 I think the last one I saw was Incredibles. Wasn't the Incredibles? And I love the Incredibles. Which was very good to be honest, yes. Sorry, Edna Mode. Edna Mode is just like dynamite. What a character. They took Anna Wintour into like a ninth dimension where she makes complete sense in the world of superheroes. Like the whole thing just really works. This is the build of GM Call for September 7, 2021. There's a bunch of stuff sort of swirling, but I don't have an agenda for today's call. So I figured I would start by seeing what's just, I think sort of checking in with one another to see where we are on these kinds of things. Pete, I followed your post about Hick and Nook and all of those. I didn't read all of the underlying things, but super interesting. And then there's this whole like, should we just start, what are the troves? No, what are the, what's the currency underlying? Tezos. Tezos, thank you. Tezos or Tezos, do you know? No. Okay. Should we just like build a Tezos economy for OGM and screw the dollar and just sort of jumped in there somehow and then sell an NFT or several NFTs coming out of the work of the community. And I think I told you guys that, I don't know, six months ago, 10 months ago, I first heard the term knowledge artist. And I was like, oh crap, maybe I'm a knowledge artist. Maybe my palette is limited, right? I don't have a wide range of tools. I've got like this brain thing principally, but within the brain while performing Ninjutsu, whatever, maybe I'm a knowledge artist. And I think you remember that during the period, in the limital period between the election and the inauguration, I grew facial hair and started shaving it off. And at the end, I had a purple goatee, right? So I took advantage of that purple goatee to record myself in sort of a crazy Bohemian accent pretending to be Gery of a knowledge artist. Bless you. And X3RI.com is the domain I own. And I haven't put the video on the domain or anything with it, but it was an alternate universe idea like pictures brain. I was gonna be Gery, the knowledge artist, and you could come in and ask me questions and I would bathe with those brain and go from there. I haven't sort of finished it and put it up, but I think I could still, I don't think I have to regrow the eggplant in order to actually have a pretend site that does something. So I actually came up with four flavors of pictures brain. I had pictures brain, the second one I can easily, the second one is kind of a finished looking site. So there's picturesbrain.com, there's strategylidar.com, which looks like a little working site that you could actually sort of maybe apply me through. I think it's mostly done. There's gery.com, I think, which is not, I don't think there's anything on it. And then from being in too many conversations with Shemeh Casio of the Institute for the Future, who's a dear friend and who always sort of starts his speeches or has somewhere in the middle of his speeches, doom, we're all doomed. And then motivated also by Jane McGonigal, who had a real bad problem with migraines for a while and called herself Jane the migraines slayer. So I bought the doomslayer.com, thinking maybe my approach is, maybe my approach is that we're not so doomed if we sort of figure this out how to work together and I should be the doomslayer. So these are like four alternate facets of entering the same damned conversation, which is like, I love thinking with people about issues using this brain thing as an ancillary memory and note-taking thing and stimulus. And then it occurs to me that another playful domain I have is up keto. And maybe I'm just the, I'm just sensei in the middle of the up keto dojo. And up keto is a neologism and also a, what do you call it when you squish words together? That's another, there's another word for the word when you squish words together. It's a- Permanente? No, not neologism. Neologism is a new word, a newly coined word, but there's a- That's a spoonerism? No, spoonerism is a phrase. It's like, you histalled my mystery, mystery classes. That's a spoonerism, because that was a purpose. Portmanteau, portmanteau. Thank you. That's the word. I said that, but not in enough French. Oh, oh, got it. Sorry, because you said a word that didn't, I didn't understand. I was like, what? My apologies, Pete. So up keto is a portmanteau of upward spiral and I keto. The idea being, the idea being, what if we took the interesting metaphoric aspects of I keto about blending with energy and sort of understanding forces in the environment and then blended that with upward spiral. And we, by strange, strange perks of fortune, we have Paul Grafell in our community now. Although he's been, I don't know if you've heard this, but he had three different fires within like 15 miles of his house. They were busy fire-proofing their property. I think they're still around. I don't think they've had to evacuate lately, but it was pretty dire for him for a while because he's smack in the middle of California. There's just been so many wildfires. So up keto is meant to be a practice where the underlying statement, the statement of faith or something is what if everything were improved by your presence? What if everything you touched or had interactions with was lifted up? What would that practice be? Well, you know, what does that look like as a practice, what it's turned into? So these are all different approaches. And sorry to hijack the conversation, but I suddenly realized that we haven't talked about this. And this is just sort of the North 40 field of my of my web brain, trying to figure out how to do the idea dance. And then obviously the other one that I didn't buy a domain for was the notion of idea sex. I didn't go there. That could totally be another facet of this. The idea being to catch someone's eye to come in and have these conversations and to curate the big fungus. It's occurring to me, maybe I should call it the great fungus because then it echoes the great pumpkin. And then we have other echoes, but I don't know. Anyway, let me stop for a second, see if any of that is like too crazy or triggers an idea or a preference or whatever. Do not come down. Yeah, you've launched a lot of things right now and I don't want to hijack it, but I was coming from, you know, last week we left with let's have concrete projects so we can come to financiers and say, okay, this is what we're trying to do. And let's try. And by the way, this is why I invited Jack because I think, you know, there's all the hyper knowledge stuff I'm doing, but there's also the work I'm doing with Jack on SenseCraft and Quest as a Service. So I thought that could be one of the projects and Jack had questions about relevant questions about, okay, what happens with intellectual property and IP and I mean, of course we want it to be in a commons and open source, let's be clear. But this is, we need to think about those things. But the other thing I started doing my homework, I did less of it than I wanted, but I do think that from my side, the question of this collaboration model I outlined is pretty key to a lot of what I'm doing. How do we do collaborative work dynamics on fine grained knowledge units, whether they're textual, a la Rome or their knowledge graphy, it doesn't matter. There's a notion of consensus and group consensus and how do we say this unit aims to replace this one and who agrees on this one and what is the space of possible replacements for this knowledge unit? And I do think it should be the same dynamic for small grain text or knowledge graphs. So for me, that's the first element. I started writing that down as a project, but it's still very early in that process. That's what I, I don't know if that knowledge project based approach is still today's agenda or not, but I expected this to be today's agenda. So you're not hijacking the call whatsoever. You're actually putting us back on the rails of where we left the plot when our heroes were head last met. So thank you for that. And then the second small note is that the generative commons calls that are Wednesday mornings at 7 a.m. are in fact about what happens to the IP where does this all go? And I'm not, we don't have a nice resolution for that at this point, but the reason for creating calls called the generative commons was that we looked at some of the language in the Memorandum of Agreement of Lyonsburg and we got three paragraphs from them that were just very old school. Like, you know, mostly this is protected and you will allow other uses with permissions and we were like, that's very, like, how do we do something actually meaning into the commons that still understands that people need to make a living? And what does that look like? And, you know, all further ideas on that welcome. And in fact, I'm trying to figure out whether we should still be keeping those, those Wednesday calls because every Wednesday we sort of digress in a different direction. We're not actually saying that dragon right now, but we're having really interesting conversations, which we do, but I'd like to get closer to having some resolution on that. Yeah, I'm not, I have not been on the Wednesday calls, sorry. That's okay. Too much. That's okay, thank you. Hank's been on a bunch of them and Stacey Dress has been on a whole bunch of them and Michael shows up pretty often. So, Pete, Jack, Hank, any thoughts? We should have a project dashboard and OJM one. And I think, I think, maybe also a task dashboard. I'm not sure if that's OJM tasks or if I guess what you do is you set it up so that the task dashboard is interlinked with the project dashboard. So then OJM, whatever that is, OJM Central should host its own project dashboard and do that until a project is keeping enough of a dashboard that you refer to it instead of just duplicate it. Brief clarification, a project here, because we have lots of different language for projects because OJM could be thought of as a project too, but the project in the context we're thinking about here is a fundable unit of work that looks like it's time bound, achievable, fits into the greater puzzle. And Jack, you missed last week, I did some hand drawings of basically a multi-plane camera kind of view of what this ecosystem kind of looks like from what are the participating organizations, people, what is the flow of activity? And then also what are the projects that come out of that calling this compound view the mosaic of what we're doing and borrowing, applying the mosaic metaphor because it seemed like a well-described project would be an elegant tile that fits into this mosaic that then serves a really good mosaic is to mix metaphors, a triple word score tile piece because it completes something for several different organizations that are trying to achieve similar but not the same goals. So a wiki front end to massive wiki, a wissy weight front end to massive wiki would serve a whole bunch of people in these communities. So it's a triple word score tile. And then defining that not as one big thing but as a series of fundable projects with time boundaries and project plans is like a big win. And then we've been having the conversation about how do we get a projects dashboard and then how do we get a tasks dashboard or a Kanban board or something else? And it occurs to me that wouldn't because then that quickly gets into project planning and project management tool choices like Mondays.com, which is beautiful but a paid platform and its own thing versus something else for, you know that there's a whole market for these platforms. Is there a way to have a front end that looks like projects and a front end that looks like tasks where the piece parts are separated from the data and where we could stand up the CSC slash OGM slash idea loom slash knowledge garden project plan and task lists, right? Can we sort of find a way to jujitsu on those goals the same way we're trying to do it on what a wiki is and how we do some of the rest of this stuff? But I don't know how to put it into this question. Today, Jerry, I'm using projects a little bit more generically. I think so I don't know how I would differentiate in conversation, but we need a dashboard of the things that aren't necessarily fundable too. So I think I would call that the project dashboard of everything and a column in there is, is this looking for funding? Do we think it's fundable? Is it in the funding process, the funding funnel or whatever? So I think those are attributes of projects, small P. And there's certainly a lifecycle thing where something starts as a small P project and gets better defined until people agree that yeah, that's possibly fundable and that's yes, well-defined enough to be fundable and pitching to investors and whatever. So that's a life cycle thing and getting people to sign off on different aspects of what makes a project fundable. That's something part of what we should be defining what are those aspects? And I did have the conversation yesterday with Vincent Pete about Trove and his many aspects and some good things came out of that. And he's following all the turtles down in Trove and I don't know at what point he'll tap out of turtles because I don't think he's gonna go down to task management, but he's trying very hard to go kind of mirror in that direction. And also then sort of does everybody's project plan end up in Trove? How does that work? Like where are the boundaries between us? I don't know, but he's using air table and other tools and web flow really elegantly and that gets interesting. And one of the notions, one of the notions, one of the reasons to have a project dashboard at whatever level we need projects is so that any participant in any of our communities can come in and say, hey, I have four free hours today. I've got this set of skills, where can I apply my skills to move the ball forward on any other projects in this set of trusted communities? That would be a very useful answer. I think that's a good use case and I think it's also a very narrow one. The main use case or the main utility of having a projects dashboard is that we make incremental progress towards goals, right? So right now, OGM wants to have goals where it talks about lots of different goals but it doesn't make a lot of forward progress mostly because we don't have shared goals. So we have a lot of activity but we don't have a lot of productive motion, productive forward motion. And I'm not making a judgment, it's just a thing. I am chagrined by this fact on the ground. And Jack, you're asking where is OGM Central which is a good question. Pete asked maybe a couple of months ago now. So is OGM a hashtag and a movement or an organization? A very good question. And we kind of ended up melting the organization and saying it's more of a hashtag. I think it's a good question, Jack and we don't have an answer for it. And I actually do like the answer I like best is that OGM is a hashtag. It's a philosophy, it's not an organization. So the way I've seen this work is that one or a few people actually Vincent is a good example. Say, you know, hey, I'm gonna keep a dashboard of all the things I know about. And that essentially becomes not necessarily OGM Central but OGM, you know, there's, yeah, yeah. Vincent is kind of an interesting example to think about because when he's dashboarding stuff, he's dashboarding actually as many dashborders would do. He dashboards what he thinks is interesting not what he thinks OGM is, right? So the things in Trove are anything and everything that Vincent is interested in. And I subset of that it's kind of OGM-ish, you know or like OGM. So I don't know if I can imagine for, I guess I can imagine being a person who goes, okay, well, I'm just gonna make a dashboard of, I guess I've done this actually of projects and OGM, you know and when I've done it before, it's like, I wish, and here's a start a list and I wish somebody else would maintain it. So I haven't gotten the wherewithal or the gumption to actually maintain that list but that's kind of, I guess that's what it is. It's basically a journal or a chronicler comes along and chronicle stuff and instantiate something. So a little sliver of my conversation with Vincent yesterday was about how different layers of the multi-plane camera view that I was drawing are actually could easily be calls into Trove. Like, like, hey, here's the people involved in any of the communities that are related to OGM. And he's keeping very nice links inside of which community is which and who's doing what and who's interested in what and so forth and all the way down, you can sort of, there's pick list where you can tie back to the project heads. So I can imagine that each layer could be drawn as an export or a sync with what's happening in Trove. Pete and I and others have tried to have this discussion in what software would you view this multi-plane thing? Like, do you go to a 3D rendering engine like Unity? Do you go to our CAD CAM package like SketchUp? It's like, there's no easy simple way to actually get that view. But Vincent is playing with different views of the data internally and he's included a map view. So one of the options is to do just kind of a rubber bandy sort of map. I don't remember what code he pulled in to do the map visualization, but it's a simple one. But he's kind of moving in that direction a little bit. So anyway, that's an interesting question to me because to me, the dashboards are essential, sort of stopping points and essential coordination points in this multi-layered view of what's actually happening. And from my perspective, any of the entities, organizational entities that's involved in this ecosystem would want to have an expression of its mission or goals or flow that might, in a different rendition, but that looks maybe like the flow layer of the multi-layer diagram that I was drawing. Like, where do you fit? What are you trying to fix in the world? What is your thesis? And then how do you go about this work? Seems to me to be important things to communicate. And then how we communicate them and how we see them together matters. And we're just at the beginning of that conversation. So go ahead, Mark, I'm trying. Yeah, I'm a bit surprised by the hashtag description. I understand we're not a traditional organization because we're a bunch of people with, and you were absolutely right, not exactly a line goal. I've been banging that from a bit myself. On the other hand, I think it is a shared goal to actually align goals. That is, how can we make our things work together? And that requires not quite an organization because it has to be a bit more emergent than that, but more than a hashtag because there's no gravitational force pulling us together in a hashtag or movement. And I think we want to have, as you said, a difference between motion and progress. How do we make... And I think it's more than a dashboard also. It's more than visibility. There has to be a sense of, hey, let's try to see where we can create alignment. And that doesn't mean forcing alignment when there's none, but that does mean trying to see how can we accomplish alignment where it's possible and being a bit intentional about this. So that way, yeah, it's more than just a hashtag and more than the dashboard even. Though I'm not... I agree the dashboard is important. And you know my reticence to visualizations that just show lines and arrows are very pretty, but what's the meaning? And again, I think the question of, how can this project help this project happen? And yeah, sure, we'll want to visualize then, but it is a very much a per-project-bear reflection about is there a way that this project helps that project and it's a very different endeavor. Okay, that was my... Over. I agree. I have two things. I want to respond to Mark Antoine and then also, I've got some more amusing on what I was calling the chronicler. So I think, so it's... I would love to continue to have the conversation that Mark Antoine and I started there. My guess is that, or maybe my observation is that we have... I'm not sure that we have a shared goal of alignment. We have a lot of people who want to do things and a lot of them could align, but I really don't think... I don't feel like we've got a commitment. Or I can say it the other way around. We haven't aligned. We haven't decided to commit to alignments. And so I don't think we're there yet. And it would take some effort to say, hey, okay, so there's a thing we're going to call it a jam or we're going to call it a snowpuff or whatever. And here's the vision and here's the mission and here's our shared... Here's values. If you have these values too and these kind of goals, let's all get together and align towards those goals. So I don't think we're there yet. And I... I agree totally. We're not there yet, but I think it's one thing to be there. I thought was a shared goal. I agree we're not there yet. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's not a shared goal. So what do you call it when a bunch of people are collaborating on stuff that makes a lot of sense to collaborate on because they have shared aims or shared goals on aspects of what they're doing, but not on everything that they're doing? What do you call that? Well, one of the things I would call it is... Is it a ground balloon? There's a philosophy, right? There's certainly an OGM philosophy or OGM. I'm aligned with OGM. I can say that when we say that OGM believes in a better world and knowledge-based solutions and things like that. So maybe this is a good segue into what I was thinking of, what I referred to as chroniclers earlier. I can tell some stories and probably each of us can tell some stories and some of us participated in developments of a niche industry. So the one I happen to be thinking of right now is Yipes Communications, which grew out of a company called Nanospace, which was involved in metro area networking over fiber, more or less. So I guess I can tell this story in enterprise space. And I think there's a map from enterprise space to whatever decentralized goodness that we're doing nowadays in 2020 rather than 2000. But I think there's a kind of a similar principle. In industry, what happens is you get these little innovators doing all kinds of crazy things. And then it helps a lot if there's somebody external to any of those entities who kind of names and shapes the market. So I remember in Yipes, there was an external analyst who started a journal called or a newsletter called Light Reading. So it was about fiber optic telecommunications. And I also remember our VP of marketing being, he was tech product marketing and very clever. He spent a lot of his energy developing the market, talking about whether or not we were last mile providers or first mile providers or in the ethernet space or in the metro space or in the fiber space. And he would work with people like the guy from Light Reading and together they instantiated this marketplace. Another example I've got is actually Kevin Jones. Kevin Jones kind of more or less was the founding father of the brainchild or he was somebody who created the marketplace of I don't even know if you call us, the combination of finance and doing good. So he had a cadre of folks helping him. They got together the whatever conference series that they put together. I forget the name off hand. I'm doing it in the chat. So he did first he sold net market makers like a month before the dot com collapsed. And net market makers was an attempt to do information brokerage aggregation around all eBay and all of the different sort of market makers that were showing up on the intertudes. He got out and then later founded Socap and then did another one after that. And Socap I used to take walks with Kevin at the time and Socap was literally an insane idea that he could see a future 10 years hence where there was a thing called social capital. And you took, you know, doing good for the world and you took like hardcore finance that has nothing to do with doing good and you merged them, you smush them together and you made them a thing, right? So it took him, I don't know a year or two of wandering around talking to people and trying to find and finding leaves on the floor to be able to articulate enough to another circle around him. And then those people articulated a circle around them and then a few of those people started doing conferences and papers and stuff like that. And then all of a sudden it was incredibly obvious that of course you would have a thing called social capital and of course it would be a force for good and a force for money markets and things like that. It just like, of course. And there were, I don't know a couple hundred people at the first Socap and probably half a thousand or a thousand at the second and all of a sudden it's a big marketplace. And now it has a name and now it has a thing and now when people talk about it, they can say, oh, there's a thing called Socap. I think what you're doing is Socap. So my observation is birthing these things is very difficult, one of them. But my other observation is it takes a very concentrated amount of curation at the beginning to say this thing is in this group and these things aren't, right? And a lot of times it's actually not the participants in the marketplace that are doing that. It's an endless kind of thing. Somebody who funds themselves through curating a marketplace and if you're good at it, you actually also, you help create the marketplace. You also become one of the people who is speaking about it and gets speaking gigs and has early investment advice and stuff like that, at least in the enterprise space, you can make a living off of being the person who doesn't convene the market, but names it and curates it and promulgates it and gives it coherence that it didn't have before. And that coherence is, so long story short, it may be that we don't, maybe one of us, maybe one of us is the analyst who says, okay, there's this thing called OGM and here's the stuff in it and nowadays in this R decentralized space, here's the things that are key collab or here's the things that are trove or here's the things that are whatever else. And maybe that's a third party or maybe it's one of us. I don't know. How is that not a good description of what we've already been doing since the start of lockdown sort of? In what way have we been doing it? Or let me actually give a shot at it. We chatter a lot. We talk about a lot of stuff. We don't have a newsletter. We don't go out to the rest of the world and say, hey, there's this OGM thing. Are you in or are you out? We don't even reflect internally on what we are, what we do. We don't have, literally, if I were an analyst, the first thing I would do is I would have in the olden days an Excel spreadsheet. Nowadays it would be an air table. It's like, okay, here's, you could come to me and if you said, Pete, what's this OGM thing you've been nattering on about? I'd pull out the air table. Well, here's the 20 or 30 projects that feel OGM-y to me. Here's the other 50 that I've collected that are doing something very similar, but. Sorry, we don't have that. I don't know about this. How many other people know about it? It's sorry, it's trapped in the brain. This is the link that Vincent absorbed into Trove to populate a piece of Trove. This is, my problem is that my data is a prisoner of this brain thing, which looks like Windows 95 and nobody, very few people actually go and look at it. Your opportunity is that your data is. I agree, but I have, so I'm collecting. The quick question is who has written this up on Medium? And that person is the analyst that is promulgating it to the world. Well, so part of the reason, so the thing I think I'm trying to stand up right now is a show called Weaving the World, which looks and smells like a podcast or a vlog, which under the hood, under the ground, whatever metaphor you want to choose, is in fact, building a collective memory and a knowledge garden and everything else through by trying to harness these incredible mystic decentralized forces and the new technologies and not doing it the old school way. I'm an ex-analyst. You've described kind of what I've done. I created a service called Intelligent Document Management that could show you guys the scope diagram. What it describes is what we later look at as the World Wide Web. I ran a second service called Continuous Information Environments and the component parts of that were the smartphone. And there was no way I could have invented the iPhone. Steve Jobs and his team did, but all the piece parts that are in the iPhone were kind of in my service and I was busy selling the service. And thank God I wasn't the sales force, but we had an active sales force and we had a $2 million a year run rate from large corporations who signed up for this service to receive our written research. So I tried to leave that world because I saw the death of paid newsletters with proprietary information. So in this era, my logical next step would be go buy, go create a single solo sub stack publication and try to sell access to the brilliant ideas I think I'm having in this sort of thing. Instead of what I'm doing is sitting here turning the pot trying to figure out what the hell is the shape of this thing? What do we call it? Where's the noun and where's the verb? What is the foreground and what is the background? What is figure and ground? And I'm still a little confused about that. And then we muddle this thing up with NFTs and DAOs and the future of stuff that really is impenetrable. Like there are layers of what's happening out there that are, and the thing that frightens me a lot is I have a whole analysis of the global financial crisis and the derivatives about how they were intentionally too complicated for anybody to figure out. And in fact, the maths in them had major flaws that turned out to almost destroy the world financial system. And here like we're busy building stuff on top of, nobody knows who Satoshi is and where the Genesis block of blockchain is and yet everything's gonna be on top of blockchain et cetera, et cetera. Like I'm like, are we just, are we wandering into a delightful future of invented currencies and an ability to reorganize finance and value flows or are we just walking into yet another global financial crisis that's all gonna go pop. And this was just a lot more sophisticated. And I don't actually know. And my hope is that it's the latter, not the former, but I've seen this show before, right? And my little antenna are like, holy crap. So Pete, I read your post yesterday with interest about Hicka Noonk and I'm like, okay, so should we float an NFT that's an asset from this community and then start to bootstrap our way into being able to fund ourselves in one of those economies. And those economies are fungible back. You can buy and sell ETH or whatever's or TELOS in the market and awesome. Like that would mean we could put food on our families through TELOS, if we had a TELOS-based economy and I'm just barely able to hang on to that conversation. So it feels to me like we're in the walking around space together like you did with Kevin and like Kevin did with 50 people probably back in the day when he was trying to formulate SoCAP, but he did it with individual walks and then he and Rosalie and Tim Freundlich and Mark Beame and a bunch of others. I was in those rooms when they were formulating SoCAP and ran an open space at the end of them, had a fun time with it, loved the first couple of conferences. Anyway, I've sort of seen this and I don't know that we're that different except we're in this weird post-modern, post-post-post-post-modern decentralized crypto era where we're still under consumerist framing so that the idea that we should have a shared memory is still like not a normal natural thing that people will actually give a big damn about, right? Like I keep having to say, why isn't anybody else's hair on fire that we don't have a shared memory for what we believe and how we believe it? And I find fellow travelers like you all who are like, well, damn right we should. And here's the project I've been working on for Jack Howlong, 30 years. Yep. So here's the project I've been working on that I wish I could find funding for that is a puzzle piece for this larger vision. And there are multiple interesting parties in this ecosystem who have interesting visions and probably not one of them should or can dominate. 200 years from now we'll look back in a couple of these visions like whether it's donor economics, the triple bottom line or whatever, we'll look back and say, wow, isn't it cool that Kate Rayworth sort of framed like Milton Friedman framed the terrible three decades of neoliberalism, isn't it cool that Kate Rayworth's thinking sort of came out and or Vitalik Buterin's thinking framed this whole era and boom, but we don't know. We're in the middle of that transition. Sorry to go on for a long time but this is very stimulating to me because I think that you're just described what we're already doing and I'm not, I'm frustrated by it but I'm excited by it. Yeah, we're in that time of it's frustrating, we don't know what's going on. And Kevin walking around and, you know, 5,000 or 500 people or however many people I talked to, we're in that space. One of the things that, so if I jump back to Yipes, one of the things that Yipes did, we spent calories on VP of marketing salary and the VP of marketing, you know, put his big thinking cap on every day and, you know, for 10 hours a day, he was thinking, okay, how am I going to instantiate a market out of this? But at the same time that we were spending that money on a VP of marketing, we were spending a hell of a lot more money on execution. Right? How do you do metropolitan fiber rains or whatever? How do you get customers? You know, we had to hire a sales force and we had to, and the sales force had to bootstrap. They had to go out to their customers and the way we hired salespeople is you have to have a book of customers who trust you and, you know, because the market was too new, right? It's like, so you hire the salesperson and they go out to their customer and they say, you're going to buy this thing for $10,000 or $20,000 a month or whatever because it's good for you. And also because you understand it or you can compare it with anything, right? But in a good case because you've been buying this other thing from me for five years and that proved to be really good. I'm telling you, because you have confidence in me and we have a relationship that this is the new thing and you should buy this thing kind of. So when we first met way back when were you still with Yikes? Or have you just left Yikes? Or like, that's the other way. We were, I have a vivid memory of trying to pitch you as an advisor to Yikes. Okay. And the CEO didn't really buy it. Why didn't it work? I love fiber metropolitan networks. I'm like, I love them. You and I both could see the future a few years out. So to feed ourselves there, we either sold customer stuff or we burned VC money, right? So that's a thing that we're not doing. OGM is not doing that. We're not doing sales. We're not doing a lot of execution. We're not doing, you know and I don't mean to say that, for instance I spent a lot of time doing execution but if I went to show my accomplishments to somebody they'd go, oh, well, that's cute, Pete. You know, it looks like a few weeks of work, right? I'm like, yeah, something like a few weeks, yeah. So the other thing is that it's hard to be in the market and describing the market at the same time. So the merry-meekers and, you know Kevin is kind of an odd duck because he just really instantiated something out of whole cloth. That usually doesn't happen. It's somebody who's Gordon Koyak or somebody who's outside the marketplace and they've got a different revenue model than the marketplace. They've got a lot of time to think about how you differentiate this market from that market why this market is hot and why that market right next door is not gonna be the one that succeeds and all that kind of stuff. So we also don't have that person. We don't have somebody who looks like a neutral third party who has a track record who's saying things about what we're doing. Yeah. And Jerry, you would be a perfect choice for that except that you're also, you're not a third party, right? Right, I mean this too. I mean this too. And I know what that role is and I see what you're saying. I don't know that we're dependent on that. I think that this thing is going to aversion. Everybody will start writing about it in different ways. We're not dependent on it but we don't also have that crystallization right now. Yeah. And so. So a piece of what I'm taking from what you're saying is that we should be doing a ton more external pitching of the ideas in general and why they make sense. And hand in hand internal pitching, right? Right. There's no part of OGM that says here's what, I mean. These conversations are the pitching and the mid-stume mixing. Like this, our rhythm of frustrated conversations is that process. We have these with a very limited set of people. Correct. And we refer them and post them and you'd be surprised they get some views but I have no idea who's at the other end of that. There's probably 150 people in OGM. How many of those people know about these conversations and have watched more than 20 minutes? I agree. 15 people as far as I can tell in the last four or five moments that I've been following them. I mean, when I log into a conversation, there's 15 people who I recognize. I know something about what they're going to say because they've been there four, five, six times. And now, well, Jack is here now. I don't think we've met online before and sometimes someone else is there. But I mean, there are about 15 people. And that's a privilege. Another interesting thing about OGM is it's one of its core principles is emergence and decentralization. So even amongst those 15 people, each of us is doing, yeah, I'm doing some OGM. I'm part of OGM. And then we're doing something else, right? So, and that's purposely kind of a convening or regularization mechanism that we all have. Yeah, we want to be emergent and we don't want to be tied up just to OGM, right? So. Right, Mark. Okay, there's been purposes to OGM and sorry, but I will go back to the beginning of the conversation. And everybody has their own vision of the purpose for OGM and that's where you're right. But on the other hand, okay, I think I heard Jerry say the word global memory and I really liked that term. We need both mechanisms for global memory and that means tying bits of global memory together and processes to interact with that global memory and skills and people who have the skills and community of practice around working with the global memory. I think for me that was always part of what it is. And the reality is community of practice necessarily means a diversity of practice and diversity of tools to support this diversity of practice. So that way I always knew that it wasn't a one product enterprise and that suits me just fine because I'm interested in the ecosystem and the, but on the other hand, at some point, we have to see, okay, this match between tools and making those skills operational. And that means this dialogue between our, this polylogue between people who do the practice of this community of practice interacting with global memory and the tool makers such as we are. This dialogue needs to happen and for me, one of the goals of OGM is to be, one of the many goals of OGM is to be a venue where the tool makers can align with the tool users. And that, and hopefully I did hear the mosaic term and I will hop back on the mosaic term how can the tools start enriching one another and enrich so that the practices can also enrich one another because it's easier for practices to talk at the tool stock. So of course, that's my hat and my hobby horse, but on the other hand, yes, emergent, but yes, making the alignment happen. I think it's key to that vision going forward and becoming operational and progressing as you were saying. And if we're going to pitch for money because it would be good to have money for all this, we need to be able to sell both a service and that is the practice of all those practitioners of working with global memory and saying we're experimenting with tools to make that happen better. And that way the, here are the projects and here are the experiments we're doing. And I think it's all right to say we're experimenting with tools to enhance that service. And I think that can be sold as an investment as long as the things are well-defined enough and well, but let's be very clear that what we're selling is trying this idea sex as Jerry called it earlier and this interacting and building this, building and interacting with this global memory and making it intelligible, digestible, and so on and so forth. That I think is what we're all motivated with. And there's many projects and many of them have value but I think they'll have more value if they can cross-pollinate. So, but really I think that this is a concrete offer. I mean, what I've been asking myself is, how can I make sure that what I'm doing has value for actual people using those tools and how can I also promote that value? And this is what we're all talking about when we speak about building or GN. But I do think that this playground of trying to improve the tools with a very clear goal and saying, how does this work on this tool go towards that very clear goal? And that makes it easier to have something to sell to investors over. Mark on front, I love what you just said. And you reminded me that one of the many people I've spoken to about this and mostly I've been approaching smart people who aren't necessarily the eventual funders but smart people to help package this, articulate it the right way. And one of them said, hey, there's a bunch of great ideas in here. Why don't you just go create a startup? Why don't you just go take the best of these ideas, go fund a startup and go do this thing and I'll help you. And that's like not the road I wanna be on but he's really credible, he's done this before. He's like, I see what you're doing, just go do a startup. And I'm like, shit, I don't wanna do that. Like that's not the path here and I don't think that's the future. And I think we're trying to create shared value and a whole bunch of other things that are really super interesting and juicy and complicated. Sorry, go ahead. That was really useful, Jerry. I think so the global memory thing or open global mind took to use a phrase. I like that and that seems like a lot of what OGM does. I think OGM would be crisper if it were clear what it's what it is and what it isn't. So I think if you pulled people who've been in Thursday calls for the last six months, global mind might be the middle of a bell curve or something, but I don't think it'd be. I think a lot of people would say, well, OGM is helping the planet in new and emergent ways. So Klaus or girlfriend, I don't think if you said OGM is about global memory, they'd say, well, it's actually about seeing the future and being concerned and jumping into the fray and fixing the future with community food systems or with fixing water systems or fixing the oceans. So OGM isn't a thing if it is everything and I feel like OGM has that problem that which is fixed more or less when you say OGM is a hashtag, whether or not that's the right fix or not. But when Klaus says, you know, farm to fork, we're realigning local food systems and regenerating soil and this group called OGM is helping me with processes and facilitation around doing that. Is that what we think of as global memory or is it not? And how would we know when the next class comes along and says, I'm working on social justice and for people in Texas or for people in Ethiopia or for people in Somalia, is that global memory or is it not? I think, you know, we have to start, we could help ourselves a lot by starting to say that we're aligned with other organizations that are doing things and they're specializing in social justice or being an incubator for fixing the planet or whatever. When we try to enclose too much of that or we try to, you know, say that we're this and we're this and we're this and we're this, it means that we're not any of those, right? We're just big and fluffy. Thanks, Pete. So a couple of things while I remember to learn my hand. A couple of things. One is I'm realizing that I have not been blogging or name your favorite medium. I have not been chronicling this journey and feeding it back to our community and making it available to anybody outside. I have not had the bandwidth or if I had a practice every night of just recording five minute video summary of what was learned that day and where we seem to be moving back could have been interesting. And that would be, you know, that would be a way of keeping people up to date. If there were also a common painting picture image representation of this thing that was morphing and changing over time, the reason I drew the multi-plane view is that that was to me the crispest external view other than what I keep in my brain, which is a really like in my brain, I've got OGM principles, structures, a bunch of other stuff. It's just trapped in the brain and it's not in our shared memory, right? And nobody knows about it because I don't go and do short screen captures of, hey, I've got this in here, I've got this in here, I've got this in here. I would love to manifest it in our shared space but we don't have that yet. So here's what that shape like. But had I done kind of a show like that, that would be interesting and it might even be a possible source of funding, probably just for me because it would be my little either sub-stack or blog or something else. And it's unlikely to receive like huge audience and be actually worth doing from a monetary perspective because I don't think what we're doing is a mass thing. We're not Casey Neistat or the blog brothers or whatever, although I totally love and envy the blog brothers. And then, Pete, my collection of OGM member communities cut into everything because the principles of OGM, like why can't we fix problems together and why can't we remember what we said last time and why can't we argue about it in a really elegant, interesting way and why don't we trust each other anymore? It applies to every damn field of endeavor. So it's squishy because it applies everywhere. So that's exactly a philosophy and not an organization. Which is totally fine with me. And if it's instantiated in education in this way, I wanna be helpful and that's not my full-time gig and in governance, yes, go. And I want OGM at some point to be helpful to all of those in whatever is the best form it can so that it's basically infected. I want OGM to be like ice nine in cat's cradle. It's like when it touches something and changes how they do, which is why the generative commons agreement sort of conversation is really interesting to me as well. It's like, how do we make it so that our practice for sharing information and for how the circumstances under which we share information and build stuff and do stuff, how do we make that really contagious? Because that's a way to change the world. And it's a completely upside-down messy, decentralized way to change the world. And other people are busy having a lot more effect on the decentralized way to change the world, witness the world of blockchain and crypto everything and crypto collectibles and NFTs that like, man, that's causing, if you go look at some of these new offerings, there are large amounts of money sloshing around in their treasuries, large amounts. So either a bunch of people made too much money on ETH and Bitcoin early on and they just would like to park them someplace and play or serious players are beginning to invest and this would shift their finances into it in interesting ways. Sorry, we lost Hank. Oh, that's right, top of the art. But anyway. OGM should be, I think the thing called OGM should either be a philosophy or an organization. Well, we've determined it's not an organization. I think there's space for something in between. Okay, and I'm trying to figure out what that thing is because I think it's a point of view. It's definitely a point of view and an approach and my attempts to draw the mosaic are my attempts to say what that point of view is and how it works. I'm not done with that process. And if you picked five random members out of the 150 or 120 or however many sort of consistently come through our different calls and things, probably only 60 is more like it. I don't think they'd be able to describe many parts of this at all. So it'd be kind of a bunch of that would be news to them, which is a factor of not having communicated out and back often enough, readily enough. And there's also something I'd like to do in Weaving the World. Like a reason to stand up a show and make it look like a show and sort of do that is to head back in and actually tell those stories and go talk to some of those communities and people and lather in repeat while building the tools, while building the community, while building these new roles and ways of making a living in the community. Go ahead, Jack. So in all of that, I made a note in the chat room. In all of that, it occurs to me that if you want a simple, fundable, time limited project for this group, this conversation, a topic map for Jerry's brain as a part of the free Jerry's brain ecosystem makes a lot of sense, because now you can render it totally, totally topic-centric rather than a gigantic knowledge graph. And I don't know exactly what that mapping is. And I know that you have a hierarchy of what is a concept map and a topic map and other sorts of things, which I think I need to understand better to know what you mean by that. Because the brain is very navigable to me and contains all those different layers kind of all together in the ball of fun. Well, yeah, but I've gone in and used Jerry's brain and I use the topic search and I don't get where I'm going. It's just a word search. It's just a string search. It's not actually a topic search, right? Now you nailed it. There's a topic map, which is different entity outside. It's the index of a back of a book on steroids. But I'm sort of hacking that by naming and linking. Like I'm using the brain in multiple ways simultaneously, which is probably bastardizing all of the different things it could be, but also doesn't restrict me to living only in a topic map, for example. So you can use it, but nobody else can. That's not true. The other people actually use my brain all the time. I get emails constantly of thank God you did this and have this or hey, you don't have this. Why don't you put it in? Like it's not unusable. It's just really, really opaque and hard to use. Okay. Really, really opaque and hard to use. It's pretty much unusable. Won't sell a lot of donuts. So I think it's a great idea, Jack. I just don't know how to imagine that or envision that. I mean, so the brain has labels and tags, two features that I just don't use. If I had been using tags actively as topics, would that mean that I would then have a topic map inside the brain? It, you're getting closer. I'm not sure that a topic map for the brain has to be in the brain. I know, I know that too, but I don't know how to build something external to the brain that is harmonious with the brain, except for the fact that we've exported my brain as JSON blobs and a database. And wouldn't it be cool if we played with that in the ways that we're talking about here? Which is what I'm talking about. Okay. Jack has a hypothesis that if someone, magically we could wave a wand and someone built a topic map for the brain, then it would accomplish a lot of things. It would make the information more accessible to more people. It would help promulgate OGM better, probably, et cetera. And let's take that one step further. As a topic map, it can now start federating with other brains and other resources. Yeah. So the question, Jerry, isn't how do we do that? It's whether or not we should do it. What's the hypothesis? How do we test the hypothesis? How, you know, what's the process of breaking down the work of building such a thing? And do we think that that's a saleable thing? Do we think it's a, we'd have to build it on its back and figure out how to sell a letter or whatever. Yeah, I admit, Jack, I see why you're saying that and I see the point and I see the value. But on the other hand, this is helping Jerry promote what he's been doing and it's useful as such. I think, I hope, we're trying to do something a bit more collective and that way it doesn't solve the problem of creating a collective knowledge, knowledge graph slash concept map slash topic map. And for me, it's important to see how can we embed the brain into a collective topic map is, I think, more useful. But just to go back a bit to, sorry, to hi, Jack, to what I was saying earlier, the question between organization and philosophy. I think what we, one thing I'm proposing, at least as something in between and here I'm very much taking my responsibility. This is my proposal. It's a workshop, it's a laboratory. People get here to try out new ways to do collective intelligence. And yes, I repeat, you were right to recenter why are global memory, why is global memory important? It's because it's helpful for the whole collective intelligence for humanity survival perspective. And maybe global memory was too narrow, though I do think it's the missing foundation for a lot of the collective intelligence tools. And I think getting people to experiment with how can we take our emergent collective efforts which already exist in all kinds of platforms and weave that into what Jack often calls, from flow to stocks and make that something that can be built upon and reuse those things that are built and reuse them in new projects, new constructions, new everything. And the idea that we could be dedicating ourselves to this effort of providing a space where practitioners can try out new tools and techniques and approaches and evaluate them and see what's missing and comment on them so that we can say, okay, this is exactly what we need to make the tooling necessary for collective intelligence founded in a collective on a global memory and that is able to solve those earth problems. Because for me, it's kind of, you want the Chris definition? That's the one I have to offer. I know it's my vision, but hey. I like it a lot. I like it a lot. Would you just say, Mark, I'm trying. I want to sort of go back and remember that snip. I want to scroll back for a second to Jack's question and say, so I've been waiting for 23 years for machine learning to stare at what's in my brain and go back and say, hey, this looks like an author. Would you like to tag it as an author and add semantic depth? Would you like me to pull in all these authors of the books and tag them up as books and put links in that say this and that? So would it be possible if some machine learning genius showed up to go look at my exported bag of JSON blogs and sort of infer back mostly both a whole slew of metadata and take that back up into topics to make the topics usable and handleable? You just described hyper knowledge. This is Mark Antoine's vision and it's exactly where it could go. Actually, that's a maybe on it. Yeah, no, there's a maybe on that. It's more actually close to open share luck than hyper knowledge. Well, but hyper knowledge is the tool that coordinates the agentry that can do this work. That's my point. Hyper knowledge is one of the foundations for but it's another layer. It's the open share luck layer that yes, should write an hyper knowledge, I think but certainly there's a lot that's accomplishable now. I mean, if you're just speaking about entity identification, that's there. One problem, it's not a huge problem but the reality is your brain has very little text. Most of it is links. So that means we need to fetch the links and do the... Content analysis of the destination. Yep, which adds to the work, but it's not impossible. For like a human, there's a little bit, there's only a little bit of text but it's a canonical human one hopes who wrote a canonical book that happens to be manifest in multiple versions but there's a book they wrote. Those kinds of things are pretty simple and a bunch of other things are in context because of the collective nouns I put them under or something like that. There certainly it should be possible but I mean, it's a project in and of itself and it is close to what Jack was saying but I will re-ask what is the... And Pete was right to ask what does that give us in terms? And I think it is worth doing, don't get me wrong but I'd like to apply it on the global thing rather than saying on one brain but I mean, it's the same problem, right? But the real benefit comes when it applies to collective work. Of course, so a couple of different thoughts. One of them is whatever we just talked through the different layers that are coming out of the different projects that we've had here I would love that described as a fundable project and I'd love to figure out how to fund that. I just don't know what entity I'm pointing people to to fund, right? Like it's like, God damn it, I'm sort of stuck on the sandbar of if OGM is not an entity, then which entity am I asking them to pour money into? And that's a huge issue given the conversation. I think it's perfectly possible to fund a lab. Say, listen, we're a lab, we're practitioners and we're trying out tools. So we, OGM funds the development of tools that its community believes are relevant to their work but the goal of OGM is to have practitioners who select the direction of research on tools according to the community's overall goal of experimenting with new approaches and collective intelligence based on global memory. And I think that's a statement, that's a mission statement right there and saying, if you fund us, we will direct the money to projects that help or at least projects that are promising avenues for collective intelligence to link for our practice of collective intelligence for the common good. Yeah, and then the second thing I wanted to say different from the first one was, my goal with the exported brain file that I've got, I just want this to be sourdough starter for the common collective, everybody brain. And any experiments we might be able to run, fund and create to add metadata and topics and whatever else to my bag of bits, I would want to be, and I wanna want to structure a way that for God's sake, everybody, bring your big Rome data, your Rome basis in, bring other sorts of things in, let's use the same sets of tools on different bags of data and then let's figure out how they connect up so that we're not just creating, so that we're not creating this infinitely recursively spooling out a nightmare scenario of weight, everybody's individual visions only curated by themselves, but rather so that we start to find some links, convergence and sort of the crystallization in the middle so that I can say, hey, when it comes to knowledge gardens and all that, talk to Mark Antoine and talk to Jack and I will point to them and you will sort of curate that piece of what I care about and think about and I will rely on you to do so. And I would lather and repeat for any domain that I care about, instead of me trying to be the amateur, the life sciences sections of my brain are terrible, I'm sure they're full of errors and messed up because I ain't no life scientist and I'm just a complete amateur on biology, chemistry, all that kind of stuff. So don't know. And then third thought, should I buy ogmlab.org and is that the entity? And I've never thought of ogm as a lab, it makes a great, it makes a lot of sense to me. I don't know, I'm just trying to figure out, what's the sign on the door that I'm asking somebody to send a check to? Really, I'm just asking that. No, no, no, I understand. And by, and if we're also able to turn around and say, and by the way, these open global mind community of practice can solve real problems of other organizations. And that part has to be worked on as well, but we have to be tooling we can ultimately through the community solve real world problems. But I think this is a sellable story. I don't know, I'm curious because I think it is too. Yeah. I'd love to know what the sellable story is in each of your heads right now. I'm not being skeptical here. I'm just, I would love to know what the... We just talked through it, there's a lab that's doing good, these kinds of work. So the, if I'm a funding partner, I look at that and go, okay, so here's funding, funding VC funding relies on hypothesis and experiments. And results, right? And the results can be positive or negative. I don't mean to say that results always have to be positive, but you go to a funder and you say, I have an hypothesis that if you gave somebody a tool that did XYZ, they would be more efficient or they would buy the tool or, and then you work up from, does this tool do anything? Or does this process do anything to, how do you scale the process? Will people buy the process and that kind of stuff? So you trunch your way up through those things. That my first question is not so much the name, what's the name of your organization? It's like, so what have you done? What are your hypotheses? What experiments have you already run? What were the results? And that's when the project dashboard, again, is a thing where it's like, okay, we've, we had this hypothesis that you could take markdown and shared version files and call it a wiki and then it would, it would make the world a better place because XYZ, right? So that's our hypothesis. What's the status of that? How's it going? Are you done with that one? Do you need the next trunch? And I'm really comfortable in the hypothesis and vision space. Like I'm still trying to articulate it, but I'm like, I love that space. And a bunch of- We don't, the thing that we don't have, the thing that is hard to sell right now is we don't have demonstrations of progress along forward progress, right? I'm not gonna find anything if it's a bunch of people milling around going, I've got this great idea, I've got this great idea, or we have all these things we think about. It's like, yeah, okay, come back to me when you, without my money, have set up a hypothesis and you've run the experiment and you have results, so that I can see that you have a replicable process for turning resources into productivity, right? Productive gains, productive forward motion. And that's the thing that we haven't been, we are all doing that all the time, but we are not efficient at encapsulating it in a saleable way, right? We don't have that thing to sell, we don't have the offer, we can't make the offer very well because it's just a bunch of squishy, like, you know, and I can pick on myself. I would pick on any, happy to be picking on anybody, but I can pick on myself, right? It's like, okay, Pete, so how's the massive wiki going? You know, it's like, I can, you know, if you ask me questions, I can tell you a lot about how it's gone and what we need to do and where I would spend money if I had money, but I don't have that written up. I don't have it packaged to sell, right? It's just a bunch of piece parts lying in the lab. So all of us need to do a better job of kind of like retail, you know? It's like when it's in a package and it's got instructions on the back and it's got nutritional values and stuff like that, then you can buy it. If it's a bunch of pieces scattered on the floor and some of them are valuable and a lot of them are crap, it's not saleable. So I'm trying, I think you've seen me trying and clearly failing to create a dashboard of projects that I can show somebody and say, hey, yes, we've organized all these tile pieces heading toward this vision in the big mosaic or whatever. The next question is you poke on, you know, I poke on four of them, you know? Okay, tell me what the progress is on this one. Well, at this point, if there were projects for funding, that would be one thing. Another thing would be that it's actually tapped into that organization, that entity's project planning and task management system, which is a different layer. I'm just interested in having the dashboard that says, there is a project called OPAL that would like some money. This is how much it would take because this is Pete's estimate of how many heads it'll take over what kind of time to design this thing, right? And it could be a sub-piece of OPAL. OGM central, if Pete hasn't gotten his assing gear to set that up, OGM central, ogmlab.org or whatever should have that dashboard, right? On behalf of each of the projects until we need to bootstrap that dashboard someplace. And if OGM lab wants to be a lab, it can help its makers just by starting to bootstrap that, right? Okay, I agree totally. But what I'm saying is there's the individual projects such as OPAL, hyper-knowledge and sense-prath and all of those and they're all valid as tools projects. But I think it's very important to articulate how those tools are seen to contribute to the community of practice and how the community of practice is contributing to solving world problems. And I think showing this lineage of effect is really important to selling the lab idea. And there are different layers and they're all valid and absolutely yes to everything you said, Pete, by the way about what is needed for those projects to be sellable to an investor. But I think that saying we're not selling the projects, we're selling how those projects contribute to the OGM project, which is learning together how to think together for global problems. And the real sale there, the real value is the fact that there's a process and the process executes and has output and it's scalable. And until you can demonstrate that at the metal level, you don't have the saleability, you don't have a fundability story. Sorry, I had to change seats. So I missed a little bit of the last couple of sentences that I think we're on. Yeah, but that said, can we sell the project without a first story? I mean, that's what VCs do, right? We need to have the process, I agree, but I'm not 100% we need to have, here's how the process has already worked. The process could be part of the hypothesis. There's the wherever the process might be that Opal or the process might be that massive wiki builder got developed, right? And then you can say, well, we have experience in taking our resources and turning them into a thing. And now we have a project that needs more resources, Opal, and we could turn that into a thing. So it can be at different fractal scales. So it may be that OGM is a lab that, allocates resources against experiments, hypotheses to do experiments. I think if I were selling OGM, it's not just that I want to demonstrate, we can make the tool projects get somewhere, but that we'd have a process for the community of practice evaluating the tools and giving input into the tools and turning those tools experiments into results. And this is where, again, I don't think we need to have stories yet because we're building this, but I think we need to have the beginnings, as you say, of a process saying, this is how we want to translate our tool experiments into results and our results into feedback on the tool experiments and have the beginning of a dashboard of that part, not just a dashboard of the tool progress, but the dashboard of the tool turning into new practices for collective intelligence and how these become. And I think the full articulation is, again, even if it's only a proposal and a project and a hypothesis, but I think I'd like to have a bit fuller story of that part of the hypothesis to sell OGM as an organization. For me, those are different fractal levels of- Yes, exactly. But you keep coming back to the lower and I'm seeing it's meaningless without the- No, I'm perfectly happy. The upper one is great too. I don't care where the level is. The thing that I would want to see if I were a funding partner is track record at any of those levels, right? What's your track record of having a hypothesis, having a goal and doing an experiment? Have you guys done that? Show me where you had an hypothesis and you spent resources on the experiment and you had results and then even better and then you made the next hypothesis and you did another experiment and you did have more results, right? If I'm a funding partner, if I like the idea that you have a hypothesis and an experiment design isn't enough, it's that you can also execute on that and that you have already, right? Even with your own money or somebody else's money or whatever. It's just, there are a lot of people who have hypothesis and design experiments and some of them like me, I've run experiments and I've got results but they're not written up. So until you have that loop of forward progress, it doesn't make sense to fund the next tranche of forward progress. Yeah, and my point is that the lower level, the tech level, the tool level, it's well known. We know how to make tech level projects get a certain level of success for gynecologies or whatever and they're not 100% but still it's a well studied. It's not where we're innovating. We're innovating in the next level up, I think. And this is where, and it's not equivalent. It's not because we have proof at lower level that we have proof of second level but at the second level, we're innovating. That means we don't need absolute track record and proof. We can say we have a hypothesis of how to make that next level happen and we want to test it. Makes sense. If I'm a funding partner, I'm not going to fund it just on the fact that you've got hypotheses and experiment design. And what I'm trying to say is that all I need to see is some proof that you know how to take resources and deploy them to run an experiment against the hypothesis and I'm willing to take proof at a lower level or in a different domain or whatever. But I really need to see some proof that you know how to turn resources into experimental results and then that you know what to do with experimental results when you've got them at whatever level. So two things on that. One is, which is why I've been struggling to get us to have a dashboard to show off, to do this, one that will work. We can just build it whenever you want. Let's just make, no seriously, let's just make a slide dashboard. And maybe it's Trove. And maybe it's Trove which is why I had the conversation with. So we've done that in Airtable from a long time ago. We've done that in Trove. We're not using the dashboards for whatever reason. So until we complete that loop, we don't, you know, go in. So we could go back and look at the Airtable that you mocked up back when and just for an advance that by ourselves. And then separate thought, we are definitely not the only people on this path with facing these problems, trying to sort these issues out. I don't know enough about disco.coop, the co-memigree. And there's a bunch of other really deep sophisticated platforms out there. Simon, Cicero's platform design toolkit. I don't know what's in there. There's a whole lot of bags of tools that people are inventing. A few of which are open source projects. Thank God. Sensorica, Bingo. And I'm like, hey, I'm willing that about one of these platforms is actually really a manifold to the everything we're talking about and might even have dashboards. I don't know, but I don't know, right? So how do we do a quick environmental scan of the promising platforms? Like which are the promising platforms? And can we just do some feature comparison real quick? Can we find in the OGM community people? I bet we have some people who have a lot of, some experience on a lot of these things. And if not, we can probably find somebody and just quiz them or whatnot. But I don't want us to busy, like reinvent. I don't want us to reinvent. How do you make plastics from, like how do you drop a pipe in the ground? And then how do you crack petroleum crudes? And how do you distill, like, we don't need to invent catalysts and all that. It's being invented. Hi, the tooling that we're talking about is not very sophisticated. And we can get along at the scale that we are with any tool. The other thing to really like think about is confusing the tool for the process. So just because Sensorica has dashboards and oh my God, we could go make a list of all the projects in Sensorica just like we have a list of Trove, just like we have lists in AirTable. That doesn't mean that we have the process of utilizing the dashboards for communication, right? Internal and external. And second caveat, once you start buying somebody's world view and platform, you are basically drinking their Kool-Aid for a while. And, you know, as Markiplier just said in the chat. And it could be that some of these processes and framings are really resonant with what we're up to. And I don't know. And if they were, I'd be like happy to skip having to create and invent those parts of it and just say, awesome, I will do my project and task management through this framework in this medium and I will happily do that. With the end goal of demonstrating that we can take hypothesis and deploy resources to do experiments and have results and have that in a loop. Yep. We're busy building the plane as we try to fly it. And so far what we've got is like a kite with some frayed string. Oh, we have lots of kites. There's like 20 kites on the ground and most of them have like hit the ground and broken. Some of them are really sailing well. Yeah, but software doesn't actually break. It's still available and all the experiments are still there. Okay, we've run 90 minutes. We should probably wrap this call. This has been super useful. I say that after a lot of our calls because all this stuff is like squishing and evolving in my head at least. I am greatly benefiting from our shared intelligences and good intentions and I appreciate that vastly and I apologize that it's frustrating. Any other thoughts, people we wrap? Let me taste something into the chat and I have to cut it up because it's too big for one. Thank you. And also, and Jack, if you're interested and sorry for the timing, but tomorrow is the generative comments call, which is where we're thinking about what happens to the IP and all those sorts of questions and a conversation I would love to have with you even if it's not in that context or whatever. What time is it? 7 a.m., same zoom. It's my zoom tomorrow morning, starting at 7. And the calls are a little quirky because we're not staying on topic enough but if you were there, that would actually be a place for us to have that conversation in public and then talk it through. So I'm going to go and look at the video I found it up with the wiki and because I think if we're going to have to talk about IP somewhere. Yeah, yeah. Thanks, Pete, for posting the article. We absolutely have to talk about IP and I want to find a reasonable way to do so. So is Trove Vincent Arena's project? Yes, it was called Catalyst. We had some naming problems so now it's mostly Trove powered by Catalyst or something like that, not quite sure. It's Catalyst.net, but it just says Trove, yes. Yes, yes. Then the name is in transition. Yeah. We should just call it in transition. Too many pro... I'll work in progress. I know, I know. All right, everybody. Thank you very, very much. Thanks, Al. We move the boulder slightly further up the hill. Bye. You. Bye.