 this is the build OGM call for Tuesday, January 11th, 2022. And we're talking about an upcoming OGM call about money. And then also a conversation that's happening on the OGM lists about is there another civil war coming and how to take apart those issues. And so on the money one, I'm just, maybe there's two energies here. One of them is how do we look at different ideas about money and value and hold them properly so we can kind of weigh them, elaborate them, really explore them instead of dismissing them or doing combat with them. So that this isn't a fast debate with a knockdown, a knockout swing that devastates the other argument. This is like, okay, when presented with this other argument which seems odd to you, how do you climb inside it? Have you heard of steel manning? Yes. Okay, so- More than I want to hear about. Wow, okay. Is that from GCC or other places? Yes. Okay, good. Just lucky guess, lucky guess. So that's very funny. So in some sense, understanding the other side's argument better than they do is a really good thing to do and to have, right? And so, and then the second force, and this is again me and my quirky brain thing, but that's what I'm trying to do, what I'm using the brain is like, I took a Steve Bannon video from a year ago, a year and a half ago, kind of early pandemic, I think, and I deconstructed what he said in the video. In fact, let me screen share it with you just because, so Bannon assertions, oops, I got to spell it right. There's assertions, let me move our thumbnails off it. So I took this interview, Steve Bannon interviewed by Zanny Milton Bedos. I don't remember who he is, he's an, oh, he writes for the economist, okay. So he interviews Bannon and Bannon says all these things and I write a note to myself, Bedos does not manage this argument well, but then here are all the things that Bannon says, I don't disagree with all of them at all. And once you sort of listen with care, and I believe that my notes here under his assertions are faithful, I think that I'm actually trying to represent what Bannon said, I don't think I'm trying to twist or spin them. And that's its own question, did I hear him properly and am I taking good notes basically? But he talks about the three driving forces of the Trump Revolution, America first, deconstruction of the administrative state, economic nationalism, America first, all that kind of stuff. Anyway, I'm busy doing this and I'd like to do this for the civil work. So here's my civil war note. This is the link I just sent you in the chat in text. I've been following in like these articles, these articles are in, here's are we doomed, which I wrote down is excellent, which is written by George Packer in which he's saying, and January 6th was just practice. This is, we're actually heading for another civil war. And I have a thought underneath here, will Democrats be able to head off the rolling coup? And that's opposite, Trump is leading a rolling coup, Republicans are willingly on board, it's an immediate crisis. So all of this is woven together. And I don't know how other people might represent this, but I think that the artifact of the articles deconstructed in the way we're talking about on the OGM list, then fed into a persistent memory and whether it's the brain or massive wiki or some other thing or all three at once weaving among themselves, I think that's important to do. And so anyway, that's kind of how I'm coming at this. So I have an idea. You'll let me know if you think it's useful. What about if we took that civil war thread, started with a blank page and just map the points there? If we each pulled highlighted, we don't even have to credit who said it. But if we just highlight the different points and start fresh, almost, I mean, almost as a way, not almost, as a way not only to separate different ideas without assigning judgment to them, just to separate the ideas, but also to learn the practice for those of us that aren't familiar with mapping, what we're even talking about. Right. And so a way to do that would be to pull out a Miro board and just start from scratch or to ask Jack Park and Mark Antoine who are both very geeky and way more technical and not inclined towards simple visual solutions, but to ask somebody for, hey, is there an argumentation tool we could use? Because the closer we get to IBIS, and IBIS got mentioned yesterday on the call at the very start of the call, IBIS is a kind of famous so issue-based information system which comes out of Horst Riddle's ideas about thorny problems. And then there's this guy named Jeff Conklin who's made his entire career trying to get an IBIS-like tool in the world with not that much success. So there's a tool he created called Gibbis which is based on IBIS, et cetera, et cetera. And this is a tool that was meant and IBIS is ancient, I'll look it up and see I'll add what data it was created in, but it goes back to like the 1980s. This has been around for a very long time and we're still not using this stuff. That's the only reason I'm bringing up IBIS is that people have been trying to model arguments for a long time and we're not doing it. Now, Jamie Joyce and her debate society and other kinds of things, maybe she's got some things to bring to the party then it would be fun to use some of those tools. And then from my brain perspective, I never create a blank brain and start over. I could do that with someone else and that would be their brain, but my brain, I'm always connecting into context which exists. So clean slate is really hard for me. Okay, so I guess what I'm trying to say is why couldn't we just start by pulling out ideas and throwing it on a whiteboard? Just get the idea. That's exactly what Miro would be. Miro is the big whiteboard. Okay, so you say, I didn't know that I'm sure other people that don't use Miro don't know that either. Then we can connect them to points on your brain but I'd like to see what our whiteboard just for the people in the room looks like. Which makes total sense to me. And also I can then connect to the finished Miro artifact and add it to my brain. And also as we're talking through, as we as a group are thinking and talking together on the Miro board, I'm busy looking back and forth to my brain and I will make changes to my brain and update it and add things as they perk up in that conversation. So it's useful for me that way as well. It totally works fine. So I think setting up a Miro board for the Money Call might be good. If Grace thinks it'll be distracting to the way she wants to run the call, we should vet it with her first. But I think that's a useful thing to do. Yeah, and I was gonna say, it doesn't even have to be on her Money Call. It could be after or it could be on. I was thinking about the Civil War thread. I was thinking about taking, I would like to take or the Money Thread, but I want to take one of, because we have the written documents there already. So we could come into a call. We all have the textbook. So a simple thing to do right now is that someone with a persistent Miro account could create the starter board with a couple issues and then just give us all access to it. The problem with Miro is that when you have a free account as I still do it, I don't pay Miro anything every month because I don't use it very much. You're only allowed to have like three of your own Miro boards. And right now I have three that I like. And if I create a new one, I push the last one off that list, which I don't want to do because it kind of locks it up in a weird way. So we ask somebody with a Miro account to go start one. And then everybody else who comes in as a guest can play as a guest and no big deal and work with that. And that sounds great. And we could do that before a call. We could do that like now and just say, hey everybody, we've created a Miro board for this civil war conversation. Let's go populate it. So if we could just slow down just for a minute because I'm really interested in the social part of this too. It's not just about creating that. If we each came in with one sentence that stuck out for us, not if we agree, disagree, it doesn't matter, whatever your reason is. One sentence that really stuck out for you. And we looked at if 10 of us have, what those 10 sentences are and then just try to fit, how do they all fit together? Yep. That sounds good. And I mean, group process matters a lot and we can play with and figure out like, how do we walk into this with everybody? And in particular, how do we walk into this with everybody? So everybody has a sense of participation, which is I think what your offer right now would do. In the real beginning stage, because then people can go off in their directions and get more in depth with whatever their thing is and do the more technical stuff or the deeper thinking or the deep, so that's what was on my mind, Jester. That's been what's been done. And that kept you up. That kept me up. Well, yeah. And I keep trying to figure out why people aren't concerned about or interested in persistent artifacts more, like persistent memories, logic charts, whatever, like the ways of modeling reasoning that last over time. Because otherwise we're having the same conversations over and over and over and over again, which is not only exhausting, it's also debilitating. Like the other side totally gets this and what they do is they're like, hey, let's just repeat the same lies again. And there's no consequence. And guess what? The other side is tongue-tied and can't understand why we didn't agree to it last time. And wow, it's disruptive, right? So for me, this shared memory is really important. Yes. Yes. I wanna go back. Well, you know what? Now I'm conscious of the recording. I was wondering that. You know what? Do I go with it or I can shut it off? Let's shut it off. Ha ha ha. Excellent. Michael, welcome to the call. Stacey and I are kicking around a couple of conversations that are happening at OGM and a couple of calls that are coming up. And we're talking about sort of formats, methods, motivations and some bigger picture stuff, like how to make it so that and I think Stacey in your language, so that some of the things that we're all doing are kind of investable. So that if somebody really wanted to, they could actually sort of put some money into one of these projects or sub-projects. Like for example, Gil wants to create a fund. Could the fund be such that anybody in OGM could also be a co-investor in the fund, for example? Suffice that. What I was actually saying to you was beyond, like a little bit beyond that because what I'm saying is that OGM is the, we're investing in OGM and OGM is deciding where to put money that we've invested. So like, let's say Gil wanted to do, like that would be part of OGM. He would take lead on it. If that's something he's interested and then we're all emotionally invested in it as well. So the picture that we were moving toward when we were working hard with Jordan and Lyonsburg was pretty much exactly that. There was going to be an OGM fund. We were going to go raise funds that would go into the OGM fund. And then the OGM fund would allocate funds to projects that were creating, that were pitching tiles. That's sort of where the tiles language came up. And the tiles were pieces of the big mosaic and the mosaic was the larger vision for the future of where this thing is headed. And so the tiles would be fundable, separable projects and not necessarily code. The tiles could be facilitating six meetings, could be something else, right? But those tiles would then be fundable from whatever OGM fund had in it. And then any projects that wanted to be affiliated or associated would sort of become part of the flotilla of things that we could invest in. And if Gil's fund were one of those and the architecture were such that it was doable, then some of the funds could go into the Gil fund. If that makes sense. And to keeping the fun part and the social part in OGM, like I can imagine a call where people are throwing out different project ideas, and maybe some parts of some will be taken and somebody might decide to do it, but it's an OGM funded, it's something that belongs to OGM and that the money comes back into OGM, a good portion of it. Which is part of the reason for Cryptocurrency and all that. Go ahead, Michael. I was just gonna say that, I think one of the things that we've run into at various points in discussions of structure has been profit for profit, non-profit for profit, and co-ops and the extent to which we're doing things in the commons, all those boundary issues that I think are kind of critical to getting buy-in. And from, as I understand it, what Gil's doing is a venture fund of sorts that is investing for profit. It's a green, Jerry, I think you were tossing the term green around into the mix, that they're benefiting financially by doing green arounds. That's something that investors are game to back and it's not necessarily something that OGM members are willing to just give their IP to. And maybe there are ways to make that work, but it seems to me in a way that OGM is better served, particularly given the investment that so many of us have made in it already by being either a non-profit or a co-op as opposed to trying to find, and I almost think my take, and Jerry, I think I've said this to you before, I mean, I think being a non-profit is a tough road, but a better bet in the spirit of things being for the commons and our having all put our energy into this thing to build a better world and make it very open to invitation and cooperation as opposed to part of the competitive landscape. And I think also there are many different ways that Gil could create his fund, some of which would be very much in the light of what you're saying, like totally amenable and we would happily cooperate, some of which would feel like it's just another venture fund and no thank you. And in both cases, if the fund happened to use ideas or models that we put up, we'd be thrilled. Like, if a for-profit venture wants to go borrow something we've created and put it to work in some good way, I'm good, but I'm unlikely to go step in there myself. Right, right. And I mean, I think with clear boundaries and understanding of what we're doing by participants, it's like if I participate in Internet Archive or EFF for Consumer Union or any of a bunch of a Center for Humane Technology, the efforts of any of those groups, I know what they stand for and I know that they're just trying to spread the gospel. And I don't have, and I know that they're not trying to protect any of the ideas they're promoting, they're actually trying to disseminate them. And I think if OGM can be, you know, it sounds, sorry, I'm gonna say an organ of dissemination. Well, that does sound a little obisde, doesn't it? I'm laughing at my own, whatever. Yeah, yeah. So, but you know, I mean, that it's only, its reason for being is to bring people together and spread ideas, not to like get ahead. Now, I realize that, and you know, I say for myself, you know, in a time when money is tight and we're all trying to figure out how we can do something that pays our own bills, that's not the best solution for that necessarily, but since I think the participants in OGM run the gamut from people who are unemployed to people who are, you know, doing just fine, thank you, and trying to do good, I don't know. It seems right not to have this be something where it's a fund where those who can, if it's a fund where people can invest, can invest, benefit financially versus, well, I don't know, this can go in so many different directions. I don't really have an end to that sense, but. Casey, please. Yeah. Yeah, I was gonna say, I think it'll be interesting to have to revisit this after Grace's talk on money. I think that would be interesting and just to, Michael, so actually when you talk about dissemination, that's how I started the call with Jerry, not using that word, but talking about OGM being in the business of connecting and, you know, that's two directions, disseminating, pulling in, you know, that's, yeah. I mean, the gathering and distributing, you know, to put it a different way, seems very on brand. And what I sometimes feel attention about is like the natural capitalist marketplace, you know, impulse to gather and capitalize and, you know, hoard and capitalize and resell and, you know, figure out how can we, how can we benefit from all that we've brought together? And, you know, that's how we function in business. It's its own straight jacket. And, but yeah, I mean, I hear you, Stacy, about the idea of bringing together and pushing outward and spreading. My thought, and this may be a crazy thought, but the revenue stream would be coming from, you know, the big money that wants help in finding projects that they want to fund as opposed to looking to make money from the people that are looking for those connections, we'd be serving those people. Those are the people we'd be serving. So it's a different way of looking at things. Are you saying, I mean, I get this idea for a business which is almost an employment agency, but it's not like necessarily jobs. I mean, you're a skilled sort of thing, but still. I'm thinking more like a social club, a social club that winds up having bigger players want to come in because the people that they want to connect to, not going up higher, but that they want to fund. And the people that are doing work that they want to get behind, we're all hanging out here, having a jolly old time. And they want to, they want to hear what these people are all doing. But that doesn't generally in other settings turn into funding. Like what it turns into is like, if you're lucky, a couple of those people join the conversation. I mean, I've been on many forums in many places over many years now where there's frothy conversations and you're like, this is exciting. And nobody shows up and says, I'd like to pour some money on this. Well, this is why I started off saying, and we went off because it was kind of like, a little bit different. But this is why I talked about an OGM that if we want to invest in, this is going to be a business that we want to invest in, but it had three different prongs to it. So it was the connecting thing. It was the media part, which had to do with the newsletter and all that and content creation and whatnot. It's too much to go into like right now. I have to like really draw it out, but it had three different parts to it, three different elements. And one of it was the economic part with people like Kevin's involved in something that's very interesting to me. If Gil is starting something, and again, it would be an arm of OGM. There'd be a whole arm that's looking to specifically make money. That is that arm's job, but it's still connected to the other parts. So it's trying to shift certain dynamics that we're not always aware of. And Michael, it's lovely and serendipitous that you dropped in here to this conversation because of everybody in OGM, you're the one who's most brought up this note about, hey, we need to resolve these sorts of issues about what are people's intentions and reward mechanisms and how does this all fit together? And I think part of our exploration is to figure out are there interesting innovative ways in which we can serve the commons and make a living doing so without creating these kinds of conflicts, right? And I'm still thinking that's possible. And that's part of the reason that we were talking a little bit earlier about DAO structures and other kinds of structures that is that a DAO can have a series of projects that are available for doing and when somebody completes one, they can get paid in the DAO currency, whatever that particular DAO sort of set up. And that's a reward mechanism of sorts. And this increasingly is becoming a structure for nonprofits. A bunch of nonprofits are starting to head that way. So that's interesting. And again, these are all sort of tensions that need to get resolved. As an aside though, do you notice how many people enjoy having these kinds of conversations? That that's something to think about because those kind of things stop once a project starts and then the project falls apart. I don't know if the whole community- I don't know if the whole community- Stacey, I'm just curious what you mean. How many people you mean that- I'm saying people enjoy ideating, having philosophical kind of- That's a draw too. That's something that keeps people coming back too. And that's something we should look at because I mean, lots of people stay in jobs. They may not love the job, but they love the people. Or you're willing to take a job for less when there's other things that are going on. And I'm saying we need to look more at that because that will also affect wellness of individuals, which is something that we don't tend to look at when we're looking at money. And maybe we should. I hear that. I'm just trying to step out of my previously expressed point of view to like, okay, if the given is that OGM be a investable entity with returns for someone. I mean, and I don't mean someone person. I mean, people involved with it, whether financially or as doers. What is the- What- You know, I get the idea of people who want something good to happen putting money into something. But what is- That's not a revenue stream that's financing. Whether it's a non-profit or a for-profit, it's either donors or investors who are saying, I want good things to happen. Here's some money. But on the other end, if it's a for-profit, there has to be someone, whether it's B2B or B2C, who's saying, I want some of what you're offering. I will pay a monthly subscription or I will pay all a cart for that thing. And whether that thing is to take it one place for OGM to be an employment agency or not, I don't mean employment, but a connector for, yeah, higher. I mean, but to be something where, whether it's companies or individuals or community efforts of some kind, OGM gets its fee from or revenue from connecting the people who have the money with the people who are doing the work that that money wants to support. Yeah, I don't know that that's a great business model, but that's a business model. And another is the idea that, we kind of come back to the pie in the sky, factor, trove, Jerry's brain, massive wiki, the knowledge commons to which, well, I mean, to make it a viable business, it's not necessarily a commons unless we go the Wikipedia nonprofit, this is all free for you to take, but we ask you to pay a certain amount or the public broadcasting model in that sense where it's in our profit. But as a for-profit, we kind of need people to subscribe to this product, to this knowledge sharing product that we offer, and maybe we offer it for free to some people and it's a freemium product, but that's another business model for OGM to have some revenue on the non-investment end that supports employment for some. And I'm throwing those two models out there, I'm sure there are more, but the question of who is paying something for what OGM has to offer, I think has to be in the mix of a for-profit entity that we and others might invest in. All right, Susan. I wanna go back to what Stuart once said on the call, which was to find the solutions, we're gonna have to not think about making money in the beginning, and I think that's true. So if I could just give you an example of what I'm talking about, just I have nobody's permission to do this, I'm just, so let's imagine OGM is gonna be this agency that I'm talking about that's gonna connect people, almost like a reverse employment agency. So the way I envisioned it is we decide that we're gonna start with Trove and we're gonna have teams of at least two people going and making friends, visiting our friends and filling out with them their spots on Trove. So we're using, we're all working together with Trove where we're not just expecting people to add their information, it's a role to go and sit with somebody and hear about their project. And it would be three people, it would be the person inputting to the project, the two people visiting. Right then we're building relationships, we're also getting to understand more. And as we do this, we might have different teams of people doing this, we're weaving, we're connecting. That's just the littlest, tiniest start of one. But it's that kind of weaving socialization into building something that I'm most focused on. That's the start. If we think about money too soon, it's gonna mess stuff up. And we've talked about it, but ironically you could say we postponed that conversation successfully for a really long time. And we're still here meeting and talking about stuff and figuring stuff out. Which means a lot that we still keep coming and there's no money involved. But yes, and there's forums all around the world that have that, that have communities. I mean, you've been in GCC for a long time and GCC has a standing community of people trying to sort out how to collaborate, right? My first experience of really good forums online was the Well, which was a pre-internet, they ran a forum software called PicoSpan. And there were some really, really interesting people on the Well. And in fact, there was a global business network, had a forum on the Well that I got invited into because Esther, my boss was part of global business network. So in there, there were like all kinds of crazy smart people just talking about stuff and scientists and a bunch of others, super cool. And there's a backstory for what happened to the Well once the internet showed up. And suddenly the Well was the example of a great online community. And then it got screwed up entirely. It's really funny, like the monetization of that free conversation of that little scrappy organization called the Well that was kind of barely making it by with people's dues cratered because the spotlight got shown on it really like brightly. So these dynamics of people getting together for fun and then people making a living are delicate but not impossible. And that's what I've said this before. What I like about OGM is there is a huge, there's a really big concentration of people that are working from their heart. That means a lot. Great. Raquel, you were gonna jump in? Well, I was actually curious to get three minutes on what did happen with the Well. Oh, sure. From your vantage point. Just because I think it might be educational for us and I'm serious. So let me, let me just find it in my brain and tell the story with the brain. Boop, boop, share screen and here we go. So the Well came out of the whole earth, it's the whole earth electronic link was the name of it. And it came out of the whole earth catalog, it's Stuart Grant, he was sort of at the core of it and it was founded in 1985. And then what happened was they got salons, sells the well to long-term members, that's much later. What else do I have here? This is from before I was doing this properly. Then this guy named Bruce, where's the Point Foundation? Here's the Point Foundation. Danica, Michael Phillips, whole earth. Shoot, where's the guy? So this guy who was wealthy and not that wise on what this was basically bought the Well right at the moment when online community was big and all of this stuff was coming out and it's kind of lots of people just sort of left the Well to go to other places to talk. They had no real idea of how to preserve the Well's culture and the thing went down the tubes. Gosh, Bruce, I can look it up. And obviously I didn't curate this very well back then but the salon magazines owning the Well happens later. The Well actually took over the Well? I believe so. Okay, yeah. And I can, we can go to the Well's page and Wikipedia and that'll probably tell us a lot of the backstory. All right, I'll do that, okay. Sorry, I was just curious. Oh, that's okay. So here, let me just go back to... Let me go back to screen sharing on the Well's page. Well, I mean, you don't have to... Bruce Cates, founder of Rockport. So 1994, he buys it. And then he sells it to the salon, that's what happened. Yeah. And the Well, I think still exists as kind of a tiny community trying to do stuff, but it just lost, it just completely lost its position in the different communities that were part of it. Yeah, Bruce Cates. And it's now... It's now a small, I think it still exists as a small independent, yeah. I see something up there. Yeah, so. But it's a really sort of instructive story. It's a really instructive story about how fragile online communities are. It'd be interesting to do the exit interviews and find out why people left. And there's a bunch of people who were on the Well who were probably in OGM. I think there's a pretty good institutional memory of the Well at hand, easily at hand. So I'm willing to bet that Ken Homer was on there and Pete Kivinski... Oh, you were? Okay, I never heard of it. So what made you leave? Me? Yeah. Oh, I mean, it turned... I was a latecomer and the expectations that one began to have of how interaction on the internet worked as opposed to the way things worked in this like really klugey, old style pre-internet bulletin board that kind of... There was no webpage for the Well when I was on it. And it was just non-internet and everything was happening on the internet and happening in a much more accessible way. And I was there and also on Echo, which was sort of it was called... Stacey Horne's bulletin board. Yeah, East Coast Hangout, which was sort of the New York counterpart to the Well. And that was more active and more... And seemed to be moving more in a web-friendly direction. So I ended up being there a little more and then that sort of fizzled to... I'm not sure if it exists really anymore. So what was on your list? Also on the right-hand side. So here's Stacey Horne and Echo. And this is in Manhattan. Yeah, and then I found Bruce Cates and connected him up a bit. And I put in... I added... Cates bought the Well in 1994 and sold to Salon, which completes the story a little bit better. And these are in the day... That was the days of bulletin board systems where if you were an enthusiast, you had a modem and you used your phone and you logged in to each separate bulletin board and there wasn't really internet email. It didn't really exist. You could message inside of the boards, no problem. But I remember the day when I could send a message from CompuServe to the Well or something like that. And I was on Panics also. That was my first sort of account in New York. Panics was Bruce Fancher, I think. And all of these were characters who were busy running these forms. All of which to say... So I think, Stacey, early in this conversation you talked about, there's a bunch of philanthropic organizations who are probably interested in feeding some of the things that we're doing. I think the thing that's easiest, may not be the right word here to paint, is the commons and the conversations we've had about the generative commons and creating... Putting things in the commons that serve everybody and hopefully improve humanity. I think those are things that some organizations would like to back. And the community part that comes around it, beside it that makes it happen, I don't know that that's that investable or even fundable as a nonprofit benefit. But I could be wrong. Yeah, I just... So again, I didn't have... I just did this two minutes before I came on, but there is AHRD research funding. I don't know if you've ever heard of them. AHRD? Yeah. No. Again, I know nothing about them. I'm just Googling and looking around. And they give funding for human resource development, practitioners, researchers. And certainly... And so I'm thinking in terms of, if we're looking at OGM as a system and we're experimenting with ways that increase productivity, whatever that productivity may be, that could be worded to fall into the category of human resource development. I don't have the right language for what I'm saying. All I can say is when I was in... When I was thinking about grad schools and stuff like that, I wanted to be... I thought about going in to be an industrial psychologist. And I was told, no, don't do that. You'll be working for big businesses, squeezing employees. And so that's why I didn't do it. I believe them. I didn't do that. But OGM wouldn't be that kind of business. We're not looking to squeeze our people. We're looking to help bring them into homeless. So it's a whole different thing. And I'm just thinking worded the right way with different experiments set up. Maybe an organization like that would want to fund our experiment. And then we would be able to pay people for the roles in the experiment that they're taking on. So like when I use the example of a team of two people working to get somebody's project into Trove, that would be something that we could consider a role. And we could measure a whole economy. How would we grow an economy? Make... I just want... Like I see us as just like a simulated company. And there are really interesting and pretty elaborate communities out there that are doing experiments like this. So I would say we would connect with them. Yeah. Well, we might even use their platform because some of them have open source platforms to do stuff. But we haven't really made the research or done the outreach. Which of these we'd like to pick. And in fact, OFC is trying to build a platform to do this kind of thing within the larger scheme of Lyonsburg and the kind of connections we already have. What is OFC? So OFC is Jamaica Stevens and Caitlyn. It's the... Let me remember what OFC stands for. Sorry. Open Future Coalition. And they're totally in the Lyonsburg group of interested companies and all that kind of thing. What's their connection to Lyonsburg? I mean, I know Jamaica was in some of the conversations that I participated in with Jordan. They're creating an open impact platform, which was going to be a component part of like the Lyonsburg kind of group created platform. And so Caitlyn Archambeau. Here's Caitlyn. And we had a call about this with Jamaica, Caitlyn, Pete and me and Jordan sort of going through what the platform looked like and where it was going. So they were building stuff kind of as part of what Lyonsburg saw as lots of different elements that would be needed together to foster the next generation of how business works and how the Commons works and all of that. So what I'm saying is a team would go to them and get their project in trove. And then another team would go to another group like them and get their project in trove. And we're weaving people and ideas at the same time. So, Stacey, are you seeing trove as, as sort of OGMs? Like, I mean, when you say trove. I'm using it as an example. So, but I mean demonstration yet. Well, it's just for clarity to me, I'm just like, you know, trove is, is as an entity, not, not a nonprofit. I don't think Vincent's quite sure what it is yet. But I mean, you know, in that it's his self funded thing. It, it's not, it's not an OGM thing. And are you imagining that any. I'm imagining he would still like the help. Sure. You're acting on faith that whatever is put into trove would be kept in the public view and or domain and that he's working. His intentions are basically working the same way. But as Michael points out, the structure of trove right now has, has no such guarantees actually. And actually I'm not, I'm not even saying that it's more that, you know, okay, like there's, there is trove. There's, you know, massive wiki. There's, you know, I feel like they're like about six efforts, some of them, none of them nonprofit, all the things that people are working in who people, you know, and factor, you know, people who are doing things when Wendy's everybody's wisdom, people are all doing things that they want to do them. They're either structured as for profits or individually owned things. And using trove as an example. Are we, are we saying, you know, in certain name of OGM participant here, who might or might not be for profit, or we're using trove because admittedly trove is the most probably more people in OGM are represented by a profile on trove than, than any other of the projects that people on, on in OGM are doing. That's a long question, but I mean, let me try to answer all of it. So first of all, I'm using trove as an example, as far as whether it's profit nonprofit, that doesn't matter to me. What I'm thinking of is OGM as an employment agency, let's say, we're deciding to use trove, we, you know, after we talk, you know, obviously we talked to him, why am I picking trove in particular personally, because when I came to OGM 18 months ago, there were certain, and I just shared this with Wendy, there were certain people that I looked at right away and I said, those are the people that get it, at least get what's in my head that I would want to work with. You were one of those people. Vincent was one of those people. I didn't know Wendy, but as soon as I met Wendy, I mean, you know, we're going to meet to talk more about this later. So that's why I picked, that's why I picked trove. And I also see how it fits in, because it was something that even I could use. And so in this separate employment kind of fictitious business, I'm using his product, which is helping him, because people are seeing it, are using it, he's getting data into it. It has nothing to do with, I don't want any profit from his thing, that's his thing. That's where dows come in. So that would be, that's his own dow. So, you know, GM is their own doubt, but we're doing business with his doubt. Now there's no money exchange, but there is a value exchange. So using that and framing it like this, it's helping us build our relationships with other people. We're weaving, which is part of the greater connection. But if we set it up right, maybe we could get funding in the way that I explained, we're doing this experiment. So there's a lot of things and, you know, there would be different, you know, academics that I would reach out to that are working, you know, with the human psychology and wholeness, you know, there's, but these would be specifically chosen people that I can already see there's an alignment there. And then they reach out on their own. But in terms of like the framework, there may be a million. I mean, again, I don't know the other projects, but I get a sense of who he is as a person, and that's a creation that came from him. So there's a better chance that the values that I'm looking for are already built in. That make any sense or answer any of the questions. I mean, it does. I guess it. I'm trying to think of how we codify what your talking about, which, you know, I appreciate as, as you're, you know, kind of gut feeling about a person and whether they're for profit or nonprofit, whether they're doing good things. And I'm trying to imagine how what the model is for OGM to function that way on our collective gut instincts about people and what they're doing and. And, and also, you know, pitch that. That. Way of operating to investors slash donors. I mean, nothing, nothing that you're doing sounds bad. It. It just like if we, if we extrapolate it, what, what is the, what is the formula that what you're saying is an example of. And, and I think we just have to, you know, figure out how to put that into words. But, you know, and I realize you're brainstorming. I get it. Yeah, and, and that's why I'm trying not to think about the money first, because first I want to say, are people going to show up to do this? Is this something we could have fun with? Because if we can have, you know, if we can have fun setting up a call with this other, you know, organization to input the data, then it's not going to work. So I just want to see, is this fun? And I know so far, like Jerry, the calls that I've been on with you, where we meet with one person. I mean, they're really fun. Sure. Let me go back to the thing you were just saying, Stacey, about two people outreach to bring other people in and register them on Trove, et cetera. So I, there's two different activities that I think from my perspective, I see two different activities that you're sort of blending in a way. One of them is I have a, I have a huge number of organizations in my brain called OGM neighbor communities. They are all entities that I would love OGM to reach out to and early on in the process, I was like, we need to have an outreach process. It would be great to figure out how to, how to offer whatever it is we have a value to other entities. And then to, and that means to weave them into the larger context in different ways. And one of those steps would be logging them in, in Trove, but, but, but Vincent has already, I did a little export of all of those nodes and he already sucked those all into Trove. So there's already an entry for a lot of these entities in Trove that those entities don't even know exists. So the second force is how do you do crowd source or reliable directory. And here I'm inspired a little bit by word Cunningham, who, who had a trick for getting people to use a wiki, because wiki is like, wait, how does this work? And what he would do is he'd be coaching a group on, on starting a wiki and he would enter some information on the wiki page wrong intentionally. He would, he would make a mistake and he would enter something wrong. And he said the moment they push me aside and take over the keyboard and say, no, no, no, it's like this. And my work here is done. And they've got to figure out how to save the page and poured me a little bit. But, but, and I'm not saying we should enter wrong information into Trove. Kind of I'm saying, if we float in front of other people, an asset, which is, Hey, here's, here's a community that already has the, your organization as a visible entity, would you like to come in and sort of own that entity and sort of make sure that the information is legit and then start participating in the community through that vehicle. That could be a form of outreach. Right. And that benefits Trove because they become the platform where that little presence is, is, is held for a while. But then there's other aspects of what it means to be in this community and, you know, what you're doing. So, so then there's kind of a couple of different parts to it. Right. Which, which sort of fit together nicely. And that, that goes back for me, that goes back to what does outreach from OGM look like. And we got stuck there on a call. I remember, I wish I remember when it was, but it was long ago. We got stuck there trying to figure out, okay, so what value does OGM actually offer to any other community. And we really, we really got stuck there trying to articulate that like, how do I approach another, another organization? How do we wiki data? We should totally be talking to wiki data. We should have some interesting kind of relationships with wiki data. We should be feeding wiki data and like weaving data from wiki data. That'd be great. We haven't opened that door, haven't tried an item. And I'm not sure exactly what to say to wiki data that OGM is and does that wiki data will be like, Oh my gosh, we want what you're having. Right. So we kind of need to be able to say something about that like that. Now we have a nice conversation open with the archive, but it's not really gone anywhere. So we have a guy who's an employee at the archive is a regular on our calls. Mech Carpillas is also joining a few calls here and there. He just met me. He happened to be in Portland. So I saw him in person a couple of days ago. He's lovely. And he's kind of a peer of Marx at the archive. That's good. And there's a door there, but that door isn't like spinning wildly as we figure out what to do together. That's not happening. So we had to pitch like OGM at the archives weekly Friday lunch. And that turned into this conversation with mech and not a lot else. So, so I think that, that I'm, I've, I've long been really interested in this outreach thing. A little bit like, you know, how a slime mold goes and finds nutrients and incorporates them and sort of grows and spreads and all that kind of stuff is like, we're, if we're my serial network, then the hi-fi are the little things that we do. And then we have to figure out what is the exchange of nutrients with each other entity. And that's not impossible, but not solved. It's not, it's not done yet. We don't really know what that is. And I was really interested in there being a page on our, on our wiki that says, Hey, anybody interested in outreach, go here. Here's what outreach means. Here's who you've reached out to. Here's, you know, here's some steps in the process as we invent the process. Here's who else would like to do outreach. That would be great. But we don't have that yet. Did that make sense? It does. And it, but to me, that fits, that all fits into like the way we've always done things, the way things are always done. So like when you talk about all that information that we've gathered, that's already in trove. That's wonderful. But that didn't do anything to create a human one-on-one relationship with each other. What I mean is that that's a starting place for that conversation. We don't have ourselves organized to have, have that conversation and lather and repeat. We don't, we don't have that. No, but what I think we do have. And what I think we could offer. There is something. In our social makeup. That. People want it. It's an interesting room to be in. There are, you know, I mean, there's, there's something to being around, not just interesting people, but interesting people that are kind. That aren't looking to take something from you. I don't want to lose that. Exactly. And that's why in like the example I gave of a project, it's like, how do we support people that are already here? But use it to build relationships and connections. And that's why I think that's a good idea. But use it to build relationships and connections. Cause that's, that's going to be what's going to be different about. Everything that's ever been done before. I'm realizing we're past our, past the hour. And also, and also Stacy. Often new things are combinations of existing things. And I think if, if you can think of the role model entities that you were blending here and what you're proposing, that would help. Because, because inventing something from whole cloth is really hard. And so, and so it's a little bit like, you know, in the player, which is, I got to watch the player again. It's such a funny movie. But you know, it's like, it's like three days of the condor meets terminator two is shorthand to explain a new movie. And then you're like, Oh, okay, I get it. It's going to have like an alien robot that. And so here it's like, this is like internet archive meets a social one of us, the social club. It's like, wait, what? But the juxtaposition would help us figure out a combination of business models and dynamics and ethos and spirit kind of right. So the role model might be like a parent's association in a school. But the directionality is what changes. Instead of looking, what can we, what can we get from our community? We're going to look to what can we give to our community. Right. Right. Cool. So that might be a good place to leave this conversation and come back to it next call. Any final thoughts on this? Good stuff. Interesting. Interesting to think about. So let's all keep thinking. I feel like we're all cowboys in the rodeo trying to wrestle the steer to the ground sometimes. Or, or free the steer or something free this year. That could be our bumper sticker. I like it. So if you're a steer, it's too late to be free. Yeah. I don't think steer's life doesn't end well typically. Thank you. No dissemination with steer. Well, there is some, but only for the top here. It's just such a messy process. You don't want to be involved in that. See you later. Bye. Bye.