 I always love coming early to talk to you. You what, Stacy? I always love coming early just to talk to you. Thank you. This is the Genitive Commons call on Wednesday, July 21st, 2021. And Michael, we were just talking about Klaus's project and the Food Systems Project and how it's starting to formulate and how important that is for OGM. And one of the questions I wanted to ask here was, might we repurpose this hour to become a food systems standing call? Because with the Genitive Commons, I think we're, I think we have an interesting purpose here, but I don't know that we have like motive power around the actual Genitive Commons right now. I know that I show up to these calls without a real agenda plan for what to do next and that we meant to bring other people into these calls by inviting, you know, other people who care about this issue and I haven't done that. So thinking about maybe turning this time slot into a useful time slot for a Klaus and team to figure out how to make that work. Does that make sense? Sure. I mean, I do think that the, I missed the building OGM call yesterday so I don't know where that went. We spent much of it around Klaus's project actually. Oh, okay. Yeah. So, I mean, I'm curious just about how this issue of, you know, what is OGM's relationship to the Commons and how, I mean, how does this work? It's a big issue. It's a big issue in terms of like generating more participation for what we're doing. I'm still unclear on it. I think a lot of people are, so I don't, you know, I know you don't want this issue to go unaddressed. So I'm just trying to like figure out how we... And keep that flame alive. But I, you know, I mean, it's not like we've really gotten there. Yeah, yeah. Are you puzzled in the sense of not sure what answer that could be out there or is there a solution in your head that if we did this, that would actually be really satisfying? Well, I mean, I think it comes back. I mean, the simplest, I mean, it has to do with OGM being an example of how working for the Commons could work and, you know, having a really clear statement about what OGM does to support other people putting things into the Commons and that that is like, if you don't know what to do with your thing that you wanna do for the Common Good, OGM is the place to come to like channel it to the Commons. I mean, and so like the specific thing has to do with, you know, has to do with erasing those IP issues and, you know, emphasizing interoperability and common ownership, which demands of OGM, I feel like it demands a, I don't know how to put it even, but, you know, a charter that, you know, that says this is what we are, this is what we do. Your contributions here are, are in this spirit. In this spirit and, you know, we're, I mean, I think there's been a lot of dancing around, I know in your own head and everybody else about, oh, like we could stand up this for-profit entity and it's all very squishy and, you know, if everybody feels like, well, wait, I don't know if I can bring my thing here because it's going to end up being OGM's for-profit entity when it combines with this thing that somebody else is doing. It's just, it's not attractive, I think, to people who don't want to be involved. So that makes good sense. And we, and I think we would do well to just focus on these questions for this call right now. And I don't know that we'll solve them. But, and we did, this call started with the goal of writing a generative Commons agreement. Yeah. Or pledge or something. But we called it an agreement because the idea was exactly what you said, which is like the marquee of Queensbury, when people step into the boxing ring, they know what the rules of boxing are and they're going to try not to violate those rules. Every martial art, or at least most martial arts have those kinds of rules. Some martial arts are more vicious than others. And here we're trying to tame a rather vicious marketplace that over-owns IP, that makes it hard to figure out how to get there by declaring some things we believe and some rules that we adhere to or some things, conventions. What a copyright is not a convention. It's a set of laws, I guess. It's a set of legal structures. But we're sort of picking our copyright terms intentionally toward the Commons, as opposed to what normally would happen in like a startup camp, which would be like, oh, go ahead. Here's some new IP, who gets a slice of it? And in our actions so far, I think we're mostly propelling in this direction in the sense of a lot of what we've got is on GitHub and GitHub, not privately but publicly, and in so doing, we are obviously sharing with the Commons, et cetera, et cetera. But we haven't sort of manifest in any kind of formal agreement or even just like written down agreement what these sort of principles are. So I think the least we can do is create a shared document that says, here's how this is evolving and where we are, what the state of the art is right now. In terms of setting up, let me just hypothetically set up like what a consultancy might look like and how it might work with the Commons and let's see if that works, all right? So let's pretend that we stand up a story threader's, sorry, let's pretend we stand up a design from trust consultancy, which is something I would love to do. My goal would be for that consultancy to make a living for people who are executing on projects for companies that are doing this design from trusting. In those kinds of engagements, they would clearly run into moments where there's proprietary or private information to the client organization, whatever it is, that needs to be protected in some way. But all other things like methodologies, data that was collected in order to just assess a market, other kinds of things should be put in the Commons. Basically, whatever as much as possible means, right? And there you have to read some intention into how did that work. So for design from trust years ago, I invented something called the Stakeholder Trust Assessment which is a template exercise I can walk people through. You can use it for a couple of hours. It can also be a conversation for a couple of days worth of work because as you start answering the questions of what, as you walk around and do each stakeholder and look at like, do they trust you? That'll open up really interesting conversations that can then turn into other exercises. So this exercise I would put into the Commons, whatever that means. And I actually don't know whether I would want attribution or not probably, but if that's not helpful, I would be like, nope, no need. And I would hope then and maybe expect then and maybe we would need to sign an agreement then that other such inventions of this group would be put into the shared Commons. Now that doesn't need to apply to other enterprises that are coming in to play. What would apply then, I guess, is that, so that doesn't mean, I mean early on when Free Software Foundation was moving and Richard Stallman had GNU the general public license, there was this fear that any system that used GNU aspects was infected by GNU and that everything else would be made Free Software. And that turned out to not be a well-founded fear. Exactly, that wasn't a thing. And so I can see that kind of a situation sort of here. It's like, okay, so what does that mean for things that we bring to the party? And I think what we're trying to promote for other vendors of software services, platforms, stuff like that is to write toward the Commons so that whatever data they collect is available so that the tools are accessible from other tools so that when their platforms and tools are used they are actually improving this generative Commons concept. And I'm not sure exactly what that means. I'm like sort of thinking it through as I say it and I don't know that I'm saying anything new. But what does that look like for a third party vendor? Because in an ideal world we wind up with better interoperability between the tools but also better data interchange or interoperability, whatever that means. So that's really interesting to me is that instead of the data being siloed off into each tool that the data actually is in the generative Commons so that when one person using tool A improves their patch of data another person using application B touches that data and their world is made better because the data is now in better. It's more reliable. It's been updated to a new number, whatever it is, right? So I think there's different aspects of this. There's kind of the data layer of the generative Commons. There's the inventions aspect of it. And I can envision a design from trust consultancy that is doing land sale business. If suddenly lots of organizations in the world decided that the way to fix the world is designed from trust a thing that I wish would work true in my head. Then there could be lots of revenues flowing through such a consultancy without the consultancy having to own all of the tools and the tools being made available openly might mean and this is clearly my intention not everybody's but might mean that the capacity to design from trust would be widely sprinkled through the world and lots of people would be applying it and using it and that would be fantastic, right? That would be a huge win. If this were contagious beyond the limits of whatever tiny organization with X number of staff growing at rate Y could ever fulfill. So it's a little bit sort of like free hugs. Once you've seen the sign on the person that says hey, free hugs, like you can go draw free hugs on your own sign and go stand on a corner and off of free hugs. So here it's a little bit more sophisticated than that. Maybe not that much. Can you be any more sophisticated than that? I don't know, that really reaches so many layers, right? So anyway, does that scenario sort of pencil out? Yeah, I mean, I guess the thing that comes to me is like, okay, so what is OGM's relationship to design from trust and how does the funding that allows, I mean, if design from trust is one of the entities that wants to create for the commons while being sustainable in some way itself isn't, I would say isn't concerned with, you know, return for shareholders in some, well, whether or not it's returned, it's concerned with its return to shareholders. It is concerned with it being a viable entity. Isn't this something? There's a big difference between being a C-Corp and having a responsibility, you know, if you're a C-Corp and you're not sucking everything sort of out of, if you're not taking profits from everything you touch, you could be sued by your shareholders. That's one of the dangers. One thing is you could become an L3C or a for benefit we now have other legal structures where you don't need, you don't need to do that exactly. And so part of the plot here, I think, is that we're moving towards steward ownership and at least we're sort of in the harbor of steward ownership. Steward ownership, one of the reasons it's appealing is that it allows for the creation of a foundation that is responsible for or is the steward of a body of open source data or code or something. It also allows for putting up a for benefit that goes and does something on top of this. And I'm fuzzy about the relationship between that for benefit and the platform, which is the steward own entity. So you're asking great questions. I'm not trying to push back. I'm trying to explore the questions with you, yeah. Sure, sure. Yeah, no, I'm just like the platform and the consultancy and the things that are brought to OGM versus the notion that something would be created within OGM. Those are the questions that I think are confusing. So let's say I wanna stick with design from trust. If design from trust is a consultancy that or a method, a consultancy that has created a methodology that it wants to share and not have exclusive ownership of, then and it exists and it comes to OGM and says, hey, this is what we wanna do. I'm making believe it isn't you or maybe even if it is you, but it gets confusing because in some ways you are OGM and you are designed from trust. So I'm making them, I'm depersonifying them. Okay, and which is its own little issue in there that we'll get back to, yeah. Okay, so design from trust comes to OGM and says, hey, this is a cool thing that we're doing and want to contribute to the commons and have spread and we're not possessive about it. We just want this thing to happen. OGM says to them, great, we know these people over here who are doing this thing and they could benefit from, we think they could benefit from what you're doing. We'll introduce you, connect you, kind of help build the web of people who are doing this thing. That sort of connective tissue without transaction, without ownership is fairly easy to rock. Where does the money flow come in and yeah, I mean, it's where does the money flow come in and where does the OGM like saying, yes, this is a good idea. We want this idea to be part of OGM and we'll, well, go ahead, I'll let you know. Yeah, so I have this issue with Pete a lot, like part of OGM, I don't know that here I would describe it quite that way, but that question about what is OGM, what does OGM hold or own? One of the, Pete and I want to set up a call about the FAC file, basically what, if I join OGM as a participant, what does that mean? What are my responsibilities? What are my liabilities? Who owns what, that kind of thing, which is a very related thing to our generative commons conversations. At the first generative commons call, just before that, I think, or during or something like that, I bought the domain generativecommons.org and I bought it in my personal account because that's what I got, I got my personal account. And I was like, it's important to hold this and I'll figure it out later. And Pete was like, immediately to make this credible, you have to put this somewhere else in the comments. And I'm like, holy shit, I don't know where to put it. We don't have an entity yet that is a few people that have formed this little island of safety. In the middle, we're busy trying to dig the ground to bury some pilings to maybe build the island. So that just got me stuck because I was like, oh, great, that's gonna cascade into five things that are gonna keep us from figuring out the generative commons agreement. And so, and we still don't have a separate, like Google suites account for OGM as a separate entity from me. And part of my problem in bootstrapping OGM up was like, okay, if I'm gonna go solicit funds and they go to Lyonsburg, then what kind of entity do I set up that is separate from me that is an OGM? And I actually don't have a great answer for that. Yeah. Right, is it an LLC? Well, LLC doesn't turn into a nonprofit easily. So maybe not, don't know because the conversion later is hard. And that means what path is OGM on, right? And I'm actually unclear about most of those things at this point, but I'd like to get this done. I'd like to move forward on all these fronts, right? So the what is OGM and what is OGM on? In my head, OGM is a framework for where we're aiming. We're aiming towards something we want to call an open global mind. It's a focal point for conversations and activity, meaning people show up for calls that are called OGM and they hear about this OGM thing. Pete and I had another disagreement earlier mid pandemic about how many OGMs are there? And we didn't really resolve this. And I'm like, there's kind of one and it exists now and there's a tiny squishy kernel of an OGM that's trying to set us up as a formal organization and there's a community of practice or even just a community of people that show up to a variety of calls and events that call themselves OGM, which is like fuzzy boundary maybe the boundary it has is that somebody came in and was on a call or somebody is on our Mattermost server or something like that, right? And then there's a future OGM, which is this little nugget of a company evolved into whatever it turns into. Maybe it's one non-profit entity, maybe it's a steward-owned platform plus three little startups I don't actually know and I'm busy trying to figure that out. But to me, for Pete, he thought there shouldn't be a future entity called OGM of any kind. And for me, it was like without an entity called OGM that lives into the future, what do people, where's the attractive hub around the vision around this picture? So this is my best expression of that conversation and we didn't actually resolve that. So that to me also holds this question about what is OGM and what does OGM own? And just to complete that thought, I would be thrilled if there was an OGM foundation, which doesn't exist yet, which was a handy place for people to take code that fits into this vision and put it in the public sphere and that that was a durable entity that I did not control, that I was on the board of or something like that, that was a happy place for all the piece parts that OGM is building to be placed in, to be held in the commons. The way that there's a Linux foundation, the way that this is Apache foundation, the way that there's any number of open source foundations whose job it is to hold the code, at least as I understand it, to hold the code that those communities are creating so that all might benefit from them and nobody in particular owns them. Yeah, I mean, I guess, when we start getting to codes and platforms and the idea that OGM is a company that owns stuff, I mean, if you were, let's take something a little bit more, you know, if we were the organic farming, How about the organic growth movement? So a very different OGM. Yeah, sure. Yeah, yeah, the organic growth movement. And we want there to be, you know, just like every, that we're chasing the holy grail of every plant that grows in the grounds, doesn't have any pesticides on it and is totally healthy. And aside from a little dirt, you can just stick it in your mouth right out of the ground. Or we're trying to create a seed bank or something like that, which these things exist, yeah. Well, but I mean, you're jumping to a place where... Which is more tangible or what? Well, no, you're going to a place that is what I'm trying to avoid. Okay. It's that, you know, we want this to happen. We're not the ones who are making it happen. We're the ones who, well, we're wanting to instigate. We're wanting to spread the gospel about this. We're wanting to make sure other people make it happen. We may have to fill in little patches that are missing. Or find people who can and point in that direction. It's just the difference between the, the difference between being the ones who run the thing and do the thing. It's like if we, I'm trying to think of another example. And I remember that we were talking about like church and churches supporting, you know, good works. And the idea that you're not, doesn't mean necessarily that you're going into the business of doing that thing. You're trying to use your influence, use your resources, use your connective abilities to make that happen elsewhere in the world. And you are, you, the entity itself is nothing but the intellectual capital to share and the impetus for sharing these ideas and money. And that, you know, you're, like all you're about is stitching together and elevating and funding and, you know, kindling all this other stuff that's going on elsewhere. And that's your force as opposed to drawing stuff in and going into the like, okay, here's the brand for our organic vegetables, sorry, I'm switching metaphors back again. You know, here's the brand for our OGM organic vegetables and we've, there's this technology that, you know this farmer over here brought to us, but now we're marketing this thing under our name and we're doing a consultancy that like helps other farmers by using this thing that the one farmer came up to up with and it just gets all murky and like. But if the one farmer's invention is placed in the commons and is available for people to go implement, then it would be perfectly legitimate for a for benefit company to come in, use it. It would, it ought to be in the rules that we're using this thing created by that farmer over there so they get attribution. Part of the reason for putting it in the commons is for them to make it. We, it's we OGM doing it versus other people doing it that we're supporting and maybe it's just a semantic difference, but you know, the idea that when OGM stands something up based on what's in the commons and then the people who are doing that thing who are OGMers are getting paid by OGM for that and the people who came up with whatever, you know, it's just it gets. So let's make it more concrete. Let's go back to design from trust. Okay. So let's let's let's assert that there's a design from trust consultancy that stands up in the next year and that it is an LLC with its own employees and that I'm a member of it and that, and that I'm helping set it up and all that kind of stuff. And I don't know how that turns out, but it would probably have on the footer of its website. We have signed the generative commons agreement. We are powered by or members of open global mind. And but there's no ownership stake. Like, like there could be, I mean, it could be that there's an owner that it could be that there's an OGM foundation that owns all of the shares of this, of this little T corp or S corp or something like that called design from trust, in which case, in which case that relationship is very different from what I'm about to paint, which is there's an independent little consultancy that happens to live in this ecosystem that is not owned by OGM. But all of the inventions it creates are put into the commons as best practicable, you know, with the expectation of citation, you know, attribution or something like that, that maybe 2% of all revenues go to OGM to fund somebody being able to stand in the middle and do the things that OGM does to collect up people and, you know, run the foundation and whatever else. And what else? I mean, but, but, but, and those are two different ways of standing up the company, like one of them is it's a completely independent little entity that's a for benefit, not a for profit. And when I say it's part of OGM, what I mean is it is in the ecosystem and agrees to the terms and conditions and spirit and intentions of working toward an open global mind while adhering to the generative commons agreement and probably other stuff we invent as well because we don't have a code of conduct. We don't, there's a bunch of stuff we also still need as kind of like what is, what is this, what does the umbrella of terms and intentions look like? Maybe we need T and I's like we have terms and conditions. Maybe now we need like norms and intentions and, and, and, and I's that'd be kind of fun to, fun to, I'll just put that in the, in the chat. You know, what are your, and what are your ends and eyes. Well, we adhere to the open global minds ends and eyes. And that, that just means how, how we run the practice and we tithe or, or, or we, you know, 2% of whatever our revenue stream is goes into that pool to keep it alive to keep it going. Because we think that we think that these norms and intentions are important to maintain separate from us as an entity. Right. Does that, does that paint it more clearly at all? Um, I'm not sure I completely followed it to be honest, but, but just to say that I almost think it's easier to imagine it. It gets complicated for me when we're talking about something that's coming into existence in the, you know, that, that, that OGM is senior to that OGM, OGM exists, and then this other thing comes into being, I almost think it's easier to talk about this thing that's out there that's doing good work. And wants to find its place in the, you know, wants to subscribe to the NNI. Is that what you said? Yeah. Of OGM. And says, okay, here I am. How do I relate to this entity? So I'm imagining that design from trust is your consultancy that is separate from OGM. And comes to OGM with these ideas. And what is its relationship to OGM? Does that, because that, that the things you were saying didn't seem like they could cover that. I'm unclear. What other territory your question opens that, that I didn't try to address earlier. Well, the question is, if you're, there, there are so many people out there doing things. Yeah. That we want to attract and weave together and. Strengthen. And how do we present ourselves to them in a way that says. Come, come. Be part of what we're talking about. You know, be part of this conversation. The result of which will be. A relationship with us that will. Be what and do what and get you funding or get you. You know, I think if we set ourselves OGM as like. Come to OGM. And. You know, you're trying to do this cool thing. You're trying to like, you know, start an organic farm and do it the best way. Be part of OGM. And we'll. So if you want to run an organ or an organic farm and enjoy the benefits of whatever you could just come and look through our shelves, use our IP and our data and go away and do your thing. And we'd be very happy. That'd be just fine. There'd be, there'd be nothing else like, like with anybody of open source code, you can grab the code and go do whatever the hell you want with it. And we don't even know because you just, you know, if you just copy the repo. You just forked the repo and went off and did your thing. And that's, and that's actually great because you put these ideas to work. You could also come in and say, Oh, I really like the, the N and I is the norms and intentions. Hey, John. I really like the intentions of this community. So I would like to figure out how I can say that I play fair in this community. And maybe there needs to be some in the future, some kind of certification process so that somebody can say, I act as open global mind. And that that actually carries a little bit of weight, that that means something in the world. That's kind of interesting. Like fair trade means something and there's, you know, for claims of purity or fairness or whatever, there are certification processes that are needed and all that kind of stuff. Because otherwise everybody just puts the stamp on and the, the claim has no, has no merit. So maybe that, but then, but then I think the conversation we're having is really broad about fair share commons. I've had a couple of lovely conversations with Graham Boyd. And I know that Trey and Parmjit, who are O'jammers have been going deep into training on fair shares commons and how that works. And one of the things that happens in fair shares commons is basically an inter ownership of all of the entities in the fair share commons so that when one benefits, everybody benefits. And I don't know, I don't understand the dynamics very much, but it's a really different way of moving forward than everybody has shares in their own corporation that they double out, you know, for their, for their own shareholders. It's a very different conception. And then on Friday last, I had two great conversations with an old friend, John Borthwick. And at the end of the second conversation, he asked the question, so Jerry, is OGM a doll? And I'm like, well, hell, I hadn't even actually thought about that. And it's a really good question. And he sent me a link, which I'll share here to a, it's a three hour video from a Stanford, a very recent Stanford day or maybe it's two days, virtual conference about dows where I hope to absorb what the hell does this mean today? And what would that mean for us as an entity? And dows are basically smart contracts, right? And where everybody can read what's in the smart contract and where the smart contract implements some of the ground rules of how it kind of not so much norms and intentions, but actually like carrying out how things get, how value gets moved around, all that kind of stuff. And I'm really interested, like my ears perked up and I'm like, well, damn, maybe yes. And one of the things I think we're moving toward all of us here in some weird way is that, and here I'm going to speak for Jordan, I think too maybe, is that we're moving into an environment where we don't have corporations with, that are C corporations with strong walls around their boundaries that own all of their IP and are trying to defend it from the world to make rapacious profits by themselves on the thing they invented. And we're moving into a world of softer boundaries of things more like open source where there's a body of code and then there's an entity that's making a living on top of the code by customizing it for clients. You know, Cygna software on top of Linux or whatever. And that's okay, that sort of works in a different way, but that there are many more little floaty entities, which we're sort of calling sovereigns that are out in these new waters, this new estuary of an ecosystem, trying to make a living and trying to make a living while contributing back to make the estuary really healthy. Right, and that's the spirit I think of where we're in some sense heading that's part of the norms and intentions to me, is that if the estuary gets really healthy then everybody makes a better living and zoom, zoom, zoom, we're kind of off and running. And if we drain the estuary and pave it over, or if we carve the estuary up into separate little plots and say, okay, this is my plot, this is your plot, the estuary loses its functionality. Right, so we're kind of trying to figure out what this new way of being in relationship of then, and then you get into more complexity of layers like self-sovereign identity, so that I own my data and release it when I want to and those things are kind of necessary in this new distributed, linked, open, reliable, contextual, trustworthy, not surveillance society world. Right, and 100 years from now, if this transition works, we'll know what it's called and who invented it. So I think we're one of many organizations worldwide that are trying to do this, including a whole bunch that think it's all about Dallas and that's the only thing they're looking at. And I think we're maybe a little more confused because we're looking at a variety of different models for getting this done and we're working through what are the practical implications of doing so, as you're asking. Yeah. But does that, do you agree with that framing? I don't disagree, but I feel like it still doesn't answer the question I have and it brings up the specific of OGM being the, when you talk about the code living here for the plucking by everyone, the here is, I keep looking for other metaphors just to say, like if we were supporting voting rights and good governance and trying to help people make that happen and that was our goal, would we be collecting all the IP for voting machines and different technologies involved and being the library for that and sorry, I'm struggling just to express the thing that Yeah, don't apologize because this is a great inquiry, this is really important. So one, if I can interrupt for a sec, one way is that if OGM is going to hold something, there probably needs to be an entity called an OGM foundation, which is a 501C3, which is modeled after other foundations that steward code, for example, or data, for example, right? And that would be a normal thing and like that exists and that would be useful only if whatever the other entity that is invented or done something wanted to use it and if they wanted to create their own way of putting it in the Commons, like rock on and they would own it and they would whatever but they would license it for free to perpetuity to the world or there's a bunch of different ways to make stuff available in the Commons. Our interest, if I can speak for a broader OGM is to make the Commons really, really rich so that people coming in can find the tools, can find better reliable data and we can go solve problems together as humans, as a society and not as individual humans. And so there's no, when there's a body of open source code for the Apache project, which if we use it or point to it, we're not owning or making any claim on, but conceptually if we point to it and say this fits in the stack that we envision, like we're looking for the piece parts of the Open Global Lines solution set for how we do open debate and create a shared memory. In so doing we're going to find GraphVis, I'm just making this up, but there's an open source graphics package called GraphVis we're going to use GraphVis and modify a little bit and contribute that back to them to GraphVis because it made them better and that's how open source software works. But this is a key piece, like hypothesis maybe, is a key piece of our new infrastructure and we might replace different key pieces over time as we discover better solutions as whatever, right? But this then becomes a piece of OGM's architecture as a declared set of, hey everybody, if you do this, it really lifts your game and then we can enter this conversation of having idea sex around shared data, right? And none of that implies that OGM owns any of those pieces that we're including by reference, none of that. We are inventing an architecture by saying, hey, we had to write this API here and this protocol and we then funded a project to go build this app that holds a bunch of stuff that didn't exist before, which code is on GitHub and in the comments held by the OGM Foundation, right? That's a little piece of this architecture we had to build because nobody seemed to have done that yet and if somebody does a better one and makes it open, we'll replace ours and stop doing that. Does that paint a better picture? So does it mean that OGM is itself a foundation or has a foundation and also has a something else? So to hold software, I think it would have to be to hold software in the proper way the way other code and data, open foundations do. So in that instance, yes. I would love to have a simple life and not have to file paperwork for 501C3s and all that kind of stuff. So if there were an OGM, which was just a website and a movement and didn't have a foundation and never owned or touched any code, my life would be simpler. I just want the damn things to exist and to be persistent and hard to steal from their comments. I want them, I want them to be a safe place for people to put all this stuff. If Mozilla Foundation wanted to step up and say, hey, we are already a foundation. We love what you're doing. Just use us. And then we made everything a Mozilla project and said, this is an OGM project, but it's hosted by Mozilla. And they're the foundation where we park our code and all that kind of stuff. And this just showed up in my head right now. I wouldn't feel terrible. I'd be like, they're pretty reliable, but I'm not crazy about what Mozilla has done for the however 20 years they've been alive. I don't use Mozilla's browser. I don't like where they put their efforts so much. So would they be trustworthy? I know you're a Google man through and through. I use Google out of desperation because the open stuff hasn't clicked yet. I use Mozilla for everything. Oh, really? Yeah. I'm sure it could be better, but after you've done it for a while, you get used to whatever shortcomings it has. And they're very, very minor at this point. And, you know, occasionally something won't work. And I'll try opening it up in Safari or then Chrome. If there's something that just won't work anywhere else. Yep. And you're right. My browser is adequate, you know, 99% of the time. And you're right. I'm very far down the Google food chain. You're totally correct. And I mean, to be fair, I'm using my, you know, Firefox browser to open a Google doc. Oftentimes, you know, that does happen, but, but I'm just trying to be as, as. Mozilla as I can. Yeah. Yeah. But getting back to the idea of the Mozilla foundation being this or, you know, some foundation, the electronic frontier foundation, the, you know, New Public, you know, there's a whole bunch. But yeah, there are people out there who are doing this stuff and the, the stewardship of where shared ideas live. Is, is not something that, that we need to invent and need to invent the and create the infrastructure for. And if we want to advance the idea. Like, you know, shepherding people toward, okay, here, here's the objective we want, you know, we want shared memory is, is understating the idea. But let's just say that. Right. And if you believe in shared memory and non, you know, non-commercial exploitation and, you know, non-commercial exploitation. And, and better decisions through. Better, better access to common. Wisdom. Then. Then join our conversation. And we're. We're having the conversation. We're trying to find out everybody who's doing. The stuff we want to do. We're trying to find out who's doing it. And then we're going to open source and put their code here. And the, you know, In the stewardship of Mozilla or whoever. That, that to me says, you know, OGM is, is. Is a cause related. Whether it's a 501 C3 or not. It's a, it's a, it's an organization that is not built for profit making, you know, and they are. You know, and the, the, the employees and the people who work in them may be part of that movement because they believe it. Right. I want to support it. So. Then the question to me is. Do, do we. Only. You know, kind of talk and connect and channel. Or do we also. fund other things, right? And so, and I have to bounce at the top of the hour to a different call that is not in this Zoom so I'm happy to make you host if you all want to keep this conversation going. But you're raising a really interesting question because I, as I was just trying to say, it's not in my life set of goals to go manage the books and file taxes and do all the whatever for 501C3 and maybe there doesn't need to be an OGM foundation. Maybe what we do is we point to other foundations and say, hey, go there to do this, go there to do this and we support them. I'm trying to figure out how to make a living of some sort while doing this thing and I don't exactly know which of the vehicles I should be standing in to do that. I don't actually know. And I want to do that in a way that's actually credible. And so way early when I first met Jordan, he said, well, you could go try to get speeches on your own, except then when we're working with you, we don't really know who you're working for. You're working for you or for the commons and I took that pretty seriously. So I kind of backed off on making a living in other ways, which was stupid in retrospect because it's gotten me into a fix that I don't like at all. And so I need to resolve this personally in a way that allows this thing to be credible and to keep going because I love this thing. To me, open global mind really works. Like the vision I like and maybe all OGM is a vision holding enterprise and there are separate other enterprises that perform services for wage, the charge for services. And maybe there are other enterprises which hold assets in commons because they already do that. And all we do is point to them and then draw in the middle like Picasso doing his light paintings. Maybe all OGM is doing is drawing in the middle what the minotaur looks like and all the moving parts actually exist elsewhere. But I hadn't actually considered that. I thought it was relatively inevitable that we were sort of in the tractor beam toward having to have a foundation. And as I said, I kind of love not to have to have one. Well, I mean foundation versus just 501c3 or trade or quasi political cause related organization, putting those questions of administration aside. But thinking that you, I mean, I get what you're saying about yourself personally and the idea that you like people who come to OGM with an existing career company area of expertise, way they're making their living that that you like those people should both be able to support OGM and and share into OGM and make your living in harmony with OGM, but not from OGM necessarily unless OGM that's why I keep coming back around to the idea that OGM is dispersing funds based on a vision which does involve it being a foundation or a 501c3 or something with the money, which is actually the path I'm on right now. I'm pitching people to grant OGM some money, which we will then turn into project funds for projects that fit that finish some pieces of this puzzle we're seeing. But the question to me is projects administrated by OGM versus projects that exist outside OGM that OGM identifies and grants toward. Well, to me the both is very complicating because it's like if you are are saying to people who are doing work, particularly if they're doing for-profit work, but but even if they're doing university associated work or something that that you're saying, okay, we want to support you in developing this thing, but we're putting more of our money toward doing that same thing internally and we're going to profit from that. Right, which is I think fine. I think that the question about where that where that meter falls is an important conversation to have. I must bounce to the other call. Okay, so let's not repurpose this. Let's hold this call again next week. We're clearly on something that matters a lot here, so I'm not going to repurpose this call to the food thing. I'll put it after this this next week and then we can sort of sort that out. And we might I mean I feel like you know I'm not, I don't have answers at all and I'm just asking questions and I feel like there are things that I know are issues for Pete and Mark Antoine and and you're a really good question asker, so I really appreciate the inquiry together. Thank you. Yeah, and I'm like I'm here just like I hear you and I want to solve these things in a way that that actually works for you and for Pete and for Mark Antoine and for Scott Moreing and for Stacey and and all of us, so exactly. And Mark has, I'm sorry, Matt has said we haven't seen him lately, but yeah I just agreed. So thank you. This is great. Good work folks. Hope to join you later. All right. Take care. Bye.