 Yep. This is the build OGM call on Tuesday, June 29, 2021. And we are ready to build OGM. There we go. And I'm forgetting what note we ended on last Tuesday. But it seems like it would be really good to think broadly about what kinds of tasks and priorities we should have to help build OGM. What are the things we ought to do? And let's use the chat in Mattermost, build OGM chat in Mattermost to record these things. But what sorts of things should we be focused on here so that we're most effective in standing up OGM? And I think let's just start with a light check in just to see where everybody is. For me, I just mentioned I just dropped April off at the start of a 31 mile hike. So I'll be picking her up later today. We just threw, I think, the worst of the heat wave. Yesterday was like the worst day. And it's just very weird to be in a place that's usually very temperate and step outside and have it be like the worst day you've ever been in Palm Springs or Las Vegas. The hottest I've ever lived in was in Wadi Ram in Southern Jordan. I was 117 out. That's the hottest I've ever stood on the outside on. But it's very weird to be where you live and have it suddenly be like a toaster oven and think that this might be our future. That's really disconcerting. Anyway, Mark Antoine and Klaus, do you want to just check in? Well, as was mentioned yesterday, still struggling with sleep issues in general. But actually, today's not too bad. So not much to add since last week, except what I said yesterday about really read Carl Field's latest article that's really worth it. And I'll give you the link shortly. And yeah, I'll see where this goes. Perfect. Thank you. Klaus, let me. Yeah, I just posted something about the jet stream. The jet stream has basically collapsed. And it's not going to come back because it starts at the ice fields of the Arctic where cold and warm water comes together and creates this energy that has fueled the jet stream and think of the jet stream like a rubber band that goes across North America. And it's holding back these weather systems as they travel north from the south and south from the north. And the jet stream has cut them and kept them within their dedicated hemisphere. So that's gone. So now you have hot weather traveling all the way to Alaska and the Arctic and you have cold weather sounds floating all the way down. This is our new normal. It's not going to go back. And in the meantime, the melting of Greenland and the Arctic are basically interrupting the usual Atlantic cycle, which is disrupting weather coming into Europe. So all kinds of bad things are happening in the atmosphere and in the oceans. Yeah. And the ocean streams are actually far more dangerous, particularly for Europe. And there's nothing you can do to stop it because the ice is going. And so I don't know why we're not talking about it because the inherent issues related to this is, for example, that disrupts the cooling cycles of crops. I mean, that's one dilemma. So yeah, I mean, I was saying all this like five, six years ago, it was clear as could be, right? This is where we're going. And the only good news is that finally people are starting to pay attention and wanting to know what happened here. So at a dinner party yesterday and talked about the chess team, they never heard about the chess team. No one on the table ever heard about the chess team. Wow. Yesterday, of course, I was looking at Jim Hansen's report from 1988, where he said basically our observations say that this is all being disrupted. It's like nobody's been listening for a really long time. Um, Pete, then Judy. Morning all. Not much to check in. Doing good. Cool. Modulo. Modulo, the earth. Modular earth disasters. Okay. Judy, then Brian. Life is good. Calendar a little bit too busy with a variety of things. All the normals, nothing unusual, but just um, pace picking up as people contemplate going back to physical meetings and other things and trying to plan for transition sometime in the next four months along those lines. Nobody's jumping to do it right away here. Minnesota is doing decently, but it's uh, it's just the usual instability after a long period of instability of trying to figure out how to move in a responsible way back to more normal. The readjustment to normal is, is really interesting. Um, Brian, then, then Stacy. Stacy dropped off. Brian and Phil. Sure. Uh, personally, things going all right. Um, you know, wife is getting through a cold. My youngest daughter is almost through her cold. Um, family normal. Sounds good though. I mean, like man, compared to the fates of the last year. Yes, we can go do things. Yeah, thank you. Phil then, Stacy. Uh, everything's good here. Um, booked my, I'm moving to London. I booked my flights last night. So that's officially in the works. Um, and I know it's hot outside, but I'm having some technical issues where my computer's overheating. So if I drop off at all, that's, that's why. Thank you. Um, Stacy. Um, nothing to report, but I just had a hard time getting here. I'm sorry. I'm glad you're here. Thanks. Um, cool. So, um, I'd love to just sort of broader conversation about, uh, about build OGM. Just what, what, uh, what, your, just your own perspectives on this, on what, what kinds of things we should be focused on here. My thought would be, I was thinking about this this week, Jerry, after last week's call. Um, I think we should consider building OGM in a pyramidal way, not architecturally, but people at all. But in terms of how we think about it, you know, what are the critical issues in terms of being able to do it technically and socially that are the most important things to talk about first, and then how will that evolve into the early stages and what would we want it to look like in the end stages. And I'm kind of in a ground up mode of thinking about what do we need to do first. And some of the, this calls content last week kind of overlaps with flotilla in some ways, depending on the extent to which we're focused on the, the actual design of stuff. Um, and the, the content use of things. Um, and by pyramidal, what, I guess what I mean is, is a, a planning strategy where we figure out what it's most important to figure out first and address that first, because we need that right away, as this starts to come up. And then what are the more complex things like how are the sovereigns going to connect with us and with each other. And how are the communication things going to work that kind of a progression, because I think we've been running the whole continuum, which is great for brainstorming, but not so helpful for planning. Right. And, and part of my hope for this conversation is to make a bit of a list and prioritize a bit what we should focus on and how to go through that. And it seems really natural that we and flotilla would be parallel conversations because flotilla is sort of about how do we build the flotilla in some, if I can paraphrase, and, and how do those inter-organizational, inter-sovereign kind of exchanges of, of information work and relationships at the other, at other levels work. Perhaps one, one distinction too would be how do we build OGM for individuals? And then how do we build OGM for sovereigns? Because the complexity increases greatly for the latter. And it will require more accommodation as well from us because of the differences in the sovereigns. So that's my thoughts for the day. Thanks, Judy. Pete, does that accord with your thinking about flotilla relative to all this? Yeah, I think so. Yeah, there's flotilla, I would say it's a little bit, I mean, I want to answer yes, but then flotilla is also kind of the idea of, or they, we've purposely kept this, the organization and the structure of it a little bit amorphous, which means it ends up being concerned with other things too. But, but yeah, in general, yeah. That sounds great. Anyone else with thoughts about, about build OGM? What to build? Phil, go ahead. Sorry. Yeah, just to Judy's point, I'm kind of curious as to what the core priorities like could be. I know we've been talking about like OGM structure, what it is, what it means to be an OGM member as both an individual, and then later on as an organization or a sovereign, what those kind of relationships look like, I feel like are one of the first projects or issues that need to be addressed to move OGM forward. Agreed. And I'm, I'm interested in practical questions along the line you just laid out, which is Mark Antoine and Pete created some code that they put on GitHub to screen scrape the brain and put it into a database, for example. Can OGM be the host of that code? Is that appropriate? What does that look like? How does that work? What does OGM need to be or do to be the holder of things like that? Which then turns into, I think, a larger library of contributions to commons that help sort of make these connections. And the build OGM part of that is like, okay, what are the moving parts that need to happen so that that's a normal thing that we know, we know where the entity is, we know how we're doing it, we know under what auspices we're doing the collection of code that builds out an open global mind. That feels to me like an important piece. Mark Antoine? On the topic of code, something that I'm really curious about is you folks are practitioners of making these connections between people and ideas. And what is it you need? What's the, what's the gaping holes in the tools for thought ecosystem and how it relates to connecting people, not just MPS? I mean, I have my own idea about that. I've got tons of them. And you know, I am curious about it from your side. That's a great question. And I've been thinking so hard from the other side that you asking that is like a little bit of a revelation here. And I think what it opens up is some interesting and necessary conversations among the tool users to say, what would we like? What would it take? How would it work? And there's some parts of that that would involve, for example, could we use factor as, could I use factor as a brain substitute in some way? If Michael, if factor had a couple of features that added some of the context from the brain, might that work? And then once in factor, does that mean that conversations with people using other tools are easier or more difficult? And then, and then with other tool users, like, what does that exchange look like? How do we, how do we motivate separation of the tool from the data underneath, et cetera? But partly we need to do this by, by example, by, by trying these things out. And I'm not actually very coherent in answering your question. I'm realizing because it's a really good question. Pete? I wanted to go back just a bit to the, the code. And it raises some interesting questions for me. And I don't really have answers. And I'm not sure that any of us has answers or, you know, it's a, it's questions for discussion and not necessarily for answers. But, but it raises some interesting questions for me. I think of that code as, as free jerry's brain code, more than OGM code, if that's, you know, if that makes sense. And then another thing that, the way that I've preferred to federate and decentralize is with tiny little sovereigns. So I don't think all sovereigns have to be tiny, but, but my observation is that the smaller the group, the more focused and the more, the more mission aligned it can be, it can have a very tight mission and then, and then do that really well. So for instance, you'll see me running CSC collaborative sense commons, which the way I think of it, it all it worries about is kind of the dev ops of making sure matter most runs and meeting words runs and, you know, other things will be running. So it doesn't develop code. That would be maybe another sovereign. And it doesn't kind of popularize processes and things like that. That would be another sovereign. So a sovereign of like four or five, you know, 10 people, I think has some significant advantages and probably some significant disadvantages as compared with a sovereign that's 100 people or 200 people. So it makes more sense for me to think of mean brain being a FJB thing rather than an OGM thing. So then there's, and I don't know what I mean even by thing, right? Belongs to or is separated by or a stewarded by or something like that. The one of the lessons I learned, you know, over the past, I don't know decade or something like that is that it's dangerous to it's important, maybe the opposite way to say it. It's important for things to be owned. And it's important for things to be stewarded. I don't think they have to be owned and stewarded by the same entity. But I've seen code that gets written. And then everybody, nobody wants to say, well, I'm just going to own it and make it clear. Everyone's like, well, I'm not sure who owns it. I think somebody should, but it's not going to be me or I don't want it to be the organization because I want it to be more free than that. But it can't be public domain because then it's too open. And, you know, the, so I've been very careful in the past few years, writing code in the context of some fuzzy organization. The last big one was front line foods, actually. I slap a copyright Peter Kaminsky on it, you know, I own it. And then we can talk about, you know, I'm not going to be greedy about it. I'm going to, you know, I've got a permissive MIT license or something like that on it. Anybody can use it. But if push comes to shove, if someone needs to stand up and say, hey, I own this and I want to protect it, then there's at least somebody who's in that role already, right? Instead of like, you know, I've at Microsoft or Google or whatever big company comes along and through no fault of their own, they're doing something that's not friendly to humans. They go, oh, I think I want to own this cone and it looks fallow and abandoned, you know. So that's not going to happen if it says copyright Peter Kaminsky. So then probably I'm not a great steward of meme brain. And, you know, maybe that's FJB or maybe that's OGM or I don't know, but just some some kind of thoughts and questions around ownership and stewardship. Love that. And completely agree that the smallest groups who really care about anything, and I'll just put it in the meme in the matter most chat, there's sort of like subsidiarity and those terms principles for governing commons both direct us toward what you just said, which is like the smallest groups that really care about something that know how to do something should be in charge of it should hold it should create it should whatever. Then then in the back end, if that's an open source kind of effort and that work was put on a place like GitHub or in some other place that's a part of the commons, I think it behooves OGM to replicate to fork the repo or whatever, and then to collect and curate a larger collection of all these bodies of other people's work. So, so if pure God G is on on a GitHub repo, and we would like to make pure God G more accessible, then we basically fork it that we get all the relationship gets baked in by what GitHub does for everybody. If we improve it, we then submit pull requests, which they would love because we're improving their work. And then, and then I think OGM's role is to say, here's the emerging texture of what we see as this collective global brain and shared assets of how to do stuff, what we do, what we know, some tools that needed to be built because they were missing from this environment we see emerging. Does that make sense, Pete? And then I'll go to Koss. Yes, it does. And what what it does for me is one of the reasons I'm picky or particular about making sure that something is owned is because we've got a society where if something isn't affirmatively owned, it's it's abandoned, right? So what you're talking about with OGM, some kind of curation and collection and stewardship ultimately kind of is it feels like a third place to me, right? It's not abandoned and it's not, you know, it's not enclosed. And I think we're going to have those of us who are working on the commons are going to need to do a lot of work on on explaining that, hey, you know, it's we're not making it like enclosed, but we're not making it abandoned either. And there's a thing in the middle that's really important. And that's what we think it is. And that and we're taking care of it. And, you know, we need to name that and call it out and be more structured about the way that we talk about it and and make it a thing in the world, right? Like right now, it's not really a thing. We can call it the commons, but that doesn't mean much to anybody. So we need to figure out how to own that third kind of, you know, ownership or stewardship, and it's not ownership and it's not really just stewardship. I don't know. I agree. And I was about the joke that the OGM can be like an orphanage for code, but that was a bad analogy. Yeah, bad analogy. And if we can use the matter most chat, it'll be persistent just just as we as we go along class. Yeah, I just put this into the wrong place here. But if you can just replicate it back to matter most, we'll carry the conversation. Just one difficulty, you know, we have here is that we're basically working open source, right? So I'm showing here an example of something that totally copied what we have been talking about and put it into a commercial frame. It's all good because essentially that's what we're trying to do. But it would be nice. I mean, in my case, I don't care. I'm retired, you know, I mean, I just want to get this stuff out and move it around as far as possible. And I'm pleased to see that I'm finally gaining exposure, but none of that exposure is in the commercial sector. And people pick it up and then translate it and use it for their own purposes. So I guess that's just, you know, the nature of things. So it's unfair in some ways, right, for a group of people to combine the intellectual properties and build something and then get no reward, no recognition and no financial recognition out of it. But on the other hand, we are advancing thoughts in people's minds and making people aware of things they haven't considered before. And I mean, I have been usually benefiting from the association with OGM because it spins me into other circles and also makes me think differently and so on. It's a dilemma. I don't know how to develop a commercial frame for OGM in the way we are operating right now. Great question. And in part, I think we're leaning on GitHub, just like Pete is leaning on GitHub to do version control and a bunch of other things that a Wiki would normally do by itself. And that's interesting. I think on GitHub, for maintaining an audit trail of who actually contributed to code. So one of the cool things about code repository platforms is that you can see who did what where and who's fork was, whose pull request was accepted, like the code has some genealogy baked into the way the community is working. And I may be overstating that and I'd love to be corrected if I am. And Mark Antoine just pointed in the chat that you need to be careful about forking that method. And again, I'm an amateur here. So I would love to use the proper methods so that we're curating a collection of how these things work and with proper attribution without reduplication without suddenly sort of forking and wandering far from the groups that know what they're doing and are busy maintaining the code. So let's work on that. And then what you just said, Klaus, is really important to me, which is my thesis walking in is that there's a new way of working together where people make a living while maintaining the generative commons and while donating as much as they can into the comments so that other people have access to the tools and the data and whatever and the processes. And how to reward people for doing that is a key question here. So there's another layer of build OGM, I think, which is let's shop for and pick a reward mechanism. And Pete wrote a note a while ago about some interesting methods. There's a platform called Comacary, which sort of specializes in this, but maybe more than we want. I don't know. But I think that there's a piece of build OGM, which is prototyping or exploring for or in some way just locating and vetting a platform that lets us move value through ecosystems that then is useful to everybody in Flotilla, everybody in Lionsburg, if it's the right platform, it should appeal to a whole bunch of people. So Pete and Mark Antoine. I think it might be Mark Antoine first. Whatever order you'd like. Two things. One of them to pick up on Mark Antoine's fork thing real quick. And maybe I'm anticipating the wrong way. But when GitHub used the word fork for what they ended up using it for, they've got, I think of it as lowercase fork. There's a bigger community fork, which I think of as uppercase fork, which is traumatic and sometimes necessary, but it's not pleasant for anybody. What was formerly called a hard fork? Yeah, it can be called a hard fork. Because I've heard hard fork, which is where the whole community says screw you, we're going this direction. Yeah, hard fork, I think I hear it mostly now with cryptocurrency. And in that sense, it actually mostly just means a breaking change more than more than. So I would call the other thing a community fork where the community, part of the community says we don't trust the original community anymore or the leadership of the original community, and we have to make a whole new community. A lot of times those fences will get mended over the course of the subsequent year or whatever, two years, but it's not fun for anybody. It's really disruptive and it's dangerous. It can actually lead to the whole thing dissipating or whatever. So then a little f fork is no big deal. And it's even to the point, just this week, I saw one letter missing in some documentation. And the way that you fix that on GitHub is you press the big button that says make a fork, and then I made one edit, and then I said make a pull request, and then the maintainer accepted it. So that's as small as a fork can be, and it's not traumatic. It can happen every day or every hour or every couple of minutes. So that's one thing. The other thing is I have a caution flag for GitHub. GitHub is kind of where open source grew up, and it was the place where we did fork and pull, where they actually innovated the idea of pull requests and things like that. Which is what killed SourceForge. Yeah, and also activated a ton of open source energy. So it's been an awesome, amazing thing. With the acquisition by Microsoft, it's not clear that Microsoft isn't either affirmatively and consciously or subconsciously, but it's not clear that they're not enclosing all of open source. And so now Microsoft owns GitHub, and that may be totally benign, and it may not be. So even as I tread on GitHub, because it's been the place where we do that for the past decade, I'm also thinking, thank goodness there's GitLab, which has got an open source version of Git hosting that does pretty much everything that we need out of GitHub. And so I still say that the mechanisms came from GitHub, but that doesn't mean that we have to continue to use GitHub, and we may end up switching massive. We'll probably switch to GitLab at some point, and CSC will be running a GitLab instance and things like that. So just a kind of a yellow flag. So your yellow flag seems to me to be a to-do list item for Build.oGM and neighboring sovereigns, which is like, let's make that decision and maybe migrate over. We need to choose a platform that serves these functions. And then everything you said about small F forking, which I would maybe call soft forking, I totally agree with. And the intention here is entirely to use the fork mechanism for what GitHub enables the communities to do, which is to improve all the bodies of code together without breaking the whole thing. So totally on board with that. I've got actually maybe a question leading into Mark Antoine, which is, so one of the things that you talked about GitHub being is a way to maintain that history of where this came from. And so then Mark Antoine thinks a lot about event streams and maintaining histories of things. So I'm interested to hear more about that from Mark Antoine. With that lovely introduction, Monsieur Perrand. Yeah. The first totally agree with the distinction you're making between small and big fork. It's, but it was about the, if we say we're stewarding the code and we're making these forks of the code to say that we're stewarding the code as this organization, it may give the feeling of the hard fork. And we must be very careful about the social aspects, the social messaging around that. So this is one. And I think it's less important to, how should I put it? The question, the question is, I think what OGM, I expect OGM to want to do is to be able to say, this is the kind of practice we have. This is the kind of tools we need for the practice we have. And there's stuff missing, but here are the pieces we've identified as relevant. And some of them have fallen fallow. If we're going with the commons metaphor. And so we want to re-inject energy and gardeners and stewardship in the fallow parts. And some are not fallow and some are open source and some proprietary. And can we have a conversation with the proprietary pieces? So we have at least agreed upon interoperability, even if we don't have open source, because that also serves our purposes without necessarily, I don't want to be religious about open source though, I believe strongly in it, but I am certainly religious about not putting my thoughts into a silo of which I may lose control. So the question of interrupt and being able to own my data is extremely important. But what I'm saying is there's a social message that we want to say, these are pieces we think are important to us. And it's not about owning them. It's about injecting energy in them. And it's about opening channels between them. Now in terms of history, I think the dynamic of history around knowledge graphs are a bit distinct. That's why I'm building hyper-knowledge. And it's always been an issue I'm aware of that knowledge graphs will be designed as source event-based, event sourcing. So actually, I think that's part of the mission of hyper-knowledge eventually when I get there to have, well, I took this snapshot and that snapshot and these would be the events between them, so that I can translate non-event into event. But that's totally not in short-term scope. What this means for code? I don't know yet. What this means for interrupt? I think this is definitely a conversation that needs to happen. Before turning to Michael, I just wanted to talk a little bit about interoperability as another to-do item for Build OGM, which is how do we approach vendors with proprietary platforms and convince them to architect, to design toward the middle, to build whether it's APIs or connect through protocols or to separate themselves from their data and make the data accessible, or how do we do that? And I think that's a whole sub-process we need to figure out. And I think we need to make it very clear that if the data allows round-trip syncing, that means that any user of one of the tools becomes a potential user of all of the tools, and it can work for them as well as against them. This is precisely what needs to be in the pitch. Exactly. There's benefits. The example I use is there's a lighting district in Manhattan for a good reason, which is when somebody wants to buy a new lamp, they go to the lighting district where there are 12 stores, or at least used to be, 12 different lighting stores, and you get the best variety. So here, if we're trying to do analysis and trying to make our way through and trying to share knowledge, we need to create a neighborhood where lots of different tools play together and play nicely. And we need to figure out, we need to help define what playing nicely means and how it works and how you show up in there. That may mean, I'm just making this up, it may mean creating a gallery within which it's easier to shop for tools. Because right now, if you're looking for a visual analysis tool of some sort, good luck. There's a few people who have written some interesting blog posts. There's some misleading links that are publicity for different tools that are sort of spam. They're native advertising, but they don't look like it, et cetera, et cetera. It's hard to pick your way through. And if we can become a good source for finding your way to the right process, the right tool, the right community, the right facilitator, the right people who can be employed, I think that's a really big, important, interesting part of OGM. So I'm going to add another item to the Build OGM list, which is under the broad bad umbrella of recommendation engine or finder. And Pete and I have a nice long standing conversation about the need for human routers to complement directories and other ways of finding things. Humans with good points of view or perspectives on what matters and what to pick from are as important as really nice and complete databases or visualizations or decision making aids. All of that stuff, I think, works together and figuring out how it works together and prototyping that would be a lovely thing that we could definitely do. Now over to you, Michael, sorry. I just wanted to ask a pretty essential question to me, which is the nature of OGM as a knitter-together glia versus a practitioner and the idea that there is code that resides with OGM and a product that's being built as opposed to being a setter of standards, a connector of different entities, and being modeling, not even modeling behaviors, but asking for behaviors from grantees and associates that says if you, we're looking for people who are doing things the right way in terms of interop, in terms of ethics, in terms of doing things that benefit the commons. And our leverage in doing that is is preaching the gospel, but also granting funding and fostering relationships between those entities. And if we're doing that, the place that we're trying to take the knowledge that we're developing and using, it's funny, there was a Kiko Lab meeting, or actually conversation post-meeting yesterday where we were talking about the idea of developing collective intelligence and then using collective intelligence for a purpose, you know, take climate change, dealing with climate change. That's an objective and the other purpose of creating the collective intelligence is sort of a separate track and you need both and we want to foster both. But let's say the collective intelligence around climate change is something that we need to be able to reside on any of the platforms, entities, sovereigns that we're dealing with and some will be more useful for some actions than others, but you know, it's sort of the price, I don't know if it's the price of admission or it's the price of being a grantee to say, look, you have to be part of this, you have to be interoperable and OGM's knowledge will radiate outward, OGM's knowledge on the subject of climate change as a, for instance, or even a collective intelligence will radiate outwards on these, through these platforms and practitioners, all of which will need to be able to host them interoperably. And if we're doing that, are we a granting organization trying to foster the commons that is a non-profit that can solicit the contributions that we need to do that granting and set those standards, you know, if you believe in interoperability, you know, I will make the list now, but you know, then you want to support OGM because we're going to foster and steward this move toward a different model that other people will participate in as opposed to we're going to build it ourselves and make it a product that isn't in the commons. Mr. Grossman, once again, you have like captured the nugget and dropped it in front of us in a beautiful way. I really appreciate that. And I want us to stay on the questions you've just posed that are really important. And the last thing you said about, you know, interoperability and so forth, I was thinking like, is this some kind of like a new catechism of some sort? That's part of the generative commons, which is our conversations on Wednesdays. I think that there's very much something about here are the things that you're agreeing to do to work in this way. A lot, so a lot of what you're talking about points to the trustworthiness of OGM as a play partner in this new economy. And I'm really interested in designing OGM so that it's as trustworthy as we can imagine it being like trying to figure that out. And I am at this moment stuck on a tiny sandbar, because I'm trying to appeal for grants to come into OGM so I can fill a reservoir and name some people as fellows who would be subject to if you're a grantee, the kinds of things you just said, Michael. And when I to open a bank account, I need an EIN and I need a couple other things that turns out I need to start an entity. And I actually can't tell whether I should start a public benefit corporation or a nonprofit corporation, which I can't find, like to become a nonprofit to become a 501c3 takes like a year and a half, there's an onerous application process and so forth. And we are currently fiscal sponsors of Lion's Berg, which is an actual legitimate 501c3. So I don't know actually what to start OGM or whatever it is as so that it's appropriate and is a trustworthy player to create the open part, the commons part of the platform, and to make things a little bit more complicated. Because we're partnered with Lion's Berg and we're interested in and excited about the steward ownership model, which has a charity that owns all of the shares of a corporation, which is then a platform upon which you can stand up a bunch of different things. That's kind of where we think we're headed. The thing I see for the future is this platform existing where there's open source foundation equivalents on top of it that mined code and their stewards and are basically minding the commons. And there are four benefit organizations that are starting new things where the new things are warranted or don't exist yet. So for example, I envision a story threader's practice like a consultancy or a design from trust consultancy that is actually for there's a for profit but for benefit. So not not trying to lock away IP that is working to feed the commons as much as it possibly can or it doesn't exist on this platform. Like any business that stood up on here is busy sharing what it figures out, whether it's code, process, practice, etc., data. And that in any instance where something already exists, there's no reason for OGM to go invent it. Like if we can convince somebody to write toward interoperability, then we just use that or go there. And then to complicate things further in the middle of that is just me looking for what is the vine I swing to from the brain which is proprietary and closed. Is there a way to convince the brain to be really open in the ways we're talking about? Or what other new thing do I swing to? And there's like a minimum set of things it needs to do for me to just be content doing my little jujitsu thing in the middle of the flow there. It might be three platforms. It might be an open source thing. I don't know. It might be a platypus glued together from a piece of open source code here, a piece of open source code there, a little bit that we write in the middle that makes them work. I actually don't know. And I'm interested in and excited for that journey. And I think we're sort of underpowered to actually achieve that right now, but just kind of head toward there. And if we say this enough and practice it enough and do small tests and so forth, we might actually get to that, to that sort of tool set. And when I'm in the brain, I've said this before, but there's a thought in my brain which is current representatives, which is members of the U.S. House of Representatives, which I had curated by hand and is most clearly out of date. The brain does not know how to do a database query and compare things and brain is not, that's not what the brain does. There are other tools that do that like another tool called the brain, B, R, A, N, E from a bunch of students in Montreal. That's interesting. And there's others, right? So how might this new environment allow for the combination of tools for each to do what it does best? And maybe that means that it's for vendors with interoperable data and that when you tool switch, it's kind of transparent to the user, but you're actually in somebody else's tool entirely. And how do you make a living doing that and who benefits from it and what are the costs that are different platforms? I think all of that is on the table for figuring out as we move forward. So Judy quickly and then back to Michael. Excuse me, I'm just kind of getting confused. And I think most important is figuring out how to get the money flow to work the way you want it to. And perhaps the easiest way to do that would be to go back to Jordan and Bill and clarify in the immediate sense of things, what do you need to do? Because they probably have insights into your particular role and the nascent OGM and sorting out the snarky mess you just described is well beyond the scope of this call and six more like it. So in the expediency mode of trying to get where we have people who can become fellows, I think the quickest route would be to start with them. If they're not the right people, they'll send you to the right people or suggest the right types of contacts for you. But I sort of would like to have an action path that just goes, okay, first calls here, second calls here, then I go to the bank, then I do whatever. Because I think until that's done, there's just a lot of storming going on. Agreed. And my next message is going to be that Jordan and Bill asking that question, copying Phil and Pete and you, if you'd like, and see how that moves forward. Okay. Totally agree, Judy. That's I think my path forward. Michael. Yeah, I mean, I just wanted to say off of what you're saying, a practical point, any 501c3 that starts in my experience and, you know, my wife runs a 501c3 that started as a fiscal sponsor and existed that way until they got their own 501c3 and that's, you know, nobody decides they're going to do something and then just sits around for a year and a half, even if it does take that long, you just operate as a sponsor for a while and then have your own science. Did she stand up a legal entity? I mean, what did she create at the very start of that process? What did she start? An organization that was a fiscal sponsor of another 501c3 that was that was intending to become a 501c3, but it was not a corporation. What is the larval form? What do you tell the bank? I don't, I don't actually know. Yeah, yeah. I mean, I want to tell the state of Oregon, the state of Oregon and the bank because I need an EIN from the state of Oregon. And I need to tell the bank the EIN and I don't actually know what to tell them. And we don't need to solve this here as Judy said, but I'm curious what you're writing because it's like I'm perfectly happy to follow successful survivors of the process. Yeah, cool. I'll check into some details. Cool. Does the, does the rest of what I was trying to play out as my fantasy of how this works work for you, Michael in the sense of it's really important for me as I imagine how these pieces fit together to have them actually be trustworthy and functional while solving for how do humans like us make a living in this environment? How does the commons keep getting nourished replenished and shared out so that all the tools are more powerful from the shared data? How do the tools get motivated to interoperate better so that we can just flip and flop between the tools? What does that turn into as a as a flotilla ecosystem as you are? I mean, I guess I did feel like, and do feel often like things get a little muddy when we say, you know, we're gonna stand up this on that and, you know, the different kinds of relationships. I mean, I think what brings us all here has brought us all here is a sense that we are, we are conspiring to build if not building for the commons and even as we all are stuck in, you know, in capitalist lands and need to eat or, you know, have our companies or do our consulting or whatever it is we do, we would love a world where there was a way for us to co-operate it for the benefit of the commons and some of us are involved in nonprofits, some of us are involved in for-profits, etc. We think of OGM as well as a connective force as a, it's tough. I mean, obviously, you know, OGM doesn't want to be a competing entity with its participants. And we don't want to be like one platform to rule them all. We're not trying to build the next LinkedIn. Don't even really want to build the next brain or whatever. We would just love to have the platform or tool exist in the ways that we're talking about. Yes. Right. But I mean, is it a platform? I'm trying to think of a way to go back to your light bulb. Sorry, Michael. Did you read what I wrote in the Mattermost? Well, you were talking because I did try to comment on what you were saying and I agree totally. I think that us, like OGM, and I'm speaking for myself and I don't want to speak for OGM, but I think that OGM financing private things, except maybe helping private ventures get into the Interrupt and Vagant would make sense. But otherwise, financing a private thing would be counter to its interests. I mean, what we want is to foster, like, we can inject energy and projects in so far as I think they benefit of. And that means open source things with pieces that can be reused in everything and help define how we want the ecosystem of platforms to exist, which is not the same as saying how we want one platform to exist. Yeah, I agree. And I sort of feel like if there were, it was a benefit to OGM to, well, it was a benefit to the commons for OGM to manifest itself on Facebook and Twitter and LinkedIn, we wouldn't, if we really wanted to be there one of the ways we would leverage our power reputation trust is to say, yeah, we'd like to be on your platform, but we will only be on your platform if you make yourself interoperable, if you, like, don't, you know, plunder the data of the people who visit us on your platform demands that we probably could make a Facebook, etc., but demands that we can make of an ecosystem of smaller players and use that as a force to knit people together. That is inspired, defining that kind of code of conduct, I think should be a primary activity of the group. I'm totally in favor of doing that. Which puts a nice emphasis on the gender of commons conversations on Wednesdays because I think that's what that's aiming toward. I think we've just elaborated what that vision could not be. I've been missing the Wednesdays, sorry. That is okay. We're trying to do distributed work. Go ahead, Michael. And just to throw in, you know, I know a lot of these conversations started before my time with Free Jerry's Brain, but, you know, the idea, in my mind, would be that you free Jerry's Brain and OGM's Brain to live on a bunch of platforms where, as you were saying, I think a little bit earlier, you know, your switching cost to go from one to the other is zero. And you say, well, I really, you know, the House of Representatives looks better, you know, on massive wiki and this looks better on Trove and this looks better on Factor and this looks better on Facebook. Doing that data analysis on this dataset works better on this platform, but I want to do this other data analysis that looks better on this platform. Right. And just to play out a piece of this, when you click on a link on a web page, and it solicits a different web page, you send the request out to a bunch of servers across the inner tubes, including ad servers and a whole bunch of, in some cases, extremely complicated back-end processes, all of which send your browser back bits of the page that your browser then assembles and shows to you. And all those elements can live on disk drives, any place in the world that doesn't care, you know, on the inner tubes. The Brain, by contrast, when I click on a new node, is basically looking into a proprietary data format that's local and saying, here's what's next. What if the Brain and all of its associated future neighbors were doing a request across servers wherever in a new kind of infrastructure, and I don't know what this distributed, linked, open, warm contextual data infrastructure is. It's not IPFS. That's not it yet. You know, it's not blockchain. That's definitely not it. That's most assuredly not it. But it's emerging right now. And so that when I find a new service that does some compelling new kind of visualization or analysis, instead of like in an old world platform and say, what's your LinkedIn profile? And if it was really smart, it would absorb up my LinkedIn profile as my resume, here would be like, what is your open global mind link? What is your link into that web of knowledge? And it could then happily play with the knowledge that I'm using. Again, I'm making this up as I'm saying it, but I can envision that there'd be a kind of a canonical way to connect into a new thinking tool, a new visual, a new expressing and analytic tool that would let it fit into my data world in an elegant way that offered vast interoperability. And that could be a proprietary tool and I'm paying them 15 bucks a month. That's fine. No big deal. But they don't have their proprietary silo of data. They're actually connecting into this vast mycelial sort of dendritic network of data just because I know Judy's on the call. And sort of play that out in ways that let us then have this mycelial and rhizomic, I think is a really nice word here because it goes back to Deleuze and Gattari and the rhizomal networks, which they were right about, it's just that it's taking us for goddamn never to get there. And we're each little node in the rhizomal network. It has some degree of ownership and stewardship, the way Pete was describing, where and reliability, and so forth, like we need to understand how trustworthy a node is, for example, and all of that. And we're at the top of the hour, sorry. And we had said that these calls would be an hour as well. Any final closing thoughts for this call? This has been really, really rich and important for me. Rapping thoughts? If nobody else has anything I would say that to what you were just saying, the idea that in an ideal world, everybody owns all of their own data, your brain exists on your hard drive, and the lens you look at that through is, you know, it's like going to the to the optician and use this lens, this lens, this lens, which looks better. And it doesn't, I mean, the technical aspects of what's on the cloud and what's on your hard drive, putting those aside, that you're in control. But we're wanting all of these entities to play together in a way that leaves you that control. Excellent. Awesome. Thank you all very, very much. Super cool. See you on the intertubes. Have a good day, everyone. Thank you.