 So basically, the format of today's session is that we will do a brief presentation about 15 minutes or so, so that we're all roughly on a similar page in terms of our working definition of dowels, which can be iterated and changed, but as well what the exercise today will look like. So after that 20 minute presentation, we will do an exercise to create a mapping of initial text on a base of dowels and split into smaller groups. Then we'll regroup and share findings, split into smaller groups again for another iteration, and then we'll close with next steps for research and how to continue. So the workshop is called Taxonomy of Dowels, and I'll just think over it. So, but it's actually towards an initial taxonomy of dowels because a taxonomy is about a PhD's worth of work and we have about two hours today. So we're doing taxonomy of dowels, but what's a dow? So a lot of people use this term very differently and a lot of its origins are very far from where we're at today. So a lot of people might remember in 2014, 2015, there's the concept of kind of unstoppable businesses and also the idea of kind of runaway, Skynet-like entities, a certain autonomous organization. And the idea that it would kind of run away and there was no way either jurisdictionally or otherwise to stop it. But then looking at where we are at today, dowels look very different than this. Most of them entail some form of like human interaction. So for the purposes of the workshop today, we've put together a rough definition. It's actually coming from a rough definition for audiences outside of the blockchain realm. So it might not be as technical as you are used to. So we're planning today decentralized autonomous organizations as a software-based organizational framework lowering the cost of institutional guarantees and using incentive design to coordinate for common goals. And of course, as far as definitions go, all of these separate terms inside this definition could use their own. But for the purposes of today, we will iterate and validate this definition through the process of taxonomy design. And to get started with the kind of definition of dowels, we thought we would highlight just a couple of dowels that I think a lot of us are familiar with that are operating today. All right, so I'm gonna talk a little bit more. So we started to break this down into just like a few components right now to talk about, but in the exercise, there will also be a few more. So for prime directive, that's like, okay, what's the purpose of this dowel? And for MOLIC, it's accelerating the development of public Ethereum infrastructure because part of the reason is many teams need this throughout the Ethereum ecosystem, but they don't wanna do it alone, partly because they might think that their foundation should pay for more of it, but if you pull more of your funds together as a network of organizations, maybe we couldn't accomplish more. And then the membership process for MOLIC is an existing member of the dow needs to champion new membership proposals. And as part of that championing process, you have to deposit 10 eighth. And even if the member doesn't get approved in the dow, the person that champions it will get the 10 eighth back. So there's no like slashing if you propose a member that's not, that didn't get admitted. And then basically the voting process for all proposals, whether it's for becoming a voting member or applying to get shares that you confirm so you can develop something, you just need like a simple majority and there's no form required. So if MOLIC is about 60 people now and like, you know, five people show up in the vote, it would still pass. And as I said before, it's like, there are two types of proposals, but as far as the smart contract goes, it doesn't really care if you're applying to be a member or if you're applying to be a grantee of the project. And then MOLIC also has an exit process. Not all dows necessarily do, but it's like a novel rage-quitting mechanism where it allows you to exit the dow and especially if a proposal is about to be passed and you don't align with it or you feel that the dow is moving in the wrong direction, it's like wasting money, you don't want it to take some of your money, you can rage quit and since the proposals are in a grace period, you'll get your proportion of the treasury back. So yeah, MOLIC is unique in the sense that there is a common treasury and each person owns a stake of it because whenever you're applying for membership, you're putting your depositing money into the dow in exchange for your shares. So that's basically describing MOLIC briefly. Do you want to talk about that? So how many people are familiar with Genesis Dow? Could I see a show of hands? Okay, it's still about a third of people. So Genesis Dow is another example of a dow that's operating today. It's based on the Dowstack framework and operated by Dowstack. How many of you are familiar with Dowstack just to see a show of hands? So a few more, cool. So you can kind of, and I might disagree with some of what I say, but this is what I think, if you use my own. I see Genesis as the main kind of advocacy dow for Dowstack. So it was started by Dowstack members and is often maintained by a larger kind of Genesis Dow community. So similarly in keeping and defining a dow, having a prime directive or its kind of objective function to simplify for the Genesis Dow, which is built on the Dowstack framework, its role is to accelerate the development of public Dowstack-based infrastructure and organizations. So that means the Genesis Dow is primarily to support both the technical development of Dowstack, but also the community and social development of Dowstack. So what it looks like in practice is like a community forum that you use MetaMask or NOSA State to interact with and send transactions. And you come to decisions about who might be funded for some community work, community fundraising, who might be funded for some technical work like building bonding curbs for Dow. But it looks mostly like a forum that people vote on and come to conclusions about how to support Dowstack in a larger frame. So the membership process, basically it works different for different Dowstack-dow for the Genesis Dow. It's more culturally determined at the moment. So the kind of cultural norms around becoming a member of the Genesis Dow is that a wallet address, ideally a human identifiable person, but that's not technically hard coded, submits a proposal advocating for their own membership. So what this looks like, I did it. There is basically a Google forum that I put together being like, my name's Kia, I want to join the Dow because I want to support this community doing SYZ. Here's what I've done in the past to support this community. Please accept my request for reputation. So reputation is not to be confused with August reputation. It's actually a token that's internal to Dowstack-dows and is non-transferable. So you can think about it almost in a sense of you might have a token that's financial capital, whereas reputation in a Dowstack-dow is social capital. So when you advocate for your own membership, what that means is that you are given reputation or social capital by the Dow and thus have voting power in the Dow. So the membership process, just to simplify, is you go to the Dow and say, hey, I want to join and the people vote on whether you join or not. And usually you're using some sort of persona or human-readable identity to advocate for yourself. And the voting process is somewhat complex, but to do a super simplified version, this is based on the Dowstack framework. The Genesis Dow, once again, is based on the Dowstack framework and they use holographic consensus, which you can basically say there's two tiers of how the governance process works. One is that there is a basic voting process, but on top of this voting process, there's independent prediction markets where you use the Jen Dowstack token to predict whether a proposal will pass or not. If you predict successfully that a proposal will pass, it will get boosted in the main interface. And being boosted just means it kind of appears at the top of the interface and no longer requires an absolute majority to pass. So absolute majority means 50% of the people who have voting power need to vote. Instead it has relative majority, which means that only 50% of the people who vote have the reputation voting power that votes has to vote in order for it to pass. So basically to simplify that, there's a prediction market that says, I think this proposal will pass independent of the vote. And then if that prediction market does, it means it's a lot easier for that vote to either pass or fail. If you don't have a boosted proposal, it's really hard to get something passed. Simplified. There's a lot of other kind of smaller nuances, but I don't want to go necessarily into them in detail, but very happy when we go into breakout sessions to help any group that wants to look at this doubt. And one thing that's interesting in terms of preparing Genesis Dow to MoLock Dow is the exit process. So whereas MoLock, I think a lot of us are familiar with the kind of rates quitting, everyone likes using the term. In Doussak Dows, you could say that the exit process is actually technically undefined, whereas in MoLock, it's leveraged. In Genesis, you could say it's actually difficult to exit the Dow. You could do a proposal that says, hey, I want to be no longer recognized as a member, but since at least kind of technically speaking, their reputation or voting power is not transferable, there is no way that you should be able to give it up unless you were to in some way, maybe like publish a private key or something. So there's not really a way that the exit is technically leveraged or socially leveraged in Doussak Dows yet. So for today, to switch gears a little bit, those are some Dow really super brief examples, but to bring it back to taxonomy design and to look at where we are at with what we mean about Douss today, we're building on the work of this paper. Hopefully you guys can read this. It's called A Method for Taxonomy Development and its Applications and Information Systems. It's primary author is Nickerson and it was published in 2012. So maybe people too, taking pics. So we wanted to use a little bit more rigor in terms of how we approach this rather than being like, these Dows fit in this group, these other Dows fit in another group. So we're gonna do another super brief run through of the methodology we'll be following today before we break out into groups and try it ourselves. So to define taxonomy now, taxonomy is a system that describes how different concepts are related and organized within a specific hierarchical structure. But in the context of this workshop and the context of the paper that we'll be following, they define rather laboriously a taxonomy as a set of dimensions, consisting of mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive characteristics. So what does that mean? Mutually exclusive means that, and you guys, once we have the worksheets out and everything, it will become more clear, but mutually exclusive means that one Dow in a certain dimension can't belong to multiple different characteristics. So you can't say that a Dow, if you look at membership entrance process, you can't say that a Dow is both permissioned and permissionless. You have to pick one or the other and the taxonomy categories have to be mutually exclusive in that way. A Dow can't belong to several of them at the same time. Otherwise, you won't produce a kind of clear tree of a taxonomy. Does that make sense? Okay, and collectively exhaustive characteristics, every Dow has to, there shouldn't be a characteristic that's empty or there shouldn't be a Dow that doesn't fit on the list because then the taxonomy doesn't include the whole field. And you can say that it's used to explain and operationalize a category of objects a taxonomy is. So this means that it shouldn't necessarily be perceived as an ontology, it could be used to produce an ontology, but mainly and throughout the research paper, it says what's a useful taxonomy, what's a good taxonomy? And the tautological definition is that it's one that is used. So we don't see this as necessarily a finite kind of description of a static field, but one that's put into use to produce new language, to produce, to also highlight where there are gaps currently. Sure. So this diagram or flow chart that we're gonna go through is in that paper and it basically describes the process. So first to begin with, you'll determine the meta characteristics. So it's a high level interaction between, for our case, it's a high level interaction between a user and a decentralized autonomous organization. And then the ultimate, and then the ultimate like what are our ending conditions? And it's to conclude an initial taxonomy, we will map a set of dows and a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive characteristics. So that's essentially what Kia just went over. So this is like the diagram of the different paths you can take. You can either start with conceptual to empirical. Basically, you can conceptualize new characteristics and dimensions of dows, examine the objects for these characteristics and dimensions and then create or revise your taxonomy. And then for empirical to conceptual, it's identify a subset of dows, identify common characteristics and group the dows and then group these characteristics into dimensions to create or revise your taxonomy. So as you're going through this process, I mean we did exercises before we're talking about dows, we're figuring out the characteristics and then that's just flowing into applying them to other dows and it's just like this loop until you come up with the best terms to describe or to create the taxonomy. So as we said in the definition of taxonomy, it's a set of dimensions used to, used to consist in like mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive characteristics. So what is the dimension? What is the characteristic? So you have one dimension that can have multiple characteristics. So one example is like she just said, membership entrance, permissioned permissionless closed. We can talk more about what closed might be. I don't know if we wanna talk about that now, but that's kind of like, it's like for permissioned, it's there's like a clear way like encoded in the smart contracts for how you can enter for permissionless. It's like, that's also in the smart contracts, but you don't have to like apply to join, you can like buy the token on the market. And then for closed, that's this kind of like, it's a decentralized autonomous organization, but it could be something like with 10 groups, so you're like a 10 people, you're in it with a group of friends and you just kind of like decide when to add people to the DAO or not, just like based on the people that are in the organization. So that's more of a DAO and the technical sense of like people are creating an organization on the blockchain, but it doesn't really have like easy entry paths or yeah, essentially. So then basically what we're gonna do in developing the taxonomy is we come up with more dimensions and we come up with more characteristics. Like whenever we went through the example with the malloc and Genesis before, we also defined something like exit process, et cetera, et cetera. So after this presentation is done, we're gonna do some of these exercises ourselves. But basically in the worksheets, what we're gonna be doing, do you wanna talk about this here? Yeah, so that was our kind of brief presentation and to give an overview of DAO's and taxonomy design. So do we feel like, well, okay, so I'll say what we're gonna do first and then we'll see how clear it is. So what we would like to do is actually have people break into groups of just quite a lot of us. So it's maybe five to six people with the people around you and we are going to pass out worksheets where we've actually predefined dimensions and characteristics for the taxonomy such as membership entrance, membership exit, the number of active participants, legal entity, et cetera. And so it's a kind of gridded row like this and all of these that are on the slide right now. So, and we've suggested several example DAO's for you to evaluate in your group. So we've suggested Moa Wauk, Genesis, the DAO, MakerDAO, and Ethereum. And of course some of these may or may not be what we come to define as DAO's in the future. But you are also welcome because there are blank rows and columns in the worksheet to choose your own DAO's to evaluate and also to suggest your own dimensions and characteristics that should belong in taxonomy based on the brief framework we just laid out. So we can go back one slide again. So for the moment we will take about 15 to 20 minutes in groups to, and we ideally have each group evaluate two to three DAO instances and it is encouraged for you to pick DAO's that are not on the worksheet. And actually, you know, I'm happy to provide and go around and do a list of DAO's that we're more familiar with and I'm happy to help you work with them and I think we'll be just roaming to provide any missing information. Yeah, and then, oh should we do that now? I mean, before that happens or is it after loops? Sorry. I think we're gonna skip this, we can do it. Oh, sure, okay, one minute, sorry. Yeah, happy to do it. So maybe then if you bring up the spreadsheet and then people can see what I did. We already have these, yeah. I guess if we work with this. So do you want to facilitate that then? So another thing that we can do together before we start going through the taxonomy for, before we start doing this for the taxonomy or the dimensions that we've defined, we can also come up with a few as a group that can be written on the sheets just so we can go through the process of defining the dimensions and characteristics together. So maybe we can just start off by doing one and see right now if someone wants to raise their hand and propose another dimension. But what we have here is membership entrance, membership exit, number of active participants, legal entity, dispute revolution, with resolution, life cycle phase, human identity, and deliberation. It's like there are a few more dimensions and if you have an idea, raise your hand right now. So when you say legal entity, do you mean the GAL itself is wrapped in one or? Yes, legal, yes, like it has a legal wrapper type. Like for example, like MakerDAO. There are a lot of stakeholders, like Backspac Foundation or Aragon Network DAO. I didn't put it on that sheet because I don't know how many people are familiar with the operations of Aragon DAO, but I'd love John to put it on the sheet. So yeah, that's kind of what legal entity means. But for now, we can see if anyone has an idea for another dimension and if you don't, we can go through it. Engagement threshold or desired engagement threshold? So we have number of active participants and the way that we have defined that right now is how many addresses or nodes have participated in governments over the past 12 months. So we tried to define that as like engagement, but I guess that the threshold would be like how many people are members versus how many people are active. That might be. I'm going to phrase it better when I'm working on it. Yeah, yeah. I'm thinking like, is the DAO aims at having a higher participation or it aims at having a lower participation for decision making. So it's not related to what's happening, but it's designed for. Let's go through. No, this will be interesting to see if we can create like some dimensions around it. So maybe let's try, should we try like five or 10 minutes just talking about this use case, okay? So what would you define as the characteristics of this threshold? Gas paying actions is the first layer. Say that again. Gas paying actions. Gas paying actions. Yes, if you're thinking, if you're watching the governance participation, but actions that involve gas, so it's taking, voting, and reporting. Okay, I'm trying to see where you're going with this. Gas, say that again. Gas. Gas paying actions that cost gas. Okay, and then what's the next? So now we're going to isolate voting. Now, what are the other characteristics for engagement for how many? How many times a day should you check? Do you know how much daily attention is required for like looking at the status or seeing what the new votes are or something with that count? So I know we're defining what the number is. Yeah, I need your help here. I'm not seeing these as related. Are you? I was just trying to separate two types of dials. One is that one percent participation and one that one is 30 percent participation. That's pretty much one. So kind of like Warram or? Let's say attention hungry dials and attention live dials. That's what I was trying to separate. Okay, so how would you, if you're going to take Malik and Genesis as an example. Perfect, perfect. No, so say it's on the sheet right now. So the two options are attention hungry? Well, ideal governance through low percentage subset of users. Ideal governance through high percentage subsets, okay? Okay. Is that a word? That's the problem I find with it is it's like, it's like a very, it's not like defined in any code. It's not. It's why I said I'm going to try to write it better. Okay, okay. Yeah, so this is something we just ran into a lot when we were setting some of the dimensions ourselves. So the first thing is that a lot of them are hard to quantify, but also you would want a significant amount of data to be able to set what that threshold parameter would be. So you would want to look at all existing dials. And this is why I realized it's kind of like a PhD of work that we want to continue is that you would want this data to be able to say like the threshold of activities like 30% or like how many transactions interact with a dial smart contracts on a given day. And you would want to look at all of the operating dials and then find an average there and choose the break point. So it's really hard to quantify for this. I think it is really important to set it as a moving target, but we don't necessarily have the data for it. So I would say like there's a quorum, which is like level of engagement and kind of mandated technical engagement in order for the dial to function. But then there's also just amount of transactions interacting with the smart contracts of the dial on a given day. And you could, but also I think that there's a little bit of a chicken and egg problem where you could say that, oh, it's optimal governance is for a small amount of people. But then it's like, what if that optimal or stated objectives change over time and then it becomes for a larger whatever. They're both kind of in a recursive feedback. Yeah, as you can see, the feedback is also between the taxonomy and the use of the quorum. As you put something, let's say that you make in your taxonomy that the dial states their desire to be in the threshold. Then actually when you deploy that, now we're going to actually think about it because it is in the taxonomy. So you can think back in between like how structure shapes, agency and agency shape structure, I think it would be really cool that we try to figure this one out eventually. And in that, specifically, they're thinking of creating like upgraded dial buttons and this is something really easy to deploy on an era. Then you would have like ideal governance for 15 people when your dial reaches 25 people. There's a button like, hey, do you want to take a moment to reflect on what are the different parameters that you might want to approach in this region? Yeah, that's very interesting. And we can talk more about maybe an example where it might be easier that's not on the worksheet that could be kind of related, just like generally, what is the voting process? Is it based on one person, one vote? Like you have some kind of identity mechanism so you can actually use that governance process. Is it token weighted? Is it like reputation weighted? So that's an example of something that we could have as how do people engage with the voting process because if you're talking about as things upgrade that is introducing another voting mechanism, right? So then that mechanism can just start to be defined. So I mean, I think that can be an interesting exercise or dimension to think about in this worksheet because that is also one of the most easier ones to grasp. But yeah, I think the ones that involve data are super interesting but difficult to do in the context of this workshop. Like we were even thinking as far as like, okay, how do we, like some of these, maybe it's like a Gaussian distribution and we want to like figure out like, what's that number there? Like what's that number there for like average holdings of like average, like a current, average number of tokens that each like Ethereum address has. It's like, well, maybe you have like, you know, a lot of people at the top or maybe it's not like that. It's like a different distribution curve. So I think there are a lot of like interesting metrics that would be nice to define and then see where the different DAOs fit. Yeah, another dimension could be in my opinion, the DAO is used to manage funds or not. And this is connected to another thing that is if the decision is then made on chain or off chain, because some DAOs are just used to make decisions and not to release funds. Yeah, so just to repeat that so that everybody heard one proposed dimension is, does the DAO manage funds or not? Yes or no? And then there would be a corollary to that whereas if the management of funds is directly on chain. So a DAO could be used just to make decisions about where funds go, but it doesn't necessarily facilitate the actual transaction. We are putting something that is not really in funds but then implementing a policy in a company. Right. Makes sense. So it could also just be implementing a policy. We can definitely use that one. So there is certain things of like, it does get a little ambiguous here because with Ethereum, most interactions involve some sort of funds in some way always. But we could say is there a smart contract that manages a common funding pool and is that funding pool managed on chain or through the DAO decision making process? Great. Was that clear to everybody as to the potential one? Good. Thanks. I want to make a suggestion. Yeah. Use the common dimensions that are used for quick because that's any voting service. So is it, is it too well drawn, is it not, right? Does it have liveness requirements, right? Is it, is it, does it require full security, partial security, is it asynchronous? Right, are there guarantees, right? Is there, so what type of attack vectors do you have, right? The different types of conversion types for even these problem of course. So this is already giving a bunch of images. So we can definitely use those. I think what we set out to find is the meta characteristic for doing this taxonomy is on a higher level human interaction with the DAO. And a lot of those definitions are very much on the kind of protocol like layer zero level. So I think that they, I would definitely encourage, we can use some of them, liveness, asynchronous, yes, no, happy to write, to use those as part of it. But I think that we are not necessarily doing a kind of base layer examinational on those lines today. You could say, what's taking, like this monetary reputation, hybrid, it's fine. Sure. Whether sharers are recognized as securities in U.S. law? Sweet. Sweet. Maybe we'll keep that one off the Marcia. In the back. Like approach to profit, whether it pays out to individual shareholders proportionately or equally, or whether it doesn't make a profit at all. Sure, one of the ones we're thinking is a profit or non-profit, but I like the distinction of, also you could put like for-profit, hierarchical, for-profit, cooperative, for-profit. You could make a smaller distinction, a more granular distinction there, which I like. And then for security token, we can do like, for the ones that we don't, like people created them and they never really said what it was and it's based on like exchanges to analyze, those can be undefined. But I think there are like, you know, queer tokens that say, this is a security token. Maybe no, it's gonna be harder. Yeah, but can also be like utility, one of the stuff. Yeah, but people might say it's a utility, but it's a security. So you can say utility token because they say it's one, but maybe not, like, that can be like another branch. It's like, is it no because the team said it's no or because it was analyzed by someone else that it said it was no? Like, because yeah, that's a, maybe that's related to like undefined, but yeah. This might be too low level, but maybe like, which like framework it's built on. Totally. And you could say also like, is it built on a framework or not? Yeah, or is it the one? Yeah. As you realize, that's also like kind of turtles all the way down because you've been having a kind of framework or whatever, but let's keep it kind of basic, I know. Yeah, well, I mean, you could say like, everything based on Aragon OS, it's either compatible with Aragon OS or it's not. So it's like, and probably the same with, I guess, the arc or whatever the lowest level of downstate is. Yeah, totally. And you could also say like, forks and mollok. Right. Are not necessarily, they're not compatible, but you could say that they are built on an existing framework that also other downs use. Any others? I'm not sure if this is included in the lifecycle phase, but whether a doubt is supposed to last indefinitely, or whether it has like an end state in mind for it's not indefinite. Yeah, super nice. I think it's different than how we define the lifecycle, so that's more like, is it supposed to end or something? Yeah. Is the end defined? Sunset. Sunset. Yeah. Sunset. Sunset. Shortly or long bit. Finite versus infinite game. Yeah. Yeah, it's a bit cheeky for a time out of me, but it works for today. But what would you call the top thing? Sunset. Sunset. Yeah. I'm not small, because I see what you mean. I'd be like, what depends a lot on what the, so just also to repeat. So it was right up, do you need consensus before an action happens? Or can an action be initiated before consensus is reached? So you could use a concrete example of, can some of the funds in the commons pool be distributed without having, however consensus is defined in the doubt before that's reached. So you could say kind of consensus or core and dependent action. I can slash right there. Sorry. I have a question about like, maybe I'll sort of tell you that, would it make more sense to have like a list of true or falses, associated like, does it use whatever like Robin tool or the like governance system? Does it use that or which system does it use? And then you would have having like a really long list of options and it might be crossovers. Like when it comes to text honestly, what's the better to have a true false with a long list or to have a single category of multiple options? So I think, I think this is one of the, like as you do this, like true or false, it might be like part of that recursive, that kind of like loop where you're like, hey, maybe there's a better way to group this thing with all these yes or no's. So I think that that's kind of like the process. Like it might be easier to start with like, staking yes, no hybrid, but it might just like, this might just fit more into like, okay, well what's the voting process? Because you know, it can go really deep, like the mammals, you know, like so just like. Starting with the speciation of doubts. Yeah, that's exactly what's going on here. So we can like start to name different, I mean, that's like the ultimate goal is see if we can give each DAO like one like name. It's like, Malik is bleh, like just come up with something. But then we're gonna end up committing all the same crimes of veneers, you know? In the end, I feel like my each that's starting to be born here is for a simple permissionless taxonomy that requires close to no education to be understood. But we're building a little monster here. I mean, I think part of the problem is like, you say decentralized autonomous organization, people don't really know what that means. So it's like, it's really bad to, yeah, it's like, I don't think that's gonna make people realize like what these organizations are. It's just like, I'm a corporation. It's like, okay, well you're an LLC or you're cooperative or you're like a social benefit corporation or you benefit, yeah, so it's like, that's what's gonna evolve in the DAO ecosystem. But since maybe the characteristics are more like nimble than corporate law, it's gonna be like a little bit different. There will probably be more types of ways that we're classifying things. And yeah, just like in your corporate bylaws, you might have like different characteristics of how you might allocate funds or what your purpose is, but it still kind of like rolls up into a simpler definition. Yeah, so this was our exercising dimensions. And so you're gonna see on the worksheet that there's a lot of blank spaces. So feel free to add some of these in Classify or if there was something that you really thought that we didn't discuss that you want to use to classify or tax on my different DAOs, feel free to add that. Yes? Just one last thing. The thing is, of course, here that these are the employee vote in this one question. Yeah, we didn't add that, but there are blank spaces so you can add it. We didn't define everything. We wanted to leave some of it for you guys all to decide. And then so like how many groups? Like, should we do five people? Yeah, I think we can try to get in five or six person groups and each group will just one hand out that you can use together. There are pens and all of the dusts. Yeah, that's fine. It's pretty easy. Thanks. We're going to have about 30 minutes for this and then we're going to put them into the spreadsheet and map what language is all produced.