 Charles is always bringing new angles to the conversation. This is an OGM workshop prep call on Wednesday, October 28th, 2020. And we are six days from election 2020, which is just wild and wacky. So. Oh, sorry, I'm a bit late. Greetings. Right on time. You're right on time. We're just sort of marshaling our energies and figuring out what it is we'd like to talk about here. Well, I have an iteration of the work on the patterns. So if you don't mind, maybe I should get that started. So do that. Let me ask first, if anybody else. For an agenda, yeah. So you say the work on the patterns. I'm concerned about a conversation I had with Pete and I'd like to raise a question that I also brought up with Charles separately about licensing insofar as a peer guide handbook license under CC zero. And Pete and I discussed his work, he plans to license under CC by I say this new collective sense comments. And of course that's completely fine. But I do think it would be good to tag in some licensing just broadly so that we get it not without the forego on the conclusions. But when you mentioned patterns, this is a real bugbearer with licensing. Most of them aren't licensed whatsoever. And the complexity of reuse and integration of pattern languages is significantly burdened by that. So yeah, that's a little thing for the agenda. I am not wise on which licenses work best for these sorts of things. So I would love to follow y'all's best advice. And we should make this a conversation in the larger flow. Yeah, Jack is one of the people that I've I hear smart things about the strategy of license choice. Yes, it would be good to ask him, but in my opinion, we're making a comment. So either we are CC by rather than CC by SC. For collective sense comments. Wikipedia is CC by SA. And so it's a big well-established more or less comments. So why would you go away from? So the reason we went away from CC by and CC by SA towards CC zero, in the case of the Piragaji handbook, as I explained to Pete was pretty, and Charles is that we didn't want to burden people in any way. We wanted them to be able to do whatever they want with that material, including republish it under their name, change it, put it into a lecture. It's just completely pragmatic. If someone's preparing lecture notes based on our texts, we don't want them to have to cite us because that creates this undue overhead, which we didn't want. That doesn't apply in every single setting, but that was why we went away from it in the case of the Piragaji. It's simply to make reuse as quick as possible. And then my counter argument is that I have a concern that contributors will find, will be shocked by saying, oh, I want your stuff to be completely public domain. And so I think for a lot of people in our society, for better or for worse, at least a little bit of property rights feels less scary, less so. It's not really a counter argument. It's more of a descriptive characteristic of a different population, because yeah, that could be completely accurate. I don't disagree with you. I think that work on patterns is necessarily collective work. And the buy is a very, very different animal when it's not saying we're not pointing to an individual, we're pointing to a site where collective work happened and you can trace individual people through various means, IP addresses or whatnot, user accounts. But the buy is about saying attribute the body of work rather than attribute individuals. It does change the dynamic. And it could be that collective works like a pattern language that we're creating, go under like the thinnest of all, like no rights reserved kind of licensing, but other things, if somebody's about to contribute something they've created to it, go under a slightly different one that at least requires attribution or something like that. And we could do a two tier that might make it easier for people to participate, but we say these are the two tiers that we observe. Charles and then Matanjuan. Hi, yeah. This is what I came up with very in the moment with Joe. I guess it was yesterday or the day before on this topic, which in terms of like, I like attribution just speaking for myself as a creator. I prefer to have my name on there if it's appropriate and deserve. So that's one thing. And kind of goes with what Pete was saying as well. And then there's a question of no name at all or a collective name. And if it can be done with a collective name, then that is my preference. Check. By the way, I wasn't speaking against having individual names. I'm just saying we have to be aware that each of the page will be collective authorship. And I agree that having the names is better motivation. It's also, this stuff also kind of goes away a little bit when you use systems that preserve attribution. So there was an offer a long time ago that I think died a long time ago called Mixed Ink, which was a collective essay writing app that if I liked your paragraph and preserved it but then changed something else at the end of the day when we saw the finished text, you could go look at whose sentences, who had contributed each sentence and how they'd been changed over time. So the mere use of the tool preserved attributions within a mixed essay. And then separately, if we copy pasted stuff and more metadata came along with the copy paste so that attribution was really easy and natural in the act of referencing, of making a link, et cetera, et cetera, that would solve that problem. But we're not in that world right now. But it would be nice if we were because, and this is one of the cool things about good backlinks and so forth is that you get to travel back and forth. So I would like to just jump in and point out, I didn't mean to derail the whole conversation. Well, I'm sure we could spend entire week talking about licensing and one of people like Leslie to come and explain the actual legal expert view on it. But I would encourage people really not to look at this as an argument because I don't think that we need to convince each other. I think it's much more describing and sharing our different viewpoints. I don't intend to convince anyone to look at it. We also need to take action. I appreciate the reference. So, Mark Antoine, as a prep before the thing, I'd like to take action and share an essay I found about not interrupting people because it significantly disrupts one's thoughts. I don't even remember what I was talking about, but I was in the middle of talking. Sorry, apologies. You were speaking about the collective ownership in essays and you were speaking about you were not trying to impose your view and imposing a decision. And I said, yes, but we want to take action on having an actual, you know, we can't invite people to participate. Let me just chime in just as it may be a bridge, which is Joe, I appreciate the reference and the use case. And I see it as case-by-case. You had your reasons, good reasons. They don't apply directly or specifically to OGM at large or maybe big chunks of it, we'll see. But yeah, let's just move on, I think. I guess so, yeah. This is what I was gonna say though, is that I would challenge people to look at this from exactly the lens of pattern language and to recognize that the CC0 exists to solve certain problems and to think about what those problems are and say, okay, well, these problems aren't ones we're necessarily solving here, but other people might be solving them with some results, which is completely fine. I like that. And I had suggested we have sort of two-tier within OGM loosely at the beginning, like CC0 and then by SA or something like that, depending on whether it's a collaborative work or if it's somebody's work being sort of offered to the commons, the greater commons, not just us. Does that make sense to do as kind of an early setup, Joe? Yes, and sorry, I hate the mute button, why don't we have a push to talking on this? So this is why I shared this first Monday article is it's very important when we're talking about the commons, the only way to share with the commons is through public domain, I think, as far as I know, all other ways are encumbered and they become a commons. So you get the CC by commons or like a new GPL commons or whatever. And again, there's nothing wrong with that. But if you wanna build something that literally everyone can use, as far as I know, CC0 is the only way to do that. But yeah, two tier or multiple tier, I would say that that would be a good first broad brush approximation and that would solve any problems of like, again, we don't have to convince each other, we save time from arguing. And if we wanna convince each other or something, we're convincing each other something other than that. So that's good. I like it, Pete? I agree with Joe's observation that if you want to deliver it to the commons, it's CC0. I think we have a demonstrated use case. There is a Creative Commons commons, which people think of as good enough to be a commons kind of. And then I think the two tier thing makes sense, kind of, but I think it's also confusing for people. I think it would be better for the pattern work, for instance, I think it would be better to pick one and then sell everybody into it. And it's fine for somebody who has copyrighted material to, I guess it would turn into a CC0 thing as soon as they give it into CC0. I think that's fine. My advocacy would be CC by one. And then either you bring your stuff to CC by or you don't and that's fine. And I think that reduces a lot of kind of friction about other people thinking about the problem. I can kind of fall back in advocacy to CC0, but then I think that increases the risk that we'll have more people that don't want to participate. And like I said in the chat, I'm also concerned that CC0 is in our day and age, it puts you at somewhat of a disadvantage within our legal framework. I guess I take that a bit personally, but let's take that offline because I think I've done eight years of work with this and I don't see it as a disadvantage. I see it as an advantage for my goal of contributing a gift to the world. So if you guys have a different view, that's a different thing. And maybe my gift is crap. Like it's okay in the world of crap detection and so forth, we may say the gift is not useful for anything. Is the first Monday I say you just posted your best link explaining your position on this or have you written something that does that better? Because I'd love to- No, that's my friend's position just explaining the complexities of copy left licensing. So I did read it, so I was thanked on it, but no, I haven't really written my position. The only thing we have is just that we, what I said before is we didn't want to become people using the term. Gotcha. Joe, thanks for bringing up the issue. Yeah. Any closing thoughts on this? Anybody? I have one more, one more odd one, which is, and I'm starting to do this more and more. It's an odd position, but I just kind of leave the licensing question open. Another observation I have about licensing is that a strict license, you know, CC by SA or even more strict, completely proprietary, doesn't really stop people. It stops big publishers and it stops people doing a big project where they say I wanna lift this whole thing and do something else with it. But regular people have gotten in the habit of just, you know, like free use, you know, it's, oh, it's fair use, without understanding really what fair use means legally. So some stuff I publish, I don't even put a license on, which means it's copyrighted to me and you're not supposed to do anything with it, right? That doesn't mean that people don't do something with it. They do stuff with it. So another technique is just to forego the discussion and wait until it starts being interesting and people say I would totally use your stuff, except that it's, you know, got an implicit copyright because you didn't put any license on it and, you know, so I think Joe makes a great point that really what you want is for people not to even have to ask. But, you know, in the information while you're forming stuff, I think it's okay to just kind of leave that discussion until later. It's kind of a, you're not gonna need it, you know, you're not gonna need it for the first year kind of. And so just kind of go with the flow and see where you get to in a year and then have a discussion with the community, have a discussion with other people, you know, how should we license this when we've actually got an asset that you can actually argue stuff about. Two small comments, one is, and sorry, then back to you, Mark Antlein. One is we may be moving toward a world where everybody just basically digitally notarizes whatever they create and drops it into a blockchain or some sort of thing so that later they can prove that they're the one who first published it here and there and everywhere. And that may in fact be sort of default behavior for a lot of systems, which would make attribution sort of more concrete, I guess. I'm happy to, since Joe, for example, has done tons of thinking on this, I'm happy to start with a default setting that's more or less what I was trying to describe earlier so that we have a setting rather than just not doing anything for a while and move in that way. That makes a bunch of sense to me to take advantage of, you know, best practices from a bunch of communities and a lot of deep thinking already happened on this. Mark Antlein? I agree with what Pete said about attribution, but otherwise I think, on the one hand, it's important for people to be able to refer to encumbered materials in the content and feel that, yeah, I can refer to it without feeling that it will be hijacked, like that I'm really inquisiting if there's truth, authorship, we may still want to hear about it, like describing proprietary work may be appropriate to describing a pattern. So that's important on the one hand. And the other balance is we want to make it clear that if you're putting something in, it's about creating abstraction, about creating collaboration, so it will get remixed and whatever gets in has to, there has to be freedom to remix. So certainly, and yes, maybe carry the attribution, I'm all for that, but if it's not going to be remixed, it doesn't belong there, I think it's fine too. And if that makes some people hesitate, maybe that's the cost to pay. When is that needed? Well, as I said, I mean, we're trying to extract patterns from practices. Some of those practices may be copyrighted and we still want to say this pattern exists was found in this copyrighted practice, but we identified it across this copyrighted practice, this CC by whatever practice and this purely open practice or whatever. And, but we need to be able to refer to protected processes. And just, I just put this in the chat, but one of my background longer term objectives with OGM is to try to figure out how to tear down the barriers of overprotecting of IP because the many of the best ideas of our civilization are trapped inside of books that are trapped inside of DRM that are really hard to refer to and deconstruct and put in the conversation to make useful in the world. And part of that is, you know, Jack Valenti saying the right length for copyright is forever minus a day. And we've moved toward a regime that does exactly that by copyright term extension acts and all this other crapola and the WIPO and all of that that really like has messed up our world. So for me, there's a, this is not top priority for me, but there's a sort of longer-term political approach toward trying to liberate information while rewarding creators. But originally copyright patent, all those things were supposed to be for a limited time. There's a whole long conversation there that we could call Larry Lessig on, et cetera, et cetera. Charles, over to you. I didn't have a chance to be with you guys when you were talking about patterns last week. So I would love a little recap, but also in particular on whatever business model, business potentials, expectations, whatnot, because it seems to me this issue comes up, especially or mainly when these things are being used in the world with some revenue involved, if I understand correctly, and that's broadly speaking. Am I on or off to you? Pete is saying no, most of you are saying no. Joe and I are having a discussion in chat. So my, I think, well, to answer one of your questions, I think we are thinking of a pattern language essentially in the commons. So then we have questions around what the commons means, a smaller commons or the whole commons, et cetera. I think the CC by raises, elevates the capability for the pattern to spread better, I think, because pattern language to spread better. So my example in the chat is somebody sees this great pattern language that's 200 patterns, it's all interlinked and stuff like that. They care about three. They grab this three, they go, okay, CC zero, I own these things, I'm going to take them. I'm gonna change, maybe I'll even change the sense of one of them. I'll change a due to a do not or something like that. But anyway, they take the whole thing, they put it in their book, they say, I came up with this amazing wisdom, this is the do all and be all. So a reader comes along and she's reading this thing and she goes, wow, these patterns are really good. I wish there were more, I wish there was more stuff around them, I wish there was context. Because we, in a CC zero situation, she sees this extract, she has the author and publisher have no responsibility to tell that person, the reader, that it's actually part of this much richer whole thing that's going on. So she gets a weak sauce version of it. And there's no responsibility for the author or publisher to tell her that this is the weak sauce version of something that's much more amazing. That's my- But the problem there is that what's copyrightable is sort of not an idea, but an expression of an idea. So this becomes problematic exactly an issue of patterns because patterns are like general purpose things. So if we think of like Christopher Alexander's patterns about entryways, right? Like that's a go-to example for me because it's quite obvious even if you've never read Christopher Alexander, when you go in a door into your house, you kind of put down the world and you go into the house and it's a separate space. And so we describe this as a pattern and it's a really tangible field. You can imagine buildings with it and buildings without it. But in the case we were just discussing do the buildings with it have to somehow cite Christopher Alexander and say, you know, this building manifests the Christopher Alexander pattern and get it like stamped in the concrete CC by Christopher Alexander? No, they don't because it's an expression, not. But so I'm a little concerned that the weak sauce thing you just talked about is a little bit of a, it may happen but this only exists in the world of written expressions where copyright applies anyway. So if Christopher Alexander's own critique of the pattern methods, he basically says something like you see buildings with lots of alcoves all over the place because they're kind of trying to apply the pattern language literally but they don't really understand what I was talking about. So I agree roughly that we get a table that's all discussion especially because we've spent half an hour on it, I think and actually look at the patterns that Mark Antoine was gonna talk about before I added this other thing to the agenda because I don't think we're gonna probably solve these things maybe ever I'm guessing so probably not this hour about the copyright versus public domain stuff but it is complicated and yeah, yeah. But just to be clear, no one needs to convince me that CC zero isn't the right thing. I do other things about CC zero so I'm not a hardcore CC zeroist I'm just thinking these patterns. We have to think through what we want. So Mark Antoine, oh, sorry. Mark Antoine, then Charles then back to Mark Antoine to show more about the pattern language. Okay, yeah, very, very quickly just the example of putting Alexander stamp in the concrete of the archway. I think it for me, my interpretation of putting a CC by on the entranceway pattern of Alexander if it's some other theorist of architecture speaks about entranceway, I think there is some obligation or some, we expect him to refer to this aspect of the entranceway pattern was first formalized by Alexander if he refers to that aspect of the concept otherwise not, but this is abstract to abstract. The abstract to concrete link does not come naturally to me saying that then concrete instances of that have to have the stamp, that's not obvious to me. Maybe the architect plans could say, oh, we'll do this, we'll do this entranceway using Alexander's pattern, but yeah. Charles go ahead. Sorry, a little food here. My question, huh, I do have it. It's damn it, excuse me, between the food I have to come back. It was something on, oh, just Pete. Okay, you mentioned in passing three patterns out of the set that might be copyrighted or encumbered as Mark Antoine said. Were there any one or two examples that come to mind or that's already on the table that we could kind of look at because I'm not sure what those would be except from some corporate thing or trademark thing Let's look at the patterns. I think at this point it'll be better if it's more concrete. That sounds great. I'm, we're talking a lot in the abstract here. And by the way, I don't have, I haven't started working on the patterns themselves so much. I'm just trying to see what, what do we need for the patterns to express? So, yeah, share screen. So Mark Antoine has been working on a tool for thinking about and expressing patterns. Yeah, we started between Pete and I about saying, okay, what do we want to express? Like these are patterns for what basically what Jerry's doing that is collective intelligence, but all kinds of activities around connected thinking, systemic thinking, collective thinking. And, you know, we started saying, okay, this is, these would be the feature of the pattern and the pattern are interrelated. That means that a pattern uses certain patterns and be subjected to certain issues, can address problems or desiderata. So we got into the idea of what are the goals, you know, kind of broad goals, not, not specific goals. What do you want to do? What are the issues, which can sometimes be expressed as anti-patterns. So that was the initial core. And then I started writing that into a tool and I got into something a bit more elaborate. And I realized there's kind of three layers. Because patterns are the end result of a journey. What you start with is sometimes store, I mean, you always start with stories, right? Case study or story, there's people who are saying, we did this. And when doing this, we probably use certain techniques. Techniques may be usually methodologies and or technical tools. Methodology can use tool or tool-enabled technology depending on which side you want to see it. But in a specific story, we try to apply certain techniques because again, they were addressing certain desiderata, this is what you want. And they were subject to certain issues. Addresses is maybe not the right one, but anyway. And then, so that's one layer, not so much of abstraction, but you're extracting something from the stories. What are the techniques we used and how maybe from that story, disinformed the design of further techniques? And that's something P pointed out. So that's one layer. And then the patterns are kind of the abstraction layer beyond that, where we are saying, whether they're technical or social techniques, this is something that recurs among many techniques. So there's again, a many too many pattern. So we're seeing this pattern embodies a certain number of techniques. A technique pattern can use other patterns, same idea. It can be balanced with another pattern. That's the idea of forces in software patterns like you're, and also in architectural patterns. Well, there's this, but there's also that aspect. So you're balancing patterns with one another or maybe you're balancing forces, but it didn't model forces explicitly. So this notion that at each layer of abstraction, we're speaking about case study techniques or patterns, we're, it's aimed at certain desiderata or goals. It's hitting against some issues, there's reuse and there's this work of embodying the patterns. Now, what do, and in that way anti-pattern is kind of a more abstract version of the issue at the same level as pattern. What is common to many issues? Well, there's this anti-pattern forming. I don't know if we want, and this is an open question to the group, like do we want to separate the desiderata and the issues at each layer, like the desiderata in the study, desiderata in the technique, desiderata in the abstract pattern? I would say no, because often what will happen, you'll have texts in the case studies saying, this is what happened. It happens to be an example of this kind of generic goal and which the technique tries to address and this is the pattern that more generally addresses the technique and that is embodied in certain techniques. So this is the kind of structure I'm proposing. I've started doing that concretely in, no, not this, sorry, no, sorry. In the beginning of media wiki and semantic media wiki-based, system, so here's a list of patterns of issues and I haven't embodied all this because I want people to tell me if it makes sense to them. But right now what we have is simply the notion that the pattern can use another pattern, can address another, can address an issue and I have backlinks, think of semantic media wiki saying this. So this has not evolved since yesterday, but I wanted to give this expression of what it would look like so that we could discuss. And that was actually something Pete asked me for. Can we have an entity relationship diagram of what we would like to describe in this wiki? So this is my attempt at doing that. Marc-Antoine, I wonder if you could talk about the diagram conventions, the arrowheads and the stars. Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry. Good point. I haven't used stars systematically enough but this is basically about the stars basically saying that it's a one-to-many or many-to-many relationship. These arrows mean that it's a subclass. So an anti-pattern is a kind of issue. Tool and methodologies are kinds of techniques. In reality, a lot of techniques will be hybrids. I didn't create a special type for that but because the methodology uses tools, I think we'll just put them under methodologies. The stars are tiny little asterisks next to some of the arrowheads. And they're speaking about multiplicity. There's nothing one-to-one really or even not many one-to-many. And another thing to note is that this is auto laid out. So Marc-Antoine wasn't making conscious decisions about what's up and what's down and what's here and what's there. It's just, you know. Yeah, yeah, this is just the expression of this text. Plant UML is brilliant, but it does mean that. So don't try to read any intense in the layout. Good point, thanks. Thank you, that's good to know. That's useful. How does doing the ER diagram move our conversation forward around creating a pattern language and opening it to OGMers to jump in? Well, I want to, okay, what I'm, what I try to express here is this notion that pattern is something we extract from stories through identifying. You know, in this story, we use this technique and, okay, is there a pattern to a set of techniques used through many stories? Is that something we want explicit in the wiki? That's a question to you folks. I think it's interesting to link patterns to specific stories. I think it's interesting to learn patterns to specific tools and methodologies. Like this pattern is something we find across these methodologies. These methodologies, we understand them better when we see them used in stories. Is that too much explicit? That's a question again. That's a real question to you. But I do think that making those explicit will help us see patterns as an end result of a distillation process. And I wanted to make explicit what we're distilling from. So two thoughts on that. One is that like more details about any pattern would seem to me to be super interesting as additional, it's like Wikipedia pages have talk pages and I don't really like that they're in a different place but I'd love for the patterns to be really concise and crystalline. But then I'd love to know different people's opinions about the pattern, how it was used, where it was derived from, et cetera. So I think that's super valuable information. And then the second thing is this diagram is making me realize that we're going to do things like help people tell their stories. And in everything that we do, we will want to be deriving and improving our pattern language. And so connecting this to a story process somewhere else that is done in a different tool or in this tool or whatever is really, really interesting because then you can sort of work your way back through. This pattern exists because of this project over here where we got to this point and we had this question which is a visible node in our little OGM Dream Universe because there was a project that was using tools to visualize what they were doing, right? And you know that you're now out of the pattern language and back into Project X and then, but that's how we derived this pattern. And rather than just telling the story of, oh, and then we had a Project X in some text field at the bottom of the pattern, it would be even better if the pattern were born from birth from and linked back to the project where it was born. That would be super cool. That's exactly what I'm proposing to do and that's what I wanted to check with you all. And Charles, I wanted to introduce my diagram because where do I expect to see the most copyrighted material is in the case studies. You know, case studies may have been done by a group under, you know, in the commercial process. And well, we're telling the story here. And this is the technique. This is our copyrighted technique. Like for example, I'm thinking of Conevan, the Snowden technique of cognitive edge. I'd like to be able to talk about Conevan. It's copyright Dave Snowden, but I still can learn from it. And I'm not opening it up by mentioning it and telling that story in the pattern language. On the other hand, if we derive pattern from it, I hope the pattern is public. Can I ask for an example? Because in the spirit of patterns, that can be very helpful. So do we have an example pattern, an example OGM pattern that could be broken down in this way? Thanks, thanks, Joe. And before we leave the diagram, so I think the way to do that is with the other tool there. Before we leave the diagram, I wanted to say that the thing that I find a diagram useful, this is like a map, right? Maps are, I'm gonna say something that sounds strange. Maps are not particularly useful unless you have a map reader and unless you have map reader savvy. So what a map does though, is it gives you an object to point out so that you can say target is over here and Costco is over here and I wanna go from the cinema to Costco to Target. And so it contains the back in the day when we used to actually do that kind of thing. It's a way to point and show as you tell the story. So I think a diagram like this isn't necessarily an asset that I would give to somebody. It's more of an aid to the narration of, okay, so this is how the different parts of the schema work essentially. This is how they're hooked together and these are the things that we're going to, when we need to talk about technique, it's related to these other things. When we need to talk about the pattern itself, here's how it's related to other things. Jerry, I think it was really cool. You could take, and I think also, when I look at this as a diagram reader, because it's not laid out with any sense, it actually doesn't have any narratives that fall out for me. I have to go kind of hunt for the narratives. I think if you moved it around and doing that kind of sense-making on a diagram is hard and takes time and intelligence. But anyway, if you move stuff around, you would start to get to see the narrative kind of pop out at you. Here's how you make a pattern. Here's how the different parts of a pattern are put together. But once you have that better narrative diagram for this, then you can take it and apply a similar map. You would have a similar map for the instance of creating a particular pattern. Here are the people that we talked to. Here are the problems that they had. Here's how that turned into a discussion of what the different parameters were of it. And here's how that came to a pattern. You can almost take the narrative map, the ERD for this, and turn it into a narrative map that does the same thing, right? And again, that map isn't an artifact in and of itself. That's really an aid, a crutch to somebody who wants to tell the narrative of, here's how we took these people having this problem and turned it into this understanding of a pattern. And a small side note on the middle of what you were saying there, Pete, took me back to a discussion we had in the Free Juries Brain Subgroup where the way I use the brain it very much has sort of an update. It's not a hierarchy, but it has like a north or an up to me. And so for example, I put parents above their children. I put authors above their books. I put actors under their movies and doing so consistently gives me an up-down orientation so that when there's an article that mentions a bunch of other articles written before it for in my own interpretation of using the brain, those other articles that are referenced are above the article that I'm reading right now that I'm basically annotating, right? So I do that a lot and I get derivative works that work up down nicely, not perfectly, but really pretty elegantly. So I don't have to spend the time doing the sense making of what is my orientation in a diagram that's more rubber bandy where it's the rubber band forces that dictate where the squares are gonna end up. And that's actually pretty useful. So having a sense of orientation or using a tool to create a sense of orientation can be useful. That's all. So what I would say is that you have a grammar of your diagramming in the map and that grammar helps you work consistently and over time. I'm reminded I have a weird brain connection. I think the grammar of film is really amazing. There's a bunch of conventions around where the camera pans and what you look at and stuff like that. And I was thinking recently, I don't know if there's a good story of the evolution of that, but somebody coming into watching today's films would have a lot of grammar to learn, visual to storytelling grammar to learn to be able to understand what was going on that most of us don't even know that that is happening. Anyway, to pop the stack, I think Joe's question was great. Let's look at a pattern. And then there was a suggestion from Mark Antoine that I had some example patterns from Design from Trust. And I think a really simple way would be the first pattern, I would love to create a design from trust pattern language that's connected deeply into an OGM pattern language or that is symbiotic with it. The first pattern I would create that would probably carry through both would be assume good intent because that's the simplest thing I've hit on as the beginnings of Design from Trust. It's like assume good intent is a well-known sort of idea out of the open source world and plenty of other places. It has interesting implications. I always have to explain, I don't mean naively assume everybody's good. That's not what assume good intent means, et cetera, et cetera. So there's kind of anti-patterns or sub-patterns connected to it. But doing something like assume good intent might be a good starting place for us here. Mark Antoine, you're muted. I don't know if that example is useful to you, Joe, and I see there's a lot of quotes. I'm just trying to understand the context of those quotes. The first chair, the gift. Are these about this? No, so I don't want context on that. I just want to repeat a few paragraphs above where he was talking about a capitalistic property rights-based society. Creative Commons is a big step forward. And I was just pointing out that if you take a few further steps and read all these nasty French books, then yeah, you get to that. And there's also Jonas Salk's response to why he hadn't patented the polio vaccine, which is, would you patent the sun? And there was that Carlsberg Brewery example, which is really cool. Yeah, which April used in a speech a couple of months ago, which is that the Carlsberg brothers and their lead scientists basically patent that they created a very clean kind of yeast for brewing beer whose name I knew a moment a little while ago, and it's in something Carlsbergensis actually. And they released it across Europe, which basically raised everybody's health a whole bunch because you could die of beer, of drinking bad beer before that. And after that, the quality level of beer was substantially better. It's a lovely story. I just have a quick kind of aside, but related aside, which is more or less last year, through a big part of last year, I went through this very kind of intense and fun but naive explosion of creating or imagining pattern languages. So I actually have a pretty chunky list. Some are slightly developed and most are just ideas with names, but I'm kind of psyched about all this coming up and look forward to sorting out these issues. So do we want to start populating this wiki with that pattern or do we want to pick a different example? I'm happy to, the only thing is, I would like to, right now I populated the wiki with the issue and pattern shapes. I did not populate the other elements of my diagram yet because I wanted to see if that was of interest. So it means that those links will are now missing and will have to be added. So I can try to add them by tomorrow as much as possible, but yeah, I cannot make those links yet, but that's not a big deal. I mean, right now, if we want to create a pattern from the main page, you create a new pattern form and so that would be designed from, let's do it, we'll still do it. Well, I would say just that. That seemed like good intent. Yeah. And let me just say something about tomorrow relative to the pattern language project. My own expectation is that a really good result at the end of tomorrow would be that everybody would be excited about creating and contributing to a pattern language. I don't know that we're gonna get into the weeds or do a demo or much of that, but the idea that we have one ready to rock and roll is fabulous. And anybody else who thinks like we might have a different result tomorrow, please speak up. No, I agree. May I share my reflection on what you just said that an ideal art, one of the outcomes from tomorrow could be that people are getting excited about the patterns pattern language and start producing things. So my question related to this is what is our understanding about why, for the sake of what are we creating patterns, pattern language, eventually pattern library? And I know that this question may sound stupid because well, it should be obvious we are all for something better, but if we sense into the potential of a well thought through pattern language and pattern library, it's so huge that it's really worth to give some attention to the why. And the reason I'm saying this because there are many different kinds of patterns and we may want to settle on one or another or a small selection of types of patterns. So I just named two of them that we are using the term pattern I hear it in a very broad sense where they are stories, ideas, memes expressed in stories and more focused sense where patterns are the encapsulated expression of successful social practices responding to a specific problem, challenge in a given domain. So and they are applicable and worth replicating. So I am closer to this more focused sense of patterns because I feel that they can be more useful than calling everything a pattern. And given that I see some sparking fingers and sign of agreement, then a new question comes up that for a pattern to be worth replicating, well, we need to think of the longevity of patterns that creating patterns after we have some templates, it's easy and fun, highly enjoyable because we can feel that, oh, I captured more things that's really worked and there is a successful example about the situation where it worked and it's part of the pattern. So, but there is also the pattern maintenance because those practices are changing, their usefulness is changing over time and who can decide what patterns are still useful or not? Well, that's not a rhetoric question because there is an answer, I have an answer to that, that it's the community of the practitioners that is maintaining the pattern in a given domain, practitioners in a given domain that are maintaining and stewarding the patterns. Without thinking about pattern maintenance, the pattern library would have limited use. So I guess that's all that I wanted to say. Thank you and Charles, I'm sorry, when we're in screen sharing, you weren't in my list of things, so I wasn't seeing you raise your hand, so thank you for saying hand up, you can also use the hand up function in Zoom and I'll see that, go ahead. Sure, just some interesting and quick observation from already a year, well, the last couple of years with Tom Atlee and regarding the wise democracy pattern set and specifically the upgrading from a version one to version two, there's some logistical considerations and concerns which I could go into anytime, but just to flag them as kind of a long, extending from George what you were pointing to, referring to like the changing patterns and the changing pattern set well and once it's codified like in a version one, if and to the extent like they're numbered and made referenced in URLs and so forth, then expanding the set, removing certain things, it gets, there's issues that come up, I just say that, check. But also solvable, but just something to keep in mind. Yeah, thank you. And to my mind, curating the pattern over time is what a community that cares about patterns and sort of naturally do. And so the key is to make the pattern engine simple and compelling enough to want to go use and to make the pattern language crisp and succinct enough that it doesn't turn into describing everything for everybody, which doesn't help. So I think that's where we need to learn to be better sort of pattern writers. And yesterday I tripped across a bunch of articles about I had a sub-thought on writing patterns in my brain that only had like four articles connected to it. And then I started following a rabbit hole to other people saying, you know, a whole bunch of really wise things about the act of writing patterns collaboratively, which I didn't have time to actually digest. But I think the more we can sort of bootstrap ourselves on all of that wisdom so that our pattern language is better the better or something like that. I'd love to wrap the call at the top of the hour unless there's compelling things we need to talk about. So that gives us just a couple of minutes. Any thoughts for now? I was just curious if there's any specific reminders recaps as to what to do before tomorrow. I think maybe all of us made our kind of assignment to OGM 2025, but what else in particular, if anything? I think to read as many as possible the contributions to the conversation from everywhere. Just like let's absorb them and try to just hold them in our heads. I think our contributions are sort of quite different one from the other. And some of us have specific projects for domains or goals or expertise and our recommendations or offerings to the conversation reflect those, which is great. At the bottom of the agenda document, we have sort of assigned people into teams. So right now we have four working teams. So you can see sort of what's where and I think I know of at least one person who's joining in from yesterday. Jean from WytheWySaurus is like, I would love to join in. So he will be in the mix tomorrow, which is fabulous. So I've just added him to the OGM list. He's RSVPing through Eventbrite, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay, so the teams are posted? Yes, the teams are at the bottom of that page. And otherwise I don't know. Otherwise I think just to show up and I'm relying on Matt and his crew who are deeply experienced facilitators and event runners to frame us and set us off on each of the different segments well. I wrote it, but I'd like to reiterate my answer and this is my answer, not necessarily everybody's answer to George's question. Why are we making those patterns? And there's a side of that question, which is there's a lot of pattern catalogs about these things. But I think if I do view one of the goals of OGM to be a community of practice, and there I'm totally with you. And so we want to have what our practices as practitioners that we can share. So that was one goal. So it's our shared contributions to ourselves as a community. But my main goal out of that was all of us have bits of solutions which can benefit from one another. Like I have solved this part of the problem, you've solved that part of the problem and identifying what issues we're addressing, but what issues we're subjected to will enable us, hopefully to create a greater hope from our little solution bits. So that for me was the goal of the exercise of writing a pattern language about our respective practices because there's a diversity of practice in this community. And that's my answer to that question. And you're, thank you for going back to that question because I also wanted to answer George's question in that sense. And you're reminding me of something that I didn't do well in my offer document, in my story document, which is trying to flesh out and articulate what is it about OGM that's different from all these other communities that are trying to solve all the problems of the world. And so far to me, my best working analogy is how Mycelia and fungi metabolize minerals and feed them to trees and have an exchange of nutrients at the rhizomal level and how I think that a piece of what we might get good at and we're not good at it yet because we'll see that we're not doing this yet is inviting other organizations, other movements into the conversation, creating some kind of a Vulcan mind meld, helping them, helping us incorporating the best of what they do into our own practices and then lather rinse repeat so that we can begin actually connecting a whole series of movements that are near each other but different over here, different over there than if we can snap in place loosely without deciding that this is the winner and this is the overall, without going into a hierarchical set of this is the way we're gonna do things but if we can create a pluralistic, polycentric kind of a mesh of communities that are trying to work toward roughly common goals we can pull off the next generation of how we govern ourselves and make all this work and the pattern language is a way of explaining that and our pattern language should reflect mostly the parts of that that are unique to us and we should as much as possible refer to other folks clever pattern languages on how to make good pattern languages, how to build, how to do dialogue online, how to do wise democracy, what not, et cetera and how to include by reference other pattern languages is just a thought experiment in my head so far. I don't really know how that works because Joe was commenting earlier in the chat that the portability and interchangeability and other sort of permeability across pattern languages is maybe dubious at best is how I interpreted your comment earlier so that's how I'm coming at it. Yeah, George. So the other natural analogy I really love is that we're in estuary and estuaries are where many different species meet and their estuaries are also where freshwater meets salty so they're very rich in nutrients there. It's unfortunately where we plant a lot of cities because we have ports and harbors and river mouths and river transport systems so we've screwed up a lot of estuaries but estuary would then imply that we are a community of communities of practice or a constellation of communities of practice so totally, totally agree with that. Other thoughts? Yes. Go ahead, George. Oh, whoever just jumped in. I just said yes. Oh, I like that. That was the shortest contribution ever made. So with that, why don't we wrap this call and we'll see everybody at 7 a.m. Pacific tomorrow and the other, the Zoom dedicated to these calls which is, I think we're making it intentionally different different from the usual Zoom that we use on Thursday so that nobody just sort of accidentally falls into it so that we only get people who have RSVP'd to the workshop. I was a little tempted, I don't know if anybody, how anybody feels about this, I was a little tempted to say there's a bunch of people who are interested but who are not gonna be able to be in our call if somebody wanted to host a separate non-workshoppy OGM check-in call, I'd be happy if they did and recorded it and gave us the recording but I don't know whether that's a good idea or bad. I don't really wanna create parallel tracks but if somebody really wanted to participate but only had an hour to do it, that might be a fun thing to do. Any thoughts? It won't be me. Okay, yeah, cool. I think most everybody here is gonna be in the session so thank you. So, Asta Levista, babies. Yay, a great day. Thank you, thanks for this call, it was great. Thank you. Until soon, thank you.