 and that would be email. This is the build OGM call for Tuesday, August 3rd, 2021. Hi everybody. I think we have a bunch of things to talk about and any chance you created an agenda already? Oh, awesome. Okay, so we get to freelance here. We get to freestyle agenda style. So partly I think Pete has brought the emerging event sense making to the four in a really cool way. So we should talk about that. Klaus and the food project are steaming and we should talk about that. I'm reshaping this idea of putting on a show and I'd love to talk about that. And what other things might we put on said agenda? I was thinking this morning that when we talk about aligning other organizations with us to gather their information and share, we don't really have an onboarding process and we don't have a sort of a mutual agreement. It doesn't have to be a legal agreement, but just what's the onboarding process and how do we affiliate and that sort of thing and that would be worth contemplating. Love that. And I've tried to hit us that direction and what happened was it sort of rolled back toward the question of, okay, so what does OGM offer other organizations which rolled back into the question of, okay, so what is OGM and what does it mean to be OGM-y? And we've had some of those conversations with medium success and they haven't unfolded back into, oh, good, okay, so here's how we approach organizations and what we do, which I would love, love, love to complete. Well, I wonder if it doesn't also involve examining OGM mapping at a somewhat elemental level to create an organizational structure map. You know, if you could filter OGM for organizations in a topic and maybe you can already, but I don't know, Jerry, in terms of your brain, it's just too big for me to figure out. Maybe my brain is a hyper-object. But what we would, one of the things that we would offer, right now the brain is largely set up to allow one to explore ideas and concepts and knowledge per se and to then, within that context, there'll be listings of organizations that are involved in these areas. And what I'm wondering is if there's a way to tag all the organizations, so they sort into fields of interest or something like that, that would make it more attractive to organizations to join in contrast to individuals. And I believe what you just described is central to the mission of Trove, of Vincent and Trove and overlaps with what Pete is trying to do with Massa Wiki, but Pete, the floor is yours. Thank you. I wanted to mostly note a connection also to what we clumsily refer to as the entity organization relationship fact, which I also note is on the Sprint One Deliverables list. Which is a call that you and I set, but then I didn't publicize it out. I would love to just reset that and hold it. I think another kind of topic is, I think a good topic would actually be the charter for this call, what this call is trying to do week to week. But I think that work would be good in this call, for instance. Well, to me it represents a slight, but not necessarily insignificant reframing of things. And it doesn't have to be within us. It can be that we connect to another matrix that has the same information that we'd like people to provide. That would be very OGM-y in itself and very generative commons in itself. But I'm just thinking that the more that organizations can approach each other as entities and know that they share values and common threads and so forth, the more readily they can work together productively. And also I meant to mention to that end that Dave Whitzel wrote me a note and said, hey, how do we bridge the chats, which is something that Pete's been working on and we need to figure out whether it needs funding or not. I don't know what state that's in, but it would be good to have. And also that GRC had signed a memorandum of understanding or memorandum of agreement, I think, something like that with another entity and might want to do something like that with OGM. And that was interesting. But he sent me the other document and it was kind of detailed enough that I'm like, ooh, how do we get all these kinds of nooks and crannies figured out for OGM? It could be a time sink as well. And it's not an essential to have as maybe a simpler, like a fact file between entities. And the fact file that Pete was referring to was for an individual coming into OGM, but we may also want some kind of a fact like that between entities or something of that nature. Marc-Antoine? I'm wondering what exactly would be the preview of such an onboarding. And I agree, it's certainly necessary. But there's a whole aspect which is kind of the knowledge commons agreement, which is part of the, what does it mean to work together? It means knowledge is commons, probably something like CC buy, share alike. And the CC buy is really interesting because we're doing a lot of curation and synthesis mapping. And in a way, all concepts come from other concepts and maps come from nuggets that come from elsewhere. And we want to recognize the origin of those nuggets and we want to recognize the originality of the map even if it brings nothing new other than the mapping and the ordering and the curation, which is a value. And that probably means a kind of history. But what I'm saying is there's, that's one aspect. Like if we're working with somebody, there has to be this kind of notion, well, working with us means we will quote you, you should quote us. And we're making quilts, let's call them quilts of knowledge. And we think they have intrinsic value. And then part of that quilt will be the whole question of when, how do you recognize contributions when there's all these organizations and individuals who contributed the elements of the quilt? And that's interesting. But again, there's, there's kind of two aspects. There's the, how mythology, but how kind of basic trust agreement. Now, I would ask you Judith, that's one aspect, but what do you see as being the onboarding beyond those kinds of trust agreement? Because that's, that's a part I see. Well, what's the part I don't see? It's mostly what you described actually, just how do we work together and how do we affiliate? But I'm also thinking about the retrievability of organizational identities in a systematic way from what we have in our repository, in addition to the general comments. Because if I were to go, I don't know right now, I haven't done this experiment, Jerry, so perhaps I'm flawed. But if I were to go in and say, early childhood development organizations in the upper Midwest, would that pull out that content from the brain? Because that's not exactly how they're mapped. They're mapped conceptually parents, siblings, etc. So that's kind of my question is, how would organizations find each other in addition to us, and know something about that organization then in terms of a profile? You know, so perhaps we would want to solicit from organizations or individuals who know organizations, some sort of profile template that could go in, that would allow others to find then a similar organization. Let's say I'm in Minnesota and I'm moving to Texas, and I'd like to affiliate with a group that is heavily involved in regenerative agriculture, because I've been working with Klaus from Minnesota, but now I want to work from Texas. How would I find those entities? But that's kind of what I was thinking about anyway. Yeah, and Hank and Phil welcome to the call as well on Stacey. So at the risk of jumping into that particular question in too much detail, on the one hand, the brain is not well adapted to logical operator searches. It doesn't do those things and it doesn't do database queries either. So I can't say, unless I have linked something up to the Pacific Northwest and education, and somehow fortuitously that shows up, it can happen in the brain as a tool. Now my brain data has been exported and we can suck it in, suck it into a tool where that's possible, we could tag it up, and all that data would be available there. And yet my brain would in no means be complete enough to be a reliable search of all educational institutions in the Pacific Northwest or whatever. Tro is heading that way, but it's a tiny effort. And there are databases, and there's also Google search, which are tremendous and big and already available in some sense. So there's kind of a layering of this, which is what is on our radar? What have we seen that's relevant and interesting? And how do we curate that? What are we stewarding as data that we care about? And then what is just out there in the world that we can ping? What are the open databases that matter? Is GuideStar available? What are the database searches for educational research organizations? For example, what would be the best source to search for that? And then what do humans know about this terrain and how can they amplify that search capacity? So I think that describes kind of a long-term view of how these things layer out. And then my brain is only one view, one radar view of what's going on. Other people using Rome, using what have you other kinds of tools, Mark, Caranza and MX could have their own perspectives on the same bodies of work in a similar kind of question. I guess the question I have, and I'm not saying this might not be met other ways, and it may just be a long-term thing that we consider, but I know how to go find organizations. I know how to search Google, search academic, search publications, all those kinds of things. I have no way to actually get at the personality and cooperativity of those organizations. And many of them I know not to be very affiliation linked because they're too busy protecting their brand as this particular society. And so what I'm dreaming would be possible is that I would be able to search the professional knowledge communities in the same fashion that I can search for individuals on a more finely grained level of they like to partner their responsible partners. They have similar values and so forth. And I'm going to pass to Pete because I think he's going to say something like this among whatever else you wanted to say. But Pete and I have this long-standing, real resonance that these kinds of searches require a technical search, which is like a search engine that knows something in the backend, and a human search, a router, a connector, a matchmaker, whatever you want to call it, and that the coupling of those two into some kind of cyborg human who really, really understands the search tools, but is phenomenal. And then you need to sort your way through the human routers to the human who is closest to that community of practice and has some understanding of the openness to cooperation of the entities in that area, et cetera, et cetera. You kind of want to find your way quickly to the human who has this capacity but who has an understanding of the facts on the ground for that group. And that's going to be completely quirky and require a pretty broad network of trust, which is an interesting thing to try to set up. That's the challenge because from my experience, I can get to the executive committee of any organization. If I want to find a group that does X, I can find a group and a listing of groups and I can look in a given state and I can find the board of directors. But I don't know anybody on the board of directors and I don't know anybody who knows anyone on the board of directors and so I'm reluctant to just cold call the head of the organization and say, my organization is interested in XYZ. Is it possible that your organization would be similarly interested and if so, to whom should I talk? And they're going to be unlikely to tell you that they've been locked up in a lawsuit or a contentious thing with this other organization for a decade or whatever. Pete and Mark Antoine? I didn't mean to hijack this call, Jerry. I'm sorry. This is like, I think, really useful detail for where we're heading. The thing I was going to end what I was going to say on is I'd like to call Rattball. This is an amazingly interesting topic and I would really like this call week over week, not any specific call, but week over week to be about OGM getting itself built, whatever that means. So some of the things we talked about, I think the quilting project or the onboarding discussion I think is really important and some kind of a charter or understanding of what OGM's relationship is to even its members. I think that's the first one and then to other organizations. I think all of that is building OGM work and that's what I wish this call were about. Just real quickly, Judy, that was an awesome little arc. Trove is doing that directory stuff and doing it really, really, really well. Jerry, you said something interesting, which is Trove is small right now and it is very small kind of compared to things, but it's also very well built and could get big very fast. Jerry also did a great exposition on the way that he and I think that, for me, Trove is an expert tool and regular folks aren't going to use it very well and what you want is a set of people who are really good at using a directory system, probably multiple directory systems and doing matchmaking for you. So Judy, the other part, you said something interesting. What's the personality and cooperativity of an organization? For me, the interface to that knowledge looks a lot more like CSC Mattermost and in fact OGM at large. OGM doesn't do this very well yet, but it could be kind of a mastermind group where you can ask things like, hey, I need to talk to somebody on executive committee of XYZ. Does anybody here know how to make an introduction to that? Jerry and I are in a couple of those mastermind groups where you can ask those kinds of questions and get somebody to say, oh yeah, I know somebody at Google or oh yeah, I know somebody at Walmart. So I think that there's a wish that we could make that automated and I think it's a futile wish. I think that's gone straight into human network weaving. It has, but at the same time, not everybody has the same ability to even search for the organizations that the people in this room have. Yeah, so my answer to that is we should get more people into things like CSC Mattermost where it's a low barrier to entry and you're connected to a bunch of people who are who are more and more expert at things. And so my answer to that, if we need to build that more, it's more, how do we make OGM accessible and friendly and inviting and have a thousand people or 10,000 people in it and still feel like it's being OGM and still having a short path to an expert. Maybe it's not one hop in our 100 person network, but maybe it's two hops in a 10,000 person network. And just a small ad, if our Mattermost chat can become very hospitable to dozens of communities of practice that go deep and can find you the human that knows something about whatever the domain might be, that would be a big win. I find it really interesting the question of human trust and certainly it's obvious to me that being a hub of trust is a service. I mean, what is OGM about? Connecting? Well, connecting trust is a service. And for me, it's obvious it's not just searched. And I'd like to go back quickly in the notion I've spoken enough about data translucency. Like if you're making a relationship with another organization, one thing you want to have to trust them is a honest conversation about what worked, what didn't, what they learned, and all the failure stories. Now, it's perfectly understandable. This is something you want to learn that you can trust that they're learning from their failure. That's obviously something they don't want to make public because it's a reputation killer. And that's why this trust has to be progressive. And you would want to make those stories accessible because there's so much to learn about them. And is there a way to, for example, anonymize the story and say, this is the story, okay, I'd like to meet the organization that had that setback and solved it. Or again, this is where a trust broker is extremely important to say, okay, I'm willing to open my Kimono and show as someone else was putting it and show my, you know, not so necessarily so glamorous, but real stories about me and how can we, and you will share honestly. That's how real trust is. That's beautifully said. Thank you. Love that. So how do we, I'm interested in turning, as Pete said, this calls attention toward things that build OGM. And I'd love to do that in some kind of a rhythmic way, meaning move the spotlight to an initiative and ask a series of questions, like what is it, what is it that's keeping this initiative from, and it could be the scrum sort of standup kind of questions, like what are your goals, what do you need right now, what's in your way, how can we help? It could be some other kind of format. We might need to actually step back from some of these things. But I'd love to do more of that. And I added an item to the agenda, which is to talk about the generative commons calls, because basically that's turned into Stacy, Michael, and me talking about stuff. And Michael's asking fabulous questions that we need to answer. But also, we need a process to take that conversation and turn it into some documents that live on massive wiki on the OGM wiki, so that we can point to them and say, here's what the generative commons agreement starts to look like. And on a simple website, so that we're not just talking about the generative commons agreement, but have a thing, a document that starts to materialize out of that out of that plug. Any thoughts on structure process to learn? Just a quick observation that we're stuck in this bootstrap phase of trying to structure something that doesn't have a structure. So in those kinds of situations, I try to look for the most foundational thing. And for OGM, a lot of it is around what is OGM and what's its mission and vision and what's its relationship to the people who think that they're members of OGM. So until we have that kind of grounding, a lot of the discussions are, you know, they're multifocal rather than, you know, focused. And, you know, I stipulated that part of OGM's charm and wonder is the multifocality of it, the fact that we're all kind of fuzzily arranged. But we have for a long time also wanted to come to a coherence, a coalescence that is strong and sharp enough that it starts to be able to say, OGM is a thing and wants a relationship with GRC or OGM is a thing and it wants a relationship with Trove. And we're not quite there yet. Agreed. Klaus? Yeah, I think Mark hit it on the nail. I hit the nail on his head here. It's about relationships. You know, we taste only so much, you can automate. And I'm just, you know, conversation with someone who thinks software is going to solve agriculture. No, software is a tool. You know, software is a tool that somebody needs to deploy. And the better the tool is, the more useful it is. But at the end of the day, it's people who are central to building relationships and making themselves known, maybe. So, you know, I mean, for example, the idea of guilds, if we break that out into more detailed and people know where can I find what and where is the one or two or three people that I can go to for specific questions and that can become apparently quite easily. Phil? Yeah, I agree with that. I think a lot of how we are going to build relationships goes back to what Pete said is kind of figuring out who and what we are. So, if we could spend some time during these calls, even if it's like this call is dedicated to our mission, to our vision, to whichever components we need to flesh out, I think that would be a useful way to start kind of moving OGM forward in a concrete way. And it could be something like, hey, here's the ideas, maybe a smaller group goes away and works on that and brings back a proposal for the next session. When we decide like we spend 10 to 15 minutes and like, this is what we gathered from last session. This is what we think the mission and vision should be. Is there any feedback or have an outside working group for each of those components? I just think, yeah, we kind of need to clarify what exactly we're all kind of involved in. And I would leave it there. Sort of a divide and conquer strategy makes good sense. Klaus, your hand is still up. Is that from before? Great. Judy? I was just thinking that one way that this information is sometimes collected in an in-boarding process for lots of client relationships and other things are some statements about one of the most meaningful things in the last year or something very disturbing in the last year, some anecdotal personal story information. And I don't know if that's appropriate for this in terms of an organizational prospect, but it comes to the question of trust, because that's how you build trust with people is by sharing personal perspectives. That's good sense. Thank you. Bank? Yeah, I was involved in the generative common calls regularly until I went on a three week holiday. Sorry about that. But now that I'm back, I have a look at what's on matter most. I put some suggestions there. I sort of try to update the Google doc that Jerry made month or two ago. So both for the generative commons call, which I'm really interested in helping to take forward and this call, which I'm only here for a second time. I think a good practical way forward is that someone makes work in progress documents which are open to everyone. They could be on Google docs. They could be on matter most. And they state some positions. This is what it's about. This is what we wanted to grow into. This is how we think it could grow. And then there's a ball to be kicked around, because until there's a ball to be kicked around, it could go anywhere. But once there's a ball, people start focusing more on the goalposts. And then the original prototype could be changed 100 times. But at least there's a document that a group of people is working on. And I do like the football metaphor as well. And we have a place to put said documents, massive wiki plus whatever else. So I think partly we need to shepherd ourselves toward creating artifacts out of these conversations. And I would love to stand up guilds. We ended up having a couple conversations about guilds that stalled on the word guild. And that kind of stuck us on a sandbar. I don't know what to quite do about those sorts of conversations, Chris, because there's a bunch of words like sovereign and others that are being marked. That's a loaded word too. Yeah. That are being marked as not happy words. And how do we get past this with either completely clean vocabulary, which is very hard, I think. If it were easier, we would have solved it. Or something else, our call outs or caveats for the words that we do use. Again, I think the thing to look for is the most foundational thing that we can work on so that we can start out a foundation. Right now, our foundation is built on sound. So as the winds and waves come, we kind of like shift around and float around and talk about different kinds of things. Well, the center of guilds would be expertise or knowledge. And so maybe there's some words around those that might... I'm actually interested in the foundation of OGM. I think guild is an interesting thing, but it's on top of, you know, you can't connect guilds or whatever you would call them to something unless there's an OGM to connect it to, right? We haven't gotten there. We haven't gotten there with OGM. And I'm envisioning... I'm sitting here in my head going into what does that conversation look like, what conversations like it have we had in the past, how likely are we to actually draw that to a conclusion. And I'm mixed on that. I'm really mixed because I'm not sure that we're going to agree on definitions that are fruitful for how to pin this down. And part of... Mark Antoine, thank you for being here this long. I think that's exactly a good point, Jerry. So by definition, better, you know, better firming up of a foundation is exclusionary, right? We're going to... I mean, the process that we keep wanting to do but not doing is making a firm foundation and making a call, judgment call. You know, this is what we want the relationship to OGM and it's between OGM and its members to be. And that means it can't be a bunch of other things, right? So we keep getting to the point where we want to make a decision, we want to be firm, but we also want to retain our optionality. So, you know, we can have one or we can have the other. If we wanted, we could decide that OGM is all about optionality and all about fuzziness and all about, and maybe lean into that. That might be a thing that we could do. But whenever we talk about OGM should make something like OGM should have guilds or whatever they're called, OGM should have a relationship with another organization. You're talking about an organization that's called OGM and it has, you know, it has firmer edges than we're used to. And it's just, you know... So I would actually be okay with the meta conversation. Should OGM ever firm up? And if we decided that it shouldn't, I would be okay with that. And I think we could lean into that and make something work. But that's not the conversation that we've been having with ourselves for a year. It's a lot more about, I wish there were an OGM fund. I wish there were, you know, I wish we could support consultants. I wish we, you know, there's a bunch of things where it's like, yeah, you need to, we need to go for it. You know, we need to say what this thing is and what it's not. Which is the process I'm actually... And thank you for the way you just framed that, Pete. That was really helpful to me. And the process that I'm in the middle of and a bit stuck on is how to pitch OGM to potential investors for grant funding. And that view of what activities it is they're supporting, what entity it is they're supporting, has evolved a whole bunch in the last three weeks of fabulous conversations, which is partly the quilt and other stuff that are sort of shifting around. And I agree that firming that up and crystallizing that into a way to explain it is essential because otherwise I can't pitch and we don't know what we're talking about. And Pete, I have little trouble envisioning the conversation about the entity member relationship conversation. Like, let's get that done. Let's have a call. Let's turn that into a doc. That thing, that thing I can totally see as well as the document for people who become kind of staff for OGM, like the agreement that Phil was drawing up, those things make a lot of sense and seem more easily sort of turned into something that we can point to and say, hey, here's the nascent agreement for what it means to be in this community. So my intuition or my sense is that that's one of the most foundational things that we can do. And so Jerry, we've been, you and I have been distracting ourselves by kind of specifically not scheduling that or let's take a time during this call to book that call. So to me, now it seems like that's the most important topic for this or one of the most core topics for this call. Sorry, that one topic about the entity relationship document or what do you mean? Well, one of, yeah, either that one or something quite closely related to it. Well, I think one item we can just knock off like here is you and I figure out a time for to set that call and announce it to OGM right away and go hold it. That'll get that in motion. And then if you and I focus on actually drawing out the document, we have that done. Is there a reason that call isn't just this call? Sorry. Do you want to spend the rest of this call on perfecting that document with everybody? I think two things. I think this call is a perfect venue for that discussion. And I don't think it's a you and me discussion. I think this discussion is with as many OGM people. So the reason I might schedule additional calls is to involve even more OGM people. But yeah, I would that's exactly what I'm saying. I would take this call time and hammer that thing out until it's done. I don't know about this week. I don't know where our headspace is, you know, I would be happy to schedule it for this Friday, for example, most anytime and just go for it and announce it to the whole community and say anybody who wants to show up, that'd be great. But I really want more than just you and me in the document for sure. I agree. I worry that scheduling I call de novo is going to drop us into a lower state of activation energy. The folks around this call, the fact that we do this every Tuesday adds a lot of energy that we can bring into that discussion, I think. So I would love to talk about how that separate call went and improve it and perfect it in the next of these calls. But I don't want to use this call to begin that conversation over again. Okay, my own my own bias because we've got so many items on the agenda in some sense. I'd like to go back to Pete's question about, you know, getting down and making the sand bedrock. I wonder if it would be helpful for each of us to send to a central location or to all of us descriptive terms or outputs or measures or attributes that we would say characterize OGM. I think we might find great similarity, although wording would different fastly, and that might help us frame the nature of the commitment of energy, time, trust, and so forth to the organization. Because this didn't come into being overnight. This wasn't a bloom of one day. This has been coming for decades literally. And I think that those who have been engaged for periods of time and remained engaged have a sense of what this organization means to us. So it might be helpful just to have kind of like we tried in the workshop, but what does this really mean to you as a member? Why do you keep coming back? And what do you expect from the others in the group? Questions like that might be a way to firm up who we are. But Pete, you may have some more specific things in mind, too, because it's clear you've thought about it's a fair bit. I think the exercise of thinking about what OGM is to each of us is good. I think I would do that in a group call rather than separate. And we've also got the workshop results to go back and look through. We also have a call specifically where like, what is OGM? We hosted a call for that. I can point back to that recording. That's easy. And Michael. Yeah, I endorse the idea of using this conversation to discuss this and discussing it as a group at a later point and creating documents around it. I just posted something in the chat. And I think that there's a certain, I was really intrigued by, you know, Pete's use of the word optionality and maintaining optionality as potentially a goal that hasn't been a spoken goal. And I think there's a certain, and I say this with perhaps my own issues in play. But there's a perfectionism in maintaining all options. Like nothing can be wrong if everything's on the table. And we've sort of, nothing OGM has done has been wrong yet because we haven't taken a hard stance on anything. And we can be a piece of software. We can be a trade organization. We can be a church. We can be all these different things. Potentially, we can stand up, sub component, you know, for profits, all those different things that we could do that we talk about. You know, make our dreams, make our dreams harder to fulfill, but never squashed. And I think we need to squash some of our dreams. And, and like just limit, limit our reach and say, you know, we're this, not that. And that's okay. And, you know, and maybe a few of us who are here won't be interested in us anymore because we're not like if you decide we're not a source of funding for other entities, we're not that and some people here for that might leave or we decide, you know, we're a for-profit company. Well, then some other people might leave. And if we decide, you know, all those different things, I think are, they're holding us, they're keeping us happy and wide and free flowing, but they're stopping us from taking in true action. Yeah. Hank just posted, if everything remains on the table, you can never be wrong. He's basically paraphrasing you. That's no taking. Exactly. Let me go, let me go and then pass the mic to Klaus. So I'm not sure I'd use the word perfectionism, which is a different thing, but I think that optionality is a character flaw that April and I both share is that, April doesn't like to plan weekends because she likes, like she just wants to be able to do with, you know, with her time, whatever it is. So it's like making weekend plans to meet with somebody is hard. It's like I got to strategize around it. And for me, you're right. When there's no facts on the ground, everything is possible and all these dreams are still kind of alive, and we do have to narrow down these options. And I see it as we have to pick some things to do now and right up front, which will get us oriented in the right direction. The complication is that over time, my understanding of what it is we might do and how we might go about it has evolved, emerged, bubbled, turned, mixed a lot in the 18 or so months we've been at this. I mean, a lot. And some of the fuzzy-ass conversations where when we start, we don't really know why we're sitting here have led to some of those insights. Like the looseness of the conversations has enabled richer, more interesting visions to show up. And they all look equally impossible for me to do because even getting some of these agreements sort of like pinned down and put down on a piece of paper is hard for us. And Michael, my conversations with you around the generative commons are really important to me because we have, I think, differing visions about how OGM stands up and what role it plays in an ecosystem that includes for-profit companies and individuals trying to make a living and all those kinds of things. And how much, for one detail that I don't know that we've ironed out is, does OGM host any original project of its own or is it only a funding vehicle for other entities' projects? And I think it holds projects of its own. And I don't think you want that. But I don't know. And we haven't figured that out. And I think that's part of like what is OGM? And we're busy kind of negotiating that through these great conversations that are going slowly, right? So in some sense, picking the minimum set of things to do now and lock down and say, this is what we are, is an awesome idea. If we can do that in a way that preserves late binding and late potential so that later that means we could still do these things, that's my, like, I'm trying to figure out how to define an OGM right now that leaves open these really juicy long-term plans without acting on the, you know, whatever you lock down now, whatever architecture you pour, whatever concrete you pour early, kind of dictates your path. Architecture is destiny in a lot of senses. And so I'm trying to figure out what is the least thing we could do that helps us tip a bunch of other entities toward what we're doing, for example, because we're doing it in a way that's easy to emulate and that it's compelling to do. That's like a goal for me. Like what could we do that others like, ah, we'll have what they're having because they're making headway against these big problems that we're all trying to solve. That would be a good thing. So I'm not a clever enough thinker about what is the minimal set of things that does that, that puts in place a core that is a visible core that is durable and makes sense to people that then moves forward. And my best efforts on that are what I'm trying to do in the OGM pitch. Klaus and Pete. Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of us, you know, circling and struggling, trying to figure out where can I engage and what can I do and where can I add value and my easiest way to summarize that would be help someone who is helping someone. Yeah. And just find a place where your skill set is valid and useful and get into it. We had a conversation yesterday, you know, on the Google doc, I mean, on the Google forum and Ken was asking Pete, so, you know, this all makes sense. But what do I do? I mean, how do I get into this thing here? Right. So and I posted, you know, the latest update from project drawdown Foley, where he went through sector by sector of the economy. So it doesn't matter if you're an engineer or a mechanic or, you know, the banker, that I mean, there is, there is a visual, you know, that in each sector of the economy, there's stuff that needs to be done, you know, in order to protect ourselves in order to shift, you know, our economy into a different direction. And that's really what it's as basic as it is. Now it's in search of how can I add somebody who's helping somebody, you know, because it's a it's a clown swell up. And it's it's it's that trust movement that Jerry, you know, you're talking about, you know, we need to find ways to identify people we can trust. And maybe that's not a role for GM, not because anybody in this forum here has to be trustworthy, you know, it just will disclose itself quite fast. So so that's already that's a big thing, you know, to know that you're within a group of people you can trust. And so it's maybe not at all so complicated. Now it's and it's very individual, you can't ask to create an organization that does it for you. Right. I mean, you have to individually determine what you how to bring your skills and your energy to bear. And so that's how I would define it. Thanks. Thanks. Jerry, I wanted to speak to your looking for a solution to both do early binding and late binding. You know, how can we have a firm structure now, but also preserve optionality for future things later. And as I said in the chat, I'm also I have the character of preserving optionality and perfectionism. I have a suggestion, actually, an engineering suggestion, which I'm pretty sure will not make any sense to you, but I can say it anyway. And it's also related to something that I've been wanting to talk about a little bit about using hashtags rather than domain names. So this this came up with Jordan and me actually in the discussion we were having about his about his wanting to make a movement of, you know, the most important thing, basically, and how can you name that and hold it with enough space? How can you name any movement with enough firmness that people are attracted to it without feeling like making anybody feel like you own it? Right. So the the suggestion I had from him was to use the hashtag, actually. So going way back in my OGM tenure, I used to say OGM for me is a verb. And we've we've said that OGM is is like an adjective OGM me. Maybe OGM is more like a hashtag and less like an organization. And and then, Jerry, you see the things that I do. I instantiate very hard, hard to edge things like collective sense commons or massive wiki or a little less hard edged, but I needed more focality, I think more focal points, massive human intelligence, right? So so that's me saying I'm going to draw a foundation here. I'm going to start firming up a foundation called massive wiki. And it it does certain things and it doesn't do certain things, right? Collective sense commons does certain things and it doesn't do certain things. So maybe maybe a path for I think a solution, an engineering style solution to your question, how can I have something firm and how can I have something diffuse is the diffuse thing maybe is just a hashtag and the firm things start to have names and start to have bank accounts and start to have, you know, members like hard edged members, I'm a member of, you know, collective sense commons or I'm not right. So maybe that's a solution. Oh, that's that's working for me. Michael, go ahead. You're muted. I was just going to say that it's funny because as we were talking earlier, I was thinking about Black Lives Matter and Me Too and, you know, the idea of a movement that, you know, that has the has the challenge, I think of Black Lives Matter in particular, you know, Black Lives Matter is a movement is ill-defined in a lot of people's eyes, has entities that raise funds, you know, I mean, it's complicated, it's really complicated, but its optionality is certainly preserved by the fact that it exists as a hashtag and Me Too even more so and you subscribe to it and you can't you can't put borders on it. There's no entity that you could say, oh, sorry, you're not, you know, Me Too, you're not Black Lives Matter, you're officially, you know, excommunicated from this movement because it's a hashtag that anybody can use. That's great. That preserves optionality, but it's not a thing that you can go out and necessarily raise funds on whereas like what Pete was saying, entities within that that subscribe to the values could conceivably do different things. Some of them for profit, some of them not for profit, some of them for the commons, whatever. I don't know though, I think that works in terms of optionality. I don't know if that works for you personally in terms of like having OGM be a thing that is your home. But I like the hashtag. Yeah, Philip has it here in a sec. I just want to reflect on this. A couple things. One is even just sort of figuring out how to maintain a definition of what is OGM and sort of role model it kind of works in a hashtag way, but also easily suffers kind of dilution from anybody jumping in and saying, oh yeah, we do that. And I've seen this happen with design from trust. It's like, oh yeah, we're doing design from trust or whatever. It's like, actually, I would object to most of what you just called that, like you're not doing it at all. And you don't even understand the concept. It's like, that happens a bunch. So how do you preserve some identity of what it is the thing is? And in Black Lives Matter, there is a website, livesmatter.org, where I bought a mask and a t-shirt and it was a bit and they're not claiming to be the center of it, but it gave me a feeling that there was some place to go. In the umbrella movement in Hong Kong, they intentionally didn't want to have a leader or a center because they would be cracked down on and arrested and taken out of society. So lives were at stake there, which is very, very different. But I really liked the idea that this is more like a movement or a hashtag than an entity. The question is, is there any entity, and this goes back to the how many OGMs are there questions that Pete and I had, is there any entity in the middle that's called OGM and what should it be and what does it put on its website kind of thing, which doesn't need to be a showstopper here. But I'm trying to figure out how to foster what it means long enough and in a way that's kind of exclusive of others who would co-opt or corrupt or hijack it until it actually kind of is a thing that people understand. And then let a thousand flowers bloom, let's then plant flowers in that field. And I like the idea of having concrete entities that just do a thing. And that's how I'm thinking about the proposal that I'm the pitch that I'm putting together, which are easy to describe. And it looks like this, but it's different and interesting and better than because of this. Okay, done. Let's go. So that kind of makes a lot of sense to me. But I'm trying to figure out how do we keep some degree of control over this until it's flying in the right direction, in the right attitude, and until other people can say, oh, this claimant of being part of the movement is actually not in the movement because something, because of some attributes. Go ahead, Phil. Yeah, I do like the hashtag notion. It is helpful to be less definitive than an organization. It kind of seems like we're kind of talking in circles a little bit, which is helpful because I think this is an interesting conversation around how organizations define themselves or how groups are or how that works. But we're kind of coming back to again, like what exactly is OGM and what does it mean to be a member of OGM? So I'm kind of, I guess, struggling with, we still need to define what OGM is, if it's a movement, if it's an organization, whatever it is, what does it mean to be affiliated with OGM? How can we define that? So I would say... I'm going to jump in there real quick and I apologize for jumping in. Yeah, okay. But if OGM is a hashtag, then the conversation shifts, right? You would have an organization, a lot more hard-to-edge organization that's promoting consultants or distributing funds or something like that. It would have probably a different name. And then it would use the hashtag open global mind. And then another organization, and it would use the hashtag open global mind. And then each of those organizations has a lot better footing foundation stuff like that. And we could say, okay, in this meeting we're talking about distributing funds, how do we do that? Whatever the name of that organization, how do we do that? And by the way, we're doing this in the open global mind mindset. Another part of that open global mind hashtag thing is how do we protect it, right? So Jerry's brought up a good point, which is that it's really easy when you've got a meme and a movement, like Black Lives Matter, it's really easy for people to misappropriate it, sometimes by accident, sometimes on purpose, sometimes to dilute the original effort. And then you get the memetically speaking, without any judgment about content, you get the weird things like Blue Lives Matter, right? Or All Lives Matter. And then those spawn kind of like knock on, you know, memetic effects that may or may not help the original meme, the original hashtag. Brief, brief add to that. There's a quote I read yesterday by Vitalik Buterin about how great movements need a benevolent dictator upfront and then they morph into some other organization. Something like that. And I say that at the risk of skirting into the source conversation that we were having around everything else. Phil, you weren't quite done. Yeah, just one thing I wanted to say is that we, if as a consultancy or as part of this, we're knowledge weaving and we're pulling, and we talked about this yesterday, Jerry, we're pulling the most out of these conversations and these meetings. And I think this is this is an extremely helpful conversation because this is something that a lot of organizations struggle with. Like, how are we pulling the, like the important granules from this conversation in a way that can be teachable or shareable? And that's part of, I don't know, I think that's part of making the most of these conversations internally as an example for external or people that are affiliated with us is something I think we should focus on as well. And yeah, I'll leave it there. I totally agree and love that. And the only way we're doing that right now is that this recording will be available on YouTube openly and publicly and in our playlist and blah, blah, blah. But at this moment, and I will, I will personally debrief some into my brain, which I will publish and will be unfindable one from the other. There'll be like in separate little worlds. Pete may post the agenda to Mattermost Wiki, but we haven't really taken notes on the agenda together. So it's not much of a collective document. So yes, and how do we do more of that, which takes me back to two conversations. One is about EES, which we won't have time for now because we're coming up at the top of the hour. But I'd love and I think 2D2 to go deeper into what EES is doing and how it's doing it. I think that's that's a really important thing. And that fits nicely back into the second thing, which is I just wanted to report in so you can all stew on it. I don't remember now who this conversation was with, but I was kind of pitching the big quilt. And I realized that a quilt is a damping mechanism. It's not a woo, I'm building a quilt. It's like, you know, quilts are soft and pushing you from the ground and whatever. And then they said, then it was a guy and I don't remember who it was. He said, could you scroll back a little bit? I really like that weaving the world thing that you said. And so that shifted things around for me. And I was like, Oh, wait a minute, maybe the show is called weaving the world. And it's a it's a blog, blog, blog underground. It's a movement that looks like EES plus a memory. Repeatedly doing deconstructing the conversations, modeling them, etc, etc, creating communities of practice, pointing to those that exist, etc, around the different topics. And that the thing that it's contributing to the commons artifact the thing that it's contributing to is the big quilt. So weaving the world is busy weaving the big quilt, which is just a temporary name we give this thing in the middle. And I just want to draw our attention also to what is that thing in the middle? Because I'm sitting here thinking, and I think the flotilla calls are getting toward this sort of kind of, but they're talking more about the functionality of different entities. But but I'm really, I'm really intrigued by I published my damned brain. It looks like Windows 95. And it's a it's a thing on its own. And it can contain URLs. And the way I weave the world is I link with URLs to other things on the web on the internet. Okay, great. Other tools do things a different way. What is what is that middle space where the thing I've been building we've elegantly in with the thing that other people are curating in other tools? And do we need a neutral space? Is there a playground, a sandbox, a middle spot that is that spot where there begins to emerge a shared memory? And where somebody trying to figure out what to do about the delta variant would know where to go to find the work that Pete is pulling together right now? What does that what does that middle space look like? Or are we just doomed forever to go to a website with a dashboard with links out to other websites? Is that is that it? Is that is that kind of what this looks like? And I'm trying to figure out how do we enrich that experience and take it not into a full singing and dancing augmented reality space or XR, which I don't think is the answer, but into some other multi-layered transmedia playground where these things can dance together. And that that seems like a missing thing to me somehow, or maybe somebody's doing it and I'm not reading it that way or noticing it that way. But I think that's important to what we're doing somehow. And with that any wrapping comments on this excellent call, this has been really helpful and generative. Thank you. And you don't need to say your comments in rap, although it would be appreciated. Wow, really inspiring. So Pete, let's pick it. Let's pick a time for an all hands, invite call for the fact. And you and me or everybody on this call or let's you and I pick a time that works for us and then and put the broad call out to everybody. How about this? How about this? Okay, so is this Friday okay? Works for me. This Friday I have a call just I have a call at 8 a.m. and then I'm free much of the day after that. So we have flotilla at noon typically. How about 10 a.m. Pacific? It'd be nice to give flotilla a little bit more breathing room. Okay, so 9 a.m.? No, the other way. 11 a.m. Flotilla is at 9 a.m. You said noon and I was thinking Pacific. I apologize entirely. 11 a.m. Pacific? No, it's for me. 90 minute call? I fear that if we do the one I like that we're limiting calls now to an hour. I fear that an hour is not going to give us enough time to actually and the damn. So now I wonder I think that the next call should be about OGM as hashtag rather than that's a good call too. I just want to make some progress on the fact file. Or do you think that the conversation of OGM is hashtag either pre-empts or completely changes the fact conversation? Yeah. Good point. I think is OGM, well, what is OGM? Like it's the subject has to be the subject of the Friday call before anything else. It includes hashtag and all kinds of entity questions. Okay, so Friday at 11 I'll set up a call and put up a general invite for like is OGM a hashtag plus what does it mean to be part of OGM? Which folds into the fact conversation as well. I think the way I would say that, so we all know what hashtag means in this context. I think the way to phrase that for other folks is is OGM a movement or an organization? Okay. Also one thing we might want to start introducing there is what people are up last week around metrics and time boxing. So it might be good to try all that in that meeting just saying like this portion of the conversation should take 20 to 30 minutes. And I don't know. This is a fuzzy enough topic that I'm not sure how to box it. This is a tough one to start that. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. I'm just trying to make sure I worry that this could kind of spiral out basically and not, we don't come away with what we're looking to come away with. So I'm just trying to figure out how we ensure that we have. How about I, so maybe you and me and maybe other folks can keep trying to redirect the call to once we're talking, once we're floating away from SOGM and movement or organization, maybe we can just bring it back. But part of that question, when you think about Black Lives Matter, for example, no hashtag BLM, there's a real mission here, right? I mean, there's a purpose. So we have a broad purpose. I mean, my purpose is soil, soil health. We got to restore soil health. That makes it really easy because everything is moving into the same direction. So the path towards that direction may change, right? The analogy of water running down the hill, but it's drawn to the same direction, no matter what the obstacles are in the way. So Black Lives Matter operates pretty much in the same way. And most movements operate in that way. There's a purpose. So I think it would be so much helpful to have a defined purpose. We're working on climate change, social restoration, things like that. So the line I used at the very beginning to describe OGM was helping humans make better decisions together, which has some side implications like, oh my God, we're in such political turmoil. How do we, we don't trust each other. How do we even come together to make decisions? Yes, that's included. The logic for decisions, where's the, how do we sort through the facts? What do we, what's true and what's not true? Yes, that's part of OGM. But for me, that was always a really good unifying thread. And if somebody said, what is OGM? We're trying to help humans, all humans make better decisions together. And that's worked well for me. I don't know if it works for anybody else. But that's my unifying thread. But Black Lives Matter is brilliant, right? Because one hashtag tells the whole story. Of course, they may be more narrowly focused, but if the moment we have to explain what we believe in, then it gets more difficult to convey. Real quickly into there, I've got an intuition that you put two, at least two hashtags together. So the one that the movement that Jordan wanted to illuminate around the world was MetaProject. And by that, he means the most important project that we can all be working on together is the MetaProject. And then Lionsberg is still going to be an organization for a long time. And it's doing a very specific part of the MetaProject. So then you want to use two hashtags together, pound Lionsberg, pound MetaProject. And then you have pound OGM, pound MetaProject, pound CSC, pound MetaProject. So when you put the two together, you've got a combination of a focused organization and a larger movement that that organization has subscribed to and tries to empower. One thing with the Black Lives Matter, it is like open global mind itself isn't saying like it's not it's not a movement, it's not an action. So like weaving the world is an action. So if you had OGM and weaving the world or whatever we decide the action hashtag to be, I think that would be powerful. Oh, thank you. Anybody with a closing thought before you wrap this call? Great question. Who's going to be responsible for the work product? I think we need to think ourselves about what the work product of that call is, and I would love to create an OGM wiki document that we can stare at during the call or something like that that that contains whatever our work product is. That'd be useful. Sorry Pete, what? You're locally muted. Thanks. Who's responsible for creating the starter thing that you just talked about? I will send out the invite to everybody and write that up. Pete, do you mind being the one? Or shall I? It could be the one. Okay. Thank you. If I can help Pete, let me know. I trust you to do it without me. Awesome. Hey, thank you all. It's lonely out here in space. But the food is good because like the mess hall can make anything. Great call, everybody. Thank you. Thank you very much. Really good call. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks. Be well.