 I don't, I don't watch sports, but my fire TV continues to tell me that it could help me watch sports. So I don't know if that's helpful or not. Yeah, of course. Some reason we have camera problems today, but here we are. It was a cool camera problem too. It's not like a run of the mill. It was an intimate problem. I was just on another gistly call like two minutes ago in the same browser and the camera work fine. And then I try and join here and suddenly like my camera doesn't and not only that, but I have three cameras to choose from and none of them wanted to work. Mr. Davis has joined us. Excellent. Before we get too much started, Jerry, I have a almost off Jerry. There's a channel on matter most called since doing and I'm going to suggest that is one of the channels where the OGM conversation may go. Yeah, good. That makes sense. And I was going to ask if we might collaborate on thinking through since doing OGM since doing which I cool. So hasn't had any activity in a while, but might actually make a lot of sense. And Bentley made an interesting comment, which was maybe a channel, maybe a mailing list, whatever. I think it would actually be good to make a mailing list too. We've kind of don't make me make another mailing list. You've been trying to ween me off of this. The one we've got for years. Has it worked? Weening hasn't worked and I haven't been able to get Ken Homer basically over onto matter most which would cut the traffic in half. The way to do it is a quick shot to the head. Easy fix. So for people who are not tracking the OGM mailing list, it is kind of seething and burbling in good and difficult ways in the sense of we have some very interesting conversations going on about what media is reliable. How do we collaborate? Is open global mind actually either open or global or a shared mind? Or is it really like closed lefty mind? Is that what we've sort of devolved into? Closed lefty non-mind. Closed lefty neuron. Is that what we really are? Are we just like a coffee clutch? Or could we organize ourselves and do some get some shit done? I think in ways that we've been talking about with Agora and everything else here and I have a funny feeling that we could sort of marshal some resources to do some really interesting things because the crowd is now kind of ready to do something. And if we like find the right rails to ride on and throw this little puppy in here, we could make a little progress which which is exciting but a little nerve wracking. And sorry to continue. This is kind of on topic for fellowship. The observation I have is that OGM currently is getting a bunch of stuff done. It's just not under the OGM brand really. So the converse problem is it's easy to think OGM is an organization. It's not. It's this fuzzy boundary, you know, coffee is a coffee clutch actually. And so a path forward is to, I think the path forward is to make projects that have governance, that have membership, that have goals and conbound boards and not conflate that with OGM. And then there's the ageless question which remains unanswered, which is how many OGMs actually are there, right Pete? So that's kind of the state of affairs at this juncture. And I don't know if that interests everybody else, but it feels to me, I'll add one thing to it, which is we had one, in OGM we had one hoedown call, which is just a name I borrowed to say, hey everybody bring your tools, let's pick one topic and let's each represent that topic in our favorite tool. And then let's take the latter third of the call and share on screen what we, how we note took using the tool. And I have a funny feeling in retrospect and this is one of those 2020 magical hindsight moments that we probably should have done one of those every month since. And we might actually have gotten somewhere and made some general progress and there might be actually be much more of a practice now of using our tools to make sense of things which we don't actually do very much. I'm, I'm always doing it on my own, at just as Flancen you're doing it on any call you're on using a Gora, but, but it's not a practice in the community at all. Coffee clutch, yes, yes, so many fun German words, except for the ones that mean extermination, but still. Not as fun as, but you know, fun nonetheless. Nice work. That is the longest place name in Europe. And it's a, it's a, it's a glacier in Iceland or something. No, it's a small town in Northwest Wales on the Isle of Anglesey. Yeah, yeah, I remember driving through Wales once and turning on the radio and going, what the hell is this language? Like there isn't a, there isn't a recognizable syllable among them. Yes, and somehow Peter just knows how to spell it. Of course. Well, somehow you know how to pronounce it. Longest, longest place name I think is an easy Google, right. And he even got the four L's in a row. So people just write three, but it's four. So it's in my brain, of course, I'm connecting it to that. It looks like the Ryan Reynolds and whoever the other guy is show about my football team. Yeah, yeah. They have a funny little promo where it's the two guys and then a translator, a well speaking translator. And she goes off road. Pretty soon you can say, you know, the two guys are like being cute with each other and she's like, these assholes, you know, they don't know what they're talking about or they're just idiots are in Welsh, you know, and so Welsh is a fun language to listen to because you have no idea what it was. Every language is tough until you know how to speak it. That's like, not to get us off track. Oh, not that we're heading off track. This will probably help. This will help flunzying out. So I'm, I'm going to kick us back on to the topics. No way. That we were on. Grab those rings in full. And my experience with communities the best model that I've seen thus far for kind of these distributed both real time and asynchronous communications is to throw email. Overboard, because I really, in my experience, no one has ever accomplished anything in a group on a long email thread and trying to keep up with the email threads is impossible. Searching and finding those email threads for the useful data you want is even worse. So what I have seen that's worked reasonably well is a public wiki. It's really easy to edit combined with a real time chat that is also searchable. And even if the wiki is not super easy to edit for everyone, the things and fun things that happen in the real time chat are are or could be aggregated in the wiki to move the most salient useful pieces. You have a chat for 20 minutes, you figure something out and you document that in the wiki, and then everyone reads that and then maybe if you want you take a weekly newsletter. Here's all the new stuff that happened in the wiki and send that as the one email, but then, you know, make everyone go back to the chat and wiki as this is where the conversation happens not in that email. And that makes it a whole lot easier to like get the snowball rolling down the hill. So I like your approach a lot and I think we have the tools already sort of installed to do what you just said. And I think what you just said is really clarifying because one of my pet peeves in life online is a private email threads that go on forever and don't resolve and just go every which way and are very hard to harvest. And I often harvest really good posts on long email threads and put them in my brain just to have them someplace where I can refer to them afterward, right? So we have Mattermost, which is a medium functioning, very nice chat client that everybody's like sort of accustomed to and we could get everybody to move over to. We could quench this conversation on the Google group, I think, and say, hey, all traffic on this now moves over to this Mattermost channel, the one that Pete suggested at the top of this call, which is called Sense Doing. So we can just use a channel that's been idle for a while for this project purpose, which makes a lot of sense to me. And then Pete has Massive Wiki, which is a moderately easy to use Wiki that we could actually pour lots and lots and lots of interesting info into and use as the basis for whatever nuggets come out of this that are shiny and bright and we want to publish in some sense. So I like all of that. And I'm unless Pete is about going to shoot it down. I feel like there's a plan formulating Pete thoughts. I want to thank Chris for encapsulating that pattern. That's, you know, that's a time tested and we've seen that successful time and time again. The little caveats are that the people who are doing the wiki stuff have to be kind of on their game and doing a decent information curation. And then the little bit larger pattern that you're saying where there's a bit of a feedback cycle with, you know, maybe a weekly email or something like that. It's also kind of important and it's also important just for people to be good chat participants. It sounds funny. Maybe it doesn't actually sound funny in this day and age. My 2000 or, you know, in 1890 whatever self would think it was amazingly funny that people don't even know how to use chat, but they don't. So there's a little bit of hand holding just to end, you know, shepherding to to get people to do chat while, you know, it's, but, but yeah, overall, I totally agree. The other week we could talk also a lot probably about massive wiki and its usability. I think it's actually kind of the best wiki, but I'm glad you think that makes sense. And I think it says yet an incomplete wiki because it doesn't have a wiki front end to add it as a wiki. Does anybody want to know if there's a score in the in the France, Morocco game? Yes, I actually have no, I don't care at all, but because you care, I really want to know. And is this going to spoil anybody's day if I mentioned that France score to go already like four minutes. No surprise. Yeah, five minutes in Theo Hernandez. So so I have a question and a few comments. Please on this topic. So first, like, so I'm a number of the way the concept of like a resolution route or source of truth. Right. So I guess they, they, before we go into the, you know, I think we discussed it a few times on clear. For example, like where will the, will we, where will the, there'll be like one page where we have like, you know, the matter most link and the massive wiki link could be proper. And in this and before the, is there a shared calendar or like any kind of like tracker we have for like all the different projects associated with OGM or this group or both. So a couple answers. One, Pete created a calendar page on one of the massive wikis. So there is a page that says, Hey, here's a bunch of standing calls we have every week and a bit of a standing calendar. We haven't successfully used gcal to sort of catalog and mess around with a lot of our calls. Well, if we put a, if we put a project named page on a massive wiki right now and then make that the header. We have a link on the sense doing channel on matter most. And then we have one canonical place where start, please start here. And we can put other links and links to whatever else comes out of it on a link, you know, list to any calls that come out of this and all that can attach there. That's easy, that's easy to do. I think it's like, if I could get like, sorry, I don't want to like just regret it, but you know, if I think we will get one year old where it's like, this is the one you go to and the one you edit if you want to add like a new resource that also forces people to say like to get access to that and you know how this like a skating maybe. But thank you for that. I guess I have a side question which is like we have like also like a fellowship link channel. But we're saying like we're going to consolidate on sense doing so since doing it because this is sort of an OGM and its communities project, I think it makes sense to go over into a free channel, not the fellowship of the link channel. Because this is more of a quiet fellowship of the link conversation that we hold there. A different way to say that is, even though Jerry and I and folks are are talking about this specific thing, it's actually not, I don't, I'm not suggesting I don't think Jerry is suggesting that it's actually a fellowship of the link topic, even though we're kind of taking over the call a little bit. No, okay, make sense. No, I see it as related as well. It's also actually the amount of the amount of interest that like kind of exploded was really amazing we got people who haven't been participating ever or for years say oh I'm interested in lurkers on cloaking. Here's how it would would possibly connect to a community that I'm part of you know so right away it was really exciting and really really interesting. So, so to push that conversation forward a tiny bit. One of the questions is okay so what should we focus on. I think an interesting question is what do we call this new project right now so Pete if you want to do on that or if we want to brainstorm on that in the chat that would be great. The second thing is, what do we want to focus on and there's an active conversation about COVID and its complexities. I'm a big fan of like an appreciative inquiry approach of, hey, what would a really great national approach toward a pandemic like co would look like to go to push all the blame and crap out of the way a little bit, not ignoring it entirely but saying hey, it would have been great how do we done this and then to let different participants. So, explain that another alternative is and I wanted to bring that into this call because I mentioned I think on free Jerry's brain to Monday. Paul Roney of Cosmic is extremely interested in a project about sort of the history of computing and the visions like Vannevar Bush's memex and JCR lick lighters document and Ted Nelson and Doug Engelbart and unfortunately mostly white men who created these essential documents that we fed off of for years and years and built out the windows interface that we're talking through right now, and a bunch of other things. And he wants to maybe appropriate or adapt the podcast that I've been doing for beta works on tools for thinking and shift that and that's kind of exciting for me because I'd like to stay involved and I'm, I'm trying to think of what would that podcast look like as part of a larger effort that does more things that involves more people. And we could pick as a topic as a seed topic the history of computing and these sort of documents and goes and step completely away from coven and its controversies and go into areas where Chris, I think, I think, you know, I really love your approach toward computer history and how all these things fit I think it would be really fun for you to play in that. And then we could basically see this new territory of wiki slash other sorts of tools and bringing together idea loom which is one part of the tool society library which is Jamie Joyce's platform and others, and a Gora which is you Flansian me and my brain and whoever else wants to sort of come in and say, we'd love to be peers in this party as well. And then we figure out on the wiki how to say hey here the large parties playing or the, you know, and then here's everybody else who wants to help and participate, but I can I can see that playing out also. So, so much to follow up on that. So, so much. There. So there's two other things I'll Matt mentioned on the communications part. And I presume it should be pretty easy to disable the chat and jitzy, so that we don't use that which then forces that data into the etherpad or the the something we're using that can then be archived somewhere so we actually have, we can keep it all. Otherwise, have you some of it goes into the. Have you seen doc drop from hypothesis. Yes. And I don't know if jitzy works nicely with it but for any YouTube video and I've been uploading these calls to YouTube, but for any YouTube video it synchronizes the YouTube generated transcript with the video and does really nice stuff I think that's a starting point. So sharing out all the conversations related to this topic. Well, we're we've got Flonzi and it's kind of shared pad, which is useful for real time things like this. Rather than using like jitzy chat, and it may take some heavy programming work to like build the one into the other. So if I could get rid of jitzy chat and just have that in here. I will be happy to look into that because so jitzy is actually treated the other very fluently but it is. And in general, I'm interested in cross posting every chapter each month. Yeah. So what we have to do and I think this is where going back to the wiki I mean we can get that start on like a task list. Because I'm also like a very scattered personally. And like, once I know that someone else is interested in something I'm more motivated to actually like focus for longer time. So that was counting on that energy right there. Yes. And to some extent, you know, like a backtracker could be for like actual development the right format but just a wiki with that priorities. I think I will be happy to talk with that. And just a quick note on the fact that, you know, we do have like an hour out that currently works on, of course, my son, but also a matrix with the chat and adapting the code. And what it does, Peter, because you're interested also for messy wiki, it just dumps to disk to a marathon file, whenever you use like wiki links or hashtag in maps a copy of the message optionally on someone. And a link to the original anchor so you can jump to chat to every one of the entities you mentioned. So that could be easily as decided to be detached from the, you know, it's an hour average. So it could be easily reusing any wiki system, or like to some extent. It's JavaScript or Python. Separately, I have a an API call where you can give it a zoom chat file, and it will give you back each message broken up and and individual links and who sent it and things like that. So Vincent arena is using that for catalyst where he takes an event. We, you know, we take the chat file and then he I disassemble it for him and give it back to him and messages and then he's got ways to filter by sender, you know, show all the links archive all the links things like that. Yeah, here's where like this going back to the meta that, you know, like you propose a theory on the theory of tools for thinking. You know, zoom VT, the art tools for thinking, right. I think that is called the way I see them currently, and perhaps a using this map to sort of like model what is in scope for iteration. And cross posting, for example, which we will be my default approach that will be a super interesting project to me is sort of like what I sit out to try to do with as an experiment right and clumsily with the hour. And then, you know, we could ideally like share share this, you know, this API call for some like do like so like zoom interrupt. That sounds very interesting. So I'm, I don't edit much in hedge talk because I get confused by up down whatever and I post a lot in these chats and then we so I and when I'm in zoom I always save the chat and share it back into the matter most channel and save it myself and blah, blah, blah. I'm using jitsy I never save the chat and worry about the chat because I just kind of lose track of all these things. And I find that hedge doc relative to massive wiki and markdown files confuses me a bit because I just never know if anything actually got put there. So if we can kind of smooth over those edges and make it work. I'm better. We tried hard for a while back in OGM to make people use the matter most chat instead of the zoom chat and that just was a fail. It was too hard to marshal people over unless you can actually swap the interface for the other the other thing, whether it's hedge doc or or matter most channel whatever. It just doesn't work. The cool thing though about jitsy and this is what I don't know but there's big blue button. There's we ble or whatever it's called. There's like a whole bunch of these WebRTC assembled video chat, whatever's one of which has got to let us plug in some other chat and still be open but I don't know is big blue open enough to do that. It's interesting. I think yeah I mean we should look into that my hunch is that it will be easier to do the cross posting, probably, because it will be a matter of joining a participant and then grabbing the events. Yep. But that's just like my my hunch. As an anecdote, yesterday I was involved in a five hour incident response for like, you know, like 50 people in like different channels, vehicle chats and so on. Wow. All getting paid to do so. Wow. And it was still hard to get the conversation on the same tracks. We ended up having like three chats. And that happens and not surprised even like this happens every week. So it is it just it is very hard. Whenever you find yourself like going against the ergonomics right after some extent trying to say like, oh, don't do what's natural just do the other thing. No. So this is why I empathize with like the idea of like replacing the chat. But having said that I think cross posting is probably the lighter weight way to implement that. Yeah, I love that the whole world is talking about decentralization, and we meet every week to talk about better centralizing things. It's awesome. I have to jump in a few minutes because my thought with the holidays I've got to go pick my daughter up from school early. I had an interesting conversation last night with a friend of mine from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, who has large bags of money he'd like to give away. And one of he's a little more into he his portfolio is technology. In particular, he comes out of academia and a lot of the stuff he works with is in academia and tangential spaces. One of the problems he'd like to solve is how does a research group or a lab have an online communication system they can use both internally as well as external communications, which I think broadly is a solvable problem with both the web and wikis and communication back and forth and we've spoke a lot about both indie web and, you know, activity pub type things. He can't write checks to individuals but if we could create a group. And I think a lot of what the problem he stated for how do you get a lab, which is really what we are, we're a lab working on a problem. If there's a group or an institution that he can write a check to to pay people to solve and fix these problems, which is what we're doing anyway. So there kind of is, we can, we could put together a grant and make an application and he would fund it. Right. And, you know, pay some people for some of this heavy lift stuff that we're already doing anyway. So on a very tiny scale, we've got a piece of this because OGM a little kernel piece of OGM is a fiscal spawn C of Lyonsburg, which is Jordan Sukkut's nonprofit, which is a registered charity in all 50 states. And some time ago we did wrote a little bit of code and I got some grant money that I basically funneled back to Pete and Bentley, and I think mark on one for some some of the work they did on the open source, trying to prototype specifically the idea of how do we how do we declare tiles, which are small modules of code that are needed by one or more projects, and how do we fund them in a mechanism that could sort of catalyze this kind of activity. If someone else were in charge of running the system, it would probably be run much more efficiently than me. But we sort of prototype a little bit of this and we have some of the vessels or vehicles that could be enlisted to do that. And I'll open it up to if you have a personal project you're working on even that fits outside of this and would like an introduction to him for that type of finding. He actually was here yesterday and today at the Kavali Foundation in LA. They come together with welcome the Gates Foundation, there's about 10 massive funders in a group, and they do a an annual meeting, and their goal is to help get high value individuals who want to fund science outlets to put money into enterprises. Their first big win amongst this group was helping to get Zuckerberg and Chan together to be able to give their money away to science enterprise. He's not only doing it individually on his own within the Sloan Foundation but is working with other foundations to do things related to this as well. So he's even got a deeper pocket on the side. But the end goal of his efforts is science open science or his and I think I had put a link there to his Sloan page, but information technology, a lot of stuff he does is in academia. How do we pay for and help encourage open source and open science is kind of his broad portfolio, but anything that you could imagine the Sloan Foundation might fund in science technology society, because they their portfolios go all over the place. His little niche is specifically kind of information technology, which is really what we're all doing here. So the question is, putting together a proposal that has a clear statement of we're going to do X, Y and Z with the goal of open sourcing it, putting it out, apply for a grant. We do the work. Ideally benefits what we're doing here in a general sense but then also has other benefits for spreading it out. So as an example, one of the first things I remember he worked on was, and he came out of George Mason University, and was one of the original people who worked on Zotero. It's that type of thing, but one of the first things he funded John Udell mentioned a developer and said you need to meet him and then they ended up funding what is now called library carpentries, which is a group of librarians who can code and write code. And so they help each other build and write code and programs and technology related to libraries and library research and general science. So there's, we are not far from what they're funding we just need to have an entity and an idea of give us money for this. Too many windows away. I'm finding library carpentry.org but also the carpentries which is carpentries.org. Do you know which of those it is? They're both related. And I'm not sure why there was a branch between the two but ostensibly I think they're both a lot of the same type of stuff. Cool. Thank you. I wish I knew which one was the more canonical of the two but I have never spent the time to puzzle it out. The eternal problem with canonical references. If we've got a we've got a number of projects that would be that that would be good to fund, you know. Yeah. Yeah. We should, we should firm up either, either OGM and or Lyonsburg to do that. So we should get together a little like executive council. And, and then, you know, interface between. You know, interface between a couple of funding partners and all the we know like town, you know that. And I think one of the things that we've kind of. I think we've the tile definition thing and Lyonsburg has a slightly different name. I think maybe it's tapestry. Well tapestry tapestry is an alternate to the mosaic. That I was talking about, but I don't think it's I'm thinking mosaic and yeah, yeah. So I we're a little bit stuck on, you know, I think we don't have to do that work to get funding flowing through. So I would short circuit some of the mosaic tile definition stuff and just kind of just apply, you know, have a, have a, you know, an executive council kind of a funding council of six people or whatever, who would talk to project leads and, you know, pick pick some projects, talk to project leads, say, here's the kind of thing that you need to write and then funnel it through that team that council to talk to funders. We should just do that. Could we have a like a huge cylindrical star chamber with floating bases. Works for me. Yeah. Okay, good. Except if you want Christian muted again. Go ahead. He can even go if I know they have funded open collective initiatives as well as kind of the one of their lower bars of organization to get some get things done which is also an option to so sweet. The thing that we have in our communities, plural is is like one level up from one project, we have, we have a like a cluster of projects. And it doesn't make a lot of sense for each, each individual project to go through all the processes of thinking of how am I going to structure this, you know, what's the funding mechanism, blah, blah. It's kind of, so it's almost like a mini Lionsburg or a grown up GM. We should just mean the middle and get it done rather than talking about that we could get it done someday. I love it. I'm Chris you have to buggy shortly anything else you want to throw in. That's the big, that's a big thing, but they're very serious about like this kind of thing and he and I. What he does and how he does it and the way he thinks about the world is the way we think about the world so almost any crazy idea we come up with is going to be something that could fit into his wheelhouse of kind of project managing and funding so. Cool. As a side note, and I think I'm heading toward what Bentley's talking about. Part of the energy in the OGM list is a is heading toward a tool that mark on one for all has been building for a long time called idea loom, which I don't know is ready for prime time because he's like, I'm not sure. But using idea loom to represent some argument of choice of whatever this community decides to focus on and hyper knowledge is another another angle on his naming for his project. Bentley correct me if I'm if I'm aiming in the wrong direction here. Other thoughts while Bentley is tapping something into the chat I think. So I'm, I feel like that was a really nice framing Chris you offered us a little earlier about, you know, let's let's move off of here over there. Pete, you're I think pointing to the sense doing channel is perfect. We need to name this sucker like I suppose since doing since doing as the name of the project as well. Yeah, as I looked back on the channel history Jerry I think you're the one who actually created that channel. So, so you are the person to knows best whether or not it's appropriate to kind of hijack that name. I think it is totally totally appropriate to hijack that name and I didn't remember that so thank you. So the other thing my observation is it got so much so much diversity of interest so fast that I think it breaks up into two things. There are people who are interested in the practice of sense doing. And then there are the the verticals of the content areas around which you might focus your sense doing COVID or, you know, whatever. So I think I think already what I would do is I would say there's there's a matter. There's a sense doing guild. And then there are individual things and some people will be attracted to the meta thing and some people will be attracted to the the tactical thing. I only I'm interested in talking about the Black Lives Matter. You know, are you suggesting we have some channels related to sense doing sense doing dash doing dash. The channel is fine. But I would be explicit that because you don't want to you don't want to say to I, you know, so we're talking about COVID and then we lose the bunch of people who were talking about, you know, society library doing something completely different, or we're only talking about, you know, sense making as a general topic. And it's like, okay, well, I would talk about COVID but I'm not interested in talking about sense doing. Well, how are you suggesting we manage that on the one channel? It's not about the channel. It's about the project actually. So to be to be clear and coherent that there are actually two levels of participation or two levels of the project going on at the same time. Okay. And that some people are attracted to one level. Some people are attracted to another level. So basically just narrating that into the channel so that people have a sense of what we're maybe even putting them in the header into the channel into the wiki into the OGM mailing list. And so we create a sense doing project page on a massive wiki. Should that be the OGM wiki, which seems sort of most natural to me as kind of a virtual ish hub or somewhere else. I like that, except that the OGM wiki right now is is a really flabby and flaccid wiki. Well, we could tighten it right up with some pushups and some sit ups and some chin ups. I mean, Well, to, to, yeah, to go down that path. I think what I would do is is almost reboot it. Start a fresh homepage. You know, and there's three or four or five things on that one of them is a sense doing and and one of them is the old wiki, which has got all the stuff that's that's there now. I would actually, that means rewriting the Remedy page, right? Read me page and doing some information architecture and I think also explicitly grabbing everything that's there and shoving it into the attic or into attic number one. You mean a full subdirectory. Yeah, which is, which is something you like to do and I'm like, it should just be flatland. It should just be wiki namespace. Well, there's that's a whole another thing. He is the sin of it is a sin. Directory directories. Yes, exactly. It's like not the original whole different thing. Right. Well, so, so that thinks that's an awesome, awesome observation. So, so then the thing is to manage the people who have who who get hyper attracted to directorization, which is super easy to do an obsidian right. So, Lyonsburg wiki had that in spades and is that Jonathan sort of David Jonathan and Jonathan, you know, it's entirely natural and reasonable thing to do and actually I think it helped Jordan. But Jordan is the main author of most of the pages in the wiki. It's very useful having it organized in a file hierarchy but then all of a sudden you're you're a slave to the file hierarchy. Yep. So I would say let's let's keep it flatland. Let's update it. Let's kill off some pages that are that are like, like appendices appendages we don't want necessarily. But I would say we can we can do a little CPR and a little lecture, a little boot camp and be okay with wiki. Oh, good. Oh, no, I was going to say one thing that might help to I noticed that in the matter most some of the channels have channel header at the top that kind of explains what's going on and or a link to a thing that's happening regularly. Yes. Adding that I have some context now of what sense doing is and could be about, but it having a header that says, here's what we're talking about this is what we're trying to do and or go to this page for more details becomes. So if I share that link with somebody becomes a whole lot more self explanatory, what we're doing what's going on. Sorry, my phone is ringing for some reason. That's fun to do. I had a question about this. I joined the channel and I didn't see a lot of activity as late. So I was wondering where the activity that you mentioned because I joined late today, where all this conversation about sense doing took place. Mostly. It actually in two places, the the active sense doing, and it doesn't have that name yet except in this channel, I think it's the right name. The active conversation is in the OGM list. There's another proceeding and that happens started yesterday. Monday, the day before, we had a very small conversation in a room about this size and Bentley and Jerry and me were there with a free Jerry's brain group. So that's where kind of one of the main impetuses started with Mark Antoine's offer of using his idea loom tool for the OGM list. And so I hope it doesn't twist things a little bit or bring in bad old memories but if I if I say hey we did a hold down way back when we can sort of replicate part of that but make it all better by by starting with idea loom but also Grace recommended using societal library which I was thinking about as well. So I'm going to like say yes, yes and and then if you're interested in jumping in that I'd be like and and our friend plantian has this thing called a Gora which is a tool that will likewise really play nicely here and is probably easier to bridge to other things than most of our tools. And we have we're going to we're going to basically use massive wiki as the core kernel and staging ground and launch point for this and I'm that sounds great to me. That sounds great. Yes, I mean, I am as usual. I am lucky like, say like I will be become very active this week, because I haven't seen that for a few weeks, but we are going to approach freeze so I will try to be there. The freeze are coming up which is going to mess up everybody's life so some of us will have more time some of us will have last time through the holidays. What else can we do to make this succeed. What else what else matters here that I wanted to recall I think it was fancy and he said calendar and you kind of want to also an issue tracker. Do you want a full blown issue tracker. I mean, like Jira or something or what do you mean. The best full blown issue tracker is air table. Oh, oh, well thinking of like something in the lab but yeah sure. Which which plantian and something in the lab or you know some user tracker like a to cheat to eat. But maybe yes, I'm fine with it. I never use it is it open source. Air table is not open source, and it's multi purpose. It was a bit of a joke, although for what it's worth the tools for thinking tools for thinking map project me and Matthew and bill, which is a sub of this. We have a beautiful issue tracker in air table. It is beautiful because we all can manage, manage it. Do you want to just duplicate that and we repurpose that into sense doing. Let's let's think about it more. Let's not make a quick discussion quick decision. Cool. But but I think. I I kind of don't it's not it's not an open source tool. So maybe I don't know and it costs money. Depending how you depending how you see it. Yeah, you can use it for that kind of stuff we're talking about. Yeah. Yeah, maybe you know maybe a thing to do is to start with that I what I was, you know, immediately is like okay let's defer that the choice of issue trackers, and then it's like, okay let's keep that as an issue somewhere. Wait, so we have no issue tracker to put it into that fall. Exactly. Yes. So, so then we have a wiki. We have a wiki. I think we can start. I, I think that's a one way to do it. Yes. So one way to do it is to make a wiki page that says, you know, I think, I think a better pattern is actually to start with air table as your, your first one. Simplify the TFT map project one a little bit. Start with their table and then, you know, the one of the first issues is decide which issue tracker we really want to use. Yeah. The reason to do it that way is because, you know, a similar one is pick Trello instead of air table. I think that's the wrong choice nowadays that used to be the right choice. But anyway, if you start with real issue tracking. If you start with a wiki page, you get overwhelmed super fast. So if you have a real issue tracker, you've got enough bandwidth and express ability to actually manage stuff even as you're starting wiki pages get blown out super fast. The secret is finding one that's usable enough for people who don't know how to write code or get push, get call. Yeah. I added to for the next agenda by default like define wiki or root URL, calendar URL and issues record or project record. So you want to continue that thread. Yeah, I have experience. So the default agenda in the link notes. Which line the headstock. Now I have to find the headstock again. And just so we remember. I do have a recent experience with a social goal with like a non technical users using just a default issue tracker in your lab. The worst just fine. Yeah. And if we are using massive wiki, which makes sense, which is Git based, right? Yeah. I mean, we will essentially with any host, we will get like an issue tracker for free. Yeah. What do you think about code Berg? Yeah, I haven't used Colbert, but I like it in principle. It's not, yeah, source hat. I will stay a way just because it's me too. Yes. It's just harder to use Colbert. I think they're running a fork of gt. Yeah. And right now it's, it's a transparent fork. It's actually exactly this thing. Yeah, I run it for the Agura. And it's fine. Yes. It's a bit more polished, I think, but I'm fine with either. Get the code Berg is looking really nice. Which I mean, it looks a lot like GitHub. Unfortunately. Yeah. I will actually be happy to get some hands-on experience with it. Yeah. Yeah. The, their issue thing looks good. So, yeah. So I like that. So, yeah, I think it's a solid default. Although, um, uh, I'm wiki is on GitHub right now. So maybe actually we should use GitHub issues. Yeah. I mean, we can sit down and mirror. If not, I mean, I have to you. Yes. I have all my projects in GitHub because my employer. Requires itself. Um, right now our publishing, uh, uh, CI, uh, our publishing continuous integration needs to be on needs to be on one of the commercial providers. So we could go to GitLab, but I don't, I think I would stay on GitHub and then move to CodeBurg. When you get the social network effects, which is what we want to dispel, because they're enclosing the comments. Yeah, yeah. But it is fair, they just collaboration is easier. So use GitHub for the immediate term and hope to move to CodeBurg. I think that's fair. Yeah, I will be happy when I'm there. Yeah, I love it. So I like this, I fear that we're building like an onboarding ramp that gets pretty large for anybody who wants to actually jump in and hold. I think that, well, so I look forward to going back to Chris's recap of that. The trick is not to present all of the complexity to program participants, project participants upfront. You say, here's a chat channel. Yes, I'm sorry, you have to learn how to use chat. After that, you're good, don't worry about it. Magicians in the background, angels in the background will be making sure that the Wiki is updated. I guess, so it's here's the chat channel, here's the homepage, here's the calendar. And that's all you need to start with and don't worry about anything else. Just participate with us in the chat. Yeah, and you can say if you want to get to level two, check out this page and then you can pick the client in the curtain, or you can say, just use Wiki links in the chat and the start will happen. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Cool. So I'm excited, it's almost like consolating in clear directions. Awesome. Pete, do you want to create a page on OGM Wiki or shall I as a base jumping point for this project? Let's do it together. I don't care who does it. Sounds great. I have a call right after this one. So, not top of this hour, but top of next hour. And then we can take that page and put it at the top of the sense doing channel and then I can write a note to the OGM list that says a alpha beta delta, let's go. Yep. Cool. I like. Jerry, you and I should catch up on the new cool way to use get in obsidian is the sidebar, not the hotkeys anymore. Ooh, yes, I'd like to catch up so I can replace antiquated neural paths with modern neural paths because we all know how easy changing neural paths is. Exactly, yeah. Dammit. Go ahead. Maybe let's look at. Do you want to start a page on that? In OGM Wiki. Well, the other thing to do real soon, I guess. So, let's see in what line number did you put our to-dos? It's in line number 12 in Agenda for next time. Gotcha. We have some in FODL threads, it's a different note, but you can ignore that. So, create a wiki page, create a calendar. So we've got issue tracker. I think I could take, I can make a wiki page, I can make a project tracker on GitHub. So is it, so here's the thing to think through. Is it okay if we're using the OGM issue tracker on GitHub rather than a specifically? I mean, from my point of view, I still don't get the issue between OGM and sense-making. And the OGM, I like the idea of an open global mind. So, for once word, that's fine. Fewer projects seems easier to do it. That's worth, it's worth talking through this a little bit, whether, this is a long, long conversation that Jerry and I have had over many meetings. And I don't know if alcohol. I'm not surprised because you seem to have like a thousand projects, which I kind of empathize. This is my aspiration over time. So, and Jerry, this is a good example. So OGM wiki, it makes sense to have the issue tracker if sense-doing is part of OGM wiki, then it makes sense to have the issue tracker be in the OGM wiki repository, along with anything else in the OGM wiki, right? So if it were me, and I think this is probably the wrong thing to do, if it were me, I would start actually a new sense-doing.