 This is the build OGM call for Tuesday, June 15th, 2021. Our topic is WWOD or what would OGM do? And thank you for being here. I thought I'd like wander into the topic for a little bit and then stop and see if that resonates and how to build on that and so forth. And I think the way I'll do it is, let me put a link in the chat. Oh, actually, I'll put a link into the Zoom chat here just for everybody. And then let's use the, I renamed the stewards channel on Mattermost to be build OGM. So now we've got a channel there. Let's use that as our persistent chat for this call. So I'm flipping around my display. Oops, I should have not done that because I'm about to share my display. So let me hit undo on that. Darn it. Okay, let me exit full screen, exit full screen on the Zoom. I just screwed myself up. There we go. All right, let me go back to normal things so I can screen share because I was building out what would OGM do in my brain. And it seems like an easy way to start this conversation is to step into that. And maybe I should offer a little just preamble to that to set the stage. We've been meeting for 16 months or something like that and zooming along and doing stuff. We are still squishy like a jellyfish and have a few moving parts sort of and we have some understanding. And we've developed an idea of things being maybe OGM. But I think that we'd have a very disparate idea of what OGM is and what OGM should be doing. And one of the interesting things that OGM I think can do and is headed toward doing is being helpful to other organizations and sort of being of use to them and in so doing sort of sharing membership and building ideas and building community over time. And in order to outreach, we kind of need to know what do we offer and how do we work and what does it mean and like wait, what are the steps and what goes where? So this conversation is a way to start painting that picture and understanding our dynamics and putting words to it and maybe creating some media that explain it. I think that would be really interesting and useful. I'm busy trying to explain OGM to potential people to fund fellowships for OGM. So this is extremely useful in my thinking on that. So that's one of the reasons here. Phil has just put a HackMD link in the Zoom chat and I'm thinking also there we go. And Pete put the same link in the Mattermost Chat. So let's use that. And with that, let me share my screen and go to my brain where I was puttering around on this topic to talk through, to sort of talk out loud through what I'm thinking, what would OGM do? And can everybody see this? Yes. Okay, great. And so this is of course a kind of a parody of what would Jesus do? And as it would happen here is Jesus Christ decision-making models. And then I've collected others. What would Google do, what would better look like? What would Kanye do? It was a thing for a while. What would John Wayne do somehow? What would the internet do as a thing? So anyway, back to what would OGM do? And then I started building out and this is a link for today's call which is where I'll take notes kind of in the brainway that I do during our calls. But then I started putting down, okay, so I think and allow me to just sort of talk through this because I'm trying to paint what I think this is and I think I've missed a bunch of stuff and I may be saying things that you don't think we do and all of that. So please note all those things and let's when I stop this kind of initial brush stroke work, we'll have that conversation. So I think one thing we do is we bridge high functioning entities that are working on all parts of collective intelligence. And that presupposes some idea of collective intelligence and what we mean by it, which I'm gonna link to now. So that kind of says, well, we have some knowledge of what collective intelligence means or is which is a conversation we can have. Same thing for collaborative sense-making. And I'm not sure that collective intelligence and collaborative sense-making are equivalent and are the best terms for all of this. There may be collective wisdom maybe a different way because I'm not crazy about the word intelligence. And although there are many different kinds of intelligence and it includes emotional intelligence and cultural intelligence and stuff like that now. So maybe it's okay. But bridging entities means being a connector that tries to help movements link arms and be more than they're doing individually. And in so doing kind of to crystallize movements, motion, energy in the world without trying to homogenize the movements. So when I say to bridge the high functioning entities I don't mean that OGM is going to become a rollup where we buy all these nonprofits that are doing good work and try to turn them into one thing or one collective intelligence. But rather that there's like a hive mind that we can help produce here. And I didn't use the words hive mind anywhere in what I'm about to show you, but I like hive mind also. Bring emotional intelligence to political and other kinds of charged debate because one of the motivations for OGM is that we are in a Mexican standoff worldwide between the forces of the alt-right and other people trying to like fix face and fix world crises. And part of what's broken is this trust gap. And I'm just realizing that I really didn't address trust anywhere in the things I'm about to show you. So I think trust could use a showing in here. Help-wise initiatives. So as we bridge these high functioning entities let's help-wise initiatives connect and amplify their own reach. So there's this kind of, and I'll connect this to the bridging function because I think they're related, but so plan B is out there, sort of game B is out there trying to figure things out. And ERU has already got a whole lot of work on the ground. And there's some entities that are way far ahead of us. How do we help them amplify their reach, connect to others, which is, I guess, I'm duplicating here the bridging notion, but how do we help everybody sort of move together? Honor and increase diversity in all that we affect. Basically understand that if we build a platonic, socratic, logical model that perfectly explains the world, we have managed to take like the white people's history and represent only what that is and ignore the fact that like play to an aerosol are not the peak of logic and reason to a whole bunch of people on earth. They take one slice at what that might mean, but to be really, to understand and be extremely permeable to diversity of points of view where this danger lurks that is also not represented here in OGM because there's a fight worldwide over the scripts in our heads. And I think part of what we can do is play an important role there. Now, I've also connected this thought to other thoughts that I had done earlier, which is early OGM design questions. So what kind of business or organizational structure will let us treat participants well and host for-profit projects? How do we manage complexity as complexity arises in OGM because we've got a really big spectrum of topics. I'll be the first to say that OGM is a little too big, but I think that the scope of vision is really important here. So if you follow the link I sent you, you can go back here and browse through all of these things. I wanna get through my list real quick so that I can pause. So I think we also want to host experiments and challenges for the things that matter in OGM. As part of that, we will present visions of OGM's futures, which might be, hey, imagine if this thing existed and then, okay, how does that exist? Who's already done a piece of it? Bring them into the conversation, connect up what they built. Maybe one fruitful way to explain this is a thought I've been having recently. We are already connected into Pirugaji, which is a community that has built a lot of derived wisdom about how to do craft detection, how to use digital tools well, how to be intelligent and sort of communitarian online. We are also already connected to liberating structures, Nancy White and others who've been part of designing their body of work, which exists as a deck of cards and the pattern language and a website. And then we also are connected through to Tom Attlee in the wise democracy pattern language. And it struck me that one of the things, sort of a piece of low-hanging fruit for OGM would be, how do we take those existing bodies of wisdom that other communities of practice have developed, instrument them so that they're really easy to use and at hand for people who are trying to figure out, how do I make my meeting better? How do I get over this conflict we have in our discussion? How do we leave tools and techniques at hand so that they're used all the time? So I think that that to me lights up my head for, oh, we could kind of do that. Which is the thing I'm saying, I'm trying to say here, which is make wisdom easier to use. So instrument these bodies of wisdom so they're easier to understand and set in motion, nurture communities of experts in wise processes and bodies of knowledge, which means to create guides, curators, facilitators for hire, for example, for who helped make wisdom easier to use. Map, share and connect everything. I think a piece of open global mind is about creating the collective mind, the collective brain, the outboard manifestation of what we know, which is sort of a more abstract layer above Wikipedia. Wikipedia is cool, but it's an encyclopedia. It doesn't really make room for individual points of view. It intentionally has a policy called neutral point of view. How might we promote people expressing their particular points of view in a generative way using whatever tools make sense to them. In all of this, trying to nurture generative commons, some language that has arisen for us recently, the idea that there's a way of working together where we externalize what we do, we work in public, we create, we put bodies of what we've figured out into the commons. We are busy wandering through the commons trying to improve the things we find and put them to work here so that we don't reduplicate any effort. Sort of curating wisdom in the generative commons is maybe a refinement of that. And then pioneer new needed practices for collaborative sense making. So if we're trying to enhance meetings, events, decisions, conversations, discourse, then in some cases we may envision something that sort of doesn't exist yet. So we may need to pioneer this new practice. And here, one of the practices that is on the table is something called story threading, which is different from graphic facilitation or normal meeting facilitation. And we have not yet, but may be able to pioneer story threading for somebody for an event and get paid for it. And I think that would be great. And if it turns out the story threading is really useful and becomes a new practice, then we will have helped invent a new sort of a new way to help make sense of the world together, which would be great. Present visions about GME Futures. I talked about promote collaborative sense making, promote idea sex. And this is just sort of a click baity kind of way of saying a lot of what we're bumping into here is people with ideas. And sometimes the ideas are just in an essay and a blog post and a book and a video or whatever, but how do we download or debrief those ideas so that we can understand, so that we can complexify them and understand what they're connecting to and what they're building on from and all of that. And then how do we compare these narratives productively? How do we actually, what tools does it take? I'm sitting here curating in the brain, which I happen to be addicted to. And you're looking at one mind map I've been curating for 23 years. Mark Caranza has been curating a very different kind of data structure. He calls Mx named after the Memex for since 1984, but he's not sharing it out that much. So how do we get that and other people using other tools to be able to interconnect and weave richer stories and connect up sort of the wisdom of the world? How can individuals manifest beliefs in ways that meld with larger groups beliefs so that we can preserve the sovereignty and point of view of individuals and then somehow cascade upward into, you know what, whatever like Pete Kaminsky says in these domains speaks for me. So I'm sort of signing up for his manifestation or publishing of how things work and what to do. And then prototype missing pieces that lead to collective intelligence, I think I said, and then swap DNA with wise organizations. So as we're busy bridging high functioning entities and all of that, I'll connect that over here as well to pick up the best of what they've figured out. And, you know, we're looking for ways to, we're looking for ways to reward participants fairly. So how, you know, is there a pie slice protocol? Pete mentioned the pie slice protocol and some other things about how to do that. Somebody else invented the protocol, awesome. If it works really well, how do we A, bring it in? And then how do we instrument it so that it's easily at hand and usable for other organizations? If this is a high functioning way to do things, let's do that. And then last thing I'll say, and then I'll shut up and see what everybody else thinks. Last thing I'll say is something inspired kind of by Jordan Sukud, who's been helping lead us into a fiscal structure that would help us get some of these things done more formally, which is how do we sort of help each of these entities meet its higher purpose? How do we help people who are sort of struggling out there kind of hit their best and highest purpose in the world? How do we keep our aim high in terms of where we're headed and what we're trying to get done together to make the world a little bit of a better place? Things like that. So, I'm gonna hit pause and see who'd like to jump in. And I'll note that we're all white guys on the call. Just, we need to fix this, but I'm not gonna let that stop this conversation because a piece of what we can fix here is one of those issues as well. Scott, please. I'll try not to take up too much time here, but the reason I'm back is because of that very thing that you just said. And the inherent problem that I'm seeing is a question I've been thinking about this deeply. And so I could be wrong, but I wanna throw this out there. I think that there's an assumption that because it's a bunch of white guys by appearance that that means that it's not a diverse group. And that deeply concerns me. And it concerns me because there are assumptions being made that I don't know. Let me ask a question. I'll skip through a bunch of my other stuff that I had written up, but here's my fundamental question. And I had heard this recently and I thought it was really, I don't know, I thought it was important. Is there more variation within groups or between groups? So the idea is that is there more variation within a group of white guys on a screen or between groups, meaning this group has fundamental things that are different from a group that looks very different from us. And I think the question is important because what I heard two weeks ago was that there's fundamentally different, more difference between groups, which is why you need people who look different. And what I'm wondering is, well, if the range of possible attributes is actually broader within any group than it is between two groups, what struck me as problematic and something that I haven't heard isn't the fundamental racist idea that there's two groups of people that are overlapping in such a small way based on one attribute, what they look like, their race, their sex, their age, whatever it happens to be. The idea that if the main difference is between groups as opposed to here we have a group of people who, I mean, if we were to write down our attributes, would we all be the same? I highly doubt it. I think we would be actually much more diverse than we think. And I'm not saying that I'm welcoming everyone, obviously my fundamental proposition is I believe in the inherent sovereignty, agency and value of every individual. And we would never suggest that we could speak on behalf of another person, which, I mean, it's one of the reasons we have power of attorney. You can never say, you can't talk for another person. And so it just, I don't know, it's just something I've been thinking about like this assumption that there's more diversity between groups than there is within groups. And it's actually diversity of attributes that you're looking for across individuals from everywhere. Instead of we need one from this group because if we just get one from that group that represents everybody from that group, which I think is total bullshit. I just think it's a flawed model that actually increases the problems that we're having because it makes it stereotypical that, well, we need one from here and one from here and one from here because if we have one, that means that we've represented. And I don't think that's true at all. So as you, I don't know what you said to kick me off on that, Jerry, but that was something that has been weighing heavy on me for the last couple of weeks after some of the comments about, well, we can't make it written because then we exclude people of color who have an oral tradition. And I thought, wait a minute, interesting. I wonder how they, see, that's even saying a group. What about an individual who's here? What would they say? Would they say, oh, I agree with you. You need to make it verbal because I don't, like that just seems wrong to me. I don't know. So, okay, I'm done. I think you've put the idea on the table well and I just, I wanna turn to Mark and Twan and Pete for their thoughts. And Mark and Twan, you may have raised your hand before and not beyond this topic. So I'd like to stay on Scott's question for a second before we turn to other things. So go ahead. Yeah, I have both things to say about Scott's point and what you raised earlier. So I think that I absolutely agree with the point that if we have a quote unquote token representative of another group, they don't speak for that group. The notion of representativity is very difficult to understand and yes, individual variation, Trump's group variation but group variation still exists. And I think you do gain more diversity as a rule if you have a visibly diverse community. And I think for me, the most important aspect is there are such things as traditional positions of power and the most insightful people I find are those who have been in situation of being in a minority, being invisible, being powerless. They understand power better than those who are in power and people who come from groups that are as a whole disadvantage in power relations gives a perspective that is not given otherwise. That doesn't mean that we individually may not have been powerless, but that's the systemic aspect of it gives another perspective. So that's what I have to say about that. Can I go on on something else or do you want to go? Let me come back to you for the other side because I'd like to focus on the questions. I do have to leave at the hour, but otherwise, sure. Sibia, I'll be back to you. Pete then Hank. You're still muted on the Zoom. Dang it. Damn it. When it's early in the morning, it's the unraising hand and the unmuting. Yeah. First of all, Scott, thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you for having a perspective and for just saying it. And by the way, there's a thing that you said at the front of what you started to say, which is I'll try not to take up too much time. And I think, you know, when you have something important to say, it's not about how much time, you know, you take. So, and Mark and Tron, thanks for reminding us about systemic racism or sexism and also traditional, traditional bastions of power and things like that. So that's definitely part of the problem. So especially as white guys, I feel like it's incumbent upon us in our lives and in our work with other people to make sure that we hear from people who traditionally aren't white and men. And I also kind of want to acknowledge something that I feel like was implicit in what Scott said. There's a thing where even noticing what, you know, whether somebody's light skinned or dark skinned or noticing whether or not somebody's a woman or a man and actually even presuming that somebody who looks like a man is a man and somebody who looks like a woman is a woman, you know, all of that, all of that is stereotyping. And all of that is, you know, when it gets down to that level of prejudice, prejudging somebody by the way that they look, you know, you're pretty far down the path of like, like you have structurally failed at that point when you have to start counting whether or not you've got, you know, one woman or two women or three women or, you know, 50% women or 70% women, it's a structural fail at that point. So I want to kind of acknowledge that it's sexist to notice whether or not somebody has a gender and what gender they are based on what they look like and it's racist, racist as heck to look at somebody and go, I judge you by the color of your skin, you know, that's the definition of racism. Having said that, I know and I feel better when there are more people that look different from me in the room. And I know that there are cultural ways of being that each one of us as a white man has not experienced because we're not black, because we're not a woman in a man's, a white man's world, you know? So, so my, you know, in this call, I'm having a hack of a time staying here because my stomach hurts because I don't want to be in, you know, and it's, I love being in a group of all guys and we, you know, we have the guy jokes and the guy power, you know, hierarchies and all that stuff. I navigate that well because I've done that for, you know, most all of my life, but it's not very grown up. It's not very mature. And Scott, I appreciate that amongst the folks here, we have a complete, completely interesting range of diversity. So the problem isn't diversity. So when, you know, when we telescope the problem down to, you know, diversity, it's not, I guess I don't want to be bean counting. I really do not want to be bean counting, but there are sets of diversity within this group that we just cannot access. And for the work that we're doing, they are some of the most important kinds of diversity, power and, you know, power dynamics. I guess it's mostly power dynamics, right? White men have most of the power in the world and that's, and like it or not guys, look at your face and people like this have been screwing the world over for 400, 500 or 600 years. And, you know, so if we're, if we're to make progress on changing the world, each of us I'm sure is a lovely person, but we need, we need more diversity of diversity. It's not just, you know, diversity of color and skin. It's diversity of cultural experience, diversity of experience of power. And so. Thanks Pete. Let's go to Phil and Hank. Actually, I think Hank was ahead of me. I don't know why, I assume. Oh, okay. I'm just thinking about how I saw the hands, but let's go to Hank and Phil. Okay. This is a terrific conversation and in all different projects I've been involved in, people are always looking for tokens and a representative of this or that, like Scott was talking about. And in fact, I've often found myself living in Europe and being the type of person I am as being seen as the representative of something. And obviously, as everyone has said up until now, that's not what we want. But I did want to bring in one very extensive experience I've had in 25 or 30 years of organizing group conversations and dialogue. And that's, it's a European experience and it's to some extent international experience. If there are no women in the group, you have conversation A. If you have seven men and one woman already their own changes. If you have six men and two women, the tone changes again, et cetera, et cetera. And what I mean to say by that is, aside from anything else that has to do with feminism, tokenism, sexism, women and men bring in such different neurological cognitive ways of looking at the world, I've experienced it every single time. And I think I've had less experience with generations, but I have had experience where teenagers and let's say working adults and seniors are in the same conversation. And the conversation is again, very different than if you don't have teenagers or some teenagers. It's a personal experience. Thank you, Hank. Phil, then me. I just want to say thanks everyone for your input and perspective so far. It's a very rich conversation. I just wanted to first say, I think we're all agreed on this, but the idea of bringing people in for a head count or a number or a token, kind of tokenizing people is not only doing also the service, but doing them a disservice, bringing someone in to be the one person in the room like them is not a path that fosters comfort and the ability to talk about or maybe share perspective. I think Michael mentioned a couple of times recently that it might be good for us to look out to other groups where we might be the one white guy in the room and sit in on conversations and just listen in here and see what topics come up. I'd also like to shift the conversation a bit into not inviting specific people, but what practices are we engaged in that are leading to this kind of the homogeneity of our group, sorry. So things like our meeting times, like we're all privileged enough to have this time on a Tuesday to sit down and talk for an hour and a half about these topics. Is that inclusive of a wide range of people or is that inclusive of a certain demographic? We're also, the subjects and topics we talk about are very important and necessary topics, but we talk about them because we have the privilege to be able to talk about them when there's other issues that affect people's lives more, day to day that they might wanna focus on. So bringing in people and introducing new topics, I think is an important practice and an important, something we should try and focus on, just basically shifting, not inviting specific people, but what practices can we bring in or introduce that might help foster a bit of diversity? Thank you, Phil. I like that, I agree a lot. So just a couple of thoughts I wanna add to this piece of the conversation. One, my favorite quote on this is the privilege of privilege is not noticing the privilege. So I'm willing to bet that nobody in this Zoom right now has had to cross the street because somebody walking toward them or behind them was like really spooky and they felt they were gonna get beat up or that nobody in this room got turned down or was worried when filling out an application that their name looked funny to the person that they were applying to and had to worry about not getting a loan or not getting a job or not getting a house or whatever else because of any attribute around them that was a marker of difference. I'm willing to bet of 15 different things about the people currently in this room. I also know that I attract pretty left leaning kind of people and there's probably not any alt-right lurkers in OGM. There may be some people who are a little on the right that we probably don't have a lot of QAnon folks and a lot of other sort of people that have a really wildly different point of view. And I have to say with some trepidation that I'm interested in and eager to do IDSX with people who have like really different kind of jarringly different points of view about what's happening in the world and why because I think that those things done well in public would be really useful. And then those people are not in this group because I don't think they'd be attracted to this group. They wouldn't hang out and nobody like that has sort of un-cloaked really in our various conversations. Second thing is years ago, and I need to find her again I saw an exhibit by a photographer who had photographed cliques around the world. So she went to like London skinheads who'd had like egg white, stiff mohawks and piercings and leather and studs. And then she went to other and she photographed these cliques and the differences across the cliques were astonishing. Like, wow, these people really look different because a piece of what made the clique was really looking radically different. And then within clique, the conformity was incredible. So all the skinheads had a chain across the front of their outfit. All the skinheads were like in Doc Martens. Like the in-trod group conformity was like surprising once you compared the photos across cliques. And I was like, that's really interesting. And I just put that in the conversation as a piece of a figure of note because we all, I think we attract people of good intention who want collective intelligence. And that does something to the structure of our conversations. And as Phil pointed out, the time we meet to have the time to have this conversation to be interested in an abstract conversation about knowledge at a time when like shit is melting down is privilege all by itself. And I totally agree with all of that. Then years ago, I heard a talk by Dick Foster, the ex-McKenzie partner who wrote a book about the S-curve. He sort of said, this is how progress works. And I was in a small group meeting where he presented what appeared to be his valedictory speech because he was getting on in years. And the preamble was, I've been working on this for a really long time. You're the first group I'm saying this to. And he starts with play to an Aristotle. And I'm like, oh, fuck you. Like that was my inner voice. But like he's building a logical structure for how everything in Western, everything in civilization is built on the logic gifted to us by the Greeks. And I'm like, seriously, fuck you because that excludes most of the world actually, like the largest portion of population that doesn't see that that's the structuring of civilization and all that. And I think that many of us are trying to crack the code. We're trying like, Scott, you've been working really, really hard to build a logical system that people can use that uses physical objects as part of the manifestation to understand how things work and therefore how to act better and what to do to fix these things. And I think that most of us here are blind to very different ways of seeing how this works. And the book that cracked this open for me was The Healing Wisdom of Africa by Melodoma Somme and a couple other books that are in my non-white guy canon, which I'll put a link to. And basically Somme is kidnapped from his tribe in West Africa at age five, put into the French school system, which he succeeds in. He barfs out of that, comes back to his village and is like totally turned off by how primitive everything is, goes through a three-day initiation process during which he suddenly sees the tree that's in the middle of the group turn into a woman and he runs up and holds her and he has this deep spiritual experience of having crossed through to the other side. He sort of connects to what everybody else is seeing and talking about in a way that he couldn't because the modernist lens that had been polished and installed on his system didn't let him see it. And that was just one peak for me behind the curtain of what a whole lot of other people take for granted, see as their background, see as their story. And by busy being like logical and coming in with solutions that are gonna work, we're busy forcing other points of view on people who don't actually even see that way or relate that way to one another. And some people preserve the ability to see auras and I don't know, but there's a whole lot of other stuff out there that's going on that I think is outside of our normal scope of operations. And so I find myself as a white guy, championing other people's points of view as much as I can. So when I get a little sniff of one of the things I just mentioned in the air, I will point to it. I'll be like, that is really valuable, that is really good. And then that little ember goes out because the group doesn't turn its attention to it. It doesn't really matter. We don't really sort of go there. And I don't push hard enough. And I haven't done enough of my own personal work in this fear to make it matter. And I would love to use open global mind, whatever the hell that is, as we decide through these conversations to figure out where it goes and what that means. So I feel like we're way underrepresented on diversity of different kinds without head counting of people who just merely look different or of other genders. I feel like we're really missing a piece. And Phil's question about what is it that we're doing that has us being sort of homogeneous-ish is a really important question. And one of my few amateur answers to that, Phil and others, is to try to go and be of service to other communities that are pretty different from us with what we do. And that's why I'm trying to figure out what do we do? And what do we bring to anybody else? And why are we here? And if we can figure that out for ourselves as whoever showed up, as whoever is in the room, if we can figure that out with the intention of being of service to others who are really different from us, I think that starts to solve some of these sorts of questions in different ways. And et cetera, et cetera. So let me go to Mark Antoine, partly also because you have to leave in 15 minutes. Yeah. I'd like to go back to what I wanted to say at first. And it was a bit outside of this, but it does relate. When you were saying who are we and what's our mission and as I've always interpreted, we're the connectors, right? I was thinking about how, for example, Nika Sifri just saying, what's really important when you do these very diverse movements, like he was working in Occupy, is to have these few clear goals, actionable goals and testable goals. And in a way or a strong on their needs to be a boundary around the people who take care of the commons. And every group creates itself by creating a boundary. There are a lot of places, right? The boundary is what defines the group and what makes it exist. You cannot exist without a boundary. And at the same time, our reason of existence is going across boundaries. And there's a profound paradox there. I don't have the answer to that. I just want to lay that here. And I think it totally fits in with the conversation that we're wondering how to attract people who are not in our privileged position of trying to have perspective and see things from multiple viewpoints and trying to connect across boundaries. And this is, yes, what defines who we are. We are the boundary crossers. And at the same time, we're doing it from a situated viewpoint. I totally agree with that with all the limits that entails. But we at least try to be boundary crossers. So how is it to define a group of boundary crossers and can it work as any other group? I don't have the answer to that. I really want us to tackle with that question. Me too. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Others on the question Scott raised and then let's turn back to, let's go back to sort of zero and the general idea of the question while we're here. Go ahead Pete. I want, I'm not sure exactly how to say this. So invite is the wrong framing. I think it's something that Lauren actually had a really good rant on the OGM Lionsberg call last Thursday which I think is probably posted in this channel. So Lauren of course is part of Keekalab. Keekalab has been pretty good at having a diverse set of people on their calls. And she kind of tore into the white man in the room and said, you all think this is easy work. You all think it's like easy for Keekalab. We just throw up a flyer and people show up. And that's not what happens. I spend, Lauren, I spend a lot of time working with different people making them feel welcome, working offline, not in the group. And not just like inviting people, hey, this call is available for you to show up and don't worry, it's gonna be a bunch of white guys and that's perfectly fine, right? It's a lot more about getting the right people available and in the room before the call, right? I wanna relate some personal experience through the plex, the collective of collectives that OGM is part of. I've got three or four standing calls every week. One-on-one calls as it happens, they could be, I guess I've got a couple others that are not quite OGM, Flotilla is one. Flotilla is not particularly diverse either. But my one-on-one calls, I've been gifted or blessed or whatever, the one-on-one calls I have, they're all with women, they're all women. Every one of them is a woman. Two of them, out of three or four, are people of color. One of the black women is from another country and she was like, I've got a bunch of ideas, but whenever I say them, people say, oh, you're from another country. We don't, she's not talking about us in the calls, but she says stuff in her life around her. She lives in New York and what she gets back is, I'm sorry, you're from another country, your opinions don't count here. And I'm like, what? You hear this in the US? You hear this with people that it's not in a red state, it's like, and it just blew my mind that that happens, right? So it's not like there aren't and each of these people, it wasn't like I invited them because they were women or it's not because we're cross-cultural that we're together. The weird thing is that we have to talk about it once in a while, you know, it's like, oh, I recognize that you're a black woman. And so then you've got this, I was, to my black friend, I heard this another person who happens to be black and I'm like, please, I hope you don't think that I'm inviting you because I, you know, because I recognize that both of you are black and so you must have this magical, it's like, I'm sorry, that's, and she's like, Pete, why would you even think that? I know you, I know that you're not that kind of person. I said, well, as a white man, that happens sometimes. It happens that I do something stupid and stereotypically white, even though I try really hard not to, right? She says, don't worry about it, Pete. I know that you're not that kind of person. But so it's not that we don't have to Scott's point kind of, you know, I didn't invite these people because they were different from me and invited them because, so I get working around back to that. The reason that we're talking, every single one of those people, we're talking because we share common interests and we happen to be, you know, different colors and different genders and stuff like that, but that's not the point, right? So the ecosystem we're in has a variety of interesting people. And somehow, you know, when we cluster together, we create these clusters that repel or are anti-attendable by, you know, by interesting people. And they're right around us. You know, it's not like, you know, it's not like they're different from us. It's not like, so. A personal view. Thanks, Pete. I'm Phil. Thank you very much, Pete. Yeah, I think one step, I'm trying just to work towards kind of actionable steps that we can take into this week, next week, the following weeks. One thing in terms of also Mark Antoine's point, maybe we identify thinkers or experts or knowledge professionals in different spaces and invite them to come talk to us instead of us talking to ourselves. And I think that is part of that, crossing these knowledge borders and crossing these different areas is identifying, like, oh, that's an interesting perspective. Can we bring them in and hear from them, whoever it is, like whatever their identifying characteristics are, like bring them in, have these conversations and just listen. And then we can engage in different ways. And all of that's just one step, another, and just to talk towards the chat. I think maybe we can start talking towards what other pillars or topics we want to address. I think there's a lot of good initiative and thoughts in our groups, but maybe creating a systems thinking working group, creating different working groups on different topics that people are interested in. I see that as a very important step to how we push forward as OGM as well. Yeah. Thanks Phil. Let me make an observation and see if this resonates, in particular for you, Scott. So, and Scott, you weren't on last Thursday's check and call where there was kind of a kerfuffle between me and Kevin Jones because he said something and I picked up on a piece of what he said and he and I have history where he introduced me to my present life. We go back a really long ways and he can be a little bit sharp elbow sometimes and he said something sort of, I went back and looked at the transcript, he said something twice that just kind of triggered me. So I jumped in and picked that up, but the rest of the story that he talked about was super interesting and it was something I really wanted our group to talk about because on the Google group, which you probably saw, he had mentioned being at an event that included one of the two senators from Mississippi and describing the dynamics of trying to be at the edge and bring progress and yet needing to be in his community and represent. And it was super interesting, a conversation I'm dying to have. And so I picked up that thing and I went back in and he bashed on me later and said, we never talked about the thing I brought. And I'm like, I know it was partly because like that thing that you said that just made it impossible for me to hear you. And I have a funny feeling, Scott, that of the 20 things I just put on the table, one of them was diversity. And you started our conversation down that path by stepping in and very nicely framing that for us. And we spent much of this call on that topic there. And I think in the chat, you're saying, hey, there's all this other interesting stuff we could do to be of service to others. Why aren't we talking about that? Which I would love to do as well. But am I representing sort of, so I feel like there's a little parallelism here, a little, the conversation just, we piled in on one thing, which is sort of disturbing to some of us because like there's all this other stuff we'd love to actually talk about. And yet this thing is actually really, really important. So does that kind of represent the dynamic maybe? I agree. I think it's very important, but it is part of what we do and to maybe Phil's point, I think. Phil was one of the people who had said this about, and maybe Mark as well, just let's doing our work and letting that be the thing that we focus on instead of the hand wringing over, are we doing this right? Are we possibly offending anyone? Are we, let's, we know that that's not our intent. And so let's do our good work and let this be one of the 15 items that we're always keeping in mind. But if we focus all of our time on that, we won't get the other stuff done. And it's kind of a way of almost avoiding the real important work that we uniquely can do while we bring this along with us. I'm a brief comment before I pass the mic to Pete, which is I did a bunch of work with the EXO Group in 2018, the exponential organization, Salih Ismail. And the phrase that I would say in that group was if you do the wrong thing exponentially well, you could really fuck up the world. And one of my beefs with the EXO methodology is that it has no moral compass. It's really like the process doesn't involve questioning about systemic anything. It doesn't really do that. It's like, Hey, there's these really, really cool exponential technologies. You should use them for your project. And we never did bake in any kind of sort of feedback loop or steering mechanism or ethical principles into the process, which is still kind of what it was before. So I'm a little bit worried that if we don't pay attention to our assumptions and our point of view and the lack of other points of view here, that if we power ahead and just do like the rational thing to do, that we're in fact maybe not being that helpful. So I'm a bit of concerned about that, Pete. Thanks all. So I'm sad that we ended up talking about this topic, but I also think it's a really important topic. For me, looking at the room and seeing diversity, like I said, diversity trailing indicator, it's being counting. You've already failed when you're counting. For me, it's a symptom in the same way that when you have a fever, it's a symptom in the same way that when you have high blood pressure, it's a symptom. So maybe your high blood pressure doesn't mean anything. Maybe your number compared to somebody else's number, yours is normal and there is, and there is even though it's in a more normal range, it's less than normal and they've got some problem, right? It's a symptom. So I guess the other thing is, I think we all know that symptomatic treatment is probably not the thing that you wanna do, right? Sometimes I guess maybe you do want to just make sure there are enough women in the room. Maybe you just wanna make sure that you take a drug that lowers your temperature. But if you keep doing that, if you keep masking a symptom or worse, ignore a symptom, you know, so I can tell from me personally, this group has a fever, a pretty bad fever. And, you know, that doesn't mean that we can't keep working. It doesn't mean that we won't be productive. It doesn't mean that we'll continually choose the wrong goals, but I can also tell that we're sick and I can also tell that we have habitually not been able to get ourselves to be better. So that's kind of where I find myself and I have to say, and I apologize for this. I feel like I'm being a coward. This whole diversity thing, it's not actually my fight. I don't care to win it very much. I just, you know, I have two feet. I have to like move away from these discussions where it's all white guys, you know, and it's not, I'm not trying to make a statement. I'm not trying to say that we should be more diverse. Me personally, I love each of you to the extent that I know you and some of you I know really well. It's just like, you know, why would I go to a place where we're all being sick together? You know, why would I enable that? Why would I do that? And I get that there are times when you have to man up. There are times when you have to like be brave, like women are brave and say, you know, I'm going to go do something that I don't want to be doing. And that's why I've been sitting here for this hour, I guess. Because this is a problem that needs to get fixed. I don't, you know, I've got other stuff in my life that's more important to do. I can't come to a call, I can't come to this call again if we're, you know, if we're like this, I just can't. And it's not me saying, oh my God, follow me. It's a movement. Oh my God, you all suck. Oh my God, I suck. Oh my God, I've got some identity issue. It's just like not, you know, not interesting. It's not productive. It's not generative. We're not being generative right now in the way that I feel like we should be generative. And so, you know, let's stop doing it that way. Pete, totally respect what you said and understand if you don't want to be in a group that shows up like this. What Michael just typed into the chat represents a lot my own understanding of how to get over this issue and getting over it is not an easy quick solve. I'm really interested in being of service to other organizations that are not like us. I think that's a really quick path to fixing the problem. But it won't fix the problem right away because, because A, I don't know what to offer other entities and I need to have this conversation about what the hell is OGM. I need the rest of what's on the table here to be solved. So I know what to offer other organizations. And so I know that there are other OGM members who would like to do perform those things and do those things for to be of service. Like not to invite in here because inviting in here is fraud. It's like, whatever, like, like, I'm not looking to recruit membership for people to show up here, which means to me, the diversity of population of these calls is a lagging indicator of success on actually figuring this out and being of service. And so I don't know what to offer anybody. So I need the rest of this question kind of solved in order to do that. And if that means that it's a bunch of white guys trying to fix it for a while, so be it, at least like let's make progress on it and let's go be a service. And if that means that people don't want or can't participate because it's too many white guys, I completely understand. It makes total sense to me and I apologize. But I'm trying to figure out how do we actually turbocharge what we've got, make some sense out of it and bring it to other people. And while we're busy being of service to other people, we will be in their conversations and our conversations ought to be thinned out. Like we will be in other sorts of places. And if we're fortunate, and if the sharing of DNA, if the swapping of spit with other organizations works, then some of them, many of them might come over and mingle with us and say, we love what you're, I'll have what you're having because this is really productive and this is working really well. And then suddenly later, we'll not be worrying about this because it will have shown up. Mark Antoine, thank you. Phil, go ahead. Oh, you were waving to Mark Antoine. Sorry, sorry, yeah, I was just saying goodbye. That's all right. So does that make sense? Pete, is that okay with you? Does that make sense to you? It makes sense to me, but by definition, it's okay with me. I think it feels to me and I don't mean to be prescriptive or I don't mean to, because you asked. It feels to me like being, it feels like avoidance. To say I have to meet here to figure out what I can go talk to other people about. So a different way to do it would be to find a new friend who's a woman or find a new friend who's Bach or find a friend who's Bach and a woman and say, and just talk, right? Listen to her a lot and talk a little bit and ask some questions and maybe it's easy to, it's easy to put off things. It's easy to say, well, I don't know how to solve that. And so I'm just gonna kind of keep doing what I'm doing and maybe it'll get solved or maybe doing that we'll solve it. Another, a different approach is to go, let me stop doing that in more of a closed space and go out to talk and go out to talk with other people and ask questions about them and ask, how should I do this? What would we do together? So I think I can walk to another group and represent what I think, what I dream, oh, GM is and could be and make it up. And what I started this call with my brain sort of and enthusiasm and all that kind of stuff was the picture of that that I was trying to paint in an impressionistic kind of way with prick brush strokes. And I'm happy to lather rinse, repeat in other groups, but I don't know that anybody else feels the same way about OGM or would represent that way. And I'd love for many of us to be doing that. And I'd love to know that when I represent in that weird impressions painting that it roughly accords to what other OGMers actually think we're doing as opposed to somebody thinking that we're a Dalai or a Pollack or something else. And I'm just trying to have that conversation. Maybe there's a conversation or several conversations before that, what kinds of things, here's something that I'm interested in. Tell me something you're interested in. Here's a couple more things I'm interested in. Tell me a couple more things that you're interested in. You mean with diverse people or you mean among us? Um, because I feel like we have a strong indicator that we're not culturally diverse and not power diverse. A lot of those conversations. So, you know, a lot of those conversations and because I guess because OGM is going to try to solve problems of power and problems of culture. The early questions and the small conversations, I don't think I would go to a diverse group and give them a whole vision. What I would do is go to one or two people who are different than me. And, you know, here's something I'm interested in. Can you tell me something you're interested in? I'm in a bunch of those conversations and I'd like to figure out how to click this thing together. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks, Pete. Phil? I would just to move things forward, I would just put out a kind of call to everyone that it might be good for even us to share kind of events that might be good to join. We can create a running list of events of people we'd like to reach out to. And I call, I'm sort of working in a staff capacity with OGM. So if there's people you'd like us to reach out to as OGM, feel free to share. I'm on Mattermost or you can reach out via email. But we can start putting together a list of people to reach out to, events to join. I'm not saying that'll be a solve for this at all, but it's a step. Sorry, Pete. That's all right. Thanks, Phil. Don't be sorry. Pete? It reminds me. I think because you all look like me, I think you've had the same experience as me. I've spent like, you know, like 10 or 15 years reading about how to be an ally. And a lot of it's actually just been reading, but there are good resources for, you know, and a lot of the typical kinds of questions that white guys ask, you know, you know, there are answers written down for them. So I will try to put together, you know, some of the resources that have helped me like think as an ally rather than thinking as, you know, the guy on a high pedestal going, why isn't anybody, you know, hanging out with me? Agreed. And I just put my collection of resources on that here. And what I'm a piece of what I'm trying to do is figure out how can OGM be a good ally? So that we have a good taste in our mouths at the end of this call that this might be a fruitful endeavor towards the question that I started with. Can we like step aside and back into the general problem of what would OGM do? And I'd love to hear anybody sort of who'd like to contribute to that. Tony, Marquardo share, just these are my thoughts and it's just how I interpret things. Again, I'm a retired engineer. So that's the, I see from what I hear, the addressing tough problems is the purpose of OGM or that's what everybody wants to end. It's also what everybody else wants to do. And I think tough problems are solved by systems thinking. And I've been on, I've heard Derek Cabrera, Benjamin Taylor, a bunch of other very sharp people in the systems community saying, hey, systems thinking don't really exist in a unified form. It's just a bunch of disparate parts to quote Derek Cabrera. We just can't keep telling people there's 2,842 different disparate concepts in systems thinking it gets nobody anywhere. So I think a first thing to do with the, I think a unified approach. I did that for a school project that COVID shut it down, but it's relatively easy for STEM volunteer. I think it's relatively easy to come up with a unified set of principles for systems thinking. And that diagram that I presented on MatterBose presents part of it by no means all of it. It talks about the loops and levels that it brings those two concepts together. Multiple levels, multiple loops and how do they all relate? The loops we see at 50,000 feet are entirely different than we see at ground level. Well, causal loop diagrams are single level. There's a distinct there. There's something that needs to be brought together and that diagram I have is an attempt to do that. It could be expanded upon, but there's a ton of things that could be done to maybe a project that actually do something and then move on to bigger projects. If we come up with something that works we could apply it to bigger problems. But the first step is to come up with some workable prototype and then move on to the other things. Right now I don't see if anybody's got anything different from what I've heard and seen there's no way of addressing big complex problems. There really isn't. So let me answer you and then pass it to Scott. So Anthony, I think we've created a MatterBose channel for this discussion for systems thinking and I would love to sort of collect this conversation there and I would love for there to be a body of work, assets in the OGM Wiki for example that relate to systems thinking and an effort to unify systems thinkers and system thinking models and so forth. And I collect useful thinking frameworks and all of that. And I'll say that I was weaned into this world by Russell Aikoff, one of the originators of systems thinking. I was lucky enough to bump into him in grad school in my second year at Wharton. I took several courses from him and other people that blew my head open way too many years ago I'm afraid to say. And then he hired me to be his feet on the ground in Argentina for seven weeks for a tiny project right at the end of school, et cetera, et cetera. So I like that was my intro to systems thinking and I've talked to many systems thinker and OGM not surprisingly attracts a lot of systems thinkers. We have many of them, like Neil Davidson as a systems thinker, you Scott, George Silverman, a bunch of other systems thinkers. And I have yet to find unifying ways of, Christina Bowen and her use of Kumu, Jean Bellinger is a deep systems thinker. Like, I don't know that there's like a simple unified model of systems thinking and my own idea is if we leave a variety of these tools at hand and help people pick their system thinking family and like go for it that might actually also create a lot of progress. I'm unclear that there's like the grand unified model of systems theory but I'm very happy to host or curate or help collect that effort. Like, so Tony, if you wanna sort of lead that effort in some way, let's build something around you and let's figure out how OGM works. So we know where that is and what's going on around it and move forward with that. And then I have Scott Phil Shimon. I guess positive side for the systems thinking, I just completed my certification with Cabrera Research Lab actually. So I'm kind of behind the scenes on some of that and they are just about to publish a new book with a man named Gerald Midgley who had initially thought that Cabrera's theory was bunk and has since come around to say, I think you might be right. I think that your theory is actually fundamental and is the unifying part of systems thinking. I'll just leave that out there. It'll be out within months from what I understand. But what I wanted to say was that one of the things I, Jerry, I think you had said, what could we do? What can we actually do? What can we bring to the world? I was having a conversation with my oldest son and I realized that a role that is not in any corporation I've ever been in, at least in a formal way is that of senior listener. So you know the people you can go sit in their office and throw ideas and they don't have their own agenda. They're going to help you talk through the problem and figure out what it is, find your own thing through conversation. And one of the things I realized in being in other Zoom calls is that this group, largely because of your leadership, Jerry and then the way that Pete has come in to help, you know, balance that out with other, how do we have a meeting? How do we get together and talk? And it's really remarkable how well this group does that even when we have our issues. And I've been in other groups just as a comparison and I've just thought, this is a mess. It just, it doesn't feel open. It doesn't feel like, you know, two people get to talk and then there's all the rest of the people who don't. And I feel like that is something of great value. I don't know how to export it, but it feels like some of the things that Michael had said about showing up in other groups, you know, you can help guide that. You can help kind of be that mom and that to me, how to listen, how to have a conversation, how to structure a group of, you know, 20 people, you know, especially on the Thursday calls, it's the same thing where you're able to consistently have a process that we kind of follow that doesn't feel as rigid as Robert's rules of order, but it doesn't feel like, you know, two people watching other, or older people watching other people, two people talk. So anyway, I think that's one of our areas that I think should, how do we make that into something we can export and say, here's how you do this? Thanks, Scott. I pass the floor to the distinguished gentleman from Valdfogo. Well, it's nice to be part of this call. I mean, I resonated a little bit with the diversity issue as a two week now retired psychiatrist in a huge healthcare system that just went through trying to understand diversity and power and things of that kind. I certainly appreciate this kind of smaller conversation along these lines. I came to know of OGM actually through Kumo and through Gene Bowinger and then reaching out to Jerry. And actually found my few interaction with the group very interesting. I never think of myself as a systems thinker. I think more as a psychiatrist trying to understand complexity and how people formulate the lens through which they look at the world. And certainly if you don't look at the various layers and various influences people have to deal with, they're not gonna really be able to help them. One of the things that I've been working on for a while is really trying to create a framework for having conversations. And in this way, I found that the way medicine looks at complex problems through a case presentation, through a framework like a business plan, like what legal professionals do with the Brandeis brief has been very helpful for me. Because it just enables me and people I interact with to really identify what some of the problems they're trying to solve, the vision that they have for where they want to sort of reach and then figure out what are the assets they have, what are the challenges they have and things of that kind. To that end, I think that what I've tried to do is create a toolbox for people to really engage with this kind of treatment plan. And one of the areas people mentioned working on a project, I've actually come pretty far along with a project about the opioid epidemic. Now, why they open epidemic? Because it really involves system thinking on so many different levels and so many different people, whether you're rich or poor, whatever racial background, you've been touched by that. It's also the government has really failed in many ways to do what it's supposed to do. So I've really been shaping some of the format to think about systems, tools, how to engage people, how to empower them and interacting within their ecosystem around the issue of the opioid epidemic. I have reached out to a number of people and this is how I have found, again, I don't think of myself as a member, whatever that is of OGM, but what I've found very helpful for myself is reaching out to various people, including Lauren, Neil, Jean, Peter, not Pete, Peter, and they've provided great just a one-to-one conversation. I have many people that I've connected with of various racial backgrounds and they seem interested in a framework to address whatever problem that they are dealing with in Philadelphia, beyond the opioid epidemic. A lot of the inner city issues, education, things of that kind really lend themselves to that kind of thinking. So that's my two cents. I'm not sure that that's a direction where OGM is thinking about. Clearly one of the challenges that we have as a society is the lens through which people look at their reality, the media, I think coming to terms with ways for people to engage with the media in a healthier way would be an amazing project. So these are my two cents. If anyone's interested in the larger project, I'm certainly willing to share that. So, Shimon, among the things that I was presenting that what would OGM do was sort of curating wise solutions to the world's issues and also making them more available, easier to use, easier to put to work right away and all that. So as you develop your ideas, it feels to me like that would be content that we could help curate and put into the kinds of tools and platforms we're thinking about. Yeah, Shimon has sort of been thinking about this personally for a long time and so there's materials there. So I think that what we're busy trying to figure out is, okay, so how do we help you make your idea better? It's like, there's a process called the Writers Workshop which is really nice. I read that Dick Gabriel wrote a book about how to run a Writers Workshop and in the Writers Workshop, you're trying to help the work be the most it can be. And the process of Writers Workshoping puts the author outside the circle so that everybody's talking about the work and not the author, which means it doesn't become a personal attack on the author like that. Everybody's focused on making the idea better. And so I think this connects also to Tony's question about systems and systems models and systems thinking because there's a way that the systems modeling can interpret your ideas and your theories and there might be a really interesting bridge there to model what you've written or created in systems models. That could be an interesting connection, right? Well, definitely. I mean, talking about Writers Workshop, I recognize one of my biggest problems is writing and actually I joined Foster, which is sort of like a Writers Collective which does some of this kind of work. And one of my goals is to get better as a writer and be more clear. Yeah, I mean, two of the things that I would suggest that you consider is along with the opioid epidemic is COVID-19, I think thinking in terms of systems would be very helpful in that regard to avenues to do it within medicine as a discipline. We have what's called case conferences where everyone comes together, someone presents a problem and you look at it from, you know, histology, pathology, pulmonology, you know, all the different things and present it with the tools that people have. I actually have created that kind of a framework where at the end of the day, creating these case conferences, you come out with a case presentation. The opioid epidemic is for me a great example because right now we're going to something very similar, including the FDA and then marketing by Dick Farmer and things like that with the new approval of this Alzheimer's drug, which is gonna be horrible in my mind as a geriatric psychiatrist in terms of the cost to the country. Again, this is US oriented in terms of taking away from other opportunities because it does have unintended consequences. So how can we think about as citizens dealing from a complexity viewpoint at this point, how do we approach the approval of this particular drug? Being informed about what happened with the opioid epidemic is a really good tool to look at this other issue. So two things that I've done again, one is the case presentation and another one is what I'm developing is the issue of citizens commissions. So again, it's citizens commission is a process by which you invite citizens, give them tools, not necessary experts to really look at what is important to them. The one that I've gotten furthest along is with COVID-19 because we have so much polarization around an issue that really there shouldn't be that much polarization about. So how do we really use systems thinking to deal with approaching COVID-19 related issues that makes sense to you as an individual in your community, in the nation, globally, things of that kind? I think it's a great case for systems thinking. So the case presentation as well as thinking about citizen commissions are two vehicles to really push forward the complexity model. Thanks, Simone. And in a wishful thinking OGM world five years down the road, we would be building useful models that lobbyists would be using to try to change their regulations around the pharma complex and around what, you know, the approval complex and other sorts of things. Like I think that if we were a high functioning entity ourselves, we would be a useful tool in fixing the larger systems that are broken around these kinds of decisions because there's a whole bunch of stuff. There's a whole lot of work to be done. Go ahead, Bill. Yeah, there's some really great thoughts coming out of this conversation. I really like the idea of building this framework based on a regional or local issue and trying to build that into a framework that can be shared with other areas, other organizations, other people. I think that's something we're trying to do with systems free alignment. But just to grow back, it sounds like we have a project around systems thinking. It sounds like we have a project around facilitating conversation and listening, which Jerry, we talked about a bit yesterday. And it sounds like we could have a really great project around some of Shimon's different work and projects around the opioid epidemic around COVID-19. The thing I'm curious about in terms of what would OGM do is how do we concretely support these efforts? Because what can we do? We have a community of about 200. Can we activate people? Can we help facilitate conversations? Can we help provide a framework for what project success looks like? What needs are there? Like, Tony, if you were going to outline what, not to call on you, sorry, but if you were going to outline what your project, what success would look like in your project and how OGM supported it, what would that look like? It's a question to me, I would just show the essential concepts and most importantly, and what has not been done yet is how those concepts interrelate. Properly systems thinking is thought of causal loop diagrams and stock of flow diagrams. Well, Derek said it himself, causal loop diagram, I say it that causal loop diagrams don't focus at all on goals unless you identify the goals like that first person, like the previous person was talking about your son and unless you could tie it all together, you can't go forward. So looking at how the current state of things, that how popularly systems thinking is interpreted versus the way it should be interpreted to consider things like goals or some of the things Derek Barra was talking about that there's no drill down of relationships on a causal loop diagram and you need drill down to handle complexity. I mean, there's a lot of conflicts here, just bringing those alike and presenting that, I think would be a huge contribution just in and of itself. So just also to be like really practical about this. Pete has built a new knowledge management holding platform called Massive. Massive human intelligence is the larger project. It's like really, really OGM-y and we've been using it to build an OGM wiki which is kind of underneath a lot of the things we're trying to build up. Using it at this moment is not exactly simple because the documents are all kept on GitHub and you have to understand how GitHub works and you have to use markdown editors to do that and so forth. So there's a little bit of an on-ramp to figure out how to use it but Tony, Shimon, others, it would be really interesting to build the body of work on OGM wiki to represent some of these documents so that we had a place to go and a beginning of what these documents are. I'll then add to that. I like Cabrera's research. I've not taken the training. I don't know much about it. VSRP sounds like a fine starting point. They may have intellectual property issues with their stuff being put elsewhere. I don't know. My bias is in favor of people who really want wisdom, generally dissipated, disseminated and made useful and we're going to occasionally bump into IP protections around ideas. So to what extent might we build out stuff on our wiki in our online presence that does or doesn't conflict with or amplify or improve the work of places like Cabrera research? And I'm very interested in that question because our ability to synthesize, improve, curate, make available with entities like this, figuring that relationship out to me is really, really, really important and is not on my list of things of what would OGM do. So that's a lesson to me right now. It's like, okay, one of the things OGM needs to learn to do is to negotiate with entities like let's say Dave Snowden who is really protective about SenseMaker. Like how do we get SenseMaker broadly used in the world and still make Dave Snowden happy? Hacking that is really interesting to me as is everything that Shimon, you and Tony just sort of put in the group. And I know that Hank is working on positive cartography and Michael has a company that could be a platform for a lot of the stuff as well. And I'd love to know how to hack factor to be part of the engine and part of the holding mechanism for these ideas and the propagation mechanism and so forth. So that's a really complicated thing to end this call with. And I wanted to ask, so for next Tuesday I had proposed let's move through this topic onto outreach. I think we're not anywhere near done with this topic. So maybe I just shift us forward a week and say, let's start over on this topic again next week now that we've turned the soil a bit. Let's each of us try to actually invite humans who aren't like us. Pete, if you don't wanna show up that I will not, my feelings will not be hurt. I completely understand how you're coming at this. I am uncomfortable in meetings that where everybody looks like me and I'm trying to take sort of, unfortunately the long road to fix that. But I believe you and I'm like, love how this might, what this might become, but we're not there yet. We've got a fever. So okay to sort of stay on this topic for next Tuesday let's each of us try to bring people in at least who are not like us. Sound good? Okay, let's do that. And credit, we love like pointing to who originated things, credit is awesome. And I think a big piece of the mechanism. So one of the big questions in the back of my head is how do businesses make a profit while nurturing the commons? Because typically businesses, capitalist businesses sequester the commons, natural resources. Like I have all the cobalt in the world so you can't get it or whatever. And in doing so I get to make the most money because I now have a monopoly on cobalt or whatever. So how do businesses still make a profit while nurturing the commons so that everybody can use all this stuff? And open source software is a beautiful example of that. And IBM is a great case study which we don't have time to do right now. But if we can figure that out generally to motivate more entities to make more money because as soon as we've explained this concept we're like, and the people to go to to figure this out and do it for your company are the Cabrera's. Go knock on their door. In fact, they're in this conversation right now with us and you've already gotten to know them because they're here. Is like the kind of the magic answer in some part. So how do we do that? And Latherin's repeat with the zillions of really great ideas that are out there because I see many, many, many high functioning ideas trying to tackle the world's great crises. And rather than looking at the world as full of problems to fix using appreciative inquiry to try to figure out what are the positive things we might do together. And here Hank, I'm sort of pointing to you and like lead us into what positive cartography might do to help inspire, motivate, connect all the rest of us along these things. So I don't know. I'm happy with where we are in a weird way. And I'm really glad you all joined this conversation. Any last thoughts before we wrap this call? Yeah, let me just say something. I thought it was fascinating conversation. It's also not my topic. And I resonated a lot with what Pete said earlier. There's lots of stuff to do where you can spend your hours on. But I think this conversation took place because it had to take place. And now I think we've gotten it out of the way and we can go on in future conversations to consider a number of the more interesting things like Jerry's list at the beginning and various things that were added to it during this conversation. So my thanks to everyone. And I'm going to post this video online as soon as Zoom sends me the recording and all that. I'll get it back up and put it on the Build OGM channel. I might actually, if I have time, excerpt out the first part where I did the tour just to have that as a little capsule to point to. And we can then repeat that, build it, do it in other tools, like whatever. Like I would love at the end of these conversations to have a thing we can point to that says, this is roughly what we are and how we work. And I will then carry that flag. And I hope other people will carry that flag out as well to figure out how to be of service to others. Any other thoughts? Yeah, real quick. Let me show you all the notes that. Thank you. That Phil and I have been taking. So anybody can or anybody could have edited this during the meeting. So we captured a bunch of the points, not all of them. And I've started, these are times into the call. So there's a little bit of work into it. And Peter, are you still running are you still running machine translation during calls or is that just something you're doing? I have not for a while. Okay, good. You're also showing your notes during the call behind you on like whatever. Are you thinking of doing that some more? Cause that was lovely. That was with the oddly named software tool. I don't like using that because it makes, it slows down my computer, makes me laggy and look dumb. So this, but you know, I think that's a cool thing. I like having a thing behind me that. So these notes will end up in this wiki. And this wiki is a little bit hard to navigate still. You have to know to, if my window was a little bit wider these buttons would have been right here. But we've got meetings going back, you know until April or something like that. So there's a lot of stuff here. It's so far it is not very well attended. We haven't told people much about how to use this and. Almost done. And, you know, how to get more involved but that would be nice if people would. Sorry for not meeting there. That sounds awesome. And you'll put a link to the document in the OGM wiki once you've pushed it to the wiki. It'll actually be, it'll be the document itself. It's going to be a page in the wiki. And then I'll also take that markdown file which is just a plain text file basically and I'll drop it or Phil will drop it into the Metamus channel as well. That's what I was saying. That's what I meant. Super. That's perfect. Love that. Because one thing that OGM could do and isn't doing very much of is using our own the things we're talking about. We're not doing that very much. And the place where that's really intense is Pete's a fantastic note-taking during meetings. So we have a lot of meeting notes from previous notes but we don't have a lot of like and I use my brain to annotate calls and then I post that and send a link to it. But we don't have enough of that going on with different tools and different perspectives. It would be lovely to have more of that. And I'm going to have to read the chat after we're done just to catch up with all the good ideas that flowed around here. Thank you for this call. Really appreciate it and bye for now.