 record. This is the Weaving the World Operations Call Wednesday, December 22, 2021, FAB. And my wife and I are entering a rapid zone of multiple tasks that need to get done because we've just closed on a place and we're moving two floors. But that means actually moving all our stuff. And also this place, this new place comes with a storage unit in the building, which this was which our current place doesn't have. So today, no, tomorrow we're closing down those storage units and moving everything in. And then it's going to be interesting and fun. Fun. Okay. Good way to look at it. My cousin is moving from Rutgers, New Jersey to Alexandria, Virginia with her mom. And they had to like get rid of they had to do major household sort of turned down, slimmed down, and then they're doing the move. And just like a lot of stuff. So with geography over Christmas in a pandemic. So so this feels a lot lighter than that. It is lighter. But do you have help? Because I have to tell you, my car is still only one third unpacked. And that was just an SUV filled with stuff from the place I cleared out. It's hard. It's really, really hard. We don't have a lot of help hired up yet. We may, you know, we can easily get a tasker of some sort. We've done that before. And it's very simple. You just go boop, boop, boop on the app. And somebody shows up with like gloves and knee pads and the capacity to lift. So yeah, I would get somebody just to help you carry the stuff because even though you're only going two floors or whatever. Yeah, it's a lot. Well, I did buy like a reasonable dolly that converts into a cart and stuff like that. And there's a couple building devices. So we will see how that goes. But but we're not we're not moving any big furniture right now. And if we were, I would I would have hired because we don't know if we're renting this place out furnished or unfinished. So we're going to photograph it and show it furnished. And then when somebody says yes, either plan A or plan B, we'll know what to do. Sorry for all the catch up. But that's what my next couple of weeks look like. We're hoping that this thing is on the market the first of January and that somebody says yes. Okay. So getting back to the weaving world catch up. Can can one of you or both of you I know that Bentley had presented tile. So could we just catch up on what that might look like? So there's two different things that Bentley and I were talking about logos and the tile and Bentley and whatever order you would like to proceed and would be perhaps. Yeah. Yeah, Stacy for the tile. It's very still kind of up in the air, I guess. So we can chat about that preferably second. And it's not it's not a critical one. I'm starting to think whether it actually fits in the tile. Oh, it's a nice to have. Anyway, so just quickly jumping to the logo. I posted a couple photos based on what Jerry and I had kind of discussed about a loosely woven sphere based on the keregami method. And the photos are in the weaving the world ops channel and matter most Stacy, if you have them, I did. Okay, good. Sorry. Yeah. So I, you know, I'm never happy with the logo. And so take this grain of salt. The it doesn't fit several things like it's it's not something you can easily monitor. I'm on something. I'm not sure how it would go on 16 by 16 pixel fave icon and stuff. But it could be a V one. And maybe it kind of gives the impression of beta anyways, which I don't know, Jerry, I think you're okay with kind of building in public. So yeah, totally letting people know the first couple of episodes are a bit rough and we're going to improve our time may not be a bad impression to give. I don't mind under construction look. And I'm really interested in sort of finding our way toward what we wind up using. We could just drop it in the feedback degeneracy how bad it is. And also, if it were on a high higher contrast background, because it's sort of, it's a little bit gray on a gray right now, with a couple colors coming towards you, but the but the background is is not that different from the object. So maybe if it were, that would Oh, so my background is on white. My background is like gray paper, paper ball. What happened is that to make it flexible, I left the background transparent. And I assumed that matter most was putting the white on there. Actually, actually, actually, it is I have no no no, it's not I hadn't scrolled down enough. So I hadn't seen the ones that you have that are open. So now I have sorry, I had only seen the first one with the with the partially that one came out a little faded. Yeah, why right now my browser seems to be showing images a little bit less saturation. Interesting. The colors look a little muted. So I pumped them up for that last one. And you can see the last one also has kind of thicker, wider strips of paper. Yeah. Anyways, I don't know Stacy, that it'd be interesting to hear your Yeah, opinion of those logos. Um, I didn't really look carefully. Okay, I just I just looked as I was coming to the call because that's how I get here. Yeah, we have no we haven't chosen a font and kind of how of course the wording will move around based upon the shape that's needed for the logo. But I don't know, Jerry, you've probably been busy with moving. But if you thought of being fonts or even a placeholder font, I didn't do the font quest yet. So wouldn't be too hard to find a placeholder font. So I'll do that. And the other thing I'd like to ask Bentley, is anything any thoughts you had as far as the composting part of this? Well, so the call we had a little while ago was interesting and I've been thinking since so I was thinking of composting more of people linking things. And I think was it Wendy that was on the call? Yeah. Yes. So Jean Bellinger and Wendy. Wendy was saying that she wanted to do wisdom synthesis. Which those are those two concepts are interrelated, but they are different. And so I've been thinking about what the implications of that are. And then Jerry, you were talking about with Mark Antoine and the OGM thing about the two things of expanding and contracting. And I think he was talking about, you know, toggling between those two. And so I kind of actually feel like the the synthesis to me of wisdom feels kind of like an expansion of the content and the linking together sounds like, you know, kind of a solidification or linking. So I was wondering whether those need to be two phases of the same call or two separate calls or something. Or maybe I'm overthinking it. And like we also said, the you know, the the composting part, whichever part we think this should be able to also happen asynchronously and separately. So maybe the the call is just simply giving the people the ability to collaborate on both those things and maybe on whatever order they come up. So I'm okay with that. I don't know. We're not going to be perfect at this side. I guess we'd need to kind of just decide what the first iteration is going to be. Of the process. So a couple thoughts on that. One of the nice parts about our conversation on Friday was that we talked about a lot of polarities to manage. It was like, these aren't exclusive decisions, we have to pick one path, but rather, hey, on this call, we're going to, or on this part of this call, we're going to start by doing this and then we're going to start by doing that. You know, those are those are kind of structural levers we can use just to to fashion the calls and change how this works. So that felt good. And I think that and I really like the dimensions that we brought in and the dimensions you're bringing up now. It's funny, I think of synthesis as sort of reduction, not expansion. So I was thinking you were going to say synthesis was in the in the narrow, not broadened phase and that and that brainstorming brainstorming would be like in the in the broadening phase and then synthesis would be like, okay, so how do we express this more crisply? What does this connect to that that that forms a more crystalline view of some issue or something like that? And yeah, that's true in general. I think in this case, though, a synthesis would generate additional content. Well, I think a summary of it. Yeah. Yeah, there would be more material, but it might replace some it might it might reword reframe connect up some stuff that wasn't done poorly or that wasn't done well. And it might make might might take us a section that's kind of amorphous and fuzzy and make it make more sense and come into view and be simpler. That's kind of part of my hope. And I don't know that we're all going to be able to do that or all be doing that at the same time or that. So my hope is that there's a lot of that happening. I'm not sure that our process is to say, okay, now everybody lets wisdom synthesize or whatever. But I think the outcome makes a lot of sense that so there's there's like longer conversations to be held about what do we mean wisdom? And what do we mean synthesis so that we're all sort of more or less on the same page. But I was also thinking, I like this morning in the shower about mapping parties. And I know that I'm jumping all over metaphors, but but open street maps got big by throwing mapping parties. And that was in the day before everybody had a smartphone. And GPS was ubiquitous. So a few people had Garmin and other GPS devices and so forth. And they would say, Okay, great, meet at this place at this time, bring your devices, we're going to do an hour or two of prep for those of you who are newbies and don't know how we're going to street map this place. And then we're all going to go drive around and drive different prescribed routes that we've each chosen, then we're going to come back and show everybody how to upload the data from our devices into open street maps. And they just like lather it's repeat on that process. And, and where Google to do street mapping basically hired people to drive the entire fricking world, which is like an insane thing that they would try to undertake and that they pulled off most more or less. Open street map crowdsourced it through these mapping parties. Okay, and not that many people know the mapping party story, but mapping party is simple and makes a lot of sense. And a lot of what we're doing is mapping, composting is one way of looking at it, mapping is another one, right? And so maybe this is an idea mapping party or a concept mapping party or something like that. And that we like, I was just thinking, how do I, I can invite people to a composting session, but it really sounds like they're going to have a rake in hand, and they're going to be turning over smelly matter. And it's like, not so sure everybody's gonna like it, although it's intended to be a little tongue in cheek, and, you know, intentionally metaphoric. But if I'm if we're inviting people to, to, to, you know, virtual mapping parties or idea mapping parties, then people can be like, Oh, I'm an idea mapper, and they'll identify. Most people won't identify that I'm a composter of conversations, like that that I think that that doesn't go very far. And I've been struggling a bit with the compost metaphor because because it functions nicely as what we're trying to do with with information and facts and opinions and all that. But it doesn't function well as as something that lights up people's bulbs about Oh, I'm one of those and I'd like to join this thing, which we need, right? So anyway, so I was playing with with mapping mapping party today. And party is really nice because you can make it festive. It should be our activities ought to be fun and not like, like not neither drudge work because Oh God, there's there's like this issue we have to, you know, fight our way through or whatever. They shouldn't be tedious, they shouldn't be that serious. But we're trying to create serious output, right? But there's no reason you can't have a good time doing that. So so so that was a whole whole slice of it. And but then I was also struck on the one hand, there's a whole bunch of separate communities like the world cult of Rome and people using Rome research. And Jean was saying that he's doing multi person Rome, you can roam once one person is paying for an account, let's you invite as many other editors to your Rome blocks as you want. I think I'm not sure as long as they have a Rome account as well. They have to register the way zoom should be that I'm really they have to register from but they don't need to have an account. That is the way zoom does does it. They don't they don't need an account. I'm sorry. It was something that Oh, is air table that yeah, I have to for each collaborator, we have to pay a separate fee for that's what I was thinking of air. Yeah. Yeah, air table is is a different model entirely. So so what's puzzling to me is that there's a whole bunch of communities that are and and and part of the problem is what I'm about to describe is like one of the other communities is trying to reenact settle custom and settle custom or slips of slip boxes basically slips of paper in index index cards in boxes. And there's a guy named Nicholas Luman, who long ago had a system when he died. There were some thousand boxes in his files with like 40,000 slips of paper, each of which had notes on it. And he figured out an encoding scheme where he would write a code across the top of the card that had a bunch of little shorthands in it that connected this card through the wisdom of whatever he was picking up. It's it's kind of arcane and very it's very paper card centered, but people are trying to replicate that online. And I think one of the problems with it is it's very paper card centered and it has it has a really specific way of doing stuff. And if you if you're only trying to reenact that, you don't care about other models for knowledge. You're busy doing that. Right. And I'm trying to figure out who are the communities who are like, you know, we picked up this thing. It's kind of exciting. We're looking for better ways to to to figure this thing out together. That's that's the groups were were like really interested in finding and then bringing to the party, right, so that they can keep doing what they're doing and elaborate what they're doing. But now they're doing it with others who have other tools and we can become a meeting place for these different groups with different tools. That's really interesting. And that gets us moving in a in a super cool direction, which is another, I think, good reason to just talk generally about something like mapping parties, because like, I think all those people can see each other as mappers of something of wisdom or something like that. Idea mappers, concept mappers, wisdom mappers, and then coming together for a party sounds great. So I have a thought about that. So all these parties are happening and stuff and or all these meetings. I think it so it makes me think about stepping back and what are the or the artifacts that we expect out of this. And so I want to get your idea, Jerry, is leaving the world. Is it is the main video content? The the the edited interview without any mapping other than what you might do in the brain during the call? Or is it is there also that concept when we talked about some sort of camera of the term? I was saying consolidation, but I think someone had a better term than that. Is that because I think what would be nice is if if we had a rhythm so that the video called come out and then after a specific period of time we take would gather together whatever we have and produce the kind of consolidated content that says, hey, here's all the mapping we did off of it. Even if mapping happens on that episode later on and can build on it. But I think having a time that you announce, hey, it's now is a good time to come and look at this at the at the results of this. So I think these mapping meetings and stuff like that would be determined if we had an idea of what that destination was that artifact. Yeah. So a couple, a couple of questions, a couple of things just notes to myself to answer your question. I haven't published a book yet, but my in my draft in one of the first paragraphs, it says, thank you for buying this souvenir. Because to me, a book is just a snapshot at a moment in time of something that should be much more interesting and richer somewhere else. Right. And the cool thing is that a book is a snapshot and you can you can mark it up, you can autograph it, you can, you know, it's an artifact you can sort of play with. But but that book should lead you into the communities that are talking about the issues the book is talking about rich webs of resources. So forget bibliography at the back and as a bunch of little numbered notes, imagine, you know, deeply linked text that actually goes into context and goes into a thing, something, right, that something is not determined. But but for me, the the the webinar, sorry, the podcast episodes, the fruiting bodies of Weaving the World are like the book like a souvenir, they're a recognizable artifact that lives in the landscape and you're like, Oh, looks like a podcast, I think I'll come listen to a podcast. But I'm hoping that these are gateway drugs for playing together, mapping, composting whatever it is we wind up figuring out this thing is, right, and that the act of working together to dissolve remix, curate, express what we see in here and believe becomes a more routine thing that more and more people feel like they want to do and they and they want to contribute, which raises a bunch of thorny questions like contribute to where like where is this generative commons that we've been talking about? How do how do I contribute to it? What sort of artifact can I contribute to it? How does that build up? Et cetera, et cetera. And then contribute when? Because we're talking here about episodes and parties. But really, a whole lot of this mapping can happen asynchronously on people's own time as they see as they're taking notes and watching a video, like I'm busy when I watch a really compelling, you know, YouTube talk, I'm busy taking notes and doing some googling and looking it up and adding to my brain, which is my little piece of this generative commons, which is posted openly, but not easily accessible for a bunch of reasons we've talked about a whole lot. So I'll answer a couple questions a little bit and then stop. So a simple thing we can do is that each of us links to eat as many of each other's work as we see and find and like. So it's very easy for me to add permalinks to my brain that say, hey, here's here's Bentley using this other tool to do this other sort of thing. And it's really awesome. And I've categorized it and put it in my little web of how I see the world in a way that works. And then moving forward as there might be an open global mind-ish brain-like environment, then all of what I've done just sort of smoothly weaves into or becomes a substrate for a shared mind, a shared memory of some sort that is one of many different representations of this collective hive mind. And what we're what we're kind of trying to move toward is a hive mind of some sort for civilization, right? And we and right now the bit parts will live in open source directories like on GitHub, like on publicly available Dropbox and Google Drive and whatever drives like on IPFS, the interplanetary file system that lets you distribute the files that basically chops up files, shards them across a variety of people who are volunteering to store the files and then lets you find them with queries and stuff like that. So so all of those are ways we store info if we can manage to store info in sort of a distributed way and it works. That's cool. And I'll add one thing which is in my brain when I click on a thought, the brain software looks in the brain's own little proprietary database that says, oh, what are the next links I have to show? And then it brings those up on a web browser when I click on a link that my web browser sends out a message to the server. I just clicked on sends a message across the world that says, hey, everybody, Jerry's browser needs these bits. Send them over to Jerry's browser. And those bits can be little and some of them are ad servers and fricking surveillance technologies, but they can live any place on the inner tubes and they just show up in my browser. My browser catches them, presents them nicely. Wherever it can't get one, it shows me a broken image, which doesn't happen very much anymore because the system works so well and we're done. We're happy. And why can't a shared memory be more like a web browser and HTML components being picked up from everywhere? Which then says, oh, OK, so that middle thing that the framework, the fungus, whatever it is, is in fact a lot like the web is constructed, which is what little small parts loosely joined, which is the title of David Weinberger's one of David Weinberger's many fine books, small pieces loosely joined. And I'm like, yes, that sounds really good to me. And then I don't know how that fits in the internet archive, which is storing web pages, which means it's already doing a very good job of storing a highly distributed shared memory. So I'm like, well, that's kind of cool. That's already working. What might be wanted to do is create new layers of how this works on top of it. So sorry, that was a lot of stuff, but you provoked a lot of good stuff. So do we want to have a souvenir after the podcast? So I think we have a. So I think a single consolidation, souvenir, a snap of the shot in time, right? So so there's a web page for every episode of Weaving the World, and I've already created, you know, four web pages for the first four episodes, which are not finished, produced. And somewhere on those pages, there would be links to as many other projects that feed that episode as we can find. So that that's one artifact. One of those links will go to my brain at the thought for that episode, and then that links directly to whatever the heck I've woven for that episode. And the existence of that page or node starts before the call. When we've planned and decided that there's going to be a call or an episode with this person about this topic. So that actually instantiates that the beginning of that memory, that little node, which is already connected to a context. So so it's kind of like nothing starts from scratch. Almost nothing starts from scratch. Everything begins as a as a as an irritant somewhere in the in the nexus of stuff already. And then as anybody else decides to contribute and as we figure out how to converge our contributions through hashtags in public through some kind of alert mechanism that says, Hey, I added something to the to the fungus and it's over here. Here's my link, right? As we figure out a protocol for doing that, then even by the time of the call, we can have a pretty rich context going call happens. Party or composting call happens later and just makes it better. And then every six months, every six calls, we have like a like a where are we? Let's weave across the calls session, where we then go up a little layer and say, Oh, we talked about this and here are the common threads through these things. And and and after the fifth call, I had this epiphany where how about this and we're all like, Oh, wow, yes. And that lets us go back and like rework, refactor, fix some of what we did, make it better and then move. And that might even change our agenda for whom to talk to next, where to go next, all of that. And that sounds exciting to me. That sounds like a fun journey into wisdom synthesis. Right. And then and I wonder I'm maybe maybe I'll ask Wendy Wendy McLean to ask to listen to this part of it. I'm wondering how much of this would resonate for Wendy and how much of this you'd be like, no, no, no, what we really need to do is this other thing. But that that works for me. How about you guys? Yeah, I was thinking that the the way to submit. Yeah, so I think one central place like it. Yes, it's good that if we link to each other's stuff, although that'll be difficult as contents coming in, how you know, new contents being done. So the central places is on the episode that people can look. So, yeah, we do need some way for someone to submit a link to some mapping or some synthesis that they so right now that could be the matter most channel for the calls. Right. So so one of the things that works well for me is I listen in on conversations on mailing lists on matter most on whatever else, like we have a bunch of matter most channels when a cool new thing shows up, I go curated into my brain. Yes, do we want to then invite anyone on the internet who watch the show to go to into matter most is that kind of a high lift for someone who just watched the video created their own map. We had needed your submission doesn't need to be matter most. I'm pointing there only because we've we've stood it up to be this artifact to be like a place to converse about this set of conversations over time. It could be a discord server. It could be a Google group, although at this point it's like, you know, it could be not sure. Conversation is even is the goal of this need. It's I saw the video. I built something and then I want the link on the on the episode so that other people can find it. Yes. And so here we need somebody who is the editor or guardian of the episode page that we think we control that that will block the attempts to say, hey, Joe's pizza and like like would like to be woven into the into your web. And we're like, you know, Joe's pizza, that's what we're doing here. Yeah, we also need a process for them to submit that which is which is kind of what Wikipedia does. But but Wikipedia doesn't have a submission process. Wikipedia lets anybody go edit any page and then stops them by saying, oops, what you did wasn't what we do. Right. And so then then some editor who has purview over some domain reverts the change. Hopefully still sends a nice note that says, hey, notice you just changed the page for carbon. The way we've been we've decided as a group to do this is this other way. We're welcome to play with us and we'd love to be helpful. Right. It's a community invitation to be part of the mapping. And I think that that's a really high functioning even to this day in the face of people who are intentionally trying to to spin pages and and delete themselves or whatever, you know, that's still pretty pretty much works. So I think a lot of that we can kind of emulate or borrow. Well, yeah, I guess I'm just thinking through what is the submission process? Yeah, practically, like if they have to join matter most, I we at some point early on, I think we require a registration on something so that we know that some person is a real person and we start with that because going and going full anonymous right up front is just like opening the gates of hell. And it's possible that Peter already has in mind. A process because it's a it's on a wiki, right? So it theoretically anyone should be able to go in and and. Yes and no. The page that I've created for each of the episodes is actually over on Google sites. It's not living in the OGM wiki. Is it generated at all? We so I was looking for I was looking for Peter to sort of generate and do that kind of stuff so that we can embed it in the pages and the pages will just be frames. But people was like, let's just do everything manually for now. OK, let's just walk. Let's just get a few episodes stood up full manual so that we know what we actually want to do and then what we want to automate because if we if we automate prematurely, we will wind up sort of paving the wrong paths or something like that. Yeah, I think what would be would would be nice in the future is a way for people to. Submit links away for someone to review those things, which of course is is a bottleneck and then. A way for me to also subscribe to that episode or all the episodes so I know when a new content is added that I may want to weave into my content. Those of those those are progressively. Less important, right? And he's far, far, far further future, but yeah. And the good news is that there's a bunch of technologies now for subscribing to stuff and there's also a bunch of technologies for. Tagging stuff, which is different. Yeah, and we might want we might and we might find ourselves exploring new new areas like, hey, I want to subscribe to the stream of stuff that's coming out of this this project, except I only want things relevant to these four keywords. Right? Yeah, definitely. Nice. Yeah. And so if so another another habit that is not common on Wikipedia, but is super common on the socials is is hashtags and and I'm usually shocked and mostly pleased at how well people are using hashtags like like they might over hashtag they might put way too many on a post. However, they're usually doing a lot of useful hashtagging that lets a post get found. And so one way of submitting something to weaving the world is, hey, use whatever, use one of these 10 media that we're tracking, put this hashtag on it, which we will try to make unique, but may not be and anybody could could bomb just by using the hashtag too much. But for a while until it stops working, use this hashtag and that we consider a submission and and and it will go into the queue for some process to figure out where it fits. Right. And then we could do a little bit of simple matching like oops, we already have this link. So thank you very much. And there's a bunch of stuff we could kind of sort of do there. But then we have a collection problem. But but hopefully people aren't just sending in, hey, this is an interesting story on the topic. They're sending in, hey, I built a piece of a map and I'd like to play with you all that that's the more interesting submission. Right. It's like, I'm a mapper to here's here's the tool I like to use or build how do how do how do we play together? That that's that's the that's the person and the thing we want to find a lot of. And this rapidly spirals out of hand if it gets popular like like rapidly because anyone any three can any three contributors who are like excited about it and just showed up and have a lot to say are going to flood the zone of what they're doing, which means that we're thinking ahead a little bit. We have to figure out processes that handle floods well that don't make everybody go, oh, God, I'm overwhelmed. I'm out of here. Because I can see that happening. Yeah. So it as long as there's some sort of gatekeeper, then. It doesn't overwhelm you just have a bottleneck. Yeah. And. Which would reduce future submissions, but at least it gives you time to fix the issue before it affects everyone else. Right. And by the way, there are hopefully multiple fungi. We're not we're not the only gaming town. We're just trying to pioneer this process. And hopefully the 700 Club and Steve Bannon want to create fungi to basically model what they believe and why and how and down the road a couple of years, a really interesting thing is when there's like a fungus battle or a fun golf or whatever we call it when these different structures meet and try to compare notes in good faith, right? Like what does that look like? How does that work? So these are submissions to the thing we think we're doing, but we're not trying to become the Wikipedia, which is an attempt to have a canonical version of the Wikipedia. We're trying to be a cloneable, spawnable, shared collective memory that can host pretty different points of view. Yes, please. Yes. So now you kind of hit on where my head's been spending this whole time. So but I don't want to go on a tangent, but when you so when you're talking about parties, you know, I'm thinking about, you know, getting three diverse people together, maybe even with a data butler, you know, I don't know if it was I think it was John that had mentioned on a call about how like the internet was made up of like the wrestling group, the academics and something else. And when that was said, I was thinking, yes, but within each of those groups, there are all reasonable people. And I know because I've met them. And so one part of me was thinking, what about if a team was getting one from each of those groups together with a data butler. And then at the end, all the data butlers come together and do the work. Because then it's you're tapping into people that aren't necessarily tech minded or even thinking in that direction, but they have wisdom. And the other thing I was thinking about is even among ourselves, if we came up with let's say 10 different, I don't know what you'd call it, categories or traits or 10 different things that needed to be represented within each team, even among ourselves, like we needed, we needed, you know, an older white man. We needed, you know, whatever categories we want to decide. And one person could encompass more than one of those traits. But we made sure that every one of those traits were checked off the box. And that created a complete team. And, you know, teams can be interchangeable, you know, but those are the categories that need to be represented. So I'm sort of in the very beginning for you know, I'm not as as focused on what happens after. I'm more interested in getting at least three different strong directions that we could grow in. So I don't want to have a fungi war later on. I want to I want to weave way before right in the beginning for it. That makes a lot of sense. I like that a ton. I have a bunch of different thoughts about it. One of them is how do you get a pod of white supremacists to create any contribution to that? OK, so I would not be looking for white supremacists. But if I'm just talking about like people I know, I know people that may not consider themselves to be a white supremacist, but I know they have that and they had that bias there. But they also know that it's wrong or they wouldn't be trying to hide that bias. And they also have other things that they are accurate and knowledgeable on. And however their views reformed, it came from somewhere and by being in a room with two other people. I mean, that's what Daryl did. Yeah. So yeah, I wouldn't go after a white supremacist. But all white supremacists are not the same. And and and having a having some sort of barrier or requirement for a team in it sort of creates a series of things, meaning you've got to govern that. You've got to check that it's true. You've got to as soon as they've lost that diversity, do they fall out and do we kick them out? I mean, there's a whole bunch of interesting issues that show up if we start to create structures like that. But I really like building diversity and at the beginning, not at the end, like it's like really important that we do that. So how do we design from trust? And we assume that they're telling the truth. So systems that are designed from trust are actually carefully designed. And what you do is you then you then layer in some things, but you're trying to get the community to do its own governance to, you know, to sort of you're trying to get the dynamics of the situation such that you don't need to have an enforcement branch that then says you didn't meet, you didn't do whatever, right? That the community and the structure self reinforce. And I think I think you've opened a really nice design question about what what sorts of things do we do we create or institute so that those dynamics show up. So the other idea that, you know, so if we're talking about people we know and putting this together, that's one thing. And I think we can trust that they'll have, you know, that they'll do what they're supposed to do, make sure the right boxes are checked off. If this were to grow, though, maybe maybe we put the teams together, maybe they check off their things and they're randomly put in a group of three. So one mechanism that could easily be instituted is like a claritarian and what's it called assortation. It's basically you get randomly assigned into a group and you need to figure out how to work with this group to make something happen that is completely a device we could implement. And we could say, hey, we find we find that this process actually weirdly really, really works. Please, please go through this tunnel and you'll wind up in a group and whatever you can create with that group is what will be what will be weighted more heavily as a contribution into the effort, for example, right? If we if we know if we know it went through this process, then we're like happier with it than a rogue submission from an individual. Well, I love that for a few reasons. One, because we're creating new people that might connect with each other, but I would also want the ability to lead, like, not to have to stay in that group. Yeah, you know, I'd also want to be able to, like, you know, move to another group. And maybe we do move one, you know, have some sort of. Yeah, I know what you were just thinking when I did. I think I know what you were thinking when I was, I think I was having a different thought. We have a lot of black belts like Nancy White and others who are really good at group dynamics and setting up things like this. Thoughtfully, I'm an amateur and I'm just spouting ideas off the top of my head. But I think that what you're pointing to is super important. And I think we should sort of bump this up to people who've got deep experience in setting up the process and could recommend a few experiments. There are very likely groups already doing this kind of process in the world that we could go, like, you know, can we have what you're having and how do we instantiate it? That'd be great, et cetera. I think I think, like, looking up and looking around would inform us pretty quickly on some really pretty, hopefully robust and exciting ways to do this. And I think those conversations, you know, calling in those people and having those conversations are worthy of, you know. Those are actually, those are episodes of Leaving the World. Exactly, exactly. I love that. Bentley, you've been, you've been very patient wanting to jump in a couple of times. Go ahead. Oh, I think I was distracted by something else. But I do think that I think that's all, see, I think that's all very important and very useful and interesting. I don't know whether you're proposing that as a replacement for kind of an open mapping call or just an addition to. I'm not sure, to be honest, because that's why I gave it in a few different ways. OK, because I would, I guess my concern when hearing that is that, that I, yeah, I guess it's always say I wouldn't. I'm not sure that I would want to participate in any kind of group mapping. Like I'm already doing that with several other groups. And it's it's challenging even hard when you're all very like minded. Would you want to be on the call with the data butlers? Like after after the data butlers have been with all the different teams and then they all got together to put it together. Is that something that you would want to be a part of? As data butlers, did you say that a minute ago or is that a new term in this? No, that was that was part of that was new in this call. But it's OK. That's what I mentioned earlier. That's it. Yeah. So what would that call be? So Stacy was saying that one of the roles that a team would have or that we or that we would assign to a team or something like that would be a data butler whose responsibility is to sort of capture what they wove or did and bring it back into the hive in some metaphoric sense. And then the data butlers would meet. And and and Stacy. I like the idea of sprinkling expertise in the groups in some way. One of the problems with trying to represent an outside group and then bring that back and weave it in is that mostly mostly things get lost in translation. It's really hard to represent what they thought if you're not actually them. So so maybe maybe maybe maybe the mechanism is if you have a team and I agree with Bentley that this thing is hard to do in teams. So we need to figure out what that means and how that works. But maybe one of the ways to submit something is to assign one of your team as the data butler or the data ambassador or the or the vision ambassador or whatever. And that person comes in and represents and is in full conversation with the rest of the team. But they participate in some other sub-process that's like, oh, here's how we synthesize and here's how we how we where we put things and how we do things. So maybe that's a slightly different twist on the on the data butler. But but there's a Dave Snowden is brilliant in any layers you put in between raw data and decision makers screw things up. Like usually an attempt to synthesize and improve in the middle often breaks what the real data said. And I realized that as we're sitting here talking a lot about wisdom synthesis and all that, maybe we're breaking that precept and I'd love to know what people like Dave Snowden think about the process as a whole. But there's this, how do you actually represent what people hold dear and what people are trying to contribute? How do you hold that so that it's intact into the mix and how do you prevent a super brilliant crisp interesting point of view from being homogenized out of existence on its way into the synthesis process? That happens a lot too. So one of the reasons I'm really interested in multi hives and lots of people having lots of groups having representations of what they believe is that a couple of these groups are going to have just really crisp brilliant representations that are gonna stand out. And some others will look like pudding and primordial goo, then we'll be like, okay, and won't be very attractive. And I'm trying to create a method or a system that will not homogenize or destroy the really beautifully articulated ones that lets them live and live stronger. And one way that keeps coming back in my head on this is is there a way to vote up or prefer or give extra bonus points to groups or submissions that do certain things? Like, hey, you're gonna bump way up the queue if you had diversity and if you submitted in this format and if you did whatever. It's like, there's a queue and everybody in the world can put something in the queue and we've got some filters for like getting rid of spam and other kinds of stuff that you just get bumped off the conveyor belt. But if you meet these five criteria and have a data butler, then you zoom to the front of the queue and we talk to you next. That's really interesting because that gives people a feedback mechanism to do the right thing to offer content into the matrix. I really like that. Yeah, that's interesting. That's complicated, but it's nice. I mean, and we're nowhere near that phase. And what Bentley said a moment ago sort of really rings for me is like, I think I told the story where five years ago I had a meeting with two other black belt brain users, none of whom are in our conversations here but we were comparing notes and like we used the brain which we all three loved in completely different ways. And one of us, I couldn't understand why he was doing what he was doing. Like he was using every advanced feature in the brain and at one point I said, okay, so I understand getting things done as a GTD as a process. And he was a fan of GTD. So could you just put a new GTD item into your brain and show us what that is? He then created a new brain file, which surprised me. I'm like, why would you need a new brain file? And then ran a couple of macros that did poop, poop, poop, poop, poop, poop. And at the end, I couldn't see a GTD item there. I was like, I don't know what you just did. And that was three humans who loved the same tool. So there's this real interesting challenge for how to create collective wisdom. And what came up in the conversation yesterday with Mark Antoine was that pattern language communities, communities that have developed good functioning pattern languages have found that rhythm and figured out a method for doing some of this kind of stuff because a pattern language is in fact wisdom synthesis. It's a really nice example of wisdom synthesis. And so I think one of the first places we should sort of go is we should knock on the doors of some of those communities like liberating structures like Piragaji which we're already woven into and figure out, okay, good. So how do we elevate all of this and weave it together better? A fun project would be how do we add value to the Piragaji work, the artifacts and how do we make them highly functional in weaving the world world? Does that make sense? Yeah. And how do we do that helping people who normally aren't at the table who either don't have the geek chops or aren't in the same communities or whatever, how do we actually encourage serving people who normally are gonna get spoken for by someone else and helping them participate fully? How do we make that a primary piece of the process? Well, I think the filters that you spoke about would help that. Yes, all of which has taken us very far from the logos that Bentley presented at the top of our call. But it's good, but it's like, this is useful stuff. Yeah, so taking a step back, I think we don't know how all the composting and post-processing is gonna happen. We're working through that and that's okay. So, Jerry, you're still going to edit together the podcasts and post those. And then we'll see what happens. And then you're gonna, I guess you're gonna choose a font and then I will just throw the temporary logo with some font. Maybe it may be helpful to know what we need because right now the Weave in the World website has a banner at the top. So we want something that goes up there. Pete had posted, there's a couple of links that I've got that I can share also back into that same channel. Pete had posted a couple of links about if you're building a logo or an ID, here's the five or six formats you need that ID to function in. So, podcast size, favicon size, banner size and one or two others. But there's a couple posts like that. Yeah, it'd almost be nice to... Here's one of them. Yeah, this came up in a recent ops call as well. So here's a 99 Designs has a page, boop. There we go. There's a couple of people who've done sort of a summary of your standard sizes, your standard dimensions. And then some of these sites get really, really good. And it turns out that if you're trying to advertise on Amazon, it's got very specific requirements that are different from the other standard stuff that you might be trying to do, et cetera. So we just need to pick a high level blanket couple formats. Yeah. Yeah. But we want a standard podcast size icon, for example, for a podcast, right? That's like the first... That and a banner and a favicon are clearly the first three that we need to do. Anything else I think is gravy. Yeah, so for the website, something that'll fit where you currently have the text. Yes. Yes. Or up in the corner or whatever. But yeah, probably like big and strong in the middle of the top of the page. Yeah. Silly idea just occurred to me because I'm looking at your renderings of the open-ended KiraGami Globe and you've got shading. Like you've got light source and shading and stuff like that, which is lovely. And it would be interesting and maybe hard to do to actually sort of fake like lighting through the KiraGami Globe projects out the words weaving the world so that it looks like a cast shadow of text. That would be challenging. Well, it would be extremely challenging to actually have a KiraGami artifact that did the projection. That's impossible. But it would be interesting to maybe fake that or to nominally suggest that through color choice and lighting and font choice. I think that's sort of what I'm saying. Yeah. I am using a full 3D model on physically based renderer. So for instance, if the font had a little bit of 3D to it and had the light source in the same direction that's even a start. Yeah, so it looked like it was projected. So it looked like the light was actually lighting both the artifact and the font. Like that's even a start, right? I may be over-complicating as I tend to do. Yeah, we might do that for V2. I think right now we'll just need to use a plain font. And but I guess the question is, is that ball, which do you prefer the thicker, the thinner lines? And is that acceptable for V1? And then just regular font, that's it. Yeah, Stacey preferences between thick and thin lines, ribbons. I'm not helpful on this. Okay. I prefer the thicker one, I think. I think so too. Although it winds up looking a lot smaller. I like the spaceier globe because it sort of feels spaceier. It feels like there's more room to play or something like that. But I like the aesthetics of the wider ribbons. Well, the wider one will probably show up better on the save icon. We can try it and see. Yeah, yeah. And it's pretty, I mean, as a test drive, it's pretty easy to drop an image into the save icon generator and just see what it coughs up. And if it's unintelligible, if it just looks like a drop of goo, then that's not gonna work too well. But if it starts looking like anything interesting, we're rocking. And for the public, what is a favicon generator? Oh, so you know what a favicon is? No. Okay, so look in your browser. See, do you have tabs in your browser? Yes. Okay. Okay, so the little, like the matter-most thing would be the circle with the... Okay, thank you. And LinkedIn looks like the LinkedIn logo only shrunk to like 16 by 16 pixels actually, I think is the size. Got it. Which is we, tiny, but a good favicon actually like really calls out and stands out like, oh, this is what this is, right? Like the zoom one. Exactly. Exactly. And Gmail has a big M envelope-y thing and Google Calendar has like a calendar page in the same color scheme. Got it. And the YouTube one is one of the most, like best. Like YouTube's favicon is the little play button on a red button with a white triangle. That's just like, wow. And there are pieces of software you can use that will automatically, you give it a graphic and it'll say, this is what I think it looks like as a favicon and then they let you edit pixel by pixel. So you can fine tune what the thing looks like and then they let you export your edited creation in a format, favicon.ico is basically a favicon. Thank you. Format. And then you drop that on your website and everything that presents knows to go look there and put that up on the browser tab, for example. So in the middle of my chaos, I'm gonna look at fonts and see what I might recommend since that will be, that will like, you know, font plus one of these images rendered put into the right formats and we've got a starting point. And I am completely comfortable with starting format looking as if it's under construction and us just tweaking and improving or whatever. Very comfy with this looking half built at the start. So. I guess the fact that it's woven and kind of open isn't that bad. Works fine, yeah. Because I can't, and unfortunately, the way I have things curling back, it looks more like it's unraveling than being. It looks like it's just exploded a bit. Yeah. Yeah, right, right. Which is very 2021, 22, right? Yeah, exactly. 2021, yeah. Do you remember a poster years ago? Like, I don't know how many years, 40 years ago, 50 years ago. It was, I get high with little help from my friends and it was Gulliver and he was all tied up with all these like little people. Does that sound familiar to anybody? No, the Gulliver image is of course familiar, but not I get high with a little help from my friends. I missed that one somehow. Well, cause the little friends were like tying him up. Cause every time I think of weaving the world, I see like these little strings and people like tying it up. Let's see, images. There's Gulliver. I need to add Gulliver to the search. Oh, there we go. So I just found the... Did you find it? I mean, it's at least 45 years old, 50 years old. Well, just to throw you back into ancient history, you can buy it as a black-like poster for 15 bucks. Yeah, it's none of those. That wasn't it. That's not it? Okay, good. Is it any of these? And actually let me add Gulliver. Yeah, I don't want to waste your time on this. Okay. No, none of these seems to... I added Gulliver and that didn't help. I do remember some memes showing Gulliver tied up with a little fusion. Yeah. Shoot, I was having a different thought. You were gonna look for fonts. I was gonna look for fonts, but I just made a bookmark note for that. There was something else I was gonna say and then we're at the top of our hour, but what else is I thinking about? The episode. Shoot. That's okay. Is it about the favicon? I think it was about the designs and the text and something together with that, but I've lost what it was. So let's just talk through the Weaving the World Ops channel and share more of these. I will poke in some font ideas and we'll see what that goes. Yeah, great. And I'll produce some preliminary icons for the, specifically the most important one is the podcast cover logo, which is a square, I believe. Yeah. I'll go see what Apple suggests because they're the most common format. And then favicon and then the banner, we'll start with those three. That sounds great. I just remembered who it was. Given you're using a 3D rendering program of some sort, is it possible to texture map a globe onto the ribbons? Yes. Is that an easy experiment or a hard experiment? It depends on whether you can get a... Well, do you want things positioned correctly or is it just like as if I took a map, cut it up in the strips and move it into a ball and they don't have... Which is probably far easier, right? Yeah. Because you could texture map onto the ribbons and then just weave them. I think a cut-up globe randomly would be really pretty brilliant. Now, I'm pretty sure visually that wouldn't work for the favicon. Yeah, that level of detail wouldn't show up at all. So I think that that, because it doesn't work at all three levels, I think let's save that as a generation. But put that in the back of your head. I like that. Yeah, I like that. And in particular, if it's kind of garbled, I really like that. If it's not, hey, here's Africa, here's Asia, but rather, oops, I think that's great. The question is, do you want an old-timey map or a modern map or even better yet both, right? A mix of both, that sounds great and that's more work also. But also because the globe as currently rendered looks like it exploded, that actually immediately echoes for me that our world is exploding. And part of the reason we're trying to weave is we're trying to re-weave and fix the social fabric. We're actually, like to me, maybe the exploded rather than the simple earnest craftsperson trying to make the thing. The wounded globe feels closer to our mission somehow. Interesting, yep. Right? Because there's this piece about what we're doing is repair, not some new creative endeavor just because. Yeah. Great. So I like that a lot. Cool. All right. I'm off to do some packing and a bunch of other sort of stuff. So thank you. Goodbye. See you on the inner tubes. Thank you.