaic and Miro in failing. So to back up a little bit, last call, we figured out yesterday on the FreeJeru's main call that it was on this call last week that we ended up talking about project dashboards and then having a mosaic so that we could figure out which project was a tile that would fit several different projects and how that all worked. And I'm realizing right now that the illustration I'm about to show you doesn't fulfill a piece of what I was hoping it would, but it can easily get there. So I tried doing this in Miro. And I was like, I'm just not good enough to do this in Miro. And you'll see why in a second. Partly because the approach I ended up having was of a multi-plane camera. So basically, you know how they shoot cartoons? Yeah. So they invented, I think, Disney or somebody back then invented a multi-plane camera where you put a camera up top and then you have a bunch of layers of animation that you can put in. And the bottom layer would be the landscape in the background. The middle layer would be a car going by in the background. The next layer up would be your actors in the foreground and the next layer up might be subtitles or something else. Then you shoot, move everything, shoot, move everything, et cetera. But the multi-plane camera kind of acts as a way of aggregating a bunch of different things into a single image. And with that, I think the best way for me to do this is to screen share. Let me get the first of them up. And let me see which, yeah, let me go here for starters. I don't mean that one. I mean this one. Okay, so share screen. And here we go. So the first one is organizations that, this is the view from the top of OGM's mast and the view will be different from each entity's mast depending on whom you've intersected with whom you're working with. But so OGM is kind of larger here and I put a couple of the OGM entities in here, Story Threaders and Map Whisperers as possible guilds or whatever the name for guilds is going to be. WTW is weaving the world and weaving the world feeds the big fungus which is in the generative commons and that's all language that should be familiar to anybody who's been part of the OGM calls. And the big fungus in the generative commons feed off of massive wiki which is part of massive human interaction project which also has this idea of context weavers. And then Stacy's show game, game show is over here. Vincent's trove is here. There's kind of a network of network and sense weavers and piragaji over here. Garden World, Factor, Climate Web, you'll recognize community food systems and clouds, jacks, topic quests. And they're not like topic question be closer to hyper knowledge, et cetera, et cetera. So my apologies if they're not close enough. Go ahead Mark, I'm fine. Oh yeah, topic quest is an organization. I think let's distinguish projects in organization. Topic quest is an organization. It's got many projects. One of them is SenseCraft which is its own thing and the other is the, I'm not sure how to call them exactly but the knowing gardens and those are closer to hyper knowledge I guess. Okay, good, good. And I think that distinguishing those things will make for clarity in the diagram, et cetera, et cetera. So this is a layer, then there's a layer of humans. And so this layer, if you put this on top of the other layer, you'll see that cloud is in the community food systems, Jack is in topic quest, Dave is in the regenerative co-lab, Mark Rantuan, you're on hyper knowledge. I didn't put idea lumen, I should have. Jamie is involved in canonical debate lab with a couple other people. Bentley is here with gullibot and other sorts of things. And I was just trying to put the projects that are going through our ecosystem but here are some of the participants who's Yuri, Kevin, Charlotte and Joe and Piragaji, Doug in Garden World Politics, et cetera. You'll recognize these names. So I kind of think of this as the top most layer and then organizations below it so that the people kind of map into the organizations. And then below that is, let me go to organization. And this is a piece of what Pete was describing as how we do what we do. So this is, and this is not as completed as it should be but here are some raw tools that create maps that in factor that filters information that we then share through Zooms, Google groups and Mattermost, some of which gets captured also into GitHub repos, massive human intelligence project has the massive wiki, there's an OGM wiki, there's a nascent projects dashboard and there's a nascent at some point OGM fund that helps funnel money into this. This layer should include the rhythm of our meetings, the responsibilities and other kinds of sort of project organization-y kind of things. But this is kind of how we do the work which needs to be a piece of the mosaic somehow. This one's maybe the most awkward layer. Then the projects layer, these pieces are meant to overlay on the organizations in where they fit between the organizations. So between the hyper knowledge project and OGM is a project hopefully fundable that probably needs to be defined much more than this but I just called it hyper knowledge claims and maybe it's a piece of claims or some way of manifesting claims or an API to hook into claims or something like that but it's a bite-sized project and it fits here. Then there's a graphic reporting app that allows graphic facilitators to do deep links into OGM wiki or into the different artifacts that we're talking about in the repos we're talking about. From the media aggregation that I was talking about earlier where we're doing zooms and all those things there would be a stream of media coming up because right now I'm putting the zoom recordings onto YouTube, but wouldn't it be cool if there was a media player that was smarter that understood how to sync up the transcript with the video with other artifacts and so forth, a little bit like hypothesis for video. Right, but right now we have media players that awkwardly like YouTube awkwardly allows for some comments along the way. It's kind of no real good way to annotate and make really useful video artifacts. What if there were, what would that look like? Then I put Opal here, which is the massive wiki front end to make it more of an editable wiki. Here are sort of multi-mapper UX experiments which I put in as a result of the free jerry's brain challenges, which I was hoping to put out. So one of them that would be fun to fund would be like, hey, UX and UI designers come in and tell us what idea sex between multiple people might look like. That's a project that would be fun to fund. Then here is how do we make all those lovely pattern languages that are already out there, how do we just make them more accessible? What does that mean? I think that's a project that's not well defined at this point here, but I can see narrowing it down and saying, okay, how for example, how for example would we take Piragaji liberating structures, wise democracy pattern language, just those and make them very available through Opal and through game shifting, which is another project here. This is the one stimulated by Arthur Brock's game shifting idea of how do we, how do we, and the way I described it was it's an iPad app that's a frame inside of which you can drop a variety of group process techniques, a variety of maps of where we are in the process, a variety of tools like team Kanban, those kinds of things sort of easily modularly fall in to this group process content and process control panel app framework, something like that. And I'm borrowing Arthur's name of game shifting for that. So these were projects that live inside. This is the closest part to mosaic tiles and the part that this isn't achieving quite yet, but maybe it is as I talked it through is that the tiles ought to be doing multi-purpose for different entities that are in the ecosystem, right? So a really good tile is like a triple word score. So a really good tile does some work for massive human intelligence project. It does some work for OGM. It doesn't work for hyper knowledge and it doesn't work for a class and community food systems. That's a great tile and that would be fundable. Like we really want to fund a multi-use tile that has a strategic role in what we're trying to do. I think that was all the layers, entities, infrastructure organization, participants, projects. Yep, I think you've seen all the layers. The arrangement should be kind of up and down and I have a little hand drawn thing that I didn't bring but I could sort of hand drawn so that these things kind of layer through and you could then make links between them where this organization, these people from this organization are involved in this project and using these aspects of our infrastructure to communicate and how this works. Questions, thoughts, comments, improvements? Yes, no? I'm sorry, I did miss something which it's not clear to me how like basically the OGM projects are kind of bite sized fragments of the projects on the first page, is that right? Just to be sure I get that right. OGM fundable projects, the things that OGM would like to help stand up by putting some money into them are in fact useful sub projects of the bigger projects that are in the ecosystem. Yes, they're the places where we have overlap in function and where we're trying to get to. Right, right, right. I think what's really one thing that I found interesting in project management is to really understand what the gating, this project enables that feature in these other projects. Of course, people disclosure, I think that some of the hyperknowledge or pinning are relevant to a lot of stuff, but I think it's true in general. It's like what is the, like we spoke about little data atoms and how do we aggregate data atoms? That can be useful to any projects and knowing what parts can be useful for many projects. What's the most important, oh yeah, that's important. Yes, thank you. I forgot a really important slide. Yeah, that's okay, good. I totally forgot like maybe the most important of all the layers that was done. Okay, so this is sort of the technical infrastructure of how things happen and my apologies Mark Antoine, but I think this will help you come back better. So on the upper left is the information flow. This is time, these are events happening and then the nuggets are basically, this was a great video that showed up in the news stream. This is an article, this is a tweet. These are all kind of events happening. Out of these events, we're pulling links. I should have put links here, videos, transcripts and then clean links through the Zoom link cleaner app, applet for example. We are then enriching these things with metadata and we're putting them into public stores, right? So this whole process is kind of emerging events since making plus other sorts of stuff that leads to a shared memory. So as we put this in public stores, it becomes a kind of a shared memory. We are also taking some of these things and turning them into narratives and maps and probably other artifacts I didn't list here. And those would have all kinds of different forms using Pumu, using the brain, using, you know, animation tools, using whatever else. Those all become ways of seeing what's happening and telling the stories of what's happening. They look like topic maps, argumentation, debate logic, animations, et cetera. And then this wiggly line is the fungus space. This is sort of when we put those into the shared memory, that's when we're crafting this, like the large fungus that metabolizes this information makes it available and feeds us all. Then somehow there's like, remember that cartoon where two scientists are like drawing a process on the board and there's a square in the middle and it says, you know, a magic happens here. Magic happens. Exactly. So there's this comparing narratives and maps and there's this idea sex arena that happens in the middle where two people with very different ideas about how to interpret the world who've done some work on some sorts of tools about creating their narrative of why it's okay that we push all immigrants out of the country and why we're white people are being outnumbered and then that's their narrative, right? And then in this process, we have hopefully a good conversation and something useful comes out of this. This is kind of the crucible of the process, I think. I'm not sure. And then this line divides the geeky, news junky, hard facts, let's represent them, tell stories aside from the squishy, personal interpersonal intergroup cultural soft squishy part about rebuilding trust, deep listening, bridging the cultural divide, creating safe spaces for conversations so that we can in fact have idea sex between people who have pretty different ideas where the system, the shared memory saves and represents many individual points of view that go into this comparison process that starts to kind of crystallize that allows people to ask better questions, that allows people to set up experiments that will answer those questions that then hopefully leads into slightly more integral or crystallized points of view that could then turn into things like policy platforms. And there were a couple of other things I was gonna put down here but I forgot to and I forgot to go back. So that explains this diagram which is really essential and kind of lies in the middle and the projects on the project slide are trying to feed different parts of this diagram that are necessary to get this done, right? So the rectangle that was about here of let me just go to projects. So the rectangle here of multi-mapper UX experiments is what does idea sex look like? That's what this project is. The group pattern, group process pattern languages made accessible is how do we create safe spaces that have better group process technology at hand so that they can be more effective so that they can build more trust so that they can get past bottlenecks and roadblocks that they face, right? So when a group is stuck and really needs a new group process, how do they do that? And what I'm realizing, I'm forgetting here is that at the moment where they get to that point they might need some human assistance. So what I failed to put in these diagrams is there could be some professional standing by who know how to facilitate, who know how to use mind mapping, who know how to do context weaving, who know how to do all that kind of stuff, who can then, so when you're stuck there's technology and content at hand and there are humans at hand who are helpful also. And I forgot to represent them in these diagrams at all. Although there's story threaders and a couple of other things in the early sort of organizational diagram but they kind of belong elsewhere as well. So with that, I will step back and here's the infrastructure slide. And these are all the pages I was just trying to upload through MatterMode. So whenever that works or I'll use a different, I'll just send them to you all individually or whatever. That is great, thank you. And yeah, what I'm saying is it's a very different shape of project that goes before and after the squiggly line or not, it's not even before and after the squiggly line. It's the kind of common data bus infrastructure is a very different kind of project than the... Okay, let's use that data to create a visualization which is or let's convert this data into the data bus or let's, you know, these are all nice. Let's do this, let's do this but having a good inter twinkling layer is not a three month project. Though I'm beginning to break it up. I think the first step is, as usual, the notion of identity and being able to say, well, I have this thing which is snapshot and how does it evolve in time? Because when are we speaking about the same thing? That is the most difficult problem, interesting. Naming, what is it naming and caching our most difficult problem, computer science? Naming is the most difficult problem in conversations. And having a service that understands the shifts of meaning of a name in a way that's useful. I think that would be a service to everybody. That's my first block. Is it a three month project? I don't know. There's a lot of three month project that build on that. Yeah, thank you. And I think I know what you meant by the common bus but I'm not sure, but our current approach with the fungus-based code sort of look like is kind of at this point marked on files on GitHub plus some other stuff, plus magic that happens around it. But our best approach right now is to take a least common denominator. I'm deeply unsatisfied with that because it's good for text-based but not everything is text-based. We need database. And yeah, I'm obviously looking at some JSON-LD-ish format because JSON-LD is easy, but it's got its limits and it's not gonna meta-dada-yada-yada-yada-yada-yada. And LD for the civilians in the group, LD is linked data and JSON is a file format. So JSON-LD is a richer file format than Markdown that allows for linking of the objects. These pieces of data together. And IPLD, which is its successor on the IPFS, which has been- And IPFS is the interplanetary file system. IPLD is IP linked to data. In-planet, yeah, interplanetary data. I'm the acronym deconstructor. Yes, yes, yes, sorry, sorry. I'm so used to the... What was the joke about IBM was abusing acronyms and so much that at some point they got into, and especially three-letter acronyms, of course, because it's IBM, and at some point there was a memo going through the company. Don't abuse TLA's. Yeah, yeah. Which everybody understood, of course. Exactly. Sorry. So yeah, but I still agree. Being able to define these bits of where does this data live and how is this data transmitted and how does the bus look? I think it's extremely important. We'll see. Thank you. Anybody else? It's a wonderful set of diagrams, right? Congratulations. Thank you. I want to make sure we wait. So that last slide, the important slide I liked. I want to make sure we wait people as much as technology. So the trust flows and I don't know, emotional states or something, or concerns. And facilitation. And I had one more really good one. What kind of narratives do we need? How do we support each other? Value flows, that's what I was looking for. How does value flow in and out of the system and then within the system? That might actually be its own layer, a little bit like the current map. So the oceans, right? Yeah. Full agreement, Pete. Can I ask you a question? When you say concerns, do you mean the layer where we take care of the concerns for building trust or do you mean the flow of concerns between the projects? Like I spoke about which project supports which one. And I think also concerns of some projects. Oh, is that going to do what I want? Is that going to deliver the concerns between projects and objectives? I think that's also there's a project's dependencies but also the project's worries or evidence mismatch is a layer I'd like us to. Yeah, those are all great. And I especially like dependencies. I was using concern as kind of a neutral word. What I really meant was worries and fears and things like that. So if I'm thinking of, you know, in some sense, Jerry, what you've diagrammed is kind of the structural components of the OGM brain, right, the global mind, the mind of OGM. And so it's always tempting to kind of map a happy path. But, you know, what actually to pick one that, you know, that we both love to hate and maybe hate to love diversity is one, right? How does, OGM has a significant kind of schism or something like that that creates a diversity issue. And sometimes we can kind of look at it but we can't look at it for very long and then we bounce off of it and go do other stuff because we can't figure it out, you know. So. Well, I found that it's a digression but my satisfying approach to try to do that was to try to help people who aren't like me in other settings. And then if that worked, they might come in and join OGM and that hasn't worked very well so far for me. But that was my attempt was not to, hey, come on in and join the party, which would be maybe awkward, maybe not useful, maybe a waste of time, but rather how can I help you? Really bad. Yeah, so that's a bit of a coping mechanism and it's no offense if I can, armchair psychoanalyze a little bit even though I'm not a professional. It's a way of rationalizing that something has been done, right? But I would judge that we haven't, well, either one way to proceed might be to go, eh, OGM isn't very diverse, despite the name open, it's open for certain classes of individuals and that's okay because we partner with this other organization called Galactic Federation of whatever works in L's. And our diversity is meta diversity and it's fine that in our little pond, it's not very diverse. That would actually potentially be one way to resolve things but whatever, we haven't resolved it, right? Despite saying that we are doing stuff to resolve it, it is not resolved. And we have kind of decided not to resolve it in a way because we've decided that it's not as important as other things. We've decided it shouldn't be a showstopper and we shouldn't bring all the gears to a halt before we've solved this issue because we're finding it really hard to solve. Yeah, yeah. Which is different. Yeah, I don't think we're ignoring it. That doesn't feel right, but I get what you're saying and it needs to factor in somewhere here as well. I don't mean to pick on this particular issue, but there's in a healthy brain, a healthy, self-actualized OGM would be healthier. And so that's another thing along with technical infrastructure, kind of the sociological, anthropological infrastructure is arguably more important to actually, even though it's harder to deal with and suffer to feel and it's easier, especially for people like us to kind of go, well, let's kind of like, let's work on the tech stuff and then the anthropological stuff or the sociological stuff will take care of itself. So several things that you said are great and I just want to elaborate on them. One of them is that like there's kind of an issue map that I wanted to hear and that which factors in worries, fears, forces, other sorts of things and might conflate things in which case there may be several layers of map, one of which is more about emotions moving, one of which is more about issues and forces in the environment. And then I realized, oh, the magic square, the idea sex arena in the middle is where those maps basically come in for conversation, for comparison because, and it's sort of this and this layered model then kind of eats itself or becomes a little bit recursive in sort of a fun way where one of the layers becomes one of the narratives and maps that goes into the middle of this and then lather and repeat as it gets better, it goes out and becomes a better layer in the model, you know, et cetera, et cetera. And that's interesting and exciting for me. And then flows of value is similar to but maybe different from flows of individuals and organizations through OGM. So how do people find their way to the place where they can use their energy best in the broader ecosystem? How do funds make their way through the ecosystem? Which is kind of implicit here, but not explicit at all. Implicit in that a project is something that is fundable and OGM fund is trying to get funded so it can fund those projects. That's the only narrative that's visible here for that. Other money making methods, other sorts of things are not visible in these diagrams either. And then the impedance mismatches, the APIs between them or protocols between them and the dependencies between them is really interesting as well. And it feels to me like every entity that's playing here that has projects will have its own dependency diagrams and that the broader OGM diagram kind of does, but kind of, I don't know, because of the projects that I have on the projects layer, there's a few dependencies, but not a lot. And if I thought longer, harder and started to be more granular, there would be many more dependencies for sure. But the ones that put there, if any one of them came to be, I would be like really happy and it would not affect the other ones. The other ones could make progress on their own schedule. They're not that interdependent at this moment, just what I'm thinking. And I'll go back to that slide just so we can stir up, but here are the projects I had. So, well, Opal, having Opal would be great like early, but then all the other pieces, one they show up like brilliant. So other thoughts, thanks, Stacy. I think I understand it, as far as a model can understand what it's actually going to look like, but as far as the function, I think it looks great. I mean, I'm just assuming the technology all works and that when I log in with a quest for information about several of the projects, I can get directed to the various places where there's a thing of issues, a thing of worries, a valid flow, the dependence between the various ones or whatever else I'm looking for. So if that works, it looks fine to me. Looks good, useful, relevant. Cool, thank you. And most of the things in this diagram at least kind of exist now. The reason this is a square and I was describing it as magic happens here is that other things kind of mentioned here sort of except for the shared memory in the sweetie lines, narratives, maps, topic maps, brain diagrams, whatever, videos, transcripts, these things all exist. These things we're not waiting for, artificial generalized intelligence to show up for those parts to work. In fact, we don't need AGI for this part to work, but we do need some magic to happen to figure out how do we get beyond two or three people who happen to have used different mapping tools? Let's say there's a Rome person who's like really fond of Rome and has both a bunch of data in Rome and me trying to have a conversation. How do we get beyond both of us in a Zoom sharing links and screen shares that which is like the state of the art now and isn't enough? Like that doesn't actually create the fungus very well, right? And for that, I don't know what that next step is. I'd love to set up that experiment. I'd love to motivate people to come in and play with those concepts and show us what prototypes of that might look like. But a lot of the rest of the stuff, the Piragaji pattern language exists. It's in a book, right? But it doesn't exist in a way that puts it easily at hand for people stuck in group process, hence the project, right? Things like that. But we're not waiting for magic generally to happen everywhere. These things are kind of in many ways available. I think there's something that's interesting in what you just said about, you know, Rome, this and that doesn't give me what I want. I think it's interesting for everybody to say, oh, what I want is like this, but it doesn't do that and have differentiators. What is it I'm missing? What is it that's in this project that is not in other projects? Yes, Ann and Stacy, I'll go to you right after I say the sentence. Yes, I totally agree. And then there's the complicating factor that I think when Harlan, with the inventor of the brain, goes and talks to six brain users, the visions of what they'd like next as the feature set are completely divergent. Like there is very little convergence among brain users, which I think is part of his pickle over time, because he's added a thousand features to the brain, most of which I have not touched, do not use, do not want, just make the thing like slower and clumsier. There's a calendar barrier to the brain. I don't know why it's not, you know, none of that's happening. So yes, go ahead, Stacy. I'm wondering if it might not be useful to focus on the hypothetical situations where that human component comes in, like you mentioned that you would need humans. That would speak to what Pete's talking about with diversity, because by nature, those people are gonna be connected to more diverse populations. In particular, in particular, we treat as our primary and most important clients, people in other communities who are not like us. I mean, I think where we aim this thing really, really matters and the issues we look at really, really matter. And the reason I'm excited about the issues and forces layer of this, which is kind of one of the beginning maps is that modeling and diving into the kinds of struggles that are just out there that are not being paid enough attention to is a way for us to kind of synthesize and bring together a bit some of the issues that we're talking about here. I don't know that that was very clear, but I'm trying to say that where we aim our energy and attention matters a lot in terms of how this plays out. Right, I guess what I'm saying is if we had some hypotheticals of that, like somebody like me, I'm kind of blindfold, like I'm in this conversation, but I'm blindfolded. I don't understand a lot of the technology. So I can't make that connection between what I know and what you might need to hear from me. But if we had some examples that sort of like opens up the flood, oh, I get it. Oh, and if you work like that and... Yeah, in product management we would call those use cases. Yeah, yeah. Use cases, user stories and prototype, paper prototypes even, I mean. Right, yep. Other thoughts? So I think there's a couple of layers to add. Go ahead. I wonder what else do you think about this effort, Stacy? Oh, me? First of all, I got cut off in the middle. My computer just died into restart. So I missed part of it. The only, and this is just like an intuitive thing, it's no real thought into it. When I see the respect part in the top right-hand corner I kind of want to move it over the center and I inhabit part of the sprinkled everywhere but more in the center. Like I almost imagine like a green room. Like that's where people come as they're walking through to the next room. Sort of like a pass-through. Is that kind of like a core value or something maybe? Well, yeah, because I don't think that trust comes in a, I think trust is constantly being built. I think trust is part of every conversation and every decision. I was repeating today, trust comes from interdependence. So if you don't need to depend on somebody, you don't need to trust them and you don't. And you don't make the effort. Yeah, I agree. And a part of what we've done to our society is we've outsourced all those interdependencies and we've cut all the ways in which people used to do things for and with each other. It's like, that's not my job anymore. There's a government agency for it or there's a service you can pay for to do this or whatever. And so all those little threads, all the little threads that made the fabric of society have been snipped over time. I feel like we've also self-service web apps I think have warped people's brains over the past like 10 years. Because you can push a button and get a thing? Well, partly that, the thing that I really think about is Google's customer service mantra, right? You don't talk to a bot, you don't talk to a person. Google just either your Google stuff works or it doesn't. And the way that they do customer service is proactively by watching millions of people using their stuff and instrumenting it such that they understand where people are getting stuck and why they can't use something. So it magically kind of fixes itself, but they've also built, they've also excluded any way to actually do mediated service with the Google, the Google machine. Can you say mediated service in different words? Well, yeah, customer service, I can still call my bank. It's not very satisfying necessarily to call my bank and work through something, but at least I'm talking to a person and I can appeal to them and a little bit of their intelligence and I can appeal to them and their manager, or I can appeal to their customer service department. Google's model is really, there's a human fed AI that is taking care of you and that's good enough. There's a couple of ghosts behind the curtain that are doing a good job of watching what you're doing and trying to smooth the road ahead of you, but it's hard to talk to the ghosts. And I feel like we end up with learned helplessness that way because there isn't, you learn not to find help, right? I said this better in another call some place else, but a thing that I observe, I feel like there's a change in the past 20, 25 years. It used to be, we had this thing called Neticut and people who were getting online got a little bit of schooling about, this is how you do stuff, this is how you don't do stuff. We have body language, even in digital, disembodied space. And so there's things like you, we used to, you would say things like don't feed the trolls or, hey, the subject line on an email should reflect the contents of the email that you're sending. It shouldn't be a marker of a thread. This is another thing Gmail broke, by the way. They went so hard after just keeping things in threads that they taught people that, oh my gosh, don't change the subject line, otherwise everything's gonna get all confused and we won't be able to tell what we're talking about, which back in the day, we used to do that kind of stuff. So we had a culture of interdependence and human culture that was specifically interdependent, specifically caring about each other as we were moving through space, specifically tamping down anti-social behaviors. And we have largely, and even things like let's, the thing, this is gonna sound self-severing or like I'm butthurt to use a millennial term or something. Even things like let's do shared note-taking, right? That used to be an easier sell in the olden days, but nowadays we have learned not to take care, like we just kind of charge ahead and don't care about peripheral people even, because we've got this thing like, while I'm doing my thing, I'm saving my bookmarks or I'm putting my whatever or I'm liking and favoriting, but I don't have to do any more overhead than that. I don't have to slow down and tend to the conversation. I don't have to slow down and care for individuals around me. I don't have to, because it's just me and the way I'm interacting, right? And that's all that matters. And it's a weird thing. And I feel like it's definitely a big culture shift over the past 20 or 25 years, that we need to kind of grow back. We need to re-figure out how to do that. Marc-Claude? Yeah, absolutely right. That is a huge deal. I mean, I remember fighting in my ex-organization when I was pushing some of the concepts of idea looms, like threads matter. Of course, we've forgotten that threading matters because everybody's doing chat and chat doesn't have threading. And it's okay to not have threads when you have two people conversation or three, but when you have a large number of people on the listserv, it's very important who's replying to you. And we've lost a lot of capacity with, but one thing I want to get into and so write about Google's no-person culture, but the other axis of that is that my reaction as a programmer is I want to control the information and software so I can do things better if I'm not happy, right? And that's totally a programmer's reaction. And that's not a good reaction for a lot of people, because they won't do it, which is fine to a point, but there's this huge movement for everybody owning their own data. I don't know how many people are willing to manage their own data and the permissions and this and that because it's a learning curve. On the other hand, I do think it's important like let everybody have their own data and it does mean there's this culture to impart as well of how do you manage your own data? How do you pass it through something that will make it usable like a process without losing control over it? And we've all learned to just give away our data to processes that will make it look nice to us or do nice things for us, but oops, yeah. No, no, no, no, I was mostly done. I'm just saying this is a culture problem and you're right to point to that level and the only answer we've had is a tech answer and I don't know if a veteran answered that because I'm a techie. So I just wanted to add that our data is kind of being hoovered up behind us. Organizations are dumpster diving on our data and not telling us what they're doing with it not giving us access to where they're storing it. All of that is happening in the stocker economy or surveillance capitalism behind the curtain or behind the walls. But also we've lost the culture of feeding a commons in common and of what it means to collaborate to create that common. We've also lost abundance mindset and replaced it with scarcity mindset which means we see things as zero sum, we see things as the way you make money is you sequester ideas and data and you sell access to them. All of these are sort of part and parcel of the bag of tricks and ideas that we're living inside of that have been completely normalized and a part of what we'd like to do is start and I think this goes to our generative commons calls on Wednesdays to start a culture of abundance, a culture of sharing and curating, a culture of mutual responsibility, a culture of interdependence, a culture of taking care and being aware of other communities, other people. And I think there's tons of people trying to work on that. We just have different language for it and different means for doing it and haven't been very successful yet. But if you were to parachute down into communities around the world, you would discover them doing aspects of this really, really, really well on the ground all over the place. Like this exists in lots of places, it's just not the dominant framework or the dominant way we do stuff. Before- A question, I mean, you say there are communities around the world doing these things really well. Are there also, I mean, I'm assuming you mean in the offline world, do you think there are- Online too. Or online too, both, okay. They're using online tools to coordinate in the real world. I mean, a lot of these are geographically close. They're sort of location sensitive in part because they've met before in person and they've built trust or they have shared resources that they're managing together or whatever. But many of them are certainly highly skilled at using electronic tools as coordination or memory or whatever else. Ideal loom was very much inspired by the practice of one such person who learned from the IEEE and extended that in communities. Like one was at some point, he was writing a book on the history of currencies and he got a lot of people from Africa. And that was significant because that was before the cell phone craze in Africa. So people were still on listservs. And he did this listserv curation as a practice to get people involved. And he found that giving people, like people are not necessarily available to follow the whole listserv conversation, but if he would send them a kind of, okay, here's what happened in the past three weeks as a kind of outline of highlights, it would help to keep people hooked on the conversation and contributing. That was pure human curation and community curation and dynamics. And he got a great dynamic that way and the great people coming up with, he said there were three successive Copernican revolution where we said, oh, money's about this. And oh, no, actually it's about this. Because of this, the depth they could go in because of this process. And that was the origin of I dirum. Could you share who that was? Oh, yeah, absolutely, absolutely. Jean-Michel Cornu, he has a blog where he explains his practice in video. Oops, we just lost your audio. Because I was typing. Okay. But... Thank you. Collective intelligence, I don't know that I know Corvini. Yeah, he's not in my brain, he will be later today. Before we run out of, oh, Pete, we can't hear you. Yeah, that reminds me tangentially, unlocking a collaboration mechanism. It reminds me of Jack Harrick and Wikihau. It took them a while to get the rhythm down, but Jack kind of unlocked how you get people to collaborate nicely together in Wikihau. And I would judge kind of in a more healthy way than Wikipedia. Even though Wikipedia's got a lot of good about it. Makes sense. We're almost at the top of the list. We're almost at the top of the hour, and I just wanted to share something that isn't... It's part tangentially germane to what we're talking about. I just want to share it with you for a moment so you've seen it, which is... One of the things I did recently was I went and looked at all the stuff I've got in my bag of tricks around trust. And at first it was a bunch of post-its on the wall behind me. I had to picture that, I then mirrored that and then I started actually trying to sort of link it. And this document where all the blue underlined things are actually links to websites or documents or videos or video playlists. So this is kind of instrumented for all of this. It's just my look at what I've got, but these are a bunch of assets that live in the world that are usable, reusable. All the OGM related stuff is kind of in the center here and then designed from trust is nearby. These orange things are workshoppy things I've created. My Jerry's brain and inside Jerry's brain and pictures brain are down here on the right. The possibilities of a book, what are the chapters of a book over here on the left? Down below, I've got the implications of design from trust on different industries. I love education, for example, and a bunch of other things. And in the middle are little sort of nuggets like we've been suffering from a young overdose, what are the next two stacks? The cake of wealth, assume good intent, a bunch of other sorts of things. Happy to go into this in more detail, but just wanted to share it with you. And I think this will work, but I'll put the link here and tell me if you can get into it if you want to. Because I have a free account on Miro, which I think means that all my boards are public anyway. And I think I only get to do three boards at a time. So this one got complicated on purpose. And I was trying to figure out how to do layers in Miro so that I could step through what I just did on paper with you. And I just totally got stuck. And I think, I don't know that Miro does layers. I know that many other drawing tools do layers nicely. I'm not usually good at layers. I'm terrible at remembering what was on what layer and turning them on and off. But I also kind of want the ability to manipulate the layers as if I were holding a multi-plane camera in front of me and like walk through it that way rather than there's a checklist with layers, right? I like the physical experience of what maps to what and then like three-dimensional chess or like some, you know, seeing the layers like this. And then seeing that Pete is part of massive human intelligence project is working on this project that fits here in the web that is part of this force. You know, that kind of mapping would be super, super interesting and generative and that's more than just layers. That's actually sort of connections between layers which that I don't know many tools that actually support that at all. That would mostly be done in a drawing tool, you know, just visually you would make links and then it would just be a drawing tool. So you wouldn't actually sort of, if you were lucky you would have layers of objects that can interact, et cetera, but likely not. Many drawing tools. And I think I didn't check figment. I still use good old Omnibraphil but often you can have connections between objects in different layers and they're live connections meaning if I move the object the connections will follow. Is that what you mean or do you mean something more than that? I think I mean that, but I think I also, I mean, you can put sort of links across layers but I wanna see the links in a multi-layered view point of view. I want the layers not just to be artifacts but to be part of the visualization, part of the usefulness of the sheer diagrams. Really you wanna see the source and the sink of the, both sides of the connection. And then you kind of wanna take the layers and turn them sideways and be able to look at them in isometric or something like that. Yep, yep. And I don't know a tool to do that. No, what I would tend to want mostly is filtering by relation type. Yes, and then if you could peel away stuff, if you could do some set operations, some filtering, other kinds of stuff through the visual, that gets super interesting because then I can see all the things that you care about that you're interested in in how they map, I can see your path or Stacey's path through all the layers, right? That's just really, really fun. That is totally doable in Omnigraphal but it's plain and developed. Omnigraphal lets you turn on and off an object with the filters. It lets you turn enough layer, right? So what if you could, I think it's possible to say, you can say take all objects of this type, like all arrows and put them on one and select them and then you could put them on one layer fairly easily. Now, what's interesting is if I want to do it by type and you can have objects by type, like take all the red arrows, put them on one layer but all the blue arrows and not over here. And then you could be able to turn on and off. Interesting. Yeah, Stacey? Yeah, I could be wrong, but I think DigLife had a way like we could click on a person and you could see all their connections. They're using Kumu, I think for that. DigLife is big on Kumu because Christina is like a black belt in Kumu and she's done maps of communities, who knows whom, also force maps of like the food system and the gorge and stuff like that. I'm familiar with them using a Kumu which doesn't give you the layers that I'm talking about here. It gives you a bunch of other stuff. Kumu is a really powerful tool. And Christina and Gene Belanger are my black belt go-tos for how to use Kumu well. During that mirror board, it doesn't seem to be shared. Okay, that's interesting. Let me... Invite board and team. Team can access copy invite link. Let's see if this works. Thanks for checking. Try that link. Much messier link. A friendlier link, of course. Yeah, exactly, of course. Yeah, that works. Fabulous, thank you. Now that my computer restarted, I can click on links again. I'm grateful that I wasn't able to do that. Yeah, sweet. It's a good practice every couple of days to just restart your computer, even though... Every couple of days? Yeah, every couple of days, Stacy. It cleans things up. And it gives you back all the features that fall off as you use your computer and get it exhausted and tangled up in its underwear. Just reboot as you get to sleep. As a programmer, I would say, do a cron reboot at four o'clock, at 4 a.m. Which means set a task like an alarm that automatically reboots your machine every night at 4 a.m. Yeah. So you wake up to a nice clean machine. As we're coming to maybe the end of this call, I also want to let you know, CSE, Matamos, the chat server is going to be down some this day, today, on and off. It needs a reboot and to refresh. It needs a little love and petting? Yes. That's good. I love that. Cool. Anything else for this call? That was a bunch of stuff, but thank you. And I think there's a layer or two that we've just described that I'll draw and scan and add to the zip file. And then I'll try to, whenever you give me a thumbs up, Pete, that I can share files to the server, I will do that and we'll go from there. Any other thoughts from this call? Good work, Jay. Thanks, all good to see you. It's nice to have a diagram that starts speaking to the flows and the objects and the people and stuff like that. So anyway, we've had pieces of this and then to think about, okay, what parts of this can be modeled in Trove or Massive or what, that's fine. So, on from here. Okay. Thanks everybody. Good day. Bye. Ciao.