 This is the Fellowship of the Link call for Wednesday, May 31st, 2023, last day in May. Soon we start June. Kind of crazy. Indeed. Yes. Hello. So I couldn't hear you earlier. No, I can't. Good. I figured you dropped off for some reason. Bentley, how are you doing? You're not coming in very loud. Am I not? Yeah, not you are. Let me check my settings. No, now you're fine. That first thing you said sounded like you're far from the mic and all of a sudden you're crisp and clean. Okay. Or five by five as they say in radio. Yeah. I've been playing around a lot in massive wiki and then not working on my video series about debate. So that's the progress report. I'm playing around with hobbies instead of doing what I need to do. Although in Fellowship of the Link news on massive wiki I made one of those useless force-directed graph charts of the whole site. So that's kind of, that's Link-ish, right? That sounds cool. Yes. How'd that work out? Do you have it handy? Yeah, let me pull it up. And I would also love to get just a little landscape description of where you guys are working on massive, hey Chris, now I'm waiting for Chris to have his usual technical hiccups with camera and microphone or something like that. We don't hear you yet for what it's worth. That's because I'm on mute. Oh, there we go. Now we hear you. We should call our progress bar. Like you said, it's like, you join, what is your confidence it will work? I think we're gonna, yeah. Exactly. And sorry, Bentley was looking for a document to share with us for, I'm filling time for that. There we go. There we go. So, you know, so this is the site. So this is... Hey Pete. It's the, hey Pete, I was just showing him the, I was playing around with, so the massive wiki site. And then I was just showing him this useless kind of diagram. You can hover over these and see that he was actually, that's Jerry right there, Jerry McCall. Oh my God. .html. I don't have the titles. This is known as the useless diagram. I like it. Yeah. And so I can drag Jerry around. Ah! Oh! Ow! But it shows, you know, in Jerry's brain, these are the different things that goes out to like your now page, which that's probably all hard to see because this is pretty small, but that's, yeah, that's, yes, I was just working on taking a massive wiki and pulling out all the metadata. And then this was just one of the things I knew I could just play around to show what's going on. And that's on Netlify, so is that actually visible outside, or is that just internal experiment? Yeah. So you could pull that up. Or cool. On my auto deploy. Yeah. At some point. Yeah. So that's, that's kind of fellowship with the Linky. Thank you. It's pretty cool. Yeah. Yeah. We were saying that that, Bentley, that that's accessible to, to outsiders. It's open, it's in the, it's on the internet. Okay. Can you show that link in our chat? Yeah. Yeah. Not necessarily persistent. Yeah. It may not be there tomorrow, but it's there now. You're right now. The other cool thing, I just to reiterate, even though it looks the same as a regular massive wiki, it's actually built by with different, completely different code. Yeah. It's using a 11D mostly. And then I rewrote some of it, but I'm going to pull it outside of 11D. So Pete and I have competing massive wiki builders, co-operative. So Jerry was asked what we're doing a massive wiki. So we're, we're doing that, and then we're kind of working on standards, which is a good way to do it. We can both play around and then, yeah, and I guess one other kind of neat thing about that is on the pages, I'm also, so I have this metadata, like here's the getting started page. Pete always had it to where you can go, just put dot md at the end of it and I'll show the markdown page. But what I, what I was doing also based on that same philosophy was there's now a dot json. So you can see all the metadata about the page. So it makes it really easy for other people to use the information in the site without having to ask permission. And somewhere in here, there's even an index of all the pages, but I can't remember what I called it at the moment. So I will want links to that. I mean, hopefully when you go to this page, there'll be a little link that says, see the markdown for this page, see the json, see the metadata for this page and json format. See this, see this page and then get repo for what's with Bentley, I mess Python, MWB generates a json file that's a representation of the YAML front matter. Okay. And is that stored next to the file? Yeah. As a dot json. Yeah. Okay. So yeah, mine's that just plus a little bit extra. Yeah. I like the idea of extra Bentley. Thank you for showing us this. And I kind of was interested in checking in with both of you guys about where, what are you working on? What's hot on massive wiki? And what are you, what are you adding? If you like. I think the big thing is, what's massive on massive wiki is the way I should have asked it. Sorry. What's that? What's massive on massive wiki? That's how I, that's how I should have understood. A big part of it is working on wiki culture and trying to figure out different patterns for working collaboratively. Another thing is trying to make it so it's not quite such a pain. And I've had a number of discussions and including today on massive wiki Wednesday about about Git and, you know, what, do we want to use it? How would we use it? How would we wrapper it to make it more sane for most people? All that kind of stuff. It's an interesting kind of line of inquiry. And I guess one of the things for me, and I barely ended up thinking of this a little bit differently, but one of the things for me is that for very small group collaboration on a wiki, something like a wiki, real-time collaborative editing like you have in HackMD or Etherpad is good enough. Actually, that's what you would want. So you wouldn't even want this whole Git thing going on in the background. You just want all the pages to be alive. And that would be great for most people, maybe, or for many people, for wiki heads, I think. Maybe some people would find that extremely confusing. Separately, there's another modality where I value the, and maybe Bentley does too, but we ended up thinking of different protocols underneath it. But I value the affordances that Git and the Git forage together. It's both of them have for larger scale collaboration, so branching and forking and pull requests and conversation based around commits and file changes, line-by-line file changes and things like that. So that's something that it's hard to kind of convey that to other people, but watching a software team do all of that stuff, just manage, you know, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of lines of code and kind of stitching them all together in like massive branch trees and stuff like that, now it sounds really scary. But watching a software team do that, it actually goes a lot more smoothly than you would think, and it managed the complexity of massively changing things iteratively in different ways, and especially being able to do fine-grained acceptances or rejections or comments on individual lines and individual branches is just mind-blowingly cool and amazingly productive and lets you stitch together a team of people doing work in a way that most times you can't. So I was using the example of maybe you're writing a constitution with 1,000 or 10,000 of your closest friends. Bill Anderson said, or the IPCC report, which needs to be continuously updated and is huge and has lots of moving parts, you know. So that's a case where you want the affordances that Git and Git forges have. I think as opposed to small group collaboration where, you know, you're writing blog posts and talking about philosophy or something like that. So I value both of those. And maybe even things in between where there's the standard kind of draft and publish and maybe or maybe not with approvers over a SharePoint flow or enabling all those different modalities. I said Bentley had maybe a little bit different take. He said, you know, Pete, you could actually do the same thing with CODT, CODT trees underneath it rather than Git trees underneath it. And that makes sense and might be a nice bridge from character level changes. If you could figure out a way to bundle and branch and, you know, do merges and rejects and things like that in CODT natively rather than in Git, that might be a wonderful thing. Yeah, and that would take a lot more kind of exploration. That's not as tried path as Git. So that'd be a far future possibility. But it would solve some of the problems in Git where you're making changes and because it doesn't know the intent of the changes that's comparing two endpoint files, it has to make some guesses that would be more explicit if you had something like CRDT that knows the changes and the flow of the information. That's pretty far down the path. That reminds me, right into that, I saw recently a peri-text. It's a very simple application of leveling up CRDT a little bit. So what peri-text does is it understands the intent of formatting. So they're doing rich text CRDT rather than plain text CRDT in markdown or something like that. And it's a good simple-ish example of leveling up the semantic understanding of where you're doing the change management. Yeah, Minter does, I get a 502. That sucks. Yeah, me too. I just just checking in. I have peri-text under next to it. We don't have any overlaps with Ink and Switch, do we? It feels to me like Ink and Switch is a community we should be reaching into. You're muted, Jerry, if you're saying so. Oh, crap. I thought I'd unmuted myself. Thank you for the update. I appreciate that. Anyone else with updates that are fellowship-y? I have an agenda item, although I probably won't be here to discuss it, as I still I can't think through the actual use case or the steps that someone would do. Like, I guess I know the use case, but I don't know the steps that we would like to see in an ideal system where we're actually sharing data. Like, there are times, I mean, I guess I want the options to say, oh, I want to trans-clude. I want to include their live data. I want to copy it, and I want to copy it and make changes. I want to both copy it and link to it. I just, like, we've kind of talked about this, but I keep thinking, like, if I'm going to use, and how do I want to browse their data, it'd be almost nice to walk through, you know, I have a massive Wiki, and I want to, and I see this great thing in Agora, what would be my ideal workflow to join those two things? And I can't even picture it in my head, so because when I was trying to figure out the next version of Massive Wiki, the whole reason we're doing Massive Wiki and markdown pages is so it's easy to share and replicate. And I'm like, well, I don't know how we're going to do that. Glad you asked. Flampton, do you want to take a swing? Yeah, I mean, I have a carpet for you. So, yeah, no, I've been thinking about the same things, and, like, you know, it seems like we have a, you know, we have been discussing all this, really, like, compatibilities at the data level, format level, and you know, like, you know, the repository, meaning that we are all based on Git, or we have been converging towards Git as, I guess, medium for exchange. And so, as you know, of course, Agora as it is now has this transcription support. It doesn't have, like, a copy and link or, like, explicitly in Agora server, but it has two components. This is my, I'll just tell you, like, what I've been playing with, I don't know whether it fits with what Massive Wiki will implement, but you know. So, essentially, the Agora has two components. Agora server is a support, it's a translation, and, of course, like, it's also the main goal it has is render the data it knows about. So, the data is on disk. And it doesn't care about how the data gets there, essentially, pretty much. Whatever you dump in, like, a bunch of, in a directory, it will try to render whatever it supports. And if the content has these hints that say, trans-clude this URL, it will actually just trans-clude using iFrames, as simple as that. So, that, I think, I'm guessing that for Massive Wiki that will be very easy to implement. It's just a matter of saying, like, having a pre, you know, like a filter or like a preprocessor that says maybe there's like a class of links. There are those two things. It has an allow list which says, if something says Wiki in the URL, we're just gonna assume it can be trans-cluded. And actually, that works very often because Wiki tends to be like a trans-clude friendly, thankfully. And it has a few other things. Like, if it has a cop in the name, it also trans-clude. And I'm constantly surprised at how well this works. In essence, everything but the corporate internet, which is, well, a big chunk of the internet, tends to be trans-clude friendly, thankfully. So, it does that. Another thing you can do is like, I think we discussed at some point, like pull, push, go, all these proposed extensions to markdown, to some extent, these other protocol level things. We could agree on some hints, a hashtag convention or whatever you want to pass. So, yeah, but if that is next to a link, maybe Massive Wiki can also assume that that is meant to be trans-cluded. And then it just replaces, it just inserts an iframe after the link. This is what the Aguara does. You can see it all around. There's the other component, which is the coping that we mentioned, Benly, that is very interesting, right? Because, and this, so Adam is not here, but I know he did some work on archiving, like things like social streams and so on. And I know there's lots of work here. So, the other component of the Aguara is what does something close to this. It's not on my Aguara server. It's called Aguara Bridge, which can actually, I think Aguara Bridge may be reused by Massive Wiki as is, because Aguara Bridge is just a suite of importers, where you can say, like, these are the sources I want to import or the resources, and it will just essentially crawl, like clone, whatever the protocol it supports is, and just dump it to disk. And once it's dumped to disk, I mean, really it can be used by Aguara server as an Aguara source, or it can be used by Massive Wiki as a Massive Wiki. So I think there could be a nice place for collaboration. So in short, I see two ways of collaborating, one on the conventions and how we, you know, users can hint for things like transcription and the other on the importer into the commons aspect. And both are, you know, I think pretty simple to implement. That's one thing. On the other, and I'll shut up after this. I also shared this OGM Aguara I started setting up. This is just a repo. I, well, I was sick and busy, so I didn't actually set up the machine Aguara yet, but it will be quite easy. If you take a look at these, so this is one way, I don't know, if Massive Wiki supports this composition of Wikis, but the idea here will be essentially, and Aguara is a composition of Wikis and gardens. So I seeded this Aguara with Relate, OGM Massive Wiki and my garden. And, you know, essentially we can list any sources. We can just keep listing more sources here. And this Aguara will just pull them out, pull them all and like question together, essentially. So that will be a way of playing together in the shared space. Yeah, I started implementing multiple unrelated sources and my Massive Wiki builder, so that's interesting. Nice. So Ed, but do you also have any thoughts on like the flow of someone finding and incorporating? Is it like, oh, I go to this website, here's a page I like. I then go and edit my sources document. It's kind of the flow right now. Right, to, yes, right now the interface is this YAML file. The Aguara will, I will greet and server actually really use the same thing, but mostly reach to import, yes. We had like an experimental flow using Git, GitE, which has a very nice API. So we thought at some point of moving the source through for repositories to GitE, because then you get like a built-in API that is pretty rich to say, add repo. And then you can say like, every repo that is mirroring this GitE instance can be important. So maybe we could reuse some of the shelf tools, but yes, for now it's only YAML. Do you have anything, a concept of a transclusion markdown, what's it called when you have a special, yeah, some characters, format. I would say syntax. Syntax, right. Yeah, so, yeah. Obsidian uses a bang double square brackets. And that bang is the same way that you embedded an image. So it's really. Oh, so you could then have it point to an HTML file and it would be a loop. In Obsidian you point it to a wiki page. A bang double to a wiki page. Yeah, so double square brackets is a link. Just like, well, when you put a bang in front of an external link, it makes it an embed. I don't know if it actually does that with HTML, but it does that with images. So then it's obvious to put bang double square brackets means take another page in this wiki and transcode it. Yeah, and I think they all image support a transcluding specific headers, no? As a subcon thing? Yeah, something like that, yeah. Yeah, that makes sense, the hash. Yeah, the hash rank. Yeah, oh, actually, just a major mark. It's funny, I put my hand up earlier and I think I made a little noise here and it takes your hand down as soon as you make any kind of noise. So I look up and I'm like, well, hand's gone. I wanted to answer your question bently. And I'm not sure I followed everything, but I just wanted to come in with more of a use case. And I think this is territory we've sort of covered before, but I'd love to sort of make it better so that it works for you and sticks for us. And two examples come to mind. One of them is Nikola Tesla just as an entity and the other one is homelessness in Portland, which I'm trying to get involved in in some sense. And for both of these, there are resources that are available. And for both of these, there are resources that are available. And so Nikola Tesla has a Wikipedia page, awesome, but I have him in my brain in context, in a particular context. And I'm interested in the use case of me elaborating some context and vision for what Nikola Tesla is that other people can see as I see it or also that they can take any node that I've dropped in because in principle, these nodes are markdown files and are reusable in some reusable format so that someone could enhance any of the nodes and like add metadata, add actual data, add narrative, make new connections to other nodes, other sorts of things. And then when I come back and revisit Nikola Tesla, for example, that area would be enriched for me and I could either decide to accept and include the other people's and maybe by contributor other people's contributions to improve that node or not. And so for Portland homelessness, I'm trying to build some resources around, hey, what are Portland civic organizations? Then there's a bunch of organizations, some fuzzy, some less fuzzy that have different kinds of mandates. Some of them more conservative, some of them more progressive, blah, blah, blah. I think that having a list of these would be interesting then wouldn't it be cool if that list could be used as a database and search thing sort of like catalyst. And so maybe what I'm talking about is a little bit flotilla-ish, but I'm not sure. But I'm trying to figure out how do we do our jam with the tool we love best, whether it's Agora or the Brain or Massive or something else or Factor, how do we do our jam with the tool we love best but leave behind improved more fertile data soil metaphorically for everybody else to use? I think that's the simplest way I can express it. We are never, and I wouldn't want to try to force everybody to use a tool or even a really sophisticated Swiss Army knife kind of tool. I don't think that's ever going to work, but I do think that we can find some kind of wiki etiquette, wiki-like community etiquette for the collaborations and also with the elaboration of, hey, a link isn't just a link, there's a variety of forms of inclusion by reference, inclusion by value, transclusion and other sorts of things that I don't, that are beyond my pay grade, but I'm really curious about because I'm like, what does the interface look like that simplifies that? So that when some things are bound together in some way, we know that all changes will dominate across all copies or they have to be approved in other copies or whatever it might be or multiple people can live edit this particular page because you're in a tool that supports that kind of live edit context in CRDT or otherwise or this record is locked, you shouldn't touch it until somebody releases it because they're off somewhere doing it and everything I've just said makes things a lot more complicated, but everything I just said is might be necessary for the level of collaboration I'm looking for because the end goal that I'm looking for is making progress on tricking homelessness in Portland and homelessness in general so that the things we discover are working someplace are shareable easily to other communities who can then appropriate parts of it that they would like and then go build out other stuff that they discover and they wanna do on their own. So my use case is any domain of human knowledge, how do we use different tools as power tools for their power and uniqueness? How do we share data without losing without having to fall to the lowest common denominator and thereby losing what makes each tool special which means just the preservation of overlapping and extraneous metadata probably for different tools that work. That's precisely the question. Yes, I just completely empathize with the key question here. My hunch is that we need to solve it at the text level and this is why agreeing on the lingua franca to some extent and then maybe building the tools based on that base layer of lingua franca and repository format or something is what is most likely to work. So I can imagine, and this is where like, I call the graph or a protocol because I call everything algorithm in some sense but the idea will be, this is the convention we say if you have a source and a derivative, essentially a fork of that source, essentially your fork sort of like federated wiki, right? If you can put your federated wiki does have this core notion of like just forking a page, right? The question is how do you contribute it back? So to me, that seems like essentially like, I think we discussed at some point like a special merge program that is really almost at the basic human language level which allows you to like fork a page, contribute and then send back a patch for review and simplify the process for, in particular for less technical users, right? And that will be one more collaboration, right? It's still building on Markdown, on Git, right? So then it applies to massive wiki, applies to all these tools. So I think that's quite complicated but it seems also like something that we can agree to like break down in pieces, I don't know. What do other people think? Yeah, other thoughts? I agree. I kind of wonder if the old Adam or even micro formats, people played around with any, there's something that's kind of similar in there to a ping back. Yeah, that's right. And then I also like nowadays, you might want to look at operating or interoperating or we're borrowing something from this Secure Scuttlebot or Nostra or Activity Hub. So it feels like also we could build some bridges over to the IndieWeb and Fediverse folks more than we are because I think they're working on a bunch of the stuff from Activity Pub to whatnot, trying to figure, trying to sort that out. Or at least learn from them or something like that. Yeah, I kind of wonder, I don't know the space very well, but I wonder, there's a big difference between like thinking document changes and sending messages. So I know Nostra for instance is very message oriented and it's not something where you, and I kind of would presume Activity Pub is that way too. So this is actually, again, I'm not an information architect, but this is such an important issue because I was a big fan of general magic way back in the day and Pete, you and a couple of us have probably heard me tell this story before, but general managed to invent with brilliant people with good intentions, they managed to paint themselves into two very different corners. Andy Hertzfeld created Magic Cap, which was the user interface that didn't let users actually do very much at all. It was shockingly unuseful. And then Jim White, trying to make amends for X400, X500 invented Telescript, which was their message passing protocol. And everything about general magic was message passing at the moment where the web shows up. And they are born and they hit the dust about a couple of months later with a too expensive device that really only does email that assumes a message passing infrastructure and can't understand other forms, can't play nice with other forms of interaction like the web, which is then exploding. And it was really informative for me to see brilliant people write dead end software, architecturally dead end software. That was just like, wow. And so between open source dynamics to share and between standards and protocols to share, how do we create something that isn't the dead end, that isn't the Roche Motel like that, but rather takes us into this next layer of collaborations. Because that's our goal, right? Fellowship of the Link would like collaboration. Collaborate one, collaborate all. I can't do the hands in the middle thing. Well, and the question too though is where does that collaboration occur? Because there's also kind of a new quirky split from a lot of these tools of, and even not, there's online, both personal and private or multi-audience space. And then there's all these notetaking tools that are private, local only. But some people I think would not mind if their private, local only had the ability to kind of break out and above, but there's the tooling and how it works for what can only I see ever? What can small circles of friends see? What can bigger groups see? What can the larger public see or the public's? And what does that architecture look like? That's a really, has always been a hard problem. Or if you do solve it, even a simple solution like Google circles or Google plus circles was stupidly complex. And maybe five of us ever used it because it was so hard. And even then there were people who had data leakages of, oh, I didn't want my stalker ex boyfriend to see me and that data got out somehow. Yeah. I'm impressed at how little we all learned from Google Wave, Buzz and plus. Like they came and went, each of them was really exciting. They came and went way too quickly. A few things survived out of them like hangouts and so forth, but very little. And there was no post-mortem. There was no like, oh man, this was so close. Wave I guess was open sourced and surfaced somewhere else. I'm forgetting where. Apache. Yeah. Apache foundation took it. Yes. There was a post-mortem internally. Yeah. It's interesting, but not shareable. I think unfortunately, although a lot of people involved in the company, so maybe we should look. Yes, I mean, I have opinions, but yeah. Oh, damn it. Sorry, yeah. Because these things were really good. Yeah, Apache Wave. I have it here. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yes. A little technology in Wave was like, well, that was technology in such a high product is the standard, I guess. But so was the area. What was yours? Take. Exactly. Back in the day. And I think the company didn't get enough time. A lot of the technology that made it possible and that made it also particularly impressive back then has been integrated into the web. So to make them, you know, like dogs, of course, it was an addition, but dogs and dog's comments and so on, like replace a lot of the use cases that were at least obvious for Wave back then. Mm-hmm. Yeah. But yeah. Different time and amount. I think we're also part of the web time and space where it was let's move fast and break things. Yeah. And if it doesn't work, we'll just move on. Yeah. Rather than let's move slowly and incrementally and let, you know, slowly fix things and actively make them better. Mm-hmm. With, you know, the scientific enterprise for the last 500 years essentially has, you know, let's make slow incremental progress and get somewhere. And, you know, suddenly we took a shift a decade ago and went against that general grain, which I think was a dramatic mistake. Mm-hmm. Well, maybe we can learn from other entities mistakes. And, you know, like, yeah. Yeah, I mean, on the trust issue and, you know, the circus and so on, I think that's, yeah, that seems open still. My, I guess my hunch is that, I mean, okay, not my hunch, this is my, maybe wishful thinking. It's like ignore the problem until it becomes like an actual problem, you know, like to some extent. I mean, the way I think about this algorithm level is, you know, an integration of relatively few, like all the repositories and relatively few means less than a thousand or a hundred, you know, which they all trust each other. So the algorithm will be, the other level will be currently the circle of trust, which is sort of like kicking the back, the calm down the road, maybe, but then the plan will be at the algorithm network level. So when, you know, when you, I was at the network at that level, sort of like in the failures, taking a cue from the failures at that level, you try to solve trust, which seems like, I mean, it's been sort of like proven, but doesn't exist currently. I think that's a good way to think of it, because it, you can kick the can down the road and get a lot done with the, you know. A lot, yeah, yeah. And it's a genetic approach. Let's see if, you know, you survive long for that to be a problem, but also to me, okay. So it reflects my ideology, I guess, but I like the idea of reclaiming this kind of space that the C2 week, you know, and the weekies are about, which is like trust by default, right? And see how far that gets you, which tends to be further than anybody thinks, I think usually. And in particular, you know, it's so hard to either possibly, as you're spending, you know, it's like, you need to add a YAML file. It's like, well, someone with access needs to do that. That seems strong enough for now. Yeah. Yeah, you know, news we know how the OGM I order, and I wanted to ask you if we want an OGM order, or we want some other kind of order. Is OGM, because I was, I looked over the weekend, it's like, oh, we have Marley and we have all the, and the fellowship. I also wanted to say like a field of, you know, a link or what I, but OGM seems to be in the top level project. Is that true or? So there's a difference of approach between Pete and me here, where I think Pete really likes to have lots of repos, lots of Wikis, lots of separate things for each different project. And I, my brain does not transition between namespaces well at all. So I've kind of tried to gather things back into OGM. And Marley is one of those where we sort of just moved things around with the directories a little bit, but made room for the Marley project, which is likely to be renamed real soon now. But, yeah, I'm trying to make things as much as possible sort of fall under the OGM umbrella that are OGM-ish-y. And this is an open question. But are we fine experimenting now with OGM? Oh, yeah, Pete. So, Jerry and I have a different, like a different, you know, cooperating, competing view of it. My view of, I think you would want, maybe, let me try this on for size. My thinking is you want to, you would want to organize something like an agor. Maybe I don't even know what agor really is, but you'd want to organize an information space around a governance structure. So, and the governance structure might be really informal or it might be more formal. So Flotilla, for instance, is an organization that has a governance structure and it's very informal. It's, you know, a few of the original Flotilla people kind of get together and talk about what should happen without any, you know, without any proportional voting or anything like that or even really talking about who does what. But Flotilla, I would still say Flotilla can make decisions for itself. Similarly, TFTMAP has a pretty specific organization structure and, you know, it has the ability to make decisions. And then you get bigger things than that. I don't know about Fellowship of the Link. I don't feel like I've been here long enough or maybe we haven't tried to make decisions. OGM is this really... I think we'll try. Maybe. OGM is this really special and wonderful beast, which to my mind and largely thanks to Jerry, actively undermines the, or subverts, subverts the idea of an organization structure. So it tries hard not to have an organization structure, which means it's an awesome thing often. And it's an organization that is different from any other organization I kind of know of. Because of that, it continually tries to not decide things on behalf of OGM, except once in a while, you know, Jerry will say, well, there shall be a domain name and this is what the domain name will be or there shall be one, you know, OGM Wiki. But in the main, it tends not to have a structure. But there are many people who participate in OGM in very fuzzy ways. And that doesn't add up to an organizational structure that can make decisions on behalf of all of those people in the way that Flotilla, you know, makes a decision or TFTMount makes a decision. So the OGM Wiki is kind of an, it's an odd ball to me. It's named OGM Wiki and, you know, Jerry said that I shall have a Wiki, which is wonderful. Most of OGM does not participate in the Wiki. So is it really an OGM Wiki if most of the community doesn't use it and doesn't care and doesn't even know about it? I don't know. For now, yeah. Yeah. And actually there's, for the for now part is really interesting because I think trying to force organizational structure and Jerry and I have gone through this because we've had situations where another organization needs to make a deal or needs to support OGM somehow. And Jerry and I went through lots of machinations about what does that mean? I think where I ended up with something like there should be an OGM foundation, which is kind of stewards the, you know the fuzzy OGM thing and maybe that's a way to do it. So then you instantiate, you know organizational structure in the foundation, but trying to force all of that fuzzy thing of OGM into an organizational structure, I think it's actually a failure mode. I think it's not the right thing to do. Pete, I'm just remembering the vigorous how many OGMs are there conversations we have back year and a half, two years ago. Okay, all these is convincing me OGM is the right thing to map to an hour. Love that. Because it seems more like to be on the intersection also something like potentially aiming for like more than the sum of the parts and the interlay level as maybe Samuel will put it. And that's I think pretty mapping pretty well by my mental model of what an hour is. So I really love that. So what that says to me is that Agora has an architecture that allows for this a fuzzy, you know it doesn't have a specific organizational structure. It allows basically allows kind of, you know, emergent, you know, and multiplexed, you know, thoughts of organization. So I like that. Precisely. I mean, and this is where I think this is what maximizes the chances hopefully that it will actually be complimentary to like a great number of other tools in this space. So it's trying to really like just like be in the cracks to some extent and like be these, you know also think of the V-fungus, right? Like try to enable the V-fungus essentially. Or to build a lily, like you lose something by saying OGM instead of open global mind. How many OGMs are there is like asking how many parts of the brain are there? How many neurons are there? How many connections are there between those neurons? And there you have your answer. There's gotta be like a Borges short story in here somewhere. Yes. And if not, we'll write it away. Oh, by the way, we could just ask ChatGPT to pretend it's Jorge Luis Borges and write a short story about this theme and see what happens. That would be really super cool. And you can publish it in Buenos Aires. I, yeah, I'm a huge fan, yes. I have a lot of work here. So the library available, of course, like an intervention. Also a lot in Babylon, to some extent, going back to the social component, you know, like a homelessness in Portland, you know. And also the garden of the forking pads also. Yes. So I always say that what I say, it wants to be a garden of forking pads precisely. Yeah. So you got that, yes. Wants to be, of course. The OGM map is 130, I like it. Yes. Okay, so I'll just continue in the direction of OGM. I would add, it's already this, so I guess if you want, next time, I could give a quick demo. That'd be great. Maybe I could, yeah, if I get there. The other question is which other repos? Which, I mean, if you have any, which other repos could be there? If you have ideas just, you know, PRs or just like recommendations, welcome. It seems like some of the flotilla, I don't know if flotilla has a wiki or a tooth for thought map could also be there. So I'll just keep adding whatever I find, but if you have any, in particular, you know, you're in the massive wiki. Yes. Well, more than expert. Yes. Just send them my way. And I'll... Nice. So I've seen it looks at line eight. Really, wiki needs a dot kit at the end. I wonder if that's... It does, but I think it somehow works anyway. Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if it works anyway. Yeah, yeah. Just because it's a Xiaomi thing. Yeah, related, it's been important apparently. But yeah, thank you all. I'll fix it. Thank you for noticing that. Yeah, yeah. Cool. So what does this set us up to do? What do we want to do with what we're doing? I like Bentley's question and kind of also like, I'm not sure how to even think about this feeling, you know? It's like, it would be... I want to be set up to do whatever it's doing, but I'm not sure what that is. I guess I'm... My man went back to the Marley book, or I don't know if that's the right note for it, but yeah, and you know, with this question, and also your comment about how to collaborate, essentially, maybe cross-weekly or cross-mass-weekly, if I'm paraphrasing this, and maybe how that could work as an experiment. I mean, I don't know if that will add extra complexity, I don't know if it's worth doing, but you know, it's one thing to collaborate on some weeky. Maybe it's another to say, maybe it's this chapter or this book in particular, let's try like forking the weeky and the merging, doesn't make that no? To sort of like go to the... Essentially, one thing is to collaborate in one repo, and the other is this more maybe complex question of how to fork and then merge next, right? For like more distributed collaboration. Right. Marley also has the idea of modularity. So you have nuggets that could be, you know, decomposed from several books and recomposed into another book. Right. Nice. And I think what Fontaine is saying, Pete, refers back to your conversations in Flotilla or elsewhere about branching versus fork and pull. Basically like how close in to the center of a team you are depends on which method you're using for the collaboration. Yeah. And branching and fork and pull are both, all much more complicated than collaborative editing Google Doc style, which is what people are accustomed to. So how to, what the bridge is for muggles is... For what it's worth, Fontaine, I think Marley, especially in the context of OGM, whatever that is, whichever OGM it is, in the context of OGM, Marley is gonna, it's brain bending enough for people to even be thinking about doing it in a wiki. So we don't advertise that part of it. What we advertise is you can write in whatever tool you want, like Google Docs. Fair. Right, right. Okay. And then we'll have, you know, backend tools that help us manage that. I, in some of the vision stuff, I even said Google Docs or, you know, pen and paper or whatever, because the idea of Marley is to enable people who don't use information tools or don't use them very much to be fluent in, you know, in the Neo Book space. Nice. Yeah, I mean, so it's, thank you for that. I think you're mentioning the Google Doc input, I guess. Reminds me, I mean, of this idea of like, maybe collaborate at the level of like, yeah, import. So essentially, you know, which starts to become equal or this conversion, how does it extend, but we may want to agree on, yeah. Cool. By the way, since we're right here, the thing that I found that works well with Google Docs is to save as HTML, I think. Yeah, save as HTML and then load that. I usually load it in Typewra and that gets you pretty much all the way. So save to HTML for Google Docs and then use a HTML to markdown converter. And then the leftover task is Google Docs decorates all the links with a Google.com prefix and use the URL encode the URL encode the original URL. So you can't actually do a straight text substitution. You have to trim off the Google.com and then URL decode the link. It's very straightforward, but it's not, maybe it's the other way around. But it's a little bit complicated. It's a little bit complicated, but it's very deterministic. I guess it's very deterministic, but it is a little bit convoluted and not very too many steps. Yeah, I also found, yeah, but precisely, agreeing on this pipeline essentially and trying to duplicate maybe it seems like, yeah, it's gonna save it for the commons, essentially. If we want this X2 commons pipeline. So right in the space as well, David Boval, who is currently part of mapofthefuture.org, he's had a vision for a year or two now of mashing up MassiveWiki and FedWiki and TiddlyWiki. MassiveWiki, TiddlyWiki, and what about else? FedWiki. Perfect. And it helps me listen to David once in a while about that vision because if you think about it too much, it's like they all are a little bit different in ways that make them kind of incompatible. But on the other hand, FedWiki has the nice forking model and it also kind of understands HTML. At TiddlyWiki, the whole wiki is just an HTML, a really big HTML blob with some JavaScript. And it seems like there's, he's got an intuition that there's something there that you can kind of mash them all together and get something that's really interesting. I'll have to drag him to one of these calls. He's probably been to one of these calls now that I think about it. I'm not sure he's been on the fellowship calls. I don't remember him being on one, but he might have. He's certainly got a bunch of features in his calls. Is getting some traction under its feet. They're having, they're doing multi-location, part virtual, part in physical space, multi-location things. Like I think it's Barcelona and Warsaw and London. You know, they keep adding locations. And they're having events and podcasting and keeping maps and wikis and other things. You broke up for a second for a second. Which day is that you were referring to? Mapofthefuture.org. Okay. That idea of those three big wiki projects merging on some kind of standard that would allow them to interoperate would, you know, that would just freak me out a little bit. It would be super cool. It would be. Or if you add media wiki to that as well, even better. So the other interesting part is that of those three, and they're kind of, they've got some orthogonality to them and their approach and their architecture. So, you know, they're not the same. So if you could kind of mash them up, it would be really cool. The founders of each of those communities, me and Ward and Jeremy, are all friendly and interested in that kind of stuff and easy to talk to and things like that. So it seems like, you know, socially you could kind of get some activity going too. Because I have versions of think of all three of them sitting around in various instantiations and being able to push one button and have them all like viewable in all those spaces would be just awesome. It would be really cool. Michael, we kind of overtook the Sense Doing project and turned it into the book writing project as Marley. The nomenclature may change around, but we're still having those calls and heading back into it. And the book in question right now, the quick first book that we're envisioning is about regenerative agriculture or related issues. And it's called Food Revolt, as opposed to Revolting Food, which would be a very different book. And to put a finer point on it, it seems like it's gonna be about bioregion.