 Hello Peter. Hello George. Good, good. Busy improvising. What's that? Busy improvising my life. Because if I was planning to do it, it would not be possible anyway. So that's why I have canvines here behind me. How long is this bus? 90 minutes? I think it's scheduled for 60, but I think it goes longer usually. I guess I've only been to one, so. Because I have another call coming up in an hour. I'm surprised more people aren't here and I'm not sure that I saw an announcement for this call. I got the link from Hank, so he's probably coming. You got it to him from today or? Yes. How are you? George, Pete. Howdy, Charles. Still recovering from the rocket tools that I had earlier. Oh, I'm getting some feedback. Echo, Echo. Maybe is it your volume up pretty high there George? Maybe if you bring it down. Then Rob. Check, check, check. No, it's good. It's good now. So CSC, yeah. Collective sense commons. It's pretty exciting. I'm excited. Taking its first steps in the world. Oh, go ahead. Mostly for Rob. I had a really interesting discussion yesterday with Bill Anderson about OGM forum moderation. Cool. And he advocated kind of for just subject areas. And I pushed this towards, I pushed this towards the whole quest thing. Yeah. I, I did that on a, without even realizing it was kind of just a gut feel thing. And so, so I'm going to have to recapitulate some of that. Okay. I'm more drawn to subject areas than quests, but I'm, you know, I haven't been on all the calls and where people are. So. Yeah. Quest feels a little intimidating. I'm not, I'm not ready to leave hobbit bill. Probably don't have to be either or. Yeah. I was advocating and we want to do a little bit of restructuring of the, the OGM forum categories. And I was, I was advocating to make quests of first, first class object more or less. And it, it, you know, it's not, it's still not either or, but as a first class object, it would be pretty much in your face. I think it's a little bit more, a little bit more forward than maybe we need as the hobbits. We're gonna get a. Good morning. How are you today? Good. Thanks. How about you? Good. I'm on my tablet right now because somehow the link that I got on my computer wasn't the right one. So I'm working to move over to the computer. You're yours. Go ahead, George. Your primary or secondary structuring choices is not only kind of knowledge management issue, but have some interesting implications of our identity or GM is a mission oriented community or a discipline oriented community. If you are a discipline oriented, then topics are like in any epistemic communities around the organizer on certain disciplines or topic areas or subjects. If we are a mission oriented community, then we probably organized around cast as primary. Yeah. Exactly correct, George. And in practice, we have been epistemic. And so then subject area orientation just makes sense. I feel like we have a aspiration. GM has a significant aspiration to be mission oriented around quests, even though, you know, I think so, so without even thinking about it, without being conscious about it, I strongly pushed with on a call with Rob to orient around mission as a way of, as a way of, you know, kind of expressing and extrapolating that into being, even though that's not really where we are yet. Yeah. If it's aspirational, then a forum structure can help bring people along. That's kind of where I was feeling it. Yeah. And that's, yeah. And conversely, it may just annoy people. Yeah. A fine line between. So, yeah, definitely. So I guess that's why I wanted to bring it to the stirring folks here, because, you know, it's like, okay, this is a way that we could, you know, even with the forum, kind of be mission oriented, but that requires backup from, you know, everybody kind of, you know, in the front lines and saying, you know, okay, let's start having missions. Let's, and I guess, you know, I felt a little bit of that energy. I felt a lot of that energy significant last week on this call. That's why I, I felt it. Yeah. There she goes. There was me turning off the duplicate. No problem. So I have to observe that I think we all think that this is the right time and place for the call, but I don't think that other people do. It works for me. Well, Jerry and the collective next folks are not here. And it's now eight after the hour. So I think. I had some thoughts about this organization question that you were talking about before I got connected properly. And, and I think it's almost like we need multiple layers, not layers, it's the wrong word. Multiple replications of OGM when we think about it, because I think. There are. Thought. Domains where people who are interested in pursuing similar. Extensive discussions in zones of thought. Want to continue that like medicots or whatever might be representative groups. And there are also. More action oriented groups where they want to work together to do something. Whether it's a project or multiple projects. It's a different array of people. And so it's almost like. Maybe we need meta tags or something for all of the people. In terms of the different dimensions that they want to participate in. Or different ways to look at the framework. You know, if you're looking at it for. Ideas and pursuing cognition. You know, if you look at it, you'd look at us, you'd cue that word in, and that would filter out a lot of the other things that might be distracting to you. So. Meta tags. Yeah. I like the idea and I. The way that the initial design we set up. Did it was actually just top level categories. So you'd have an action category. Quests and, and then. The, and then the. I would call it either in terms of philosophy or, or epistemics or whatever. Um, the, the tag, I, I, the tag thing would be really cool. But I don't think our s. Any software, software is not generally. More software and you, you, you, you I, ux. It's not quite there yet to do good filtering like that. Even though this late date. mentioned, which I guess is actually just the network of humanity in terms of how people find one another. And so that's kind of the challenge. I think if we don't have meta tags or something like that, then maybe we need topic rooms or something, and they may spring up all over and they might be community-based or state-based or federal-based or global framework of connection. Well, then I don't know if there's some idea of circles of depth or of engagement, but I could see where maybe I want to quest on one topic, but I just want to learn from some smart people and watch the discussion on topics two through seven. And so how do I, how do we distinguish, you know, I'm full-time running my company like a mad person, so I don't have time, unfortunately, at this point in my next couple of years to do a lot of quests, but I love the community and I want to engage and support where I can. I would just echo that or part of that what you said, Rob, in regard to how I've been so far in terms of my own bandwidth and focus on other things and entering and really knowing what's going on and orienting in the discourse space so far. So you kind of jump in and right away there's all these kind of big chunks and different, so... And that's working or not working as much? Well, it's more, if I heard you, I mean, what came out for me is just my attention, what I referred to last night as attention economy, you know, just bandwidth combined with, you know, the thing itself and how it is structured and then what's the learning curve. Anyway, I didn't want to grab the mic too much, but just wanted to underscore that. I think you're on point. I was curious whether you thought that a forum like discourse aids that or hinders that. For me, it helps because I can do it asynchronously. Oh, yeah. I mean, I don't know if we're getting totally off track or forking the road here. I think the forum itself, the affordances of the platform itself are probably marvelous. Potentially, but then it's sort of how it's set up. And I think I wanted to be involved, but for various reasons wasn't in the kind of initial organizing of the topic areas and channels and so forth. So I might have done it a bit differently or had other ideas or I have such ideas even in coming in and approaching what I see is still a bit chaotic because I haven't took the time to tune in properly, you know. So there's kind of all these these thoughts I can offer in response there. I have a feeling we're kind of losing another thread that we're leaving unfinished, but but I see a lot of potential in the matter most in combination and increasingly now in Miro and other related type of visualization environments that can start to mirror and cross link and allow this kind of navigation. This is where I'm at the flow, the navigation between all these things and being able to leave trails, breadcrumbs, flags up and so forth. Yeah. Interoperability. Navigation and interoperability is kind of a holy grail of the question in many communities for coherence and collective sensing and meaning. But in my experience, people put the tools in front of it's like putting the carriage in front of the horses. If you focus on the tools, it can enable and liberate some energies and opportunities. But my sense is maybe because of my bias that I acknowledge that I'm a community builder. I think that if we build strong communities of practice, communities of co-creation, or at least communities of inquiry, interest, those communities will bring forth the need, the expression, the specification of the requirement from the human system side that can then be met with emerging and proven tools approaches from the tool system side in an ever unfolding spiral or double helix. But driven by the human aspirations individual and collective. So something just came to mind, maybe this is useful, I hope so, which is using Slack, for example, as an example, had a couple of years ago in a team collaboration situation where, and so I guess before I go into that, the idea of community compared with in contrast to somehow distinct from perhaps in certain ways a team and that aspect of a team to go on quests and missions and stuff. And the case where one integral team member just wouldn't use Slack. So I don't know what else to say, but that happened and it kind of sticks out as something that just prevented progress. So I guess it points to the buy-in, relative buy-in engagement within certain tools and platforms and the relative need to rely on everyone or to one extent everyone engaging. Or is it OK to have 10 areas, 10 platforms, 10 tools, and people pick the three or four that work for them? Well, that's natural and reality. So I'm with you, if you're advocating for that or not, that's what we have. And I'm fine with that. I mean, we're all, each of us are like that. It's a PLM, Personal Learning Network, different names for it. Whatever works. I was going to say something else, but anyway, that's one of my munchers, whatever works. Yeah, I told Peter that I'm not a fan of the email and the email list. That just it's hard for me to keep on top of it, but other people, that's that's their bread and butter. Oh, I know what I was going to say was as long as there are and there are, I mean, there are some of us here that are cross pollinating, that are the bees going around and, you know, with the flow and bringing the the the light bits for it to grow. How about that? Yeah, there has to be connectivity and interactivity. Across networks, to some extent, again, you know, according to who and what rules and what are the, you know, requirements of metrics or whatever. Mm hmm. That's all open, global mind. So, Peter, do you want relative just to the discourse and the categories? Do you want to it seems like we're not going to get the quorum for that today? Yes, I agree. And and I'd also like maybe with you and maybe with Bill a little bit and Charles, if you're interested. Take another pass. Yeah, take another pass on it. I think or maybe, you know, before that, I I think that the action versus subject areas discussion would be really good to have with with Jerry and the next folks because take another path. Pass it. What again? I'm sorry, I was trying to get back on the context. I did a really funny thing. So let me let me show you or actually, let me let me post a link. Yeah, Peter and I have been Peter and I have been talking about changing that the categories and subcategories in the discourse. All right, got it. You're going to present that today if we had the right people. That was the thread you referred to. OK, very good. Oh, I just did. Yeah. Sorry, if if you might throw some of that in the matter of it, yeah, have it up in my map. If there's a channel you can even make, you could even make a channel for this stuff. OK, sorry. I want to propose to folks another part of this call. I was going to see is live. Yay, see matters most, at least. I made a channel. It's in the Zoom chat now and Charles. I'll put it on your telegram. Well, OK, as you prefer. Well, I know I'll put the link to the chat you just posted. I have I have the matter most up. OK, and so you see OGM calls, right? Oh, now I need to. I made a new channel on I made two new channels on CSC matter most. I only see Town Square, Metta, do I have to refresh? Sorry to distract you. You probably have to refresh. Yeah, I'm just a little surprised that you do it, but I love you. I don't know how to refresh. Hey, guys, OK, yeah, AJ, you learn that's what we were. We were we were in the we were in another room. Yeah, we were going, where is everybody? Yeah, same same. Are you in because I went in a room that was empty at one point, came to this one. And then I sent you guys a note because I couldn't figure out why you weren't here. Well, thank you so much. You were facilitating the facilitators. And now, now, Matt, and I don't feel so lonely. Modern technology and likewise. What room were you guys in? Were you in your room, Jerry? No, it wasn't my room. I thought and I thought there was usually one consistent link from collective necks that we were using. So yeah, I think what happened was is there was a standing meeting on our calendar since the very beginning of time. And that was the one that Jerry and I used. And Hank probably sent out a new one to all of all of us. So we'll we'll have to get that. You know, cleaned up. I was telling Jerry, though, that given the work that Hank is doing, you know, inside of collective next and, you know, some of his development goals that we have for him, he's we're probably going to lose him as kind of our administrator of of these things. So we're going to have to figure out, you know, how to, you know, how to keep the system going. And but we'll that's like one of those tactical issues that will come up that we should address before the New Year. So it's good to see you all. And I see the link to the collective sense commons matter most in the chat, which is awesome. And I really like matter most. I'm like going back into it. People was like, oh, yeah, I like matter most. So it's like sweet. And once you figure out how to work with channels, which is not the most transparent thing, the interface is nice and it feels really comfortable. And then Matt and I were just talking about what makes a quest, like what are the artifacts that let people know we have quests? How do we do more than half like a quest is more than there's a thread on discourse named whatever this quest is. Because I think that once we have shaped up quests, then we can have a quest on the food and soil system. We can have a quest on education. We can have a quest on neighborhood economics and probably several others. And then we'll all be like, oh, OK, we can wander over to those meetings. And those groups can have their own separate calls, et cetera. And then Rob and I. So I want to point out the CSC channel link there. My suggestion, my proposal, my offer gift is that it would be awesome to use the matter most channel instead of the Zoom chat for right now. Well, for calls forever. Yeah, for all our calls. My only problem with using an alternate chat, which I love the idea is that I have my windows set up so that I can see y'all and chat and it all works transparently. And that's hard once I start using a separate chat. That's my only beef with it, because I know that everything else about what you said is better. Yeah. Why is it you can't you can't just have two windows? I don't have a big screen. I've got a laptop where I do everything. And so, yeah. Charles, interestingly, has the opposite problem. He zooms on his phone. Phone. Right. Yeah, I'm still plagued by this issue. And I'm not a laptop. So I haven't pursued it enough. But basically I'm cut off between the Zoom chat and my map and other visual stuff on a big screen. So if I have a bridge, such as Mattermost, TelegramWorks or a Google Doc, this is what I've been doing just to Jerry Rig it later. Yeah, it's a Jerry Rig or Jerry Bills. Yeah, yeah. Lauren, go ahead. May it now might be the time to tell the tale of the transfer from Facebook to Keybase. So some of these little teeny things that you think are just going to be super easy. Like you had a group chat and we're just like, oh, you know, we should really be talking on a privacy-enabled platform. So we'll just get everyone to go from Facebook to Keybase. Good luck with that. Some of these little things like, oh, no, no, no, no. We're not going to chat in here. We'll just chat on Mattermost because that makes more sense. And it's totally like I know you like all the reasons are good. It just strikes me as a thing. No one's going to do it. Well, I'm just finding, trying to click on the links that you put in the chat. It's required me to open accounts or do various things to even get in. And I'm not sure whether I'm even in the right place. Yeah, and Peter, I went and I just logged in and registered and all that stuff and Common Sense Commons, you're almost done. Please verify your email. And it's I'm getting nothing in my inbox. And you know, what's so funny is when Gene did that whole thing with whatever that other platform was, that he wanted everyone to put their person in. Kumo, I think. Yeah, it was Kumo or it was the other one. That wasn't Kumo. It was the other one that he had. Never got an email from it. Couldn't find it in my junk email. Couldn't find it anywhere. I don't know. I don't know what it is, but I think the I think the big machine is filtering out all these little players. Yeah, that's weird. So it's it's going to be a process, like Lauren says, you know, I so I don't suggest that like, oh my God, we all have to be here or we all have to be there. It's going to be messy. And if we can kind of move over hopefully fast, but if we can move over to the matter most, that would be awesome. I do think. And Matt, of course, I can help you get it does work. It works quite well. It should be ways to resolve those issues. We're going to have I think we're going to have though we're going to have these same issues with adoption for everyone, right? And I think I think this idea of, you know, an onboarding kit and and and, you know, a help desk and, you know, all of these things to get people in to our system, whatever that system is, I think it's going to be essential, you know, to essential to kind of get, you know, ramping up, you know, yeah, like, like, like Walmart. So because here's, you know, here's the thing that that I'm noticing about about OGM is we have we have human beings in our group that are want to expand, you know, expand what this thing is, right? Because we all feel like there's a connection to other human beings within within this circle. And a lot of us live in this atmospheric layer and we almost need to build, you know, build the stack from, you know, the highly conceptual all the way down to the, you know, the tangible so that there are, there's the scaffolding to enter into what, you know, what we're doing, right? And I don't mean that just, I don't mean that just about the technology. I also mean that about how conceptual, you know, we are in George, the conversation we had, you know, just the other day. I mean, we were very much in the clouds and trying to start to pull things, you know, pull things down. Neil brings that up pretty regularly in terms of. Again, the stack of vertical Davidson brings that up pretty regularly in terms of that potential stratification. And I think I agree at the same time, I want to be sure that it's still an open process where people can aspire to be in a different level. And maybe there's an observer period or something that lets them get a sense of how it's going because having been in groups of long standing, if you bring in new people, if they're natural adapters, they just automatically do that. And you don't notice that you have a new person in the group, but other people can be, they get kind of lost. And- I think it's about the scaffolding, Judy, more than it is about determining where people latch on, right? Like, you know, we've often talked about this thing almost being like a coral, you know, like when you see the coral reef, you put certain building blocks in place and then you let whatever grows around it, grow around it wherever it can find its roots. And so I think what this group's job is ultimately, and this group can always change and grow and all that kind of stuff is, I think to focus on scaffolding, you know, and focus on the, you know, kind of the ways in and how do we build that scaffolding as quickly as possible so that all the stuff that's starting to bloom right now actually doesn't leave because it didn't have an anchor point, right? And I think, Rob, you were talking about this early on when you first came in to the group as like, I mean, how do I start, should I even be here, right? And thank God you stayed, you know, you stuck around, but you know, I think we're at, you know, we're gonna be at risk if we don't find, you know, find the right architecture for people to just, you know, to link on wherever they wanna link on and also to crawl up and down and left and right kind of thing, right? Can I just offer, you know, I shared the video just now. I just, you know. Is somebody else need to go first? Charles and George. I just wanted to invite everyone to check out the mural board that has sprung up and has become a collaboratory and it's just kind of a lot of things that are clicking in my mind together about this type of, and maybe this is a good, just starting point to have an environment and it's chaotic. It's, you know, it requires more narrative and kind of weaving of the parts together for coherence to make sense. That's evolving already. And just to say, this could be a place, this type of visual environment could be a way to invite people in and to be creative as well. Maybe that's enough for my side. I don't wanna get too off-track, but it's to visually represent this stuff might be a good way to go. George, then I'd like to jump in. So when Matt, when you said scaffolding, I couldn't resist to put in the chat scaffolding for the sake of what? Because we love our tools. We all have our preferred channels, media, but when a new person come in, the, his or her question can be, should I be here at all for the sake of what? Like when I am going to a new community, I'm interested, what's the purpose? That will inform me whether I can or how can I best invest my energy in a given group because there are so many possibilities for coming together and scaffolding, using this or that channels. So one can decide to not to decide, I mean, not to decide with some intellectual or ideological means or purpose, but simply here in this group, there are folks whom I resonate with, I feel some affinity with. So I'm going to hang around. And I also think that if we hang in long enough, the organizing and federating patterns will emerge. But there is this, not but end, there is this movement from bottom up, like idea emergence, project emergence, and they can be accelerated if that's not the only movement that we recognize, the bottom up, but we also recognize what I feel Pete is representing to some extent, which is deliberative design. So deliberative design and spontaneous emergence are not enemies, they are dance partners. And my passion is for standing in holding space for the highest potential of the community that I believe will come out from this dance of design and emergence. So yes, let's do scaffolding, try out this and that tools. And at the same time, keep also the conversation going about for the sake of what we try to accomplish, what are the quests and projects that are energizing, that are giving the juices for the vehicles that will move us forward. Totally agree, George. Matt, you're muted, why don't you go ahead and then I'll talk to him. Yeah, George, I really appreciate those questions. And I think from the workshop, what I sort of drew out of those conversations, one is I do think that there is a foundational building block that we have to get done, which is around sort of our charter, our meta narrative, our Magna Carta, our statements of intent, our manifesto, whatever that thing is to articulate some of these things in a more formal way. And it can be a fluid document that's always evolving, but the summary that I took out of that workshop and from these conversations are first and foremost, the people that have come to OGM believe that human beings are in a place of risk right now and that risk is being displayed by both social and ecological collapse, right? That those things are true. I think that people would sort of say that those things are true. And I think the part of OGM is that there's a belief, there is a belief that only together can we deal with these issues. And together means that we have to be able to sense what's going on at a much bigger levels or at multiple levels. We have to become holistic in our sensing. We have to have the resources and tools and time as human beings to better make sense of all of those things. And then we have to be able to organize that sense-making into change-making endeavors, right? I think that that's that kind of, and so what we're trying to do, the scaffolding that we're trying to build is scaffolding that allows us to draw in stuff, knowledge, information, feelings, whatever, a process that and make sense of all of that and kind of break current frames and think about new frames and then to activate that into the world through kind of change-making endeavors. And that's what we're trying to construct. And we know that that construction is not just technical but that it's also social. So that's my summary. And I know, Jerry, you wanted to jump in and go next. Judith, I didn't know if you wanna add something because you look like you had something out of the tip of your tongue as well. And I know, George, you're there too. So why don't we go Judy, Jerry, and then George. I'll defer to Jerry. I got some questions. Thank you. Okay. So I kind of wanna go back to the practical question of how many platforms and what are they? Cause I already have the Google group discourse forum now matter most. Charles started a Telegram OGM list, which I'm on. And I'm in contact with multiple of you through what was the one we were just talking about, Keybase. So I have Keybase open. I have like all these things open. And at this point with Mattermost open, I don't know two questions practically. I don't know what should go on the Google group and what should go on the Mattermost. And then because we're in a channel on Mattermost right now called OGM calls, but we're in a very specific OGM call, we're mixing this chat with the general purpose chat. So, and this call is meant to be for structural design or organizational efforts around it. So we might create a new channel for this call separate from OGM calls. So two problems here. One is we're gonna lose a lot of people when we have too many channels. We're just going to lose people who don't have the skill to navigate a whole series of different channels, don't make their way through the filters like you can't find the confirmation message in your email inbox. That's like a deal breaker for a whole bunch of people cause trying to resolve that is really hard. And then I would love to find what's the natural path for anybody walking in. Do we tell them you're gonna sign up now for seven platforms and good luck finding them? I don't think we do that. I think we need to settle into a more normal pattern across these kinds of things. And if we end up with a practice of, okay, don't ever use the Zoom chat, always use the chat over here, that's good. But then we sort of need to enforce that because I'm sort of so grooved on using the Zoom chat constantly that I'm gonna have to retrain my little animal brain to do that. So that's my pragmatic question. And if you don't mind, I'll just interrupt the higher level talk to go to Pete because I think Pete has done this for a really long time and has some interesting answers here. I don't know if they're really interesting, but obviously I've thought through that a lot, a lot, a lot. I think, so I think I wouldn't really use the OJM mailing list except maybe for announcements. And then I would hope that folks get into the Mattermost for the replacement for Zoom chat and we shouldn't use the Zoom chat and generally guide people over, oh, here's the link that you, you know. So things like missed email cover formations and stuff. Maybe I might as a, or the Mattermost admin might be able to just kind of fix that behind the scenes. So there's definitely help desk stuff that needs to help people do stuff. But, and then I think the Telegram OJM thing could get replaced by Mattermost as well. And actually, Charles and I are talking about getting the KikoLab calls, their chat replaced in the same way. So there's already a KikoLab Roundtables channel for calls. I think I made the decision, you know, I made a decision, it may or may not be the right one, that OJM calls are, you know, I think since the two kinds of calls don't overlap in time, you can have them in the same channel. And I think that's additive for people. I think it's, you know, people will be on one call or the other call and they'll scroll through the chat or they'll have a bunch of unread messages and they can either read them or not. I think clustering things together, reducing the number of spaces as much as possible is a good idea. But it is also true that right now we've got a discourse and a Mattermost and those are both, I think they are both additive together. Discourse is good for lots of semi-persistent conversations that go from days to months, they're days to weeks to months. And Mattermost is, you know, two seconds to minutes to, you know, hours or days kind of. And I think Charles is going to end of the conversation, the Miro board. I'd like to go to Judy then Charles. Well, I was just going to comment that the OJM mail list is problematic because it threads with all of my other email and so I can't possibly keep things connected. So the move for me to discourse was greatly preferable. And I don't think I need alerts for every post on discourse or other networks because again, they feed into my stream but my discipline has to be that every day or every two days or whatever, I'm going to go to discourse and pick the threads I want and follow them. It takes some of the spontaneity out of it. And there's some people in the group that really like to respond the instant they got the email. And so that's a pattern shift and maybe they run concurrently and people self-select where it fits for them. But for me, I've got too many different streams going to have it just all pile into my inbox and I won't make a thought, I'll skip it because I can't dive into the history right then. So I think this is an important discussion pragmatically and I think for a lot of the people, they're very centered on a specific topic and they'd rather just talk about that topic. So I think this architecture that we're discussing is really important for people to find their affinity group and then within that affinity group to find their level of engagement or level of discussion. And we've got all the outside ones too like Metacog or things of that sort that Piragaji that are also going. And so there's a dimension of this where we'd want to figure out how we connect to those, you know. Exactly. And my vision of the future would be that not only will all of this be there but there will be a massive network of active projects that are coalitions of individuals and getting that architecture in place before we have much going is super, super important because you wanna be able to query that and connect with other active groups that are working on similar things and share the things that work and so forth. Briefly before I go to Charles then George, I have the opposite problem with you, Judy. I turn off matter most notifications because there are too many of them. So I won't be alerted the way I'm alerted with emails. And then I get like forum, you know discourse things show up in my email. So I get a lot of email but at least I know that email I see all the time in every day. So I'm busy just trying to, you know ninja filter through all of that. And then second quick comment before I go forward. Ironically, this is a deep OGM question. Like what we're talking about here is like where conversations happen, how we find our way to them, how we don't get overwhelmed by them, how they can welcome newbies without overwhelming them with hey, you get to log into seven new platforms. This is a very important OGM conversation. Charles then George. Yeah, I agree it's really important and I'm so glad to be here. I leaving aside the comparing between different platforms and types of channels and so forth just zooming in or drilling into the repository aspect of wanting to store and make accessible the Zoom chats. For example, and there was some chat here in the Mattermost channel about if I understood, you know, not just the comments and notes from the call, but actually from the chat. So, and what I was proposing was to treat it like an archive and date, have channels that are dated. And so you could have, you know, because the whole Zoom chat from a long session, it's a lot of stuff. Do you need more than that? Do you want those woven together if the calls are not concurrent, you know, in the same channel? And then last thing is Pete, you had a comment here. Yeah, at some point, we can cut each particular call into a Wiki page. It's never gonna happen. Can we have a process, the protocol, to right away? It will, because I'm gonna automate it. Okay, so then you're... Wikis are easy because you can just crank up pages and then you know what the page is because it has an address. The problem with channels, as I just replied to your comment in Mattermost, is that if we have a new channel for every call, we're going to all go crazy or at least my brain will explode. George, did you want me to come back in? You're muted, there we go. So I hope that you guys can put up with my addiction to ask meta questions, like... And also not only ask, but also bring my reflection from a meta perspective. Like, Matt answered very clearly my earlier question about for the sake of what you described, Matt, the sense of manifesto, even if it's not very formal, agreed by everybody, but we do have a shared sense of what is our take on the dire situation of the world and that we want to do something about it and we know that we can do it only in some form of collaboration. So now what I heard, I heard it as the DNA of OGM. And then from the DNA to a viable baby, a new living being, there is the process of differentiation of the organs in the embryo, with the different functions. That's how life is carrying itself forward through differentiation and then integration, those functional roles, functional entities. And this is what I'm observing. It's happening to some extent here in this conversation, although not very consciously. We tend to focus on the channels and the tools because basically it's the immediate survivability will depend on whether we find a tool ecosystem, whether we can create a tool ecosystem with sufficient coherence so that people don't get confused, discouraged and live. We are going to lose not only people, but also the possibility of sustaining a coherent community sense-making if we don't identify and set some clear guidelines about what tools to use for what function and if you already started articulating that. This is what I feel that we need to agree on and canonize, I mean to set in stone, not forever, but at least for something that we have a clear set of guidelines that use this for that and these are complementary and how they relate to each other. So how can we build the synergy across the different channels? But that's still all this, only the tool system side. That is also the differentiation of functions from the human slash social systems side. Then Peter introduced the, probably came out from your conversation with others in the steering group, then he introduced the moderation team. The moderation team, as I referred to in one of my notes on the forum, it's not one function, but a family of function that hopefully over time will be differentiated as some people step forward as viewers, those who are connecting meaning, connecting posts and many other functions within the moderation team. And also the projects, the projects are like the vital energy that carry the whole thing forward. And the last thing I want to say that when we think about the tools and channels, I would like to ask us to think about that, not only from the perspective of we as individuals, but also we as a collective entity. In other words, what is needed for developing our collective intelligence, not only just the metaphor, collective intelligence to say, okay, we already had a collective intelligence. That's not quite so if we would consider the arts and sciences of collective intelligence in which it's not just the metaphor, but models of sense making and methodologies of interaction. And there are people among us who know something about this. So this would be another stage in the differentiation process. I would be happy to contribute to that if and when a need will be expressed then articulated by somebody else also, precisely. Let's go to Judy, but two things. Remember there's a raise hand feature in the software. So I try to catch people's eye, but just click on the raise hand and I'll pay attention to that. And then I'd love to hear from Rob, Scott, Lauren, people who haven't had much of a chance to jump in and see what you're thinking about this. Go ahead, Judy. Well, I was just thinking that even for the purposes of the discussion, that would be helpful to stratify a little bit because we're right now kind of hopping back and forth between the full scope at the most complex to the simplest for the lowest level, lower entry point access. I don't mean simpler or something, but and I think each topic is worthy of some focus. So I was just going to suggest that we contemplate making notes of the topics we wanna come back to if they're interjected in adjacent space to the main topic, but a little bit of flow dialogue management because it's hard to get to a point of consensus if you digress regularly. And I love the digressions, they're always rich, but. Scott, Rob, Lauren, do you wanna jump in with anything? If not, I'll go to Matt. Go ahead, Lauren. I have been thinking lately that I think we really need to make distinctions as Scott has said and give a visual diagram of our network. And I think that we need to spread the idea of a the Doug Engelbart network, what is it? Augmentation. Yeah, network improvement. You know what I call a rapid learning network that is federated and that is an entity that encompasses many different groups of which OGM is a part and Kikulav is a part and Metacogs and all of our sister groups. And then if we have that, I think we can start developing tools or we can find the tools and spread them that are meant to be collective intelligence tools to have a network like that. And that's, I think sort of lacking. And then that can help OGM define its distinct boundaries much easier. And when I hear something like Manifesto, that seems like a really hard thing to do. It is extremely difficult to write a Manifesto for a group. And I have a tool that we've developed at Kikulav, which is a super simplified version. It's called a Vibometer. And it's just simply meant to have a group in 20 minutes and can be accomplished where you just have the select levers that you can. I'll show it to you. Wait, the point is that I think that by having... It's on the view of what? By the way. Yeah, by having the idea in the visualization that there's a larger federated network and then these little groups, we can answer the question like Neil came yesterday because he's a Kikulav harvest. And he's like, I have these abilities and I want to help people and I wanna feel part of the community. And I don't know what group is meant for me. And I think it's just like ridiculous that we don't have this basic level of intelligence that any church, anywhere, even though flatterthers have more network intelligence of how to welcome people in and make them feel at home than we do. And I feel like we could maybe get a little better on kind of sharing that. And we have tools laying around our network to make a more intelligent network. We aren't adopting these other tools. We aren't using them. We're not even like adapting each other's work. Adopting, I mean. Agree and it's a bit frustrating. Matt that you wanna jump in and I'm gonna have to bounce through different call. I apologize, you're muted. I did wanna jump in and I wanna come back to what Judith was talking about and I know we lost George as well. We came out of the design event having pretty clear understanding, I think, of some whether George is talking about organs that need to be developed and grown inside of this system or buckets. We just have to finish the work. And instead of sitting here and proposing, we should do this and we should do this and we should do this, we need to just bucket this thing up into some pieces called the manifesto. Lauren, if you wanna be on that team and do that thing, bring your vibrometer, bring a group of people and get it done. But what we can't do is to say, I wanna be on that and this and that and because we're diffused right now. And I think we just, if one of the buckets of work is to determine what are our initial set of tools and communication vehicles for connecting this community, let's name that as a bucket of work. Sounds like Pete, you're already working on that, but let's be formal and say, who wants to work with Pete on getting this done? If someone wants to write the manifesto, who wants to do that? If someone wants to create a quest architecture, who wants to start to do that? And I don't think we've named too many things. It's just a matter of getting organized and getting to Judith's point focused on one thing for each group, taking it to the next level, reporting it out to people and then getting some feedback and going through that. If we do two or three iterations on each of these things in small teams, we're gonna be done in a few weeks. But if we keep having these meetings, I don't think we're ever gonna get it over the hump. And I think we need to take it one step at a time. So yeah, onboarding and bringing people and then culturing them, Lauren, into our system, like churches do, that should be on our list. But just like agile, you put that below the line because our capacity needs to be focused on the things above the line. And when we get these done, then we move on to the next thing. But I think there's some basic kind of program management stuff that we need to get done. Otherwise we're gonna be talking to each other into the wind for a very long time. That's where I'm out. I would talk to Scott and to you and then to Peter. And maybe I'll suggest that when you have the mic, if you notice somebody else wants to jump in, then you can pass the talking stick to them if you wanna interrupt that, right? A thought occurred to me yesterday as we were working through the Harvest Fest, actually it's afterwards. And I see the tendency in myself, which is why it was so interesting for me to notice this. I'm sensitive to criticism. I'm sensitive to inclusion. And as a result, my personal webpage has every project I've ever done because I don't wanna choose and potentially exclude something or someone or potentially have to say, you know, these three things are the things that really resonate and matter. And what I've realized is that having everything is a way of avoiding criticism because now I can say, you know, I need to have this and this and this and this because if I have all of this, then no one can point to me and say, well, what about this? And my response to that should be not right now or that's not what we do. And this is what I'm feeling is making this so difficult is that we all have this sense of we want to, we wanna make sure that we've thought this through and by said that meaning, well, that means we should grab everything because we're smart enough, we think meta enough. And if you go meta enough, it is everything. And that's too much. And so that's kind of my, I guess my response to you Matt in the sense that here's what we have. It was the first splat from everybody. It was five hours times 29 people. It's all in there. We have all the stuff that Kiko Lab has done. It's all in there. We just need to say, this is what we're gonna do right now because otherwise we are stuck in beta. Yeah, I think Scott. Yeah, I think Scott, first, I really appreciate like the vulnerability there. If there's, you know, I've made the comment about Holons, you know, that a Holon is both a hole and a part of another hole, right? And Holons are made of other Holons, which are both holes and parts of other holes. And this is not a, this is not about selecting the thing that you will commit to forever. This is about committing to create, advancing the building of a hole, right? And zooming in and out of the building of that hole to recognize that your hole is a part of another part or another hole and your hole is made up of other parts. And so it, you can move in and out and we need butterflies and bees that are cross-pollinating across these things. But we also need to establish, because we're creating life and life is created by establishing holes that can be then used in other holes that can then be used in other holes and we have to build our way up and we also have to build our way down. So moving up and down vantage points, right? Being a butterfly across things, these are important forms of integration, but pausing along enough to make is really important. And I think the other thing that's really important is the idea of the crit, the crit in the world of art, right? Is, it is one of the most important skills of an artist is to put your work in front of other people and to accept the critique, the criticism of others as a form of a gift so that your work can become better, right? And so that openness and, you know, this is where doctors stand in front of all of their peers and give peer reviews. And, you know, this is an important skill and we can get better at that. And that may mean we take something in and reach the limit of our enjoyment of that thing and somebody else has to pick it up and move it forward. So that's, you know, the other reason why crits are important because you're also in the process of critiquing someone else's work, you're actually critiquing yourself. You're actually critiquing the quality of your own work. So I think if we embody those two things, the idea of a maker, which is real artist shift and then the critique and that things are holes and parts at the same time and we just are dividing and conquering and re-dividing and reconfiguring, I think we'll get a lot done recognizing that people can move in like an un-conference move from room to room if they're no longer interested, but we at least need to know what we're working on or what we're trying to get done. So I know, Pete, you were trying to jump in. That's a lot there. Thanks, Matt. I want to talk a little bit about communications and information infrastructure. So I think the discourse forum is better than the mailing list. I think discourse doesn't hold the full spectrum of things, of modalities that we want to interact with, especially a Zoom call is a good example. The Zoom chat is super useful and as an implementation, it kind of sucks as chat. It goes away after the call is done. It doesn't exist before the call starts. So along with other things, I hope, and I don't have any expectation that this will ever happen. I think it will, but if it doesn't, that's fine. I hope that we can kind of shift everybody over to Mattermost for call chat. Then it's persistent. Then we can search it. Sorry, missed that word there, Pete. What was that? Mattermost. Sorry, Neil. And let me, I'm going to the Mattermost channel right now and up to the top. If I can just say, I trust your judgment, Pete. I don't need to have the technical tour. Well, I just missed the, because I disappeared in there. Well, and Pete, I think this is an important dividing line here. And I just want to play facilitator for just a second. Neil says he trusts your judgment here, right? The same time, Pete, when you went said Mattermost and we're going to go here, Jerry strongly said, I live in this world and this is how I operate, which is different than how you operate and so forth, right? Yeah, Jerry said something a little bit different. So I appreciate it, Matt. So I'm going to acknowledge that I'm going to acknowledge that Mattermost sucks. I'm going to acknowledge that discourse sucks. I'm going to acknowledge that Zoom and Mattermost together, having them on the same screen and trying to navigate that sucks. I'm going to acknowledge that people have problems signing up for Mattermost and then they're, I'm going to hit return wall. Neil, if you are so in, so this all sucks, I agree. Having multiple tools sucks. I actually, as a person, I have a lot of compassion and a lot of patience for helping people get through stuff. I have this weird role in OGM right now that I don't even have time to kind of like acknowledge all that stuff. He's even contacted me and said, Neil, I've noticed that to the email address that's been dormant for 18 months. I know how to fix this sort of shit. Do you want some help? And I'm going, I don't want to go there. Where I was trying to go though as facilitator and again, I'm sorry to interrupt. As if we said that one of our buckets of work is our communication and information architecture, right? And we said, who is committed to on behalf of all of us working through all of the issues to build our communication and information architecture? I would imagine that you would raise your hand and say, I would like to work on this problem, right? Great. Okay, maybe you don't want to work on this. I see it differently. I'm effing doing that. I'm just doing it. You're doing it. One of the things I observe about OGM, bless its heart, bless its wonderful heart. We have a lot of people with thinking and talking energy. Yes. And it's the weirdest thing. Each of us is superbly able to do things and we have a tendency not to do things. So as an OGM member, one of the energies I channel, and I actually love being meta. I love being distracted. I love being afraid to make a choice, as Scott said. Programmers have a way of calling that. It's called late binding. It's like, you don't have to decide something until later, so I'm not going to decide until later. I love doing that. For OGM, the energy I want to bring and the energy I do bring is let's just do it. So it is that I have taken on the mantle whether or not y'all like it and whether or not y'all agree. And I appreciate that people kind of do and let me kind of charge ahead. We've got the OGM forum going. We've got a matter most going. It turns out that it belongs to CSC. OGM is actually perfectly welcome to think that it belongs to OGM. I think it belongs to CSC. I hope CECOLab will think that it belongs to CECOLab. It belongs to everybody, right? I would just interject. First, it would belong to CSC in my view, but we can flesh out the other part. Yeah, I federation. I think, go ahead, Matt. I guess I'm trying to get somewhere because you're going back into the detail about the communication and information architecture. Maybe I slowed down a little bit much. Yeah, and what I'm trying to do though, what I'm trying to do is to get us to name communication and information architecture is a priority. Who wants to work on getting that priority? What are the other things are priorities? And let's name, if we can name those things, then we can make work on them. I want to name a couple of buckets. And whether you're working on them, Pete, or those things, but people need to think about these things and we need to trust them to think about these things and then to come back and say, here's what we think about these things. We need to do a crit, and then we need to go back and iterate it. And then we need to do a crit and then we need to go back and iterate it. And people can come in and out of these projects, but let's name them first. Because right now, because I'm going back to what Judy, everything is commingled with everything. We need to sort of pull things apart and say, communication information architecture is bucket one. Doesn't have to be priority one, it's just a bucket. Another bucket is the map, it's this charter manifesto statement of intent, bucket two. Another bucket is this, another bucket's that. And once we name those buckets, then people will have something to attach on and put their energies into. Because right now we're talking, we drop down. So another way to do it is the way I've started doing it. I think it's fine to name stuff and then do things. Another way to do it is to do stuff and then name them, right? Yeah. And where are we even gonna do this? So the really, so we're somehow, we got ourselves wound around the axle. I was hoping to talk this call about specific ways that Rob and me and Bill and a few other folks suggest that we want to morph OGM form around. There's, as part of that work, we came to an interesting conundrum, which I wanted to bring back to this group, this call. For lack of a better word, the steering folks. So the top level of that, I guess there's two top level things. One of them is there is a moderation team. And we formed it and then named it and I hope it gets named better. And I guess, you know, so I guess with OGM I'm kind of, I've been in, it's better to ask forgiveness than permission. So, I haven't said, you know, I wonder what the name for the chat server should be. It's like, well, actually there's this entity called CSC running by me and it has a chat server. And I think that's, you know, and so I break down that approach breaks down in coming to consensus before we have a thing, right? But a lot of times having the thing, having a pot of stone soup starting to cook is a way for people to go, oh, I think I will name that soup, you know? And it's like, it's cooking, whether you call it soup or stew or whatever, right? You know, and yes, you could go across the village and make another pot of soup, but this one's pretty good, you know? So anyway, I've been making the pots and sticking stones in them and seeing what sticks, right? So it is that OGM Forum has a moderation team. Whether or not we like that idea is a different question. The moderation team had a suggested set of fairly simple, like let's have subject areas, subject areas topics, you know? Topics is a bad word because, or an unfortunate word because there's a UI feature of discourse as topics. So subject areas, let's call them subject areas. Domains. In that domains, in that conversation and full of the promise of or the thread or the discussion, this discussion of quests on the last call, last Tuesday call, the injection that I had into that discussion was, how about instead of subject areas, we have action areas? And we kind of like put our action foot forward and then figure out how everybody is doing action more than we, you know, and make that a top level thing. Instead of having subject areas where, you know, then we have the philosophy and the discussion and the naming and the action, it's like, you know, there's a top level thing. So the top level thing we're naming it quests and discussions for quests and proto-quests. The thing that we ran it, and then I said, well, this is something that we should bring to the steering call because unless we all, unless all of us organize around the idea of action as a top level or quests as a top level thing, then it's just me confusing and annoying for everybody. So that was the discussion I was hoping that we would get to on this call much earlier so that we could actually have it, but... And Pete, I think what happened was because we're not organized, we didn't actually frame this call for what you wanted it to be. And if we would have said, okay, this call or maybe we say next call because we've run out of time on this call is going to be about the communication information architecture. And we have a group of people that want to talk about what's going on in this call. And that's a hole that we wanna work. And maybe we say our first priority as the steering committee is just getting that in place. And let's work together on getting that in place. And we leave all the other things aside, including, you know, is the food system really important, including, you know, what's our meta-narrative and why are we doing this and all that kind of stuff. We just hold that aside for a second and get some progress. Then maybe that's the right thing. The other option is we say that's a thing and there are other things that people are interested in and let them do their thing. And then we create the rhythm of people bringing their thing to this stuff. So Lauren, I'd love to know what your reaction was all about. No, I really love it. I just think, yeah, I'm totally feeling that instead of subject areas, do the action areas. I think that will just set another, like, you know, not like it's all about, you know, doing but instead of just talking about the meta-narrative you can have a channel that says what is the meta-narrative? And you make progress on the meta-narrative and I think it just will feel more productive. And I also just wanna say, the more I think about it, Matt, I honestly really think that the naming the 10 holidays thing is spot on. And I think it's actually like a far more specific and revealing thing than the manifesto. Cause every manifesto is like some type of, to me, I feel like it's some kind of bullshit on thriveability or wisdom and those don't mean anything where to me the thing about the holidays, even though it seems so simple or kind of a little irrelevant, it is spot on in terms of like expressing your spirituality and what drives you and what is a really deep form of self-expression. It's also way more fun planning your holidays than it is to write your manifesto, which is a good deal of work and it's not fun. It seems to me that we're talking a lot about the combination of culture and action and they're separate and distinct, but they can be merged if you sort of identify our culture is one of blank, blank, blank, blank, blank, inclusion, openness, trust, et cetera, pick some words. And our actions are to apply that culture to a lot of different domains. It might be creating the right networks for communication. It might be enabling the right community action teams, et cetera. But I think there's a difference between what we wanna preserve in the culture while we do the actual work and we wanna move to action because we're all impatient people and want to get things done while preserving the culture that got us started. Yeah, and I come back to the three buckets. Again, bucket number one, I think Judy is defining our culture, maybe it's not defining, it's about establishing our culture, right? Culture are the mental models and shared beliefs of communities of people. And I think getting after it through the holiday project or getting after it through pontification of narratives or systems of ethos, whatever those ethics, whatever that is, we're building that. The other thing we're trying to build is an infrastructure. We're trying to build a basic infrastructure that allows us to connect and commune, communicate, collaborate, all of that kind of stuff. We need that done. So once you have an infrastructure and a culture, then to what end? And to what end is a set of real-world quests that are creating change in the world that we live in. And so I think if we say that our priorities on day one is infrastructure and culture, first and foremost, and if people wanna be, are out questing right now, because there's lots of people that are doing that, let's ask them what they need from an infrastructure and to contribute to defining the culture that would allow them to be a part of this community. And I think if we deal with those kind of three macro-level domains with equal intensity and take action in those areas, I think we're gonna get pretty far. I think if we start to get too far ahead of ourselves though, that's when groups of people, like we can talk about everything and it just will take us more time for all of that to emerge or we can subdivide into something smaller where we can see what emerges in each one of those three domains. And I would start there personally to get some traction. Does that feel, do we have some sort of agreement there? And then maybe what we do is we divide up this group of steering committee members to say, okay, let's each rally around one of those three things. Or where would you rally? If you had to choose right now one, two or three and you can hold up a finger, right? So Scott put them up there. One is culture. Two is infrastructure. Three is participating in real-world quests or defining what the questing architecture, real-world questing architecture looks like. Where would you put your time and energy? And does everyone understand those three buckets? Okay. Is infrastructure really different than real-world quests? Sorry. I think it is. Okay. Maybe I would make an observation that these are all inter-twinkled, right? Absolutely. They're holes in the part of a bigger thing. Everything is inter-twinkled, right? If you want to go around and take your pole, Matt, but I've been having my hand up for a while. I do have something to contribute. If you feel like this is, everybody feels this is useful, then go ahead and look at people's fingers. Sorry Charles, it's hard to see you, Charles, against your dark background without your lighting. No, we can see him. I can go for it, Charles. Just an observation, the bit that's missing from the culture, infrastructure, and real-world quests is real-world reality, right? And this is the challenge is, if it's the wrong ladder against the wrong wall, it doesn't matter how well you build it, right? And so if we're not going to face ecological collapse, if we're not going to face the challenge that is the separation, which is the underpinning challenge of spirituality, if we're not going to face climate chaos, right, then it doesn't matter what we build. We'll feel good as we all go down together, right? And if that's what we want to do, then that's the manifesto. We'll feel good as we all get down together, regardless of what the fuck's going on, right? Now, if we want to face reality and then say, and what is the culture we need if we're going to be open to facing that reality, and what is the infrastructure we need if we're going to do something about it, and what are the real-world quests that we now focus our energy and attention on because of that, then I can see that. But the context setting always appears to be missing, and that's the only qualifier I'd put on, and I'd love Charles to say what he had his hand up for. Thanks. Okay, let's see if I can unload just a little tiny bit here. It's finishing a note. Okay, so trying to wind back from the meta future to as Neil eloquently puts it, what the fuck is going on now here and where and how and with what tools are we even agreeing to have this conversation right now to be literally on the same page. Infrastructure is a real-world quest, okay? Sorry, I'm quite passionate about that. And we have been sort of decided in terms of making sense and orienting and acting in the chaotic storms and flows with sort of where are we going to start? Like even with the steering group, we can't even come to agreement yet. So I'm just observing that and I'm venting a bit because it's like all the meta stuff and, you know, presencing and we just, we need to interoperate actually tangibly in the real world over. Oh, sorry, I had, what am I proposing? I'm not sure, but I had a quick cautionary tale. That's another thing that was lost a little earlier. I'll try to make this brief. This is a longer call than I thought. There's some friends of ours at a group called Radish, Radical Collective Intelligence, some of you know, Jamie and Shively are doing this new thing. Lauren and I opened up this whole five hour thing they called the press conference and we'll come back to that two minute lightning talks, but they decided now, which is bizarre to, and they have, they're going to do this weekly, five hours sessions of two minute lightning talks, like hundreds and hundreds of these, they're going to record them and deliver them on YouTube and two minute chunks. I don't know if they're really going to do that. They have decided now to use what? For the follow up communications threads, grouped according to different topics, email. Okay, and I'm just shocked. And it just speaks to exactly what Judy was articulating and I was resonating with in terms of, you know, there's so much chaos between the different channels and platforms. We all do have our sweet spots and our combinations and that's really valuable. They're never all going to line up, but what's good enough, what's the minimum viable, at least for the steering now, just coming back to here now, you know, for us to get something going, over. I'm just trying to figure out the three buckets here and they are inter twinkled and that's what, it's hard for me to say, oh, which one would I choose? Because I think maybe we need to have like a quest about the infrastructure that we're using and what is a quest? What exactly are the boundaries of a quest? And is that the same as a, is that a project or like what does that mean to be on a quest and what does culture mean? So yeah, I'm enthusiastic about all of those. I just, I would love to know what that means. I have a suggestion from some of our previous calls where quest was allied with mission. So in other words, a quest has a beginning and an end whereas a culture does not. And an infrastructure does not. And so yes, I would agree that a quest to me is a project. And so it does have a beginning and an end and that's why I, while everything is inter twinkled, that is the nature of systems thinking. The value of distinctions is saying, these are separate. And so I do see those as different. I think that the, I do agree with you Lauren about your idea that perhaps culture is a separate piece from, and it's co-developed. So as you're working on the quest, you're starting to focus the culture. I found that personally myself, I tried to make my culture first, my personal brand first when I lost my job a year ago. It's very difficult. And every time I did it, I always started to do things and thought, now that doesn't fit. Now I have to redo the whole damn culture. How, you know, what am I about? And what I found was better was to just start doing things and revisit the culture and redo and do things and revisit my brand and do more things and revisit my brand. And that's how they came to come together. And so I see them as separate. I'm not struggling seeing those as things that I can't make separate. So I like all four buckets. Culture, I think comes first and infrastructure and action and reality. So we're actually pretty good. OGM is actually pretty good on culture. We've got a culture of listening and caring and taking turns and things like that. It's not without imperfection. We need more diversity and more action, actually. An example, so the reality thing is really interesting for me and thanks, Neil, for bringing it up. I have two and two reactions to it. One of them is like, as you know says, it doesn't matter if we're building, if we put the ladder up against the wrong wall, we're wasting time. There are walls right in front of us, climate, food. I would add in there bias and justice. And there's maybe one or two more. I am passionate about all those and I am not the person to work on any of those. My best work is when I can find somebody who needs to get shit done and help them get shit done. So I am a person who can come along and build ladders or build scaffolds or whatever. So it is that for OGM, the thing that I want to help OGM with is not getting a particular thing done but helping it get things done by helping the people who are getting things done. And so it is that I'm working on plumbing. I think of it as information and communication plumbing. There ought to be a better place than a mailing list and it's a forum. The forum isn't perfect, it needs some help. We need some Zoom chat stuff, we have a chat. So then there's a weird thing with reality. Reality comes back for me when as I build infrastructure, as we build infrastructure, as I can offer different infrastructural solutions to people, do you want a ladder? Do you want a scaffold? Do you want it to have like rungs far apart? Do you need them really narrow? What are we gonna do? It turns out that the technology of information and communication is hard and we all think it should be easy and we all think it should revolve, not unreasonably, we all think it should revolve around me, right? I wish the technology for easy for me. So it is that discourse is not a perfect solution for what we needed for community, collaboration, infrastructure. And you could get me going for an hour literally on the problems that discourse has in UI, UX, different kinds of usability things, all that stuff, I would love to just rant about that. It sucks. It sucks less than all the other things that I can think of possibly tilting it up for OGM, which is why we have discourse. So we have this weird thing where people say, but I wish I could only just use email or but this particular tool, I have this tool called, space shuttle, that's the better tool for me. I don't know why we aren't all using space shuttle. It's like, well, to get together, we need to use common tools, it turns out. And I try really hard, literally I go to bed, most of the past months have been me thinking about how these tools are gonna work together, how we're going to get stuff done, how to make them work best for the most people, the easiest. So reality has this weird interaction with infrastructure, right? That if you're not cognizant of the reality of the tools, why don't we use Zulip instead of MatterMost? And it's like, well, it turns out that I looked into that for four hours or eight hours or something like that. And Zulip is fine in isolation and doesn't have all these other characteristics that we need for this whole set of tools to come together. And the other thing, the other part of this, I've also minimized the number of tools that I've wanted to present to folks. So to make it least obnoxious to use tools. Computer suck, sharing information and things suck, but I guess somebody said something, maybe it was Scott, but cart before the horse, but you need both to move? I don't know. The other thing, there's an infrastructural thing that we need from, it's going to come from somewhere. So I guess I have already taken care of, in my head at least, I know that we're using discourse and I know that we're using MatterMost. And I know that they're not perfect and that people are going to complain about them. And actually, I appreciate that people complain about it. It's, you know, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. And I actually don't even have a problem if we decide to use something else, I'll help support something else if we need to. Or I'll say, you know, that's totally wrong direction. That's not my pot of soup. You know, maybe you guys should just try to do that. I don't know. Anyway, where I was going with this was, I have a quest already to provide communication infrastructure to OGM. I didn't, you know, figure out the name that it was a quest or anything like that. I am already on it. It's going. I have people helping me, Bill and Rob and, and Charles and a few other folks. There's, we ran into this really interesting question. Does OGM want to be an action network or does OGM want to be a discussion network? I'm going to scroll back. We started this call. We started talking about this at almost the top of the hour. George put it, do we want to be mission oriented or field oriented, you know, subjectary oriented? And the reason that does that, so Matt, I appreciate that we would potentially talk about the communication infrastructure and I think that's actually important because I need help from the organization in getting adoption onto MatterMos because I think it's the right thing to do. It would be best for everybody if that was fast. The reality is it's going to be as slower than I want. The reality might be that it's really slow. I don't have a problem with that. I do want to need help from, you know, the organization on making it faster and easier and better. But it's going to happen or it's not and I don't have a problem with it going slower. But there's a critical question. Are we an action network or are we a discussion network? And the reason it's critical is because I can take or whoever the admin team and the moderation team can take discourse and warp it. We're going to start warping it into something and unconsciously the proposal I was going to present here today was and I had Rob, you know, I kind of unintentionally brought beat Rob into agreeing with me on a call with him without even realizing it. It's like we want to be an action organization. Let's promote action. And then that means that we shape the categories of discourse a different way than if we're a discussion group. So I think- I feel really strongly that you can't decouple discussion and action because it's a lunar- I agree. And so- I agree. So then it's a question of bias, right? It has to be an and and they have to be compatible. So that the discussion feeds the action and the action enables and feeds the discussion. That's how we grow and learn. Can I tag on there quickly? I was having the same thought, but for this reason that the very action of talking about and trying to put certain channels in a certain structure and being very concerned about the organization, the accessibility, the utility, that's the word I've been using today with Lauren, of the repository, this is action. Now that's very coupled with the conversation. Without all of that, would OGM be OGM? No, I absolutely don't think it would. And so again, maybe these buckets are useful, but how far over? So, Gidi, you're totally right. And I'm not suggesting it's either or. I am suggesting that we have an opportunity, I have an opportunity, and I wish I could share it to bias the forum towards action or towards discussion or to completely balance them. I don't have, I have a lot of ego in other places. I don't have ego about this. I don't really care. I mean, I care a lot that somebody makes a good choice that we collectively make a good choice, but there's stuff that we have to do. We have to do some cleanup stuff to get the forum percoling on from working at 70% to 75 or 80%. Rob and I are ready to do it. And as we do it, do we tune it towards action or do we tune it towards discussion or do we completely balance it? And if it's towards action, I really like the idea of quests. I like the language of quests and is quests what we want to call action? I don't care, but I do care that we kind of step consciously into that decision or I can defer the decision and, you know, miss the opportunity to make the forum work a little bit better as we want to right now. Matt, you've had your hand up. Yeah, I mean, you know, we can talk about language here and whether discussion is a form of action. But if you look at the way that human, you know, kind of, you know, we run all of these big collaborative sessions and the way that these sessions work is there's sort of this, lots of percolation, you know, popcorn, right, if you think about it, then popcorn starts to cluster around things, right? They start to connect dots and then people begin to align, right? So the difference between discussion which is an exchange of ideas and information to dialogue which is moving toward a sense of agreement and alignment. And then that alignment becomes the direction and then that direction is what you take action around. And so I think, Pete, one of the things maybe to think about in terms of our communication system is how do we actually build a stack that allows us to move from this kind of randomness to starting to build clustering, to starting to build, you know, real direction to putting action, right? And it has a kind of a natural divergence, convergence to a point of focus. And one of the things is the more convergence you get to with after a lot of divergence, like if you take this amount of divergence and you squeeze it to a single point, you get a lot of like a laser, right? Whereas if you get to this point, it's kind of a broad light and it kind of diffuses. And so we have to, I think our communication infrastructure needs to be able to hold that whole spectrum and be able to move things along. And I'm not talking about stage gate process or anything like that, right? I still think we, you know, I believe in the, in systems of emergence, right? But I think if we started to say, look, this is the pace to percolate. It's on our Zoom calls where we're just open. And what we want to do is to capture that percolation in this vehicle for chat, because that's just the percolation. And this is the place to take a percolation and move it through a kind of a real dialogue, right, to a place of action. And then this is the place to hold conversations of, you know, of action. And it may be a couple of different places. I think we have to build that whole thing, right? In order for OGM to work. And then there has to be places where people can come into and say, oh, I don't really need to be in the percolation piece. I really just want to be and tell me what you want me to work on and I'm going to work on that project. Or people who say, I just really want to live in the percolation space because I get a lot of juice from this. And that's the type of action that I want to take. I think we just need to build the, you know, build the entirety of that infrastructure, right? And- I think we have that. Great, so but let's name it, frame it, let's communicate it, let's install it like a good, you know, when you come onto a new football team, every season they install their plans. That means they communicate it, they practice it, they make sure everybody knows where to go, they train and then they get into it. And I think we, as human beings, we like, we're such an emerging group that we hope that people's adoption is emerging, but that's not the way that adoption happens. You know, I need a certain level of training. I have some real barriers for certain things, just like other people. And if we're committed to saying, look Pete, you put in a ton of energy and I want to honor that energy by saying, let's install it and then let's see what happens. But we can't just, we can't put it out there and hope that it works because without that install, just like a computer software being installed into a computer, right? We need this human system to be installed into us and we need to take the time for install. So let's commit to taking the time for install of the few things that we're committing to. And it sounds like we're kind of there, right? And then we say, if you need to supplement this with other means, then by all means do that, but this is where we're, this is the install that we're committing to, right? We definitely need that install. And yes, I agree. And I have a question like it's a facilitation, technology facilitation question. I have an idea of how to focus, you said laser, focus the coherence of the laser by focusing by emphasizing action categories over discussion categories. So then there's some problems with how to do that in the facilitation technology way. So that's where I am right now. You know, we've got the, we've got the communication infrastructure running or a possible one. We should, we should install it. We should help everybody use it. And in the middle of that, and inside of that, the thing that's actually the thing that I wanna discuss is that the laser technique. And if that's the right thing, if OGM wants that, if the OGM steering group wants that, or if they want the laser pointed in a different direction or if they want a little bit broader collimation or narrower, what so? And I'm sorry, my mute was off and you guys probably could hear my daughter in the background, but it's cool that way. I think we're struggling here and we don't need to struggle this much. I think there's a strong sense of culture that we can capture that we've already identified because we've been around doing it for three years. It was a largely discussion category but on the whole people brought into their check-ins the action components that they were doing that were relevant to this particular group. So I think we should just start someplace and not make it too complex, be maybe redundant, maybe the OGM group list stays there and the people who wanna use it will keep using it and the people who'd rather discuss will note that that's all happening but they're gonna go over to discourse or something else. And again, in terms of the, that can be a transition that evolves because if you then decide you wanna work on a particular project or action area, whether it's storytelling or environment or what, it may be that your group decides, oh, we better migrate over to this one instead because it would be better for what we're trying to do. And to me, that's kind of a natural evolution and we shouldn't too strong a word but I'm not sure it's a good use of this group's time to try to get to the perfect segregation process. We should just get started and let it kind of evolve organically. Sorry, I do think it's worth though creating documents. So this was something that I created to use email better, right? We called these things subject hashtags I had an introduction to what they were, right? So you put a hashtag in front of it you actually build your email box for these hashtags. And then I created names of hashtags and I created what they were for, right? So this is where you hashtag signals is where you put anything that's information about our evolving business context. And then how to introduce a new hashtag. I think the part of the question here, Pete, is what is the basic user guide? What can we put down on paper that we can say here? Here's how we intend to use these things and get some documentation to say, we think discourse should be used like this and we should put it in a form factor where it's sort of like a PDF or something people can print out and put on their desk. And I think that might help, might help things. Okay, so you've got it, you've sort of got, you've got your big, you know, we got... Yeah, this is actually not quite that. So I agree, we need... So in a way, discourse has self-documentation, right? You're supposed to, in the interface you're supposed to weave in, how to use different categories. So this is the category setup that we have right now. And here is where I'm more or less Rob into. Maybe he came up with a lot of the idea and maybe he deserves more credit for this too. But anyway, here's why I said, you know, there should be a top-level thing called quests and discussions. So this is a, this is the laser collimation thing. This is saying that quests are a top-level thing along with designing the system and bringing OGM to the world and big questions and stuff like that. We already have this, this is the way the current forums is set up, bringing OGM to the world has this tiny little thing called, I wish we were doing actions and stuff. So this is slated to go into quests and discussions and be here, right? And then start to fill this thing in with environment and regenerative agriculture or soil health. And then there's a question around whether you, how much you focus these. Environment is probably too broad, regenerative agriculture I think is probably still too broad. Soil health and food systems maybe getting close enough to, you know, focused enough. So I need who is quorum for going through this set of categories and deciding what they're going to be. And on top of that, we have, this is- Us, I think we're the quorum. Well, not all of this on this call, I think, unless you all want to be, I don't care how big the group is. I think, Pete, what we should do is we should, we should get to a good proposal, right? And then I think we bring it to a Thursday call and we say, here's what it is. And then we get all the feedback and then we do another iteration and we go and tell we feel like we get there, right? That's the- So the good proposal is the part that I'm a little bit stuck on. I have what I think is a good proposal. I don't know that the steering group thinks that it would be a good proposal. And in particular, so looking at this structure, we've got a bunch of positives and minuses to the structure as it is. And so one of the rules of facilitation and categorization and library and science and stuff like that is you can't make big changes, right? So for better or for worse, we have the category system that we have. It's not perfect in a lot of ways and it's okay in a lot of ways and we need to make changes and we need to make the changes so that they're acceptable to people and useful and helpful and not freak them out too much. Or we're early enough where we can just make the big changes and- Yeah, we're not, I think. You think so? It's pretty far along. So then the next question is- Just before you go there, Pete, can I just jump in on something? We're talking here about governance and lack of governance, right? We're talking here about your inability to find somebody that can say, yes, this is a good proposal, go with it. We've talked about how we might bring that back to the whole Thursday group and whether that's a good idea or not. We've talked about what is the steering group and I still don't know who the steering group is. So we're actually getting to the point of saying who is qualified, who is capable, who is mature enough to make decisions on the technical versus the social, on the polycentric governance process versus how do we have some sort of hierarchical mechanism that agrees this is who we trust? We're talking here about where is the expertise and some of the deep interview stuff that Lauren and others were talking about last night might go there, but who are we going to trust inside a set of rules that we have agreed that we will trust people to bring us the best proposals and to trust them that they are doing the best they can with an overarching set of governance principles of doing the best for all in the limited time available. That's governance. Now, I think we're afraid of actually saying what is the mechanism for how we get to that point? And we need to make some decisions here on who is going to help to get us to the next stage to put a stepping stone in front of all of us that we have all agreed on either directly through consensus or through some handing over of that authority to somebody else to make that decision on our behalf because they are the most context able leader in that field over. I'd like to add one thought to what Neil's saying. I like what you have and I think we need to move, but I also think that people absorb information at different levels of penetration. And so I think if we were at this point to go to the whole of OGM and the great size of the group list, I'd wanna say that the working team is evolving mission culture, the four things we described. And here are four bullet points under each of them. Let us know if you have additional ideas while we keep working to get to a document that we can send, but whatever document we send needs to be pretty simple because otherwise people won't actually read it. There'll be a few that we'll ask for more. If we send them the major headings and the ABCs and said there are sub ones, sub twos, et cetera, some people would request the full document and others would say, I'm okay with this the way it looks. So- Yes, I'll go further than that, Judy. Nobody's gonna read it at all ever. So the way this sort of thing works is you set up the structure and you let people know the structure and nobody is an exaggeration, one or two people will read it. The thing that you want is to have the structure set up and then facilitate people into it, right? It's like, oh, hey, Joe, it looks like you're talking about a quest. We have this whole new category called quests and I think that's probably where you wanna put this discussion. So it ends up being a decision and a structure, but the facilitators and the leaders, you write rules so that you have something to refer to when people break them, right? Or maybe that's a little bit too harsh for this group, but- I get what you're saying. There's behaviors that are not acceptable. That's the mediation process. Not even not acceptable, just doesn't fit into the structure. So people aren't going to read a long email about structure and it's noise to them, right? It's not part of getting their job done. They're gonna come to the structure and try to use it. And to the extent that we've made a beautiful structure and it's easy to use, they'll find their way. To the extent that we had to make the structure less beautiful for structural reasons or whatever, then we need the facilitation team separate from the moderation team to George's point. We need the facilitation team to help people find the right places to have discussions, right? There's a little technical, there's maybe a big, there's a big technical issue with my laser focus on action here, that whoever is, so I guess there's two parts kind of to Neal's, what Neal discussed. There, I need two things. I need the team of folks, and I think it's probably pretty small, who will think through the information, architecture and technical facilitation of this category and that category. And the conundrum here is that if we emphasize action and then make the subject areas a sub to action, then we need to duplicate the subject areas for the place where we wanna have philosophical discussions about. So you have action discussions and philosophical discussions. And if you put the subject areas as a sub, then you've incurred the structural ugliness of having to duplicate that subject area in two places. Normally what we would do is put the subject area on the top and then everything flows from there. Everybody understands that, that's the way we've been doing library science for hundreds of years, et cetera, et cetera. I think the thing to do for OGM's action orientation is to subvert that and make action the primary thing and subject area the secondary thing. And then that incurs significant structural challenges to the information architecture and the facilitation architecture and things like that. So there's that conundrum to solve. And then there's separately, there's the who's the steering group, who are the people who kind of bless things? There's Jerry and there's Matt and maybe there's some other folks. I have some poll just because of all the stuff that I'm doing. Who are the people that go, okay, Pete and a small team of folks came up with this structure and it satisfies us. It's not perfect, but it's what we're going to go with and maybe as part of that satisfaction, we emphasize action like I'm kind of proposing. Pete and the smaller team came up with this proposal. Here's the proposal, we think it's great, let's do this. Jerry has to say that, Matt has to say that. Maybe there are a few other people who have to say that. I don't know who those people are. I have a question in terms of action because maybe I looked at this wrong, but I saw OGM as a big field that would enable innumerable action teams, not just the people who are in the regular OGM calls or that particular subset of people. And so the simplicity of enabling or supporting action initiatives, quest feels really big and consolidated like fix the environment. That's indeed a quest, but it will pass my lifetime probably, but there's probably literally thousands of teams that could be doing individual quests locally or something. And I know the group is thinking at that level of complexity, but in the sense we need to make things as simple as possible for the users. Yeah, I think so the avatar for this for me is Klaus, right? When Klaus talks about soil health, it's like, I don't even know why I'm on this call. Let's go find Klaus. Let's fix the soil, right? And soil health and probably what we would want to do is help get Klaus to come down to something more concrete. What can we do in the next six months that's going to move the needle, right? And so that is the kind of, that's the size of quest that I wanna see, a three month or a six month or nine month kind of like, focus thing that's going to move. I kind of like the term project better than quest. Quest feels like it might take my lifetime and I'd still not have done it. And maybe there's different levels of projects and quests. I don't know. And I think you're right, there's gonna be thousands of those and they don't all fit within OGM, right? So another thing that I've done already is I've said, I have a quest to improve communication infrastructure and information infrastructure for collective people who are sense making, right? And I have it and now it's outside of OGM. There's CSC is a separate thing, you know? OGM, it's a member of OGM, it's part of OGM, but already I have come to the decision that if we're gonna have thousands or tens of thousands of action groups, they are going to significantly bud off and turn into their own little thing. So when I think of joining Klaus, you know, with planting plants to regenerate soil or something like that, you know, partly it could be an OGM and partly it has to be something else, right? There are going to be people in that quest, in that project who probably never even heard of OGM or they hear some of the people talking about OGM and it's like, okay, whatever, I've, you know, we've got a thousand plants to plant today, let's do that. And I don't know why we're talking about OGM, right? So I agree that OGM, I think, so I think we can, OGM should be a nursery. One of the things OGM should be is a nursery for ideas to spin up for people to coalesce around an action and a lot of those things bud off and turn into things that are part OGM and part their own thing, like CSC. CSC has already done that. Can I comment on your divisions on the Mattermost? Can you put it up on the screen again? Sure. You know, by commenting, you're joining the team that needs to make a really beautiful proposal, right? Well, so I thought everything made sense, but sort of like in the way that we all chat while we're zooming on Mattermost, it makes sense. But for example, like the OGM Marketplace, I don't know if there is a Marketplace yet. My general sense is that you tried to start it and no one was really there, right? Or did I? Yep. Well, yeah. So OGM Marketplace is currently in the wrong place in the hierarchy. It's too far up. I did that on purpose. So here's Pete just doing stuff, right? Starting a stone pot soup and going, okay, this is going to happen. Sooner or later, I'm just going to start doing it, right? So yes, I just started OGM Marketplace. I have two posts and two other people who've liked it. So what I don't have is what Matt was calling installation. Matt or Jerry have not blessed the idea of an OGM Marketplace. They haven't said, I've posted an OGM Marketplace, have you? In a larger sense, Lauren, you and I share a goal of, OGM Marketplace for me is an offers requests system. It is a matchmaking system. It is kind of the most simple and most stupid one that you could invent, right? And so it is because I have a little poll with a guy who runs OGM Forum. I could actually instantiate it in an OGM Forum and see if it's stuck, right? It may or may not stick. It's certainly not sticking yet. I could, with a few people, I could start to push it into something better. In reality, OGM Marketplace, I think OGM, a group like OGM needs its own private Marketplace, but really, if you think about it, what we want, what you and me and Charles and, you know, Vincent want, I'm gonna let her talk to her kid, no worries. I'm just thinking that we're making this way more complex than we need to make it, because this is an ever-expanding community that's gonna reach outside the community itself. So I understand what we're looking at, and I think that group of us can work on the list and repeat to enable for those people who want that level of depth, how we're gonna do it and make things that smaller groups use compatible with feeding into that process somehow. But I think if we try to envision all of the layers of guidance that we need for a massive global effort, we'll just get stuck in the mud. This is what I call different meta-levels on the mailing list. Where, you know, somebody's meta-level is super fascinating to them and completely boring to everybody else. I happen to be on, I'm going down a rat hole a little bit with Lauren because, well, because I guess it's interesting to me and Lauren. I guess I forgot that the rest of you were here. But let me continue, because it's so important. At the meta-level of OGM Marketplace, OGM Marketplace is kind of a hack. What we should really have is CSC or CSC in KikoLab or CSC in OGM or OGM or God knows who, or yet something that should be invented. I desperately wanna be running a offers and requests system. I wanna have a project directory, a person directory, a organization directory. You have hash bins in the hashverse. Vincent has catalyst. There are two or three other people who have discussed the same, let's have a directory thing in OGM Forum. So, coming back to OGM Marketplace, OGM Marketplace is simple. It's easy to understand. It could potentially be kind of a spark onto the path of having a nice request offers system that's federated out to the whole rest of the world. That's where we're going. That's where OGM Marketplace is going. It may or may not be the right embryo to start with. My question just in terms of the design is like the way that you set it up can encourage certain behaviors. Like how you do the hierarchy and kind of infrastructure can determine whether storytelling, are people in storytelling gonna be telling some meta narrative of the world or people in storytelling going to be helping people in OGM tell better stories so that they can improve what they're doing. That's what I'm saying in terms of like this, the structure, what do we want to have happen and how can we facilitate that? Can I just offer just a quick thing for both of you and in general, like it's the starting point that we're trying to get to. It's like the minimum viable whatever version one or version 0.1 or whether it's alpha, beta, however we wanna call it, it's just getting to that point to be able to iterate and to start to operate. Just the observation that what we're talking about here is building the function before we've actually discussed the functional requirements spec and talking about the functional requirements spec before we actually know what we're here for and why. That's the big picture framing. It's not to say we don't have some overlaps of common understanding, but the example I used of Klaus for example is a classic example of how for Klaus he wants a detailed system that can give him the people involved in the ecosystem around soil health and better tap into the data that's needed and that might be the model we need for every other big chunk like regenerative agriculture. At the same time, I think you're doing a great job, Pete, of keeping the options open for if this becomes a global network with polycentric governance, there still needs to be a set of overarching rules whether it be the information architecture, or some sort of manifesto of the things that we will do and the things that we won't do. OGM as an umbrella does not do stuff which is damaging to the environment, damaging to people. Simple as that. The things we will get involved in are these. This is how we make our decisions. This is how we do our governance. This is how we identify our priorities. Within that, these are the tools we use. Now, the tool infrastructure and where I came from before with no regrets provided the tool infrastructure is scalable, both up and out, which is, I'm sure, where you're coming from very much, Pete, because you've got that capability and provided it allows the functions in terms of the detail Lauren was just talking about. Is it telling story, or is it building meta-story? And if it's got both of those, great. Functional requirements, spec, tick, right? We need to maintain no regrets, capabilities and maturity in the system for it to be evolved into as OGM gets its act together. But the overarching thing is, do we all agree, and my sense is we do. We just haven't actually put it down on paper. Do we recognize we're in climate and ecological collapse? Yes. Do we recognize we're going to do the best we can for humanity? Yes. Do we recognize we've got localized projects? Yes. Do we recognize there's big topics? Yes. Do we recognize we've all got complex skills and different abilities? Yes. We can identify who works on what, where and when. And if your tool can do all of that, then you've got your functional requirements spec, and I'll sign off on it. Just a glimpse of something that made me smile. You sound like a kinesiologist a little bit, and you can do muscle testing for each of these questions. Anyway, I digress. It's what I do with my system sensing and systems thinking is I feel the pain points. And because I have those pain points, I know what they feel like, and I know what helps. And I also know what didn't work last time. And so I've got life experience of multiple ways of trying to get people to work together and have failed. And it's not that I don't try. It's that it gets to a certain point where the level at which they're operating is not sufficient for what I believe is needed, which is facing the big reality. So it's not, I don't want to play. It's why would I play here if I can play there? And that's the same challenge with the software and the technology and everything else. So who's our tribe? In Klaus's case, he coming here for governance assistance to get to what he thinks is the most important priority. I'm not saying that's not the most important priority for him. I'm saying it's not the most important priority for me, because I could develop a systems design laboratory model, which could go into every place in the world that was ready for it, which would include regenerative agriculture. So to me, the nested model is how we get people to collaborate, not how we do soil region. Soil region is a technical element of collaborative people working within scientific principles. How do we get them there? Maybe it's story. So there's logical sequences here and kinesthesiology is probably a good example, sensing into feeling what the system needs to enable it to dance again, not just sit on the couch and go, God, my back hurts. Thanks. So just to flag what I put just in the chat, I was really resonating Lauren with what you said about story and narrative based on the structure of the forum. And so I'm reaching for, I have a sense that there's a way somehow for us to optimize or to adjust in the design with that in mind. I mean, my basic sense from this group, I could be wrong, but I have never worried like, oh my God, is OGM just going to go like a runaway train and just start doing shit without like talking about it and discussing it. I have never feared that. So I mean, for the design, I mean, I'm not even sure you really have to like emphasize that talking. I think this group, that is their natural inclination to have these deep discussions with no encouragement whatsoever. So that's why I do support you Pete in the kind of presenting action as the, you know, top level, what people go kind of is presented first in terms of like, what are we going to talk about? Here's that action items, you know, can I just gently challenge what you just said, Lauren? Yeah, sure. I don't think anybody's concerned that this group's going to go off, right? The question is, if it went off in a direction that you couldn't sign up to, would you still be part of this group? Right. So if it started doing stuff, which was anti-Semitic or, you know, genocidal, right? So there are things that you would not agree with if it was doing it. So let's not pretend that if it was going a particular direction, we wouldn't, we would be there. The only things we can bring at the moment as volunteers is the choice to be engaged or not. And if we choose to be here, what are we choosing to be here for? And what are we choosing here to not be here for? So that's the simple, you know, am I in? Am I out? Is it my tribe? And I'm just saying to me that's a critical framing element that is the underpinning of whatever governance is. And then we give people free reign within that, whatever we choose as the tools. I always tell the story of me making this list. Before I met my husband, because it's always super relevant for me. And so I met this couple of this beautiful couple, and they each had their different ways of making their lists. And the woman said, Oh, I just wrote out like 50 things that I wanted in the husband. And she had her list of like 50 things renowned. And the husband said, I had a list of nine things and I put them in order of, you know, essentials, needs and wants. And to me, intuitively this list, which is not like a manifesto, but it was just like, I am going to limit what I'm asking for. So the universe knows exactly what I want and in what order. And I got exactly what I asked for. And it helped me clarify. When there was this other guy, he seemed really great, super talented. But I noticed that he did not have the number one thing on my list, which was integrity. So I was like, now that I have my list and I have it ordered. I'm like, I couldn't possibly go out with someone who does not have the number one thing on my list. So I think that's what we kind of need here. It's like, yes, you know, OGM is for this and that and all the good things possible. But what is actually the most important things in what order. Now I think that would help a lot to, you know, decide the structure of. And that would also help. You know, what we need, I think our tools to help differentiate between different groups and express that culture. And that's difficult until you like go through an experience. You know, your grief and your pain from your previous experiences of bad manifestos is showing Lauren. I wrote the question in the discourse channel, which I haven't revisited and probably need to shortly. Why are we here? The big question and the answers I got showed a vertical differentiation of people who recognized big picture right through to nitty gritty stuff, right through to Kevin even saying, we don't do that sort of shit. We're incapable of doing that was the comment. Right. So at this point, we have an undifferentiated group of people with multiple different levels of skills, multiple different world views on how it needs to operate and multiple priorities on what's most important. Now the beauty of these dialogues is it allows that to be seen for those of us that can pick up those different levels. We feel that what we don't have is an overarching set of principles which say, despite the fact that we want to get off here, here or here, do we all agree that we're all here for broadly this. And if we're all here for broadly that, then how can I enable you as Pete does so beautifully to do your bit, your bit, your bit, your bit, your bit, your bit, your bit, your bit. And if you've got a really bit, a bit that's really important, how do you not hog all the resources, class or other, right to make everybody go your way. Let's create the stranger tractor that allows those that want to do your project with you within these rules come to you and give them all the tools they need, support them. And then at a local or bioregional level, it's actually repairing environment, society and soil would be a critical mechanism that OGM could inform both as exemplar model and tools to support and the skills to go in and do blitz makeovers, whatever you want to call it. So to me, we have the skills to combine. We need to recognize as a vertical differentiation of where people want to get off in terms of complexity, philosophy, simplicity, just do it, all the tools within the technology, etc. And if we honor the potentials and the potential complexity of each individual, including me in this, then that's another one of the rules. We honor the complexity of the individuals with which we're dealing. We will honor their development as they go through these different stages. And we will recognize if they're grieving from past manifesto experiences that we can help them with process which softens the blow for them while we show them why it's a benefit, which is what Pete's doing for us with technology. Thanks, Pete. I still think we, what I'd like to see us do is have a clear and simple statement of values. And right on with what Lauren is saying, it's not an encyclopedia of values. You know, it's, we're committed to being an open, inclusive community. There may be caveats. If your integrity is lacking or your other dimensions. So we need the other adjectives that go with that to help define the constructive quality of this community. That's probably what attracted each of us to it. From the very beginning. And I think what you're doing Pete is critical because I would trust you to just say, okay, Judy, you really only need to learn these three programs. Because you've got the knowledge to do it and you will sort the differences out at a level. I couldn't possibly begin to be informed to do. I can be your test bucket though. Can somebody who's only moderately complicated. Able to do this, you know, I'm, I'm learning to use the ones you've given me so far. So they're not too bad. So I think the approach would be really helpful. I think to go back to the whole group with output from the workshop, which is part of what I think Matt and Jerry and others really want to do. It needs to stay at a high level of output. Not all of the detail of drilling down. For the first pitch. Because I think we want consensus on the big picture. In terms of vision and values. And then operationalizing how you enable the achievement of those things. Is a different process and we'll invite different people. I wonder if we can start a topic on, on the forum. Just for values, OGM values. Perfect. The other way to do it would be for a smaller group to, to draft a, you know, draft a doc. One thing, you know what, um, what we did in Kiko lab last night and that I think is really effective as a process. We do the circle appreciations, the group of people that have done the circle. We do the circle appreciations. And people say. You just want, you know, why are you coming to this group? And people say. And then what I do is cut a video together. Of, um, basically just card in the short in the responses. And, um, then I make a word cloud. And that is just a kind of a natural way of finding out why people go there without too much rigmarole. It just kind of emerges the value system. I was just, you just kind of read my mind. I just put in the chat, there was something called, maybe it's probably still going, it's called World Values Day. It might just simply be that as a URL. And they do a lot of word cloud stuff. And yeah, it's pretty quick and meaningful. I mean, I have to limit the words. Like back to my list, if you just have a bunch of different values that's not as meaningful as having like this is our number one in an ordering of kind of like these values to make it clearer in terms of governance and design in all of this. I need to go shortly. I agree with you, Lauren, and I agree with you, Judy. I've had some experience with this, and I'll give you a little example. I was invited to be a wildcard for 2013, Matt and Gail Taylor Design Shop held in Sydney around trying to find cures for brain cancer. And it was a three-day residential, and it had representatives of people that had survived brain cancer, people that had lost family members, brain surgeons, pharmaceutical companies, you name it, our researchers, hospice carers. So an ecosystem, and we've got part of that ecosystem here in OGM as an example, but we don't have quite the diversity yet. Out of that, we started to recognize that there was an opportunity to write sort of a manifesto type thing, and it had two parts. We, the undersigned, believe these 10 points. Brain cancer is an indiscriminate existential risk to anybody that can potentially get it, too. We recognize the dignity of human life to make decisions, et cetera. So it had these points about what we believe, and therefore, page two, therefore, this is how we will act. And so again, the facing the reality of the situation, and this is how we will react. Those two parts act as a mirror to say, in this context, this is why we do this. And something as simple as that could be something that people, I could put on the table as a draft, people could play with it, or we could sit down and do a workshop and use mirror or whatever to move things around. But if you start with an open-ended set of values, then it can be tricky because people are coming at different levels of what they think of value is. But if you give them a couple of hints as to what we're here for, then it can start to submit. And I think we've got enough feel for this group to put something general together and say, is this the sort of thing you could go, yes, I'm excited to be part of this. And if not, where would you change this? And what are the rules for how we change these rules? Which is the meta-constitutional process. What are the rules by which we will agree the rules? What are the rules by which we'll change the rules? And the first thing is you drop the nucleus in and see, can people get around this? And if not, where are the differences? And Pete's doing that with his technological proposals here. Here's an idea of how I think it could work. Here's a structure and people are going, yeah, yeah, pull, pull, pull. So I'm happy to be part of a values discussion around some of this, throw a couple of models on the table and see what we come up with. And then say, how does the group now govern around creating the rules by which we will agree to be governed? That's meta-constitutional development. Where should we do that various discussion? Well, I haven't been to discourse for a while, so I'm feeling very guilty. I think it's a question of how do we get people to read something enough to delve into it deeply enough to know whether they can commit or question it enough to actually ultimately be bound by it or not. And this is a commitment question because you're basically saying, if you don't say, change this, then you'll be bound by this. And these are the rules we would use to govern you because we've all agreed these rules. So this is a challenge of the double-edged sword of a governance process. If we can't agree to be co-governed, we're not a tribe or a group. Seems like a ranked voting would be the process. If we could develop, if we could first gather adjectives or qualities of values and then indicate, provide it to the entire ensemble for a ranked ordering for some number, you get five votes, pick your top five and see what the spread and outcome is. That would be a process that could possibly work. I would scope it smaller. I think it's a team that could come up with, and I think I would make them into sentences ultimately. I think starting off with word clouds and dot votes would be fine. But... Oh, I agree, Pete, that you have to get the statements of direction. Close to this group would be a good group to work on values. Here's a draft value statement that goes up through Matt and Jerry and whoever else. And then they say, okay, this is kind of what we think the value is. And then I guess they would probably lead a little bit of full organization facilitation around that. Are there things that we want to change about this draft and what are they? I would just want to say I'm not against manifesto. I'm just saying, like, you know, if you go to almost any nonprofit, they have some mission statement. And for some reason, it just seems useless. Like bullshit. It's not giving me any information, really. Exactly. It's useless unless it's embodied. And this has to be in the heart, not just read it in the head. And that means we have to own it, which means we have to go through a painful process of agreeing it. And that's the challenge. If I don't agree, I shouldn't be here. If I do agree, I'm here. Now, what is it I will agree with? And this is the scary part for OGM. And I think we're dancing around this and we're not facing it. It comes up again and again, right? The scary part is, if I say something that the others don't like, will I be kicked out? Because I like this secular fellowship. If I say something that's too outrageous, will I be kicked out? Where is the locus of power? Is it Jerry? Is it somebody else? Who's got the brain? Who's got the whatever, right? Is this going somewhere else? Is there a vested interest in where the technology is gonna take this? And if I give IP, where's that gonna go? So there's a bunch of questions here with every group I go into. If I share openly and vulnerably here, am I in a safe place? If I don't share openly and vulnerably here, am I actually showing up? And if I can't show up fully, what the fuck am I doing here? So how do we create a mechanism where those that show up know they can show up fully? And that's the challenge is that we have to get to that point of confidence in each other, to support each other through this grown zone. And when we come out the other side, we will have the simplicity, the other side of that complexity. Once we have that nucleus, then we can say, we all agree to this. Anybody who wants to join us, you need to agree to this. Or here's the rules for how you change the rules if you've got a better rule. So if you can remember the better piece of code as Pete would say, if you've got a better piece of code, what was it you said, a pull or pull measure? Go back up the line and say, I think I've got a better way to do this. And everybody goes, oh yeah, let's have a process around agreeing, is that the right piece of code to plug in? And it becomes the new DNA code for OGM. So it's painful because we haven't actually got to that point of really seeing each other across these big differences. And that's why we have differences about project versus quest versus, we haven't got the ontology, we haven't got the language, we haven't got the priorities, we haven't got the structure, but it's slowly coming. It's a grown zone, it's gonna hurt, we can do it. Yeah. I think we can bring our experiences with collaboration to the table and make up little scenarios. Like what happens if someone does this? What does OGM do with this kind of behavior? And that specific kind of thing of working through scenarios, I think would be more helpful than the, we're into thrive ability. Okay, but what do we do if someone does a genetic remark or something? And Lauren, in the question mode, like what you just said, I really like because it's asking questions. So coming up with designing the right questions, tuning also the sequence of the questions Yeah, with these scenarios. It was something I was trying to remember Lauren because we've talked quite a bit but not that much recently about values. And I know speaking from my own experience in trying to kind of mount global scale initiatives and communities and stuff, basically I ran aground in one loose project that lasted three years. It's got basically bogged down in the values definition. It never happened. It just never happened at all. I'm not saying that that was necessarily that could be a pattern or a caution. But Lauren, I know you had some specific thoughts on values. I don't know if you have to go, sorry, but I was gonna ask you to recall what we had talked about. If that was enough of a prompt, not necessarily. I think basically it's the contrast between discussing all the stuff and just jumping in and doing it. Now, maybe that's another distinction with Kikoab where we were agile in certain ways. This is another kind of beast. I mean, I definitely sense that OGM is so pleasant and nice that there is definitely a reluctance to be like, no, we are not that, that this is where we draw the line. And beyond that, that's not us. And there's definitely like a power structure. And I think we need to get that down on paper. I think it's fine. Does Jerry make decisions? That's fine. Let's just write it down so that we know that that's the case. And I think that that's a really hard discussion for OGM, who has the power and how do we make decisions? Well, it shouldn't be because in a sense, we all have personal power and we can deploy it wherever we want. And so if the main power is doing something different than what we wanna do, we start our own power group, to do whatever it is that is more important than the heading at the top. And that's the nature of society and culture. That's how people affinity helps and create action that they can support. It helps if there's a focal point for somebody for one or two or, I don't know, maybe a whole group of people. One works best for you. I'm not saying we couldn't have it, but I think we're gonna, we should acknowledge that there will be imperfections of fit and that doesn't make the whole invalid. It just means that there's a satellite here or there that's, as long as it's consistent with our core values, that's okay. If it's not consistent, then we don't want it under our umbrella because we wouldn't support the non-fit. There's a fair amount of essentially trivial difference that you need a leader to, you know, gloss over. So an example, for instance, that might resonate with people, they might have some experience with us, is, hey, I personally think that we should all use Mattermost instead of Zoom chat. So if I go say that on the OGM list, you know, it's like, okay, well, we'll get 10 people and a bunch of people saying it's too hard, I don't like it, why aren't we using this or blah, blah, blah. So- If you just went and did that, there'll be at least a few people following because they're gonna miss what it was. And indeed, we already have them, we have them today. It took 20 minutes to get everybody in Mattermost that are gonna get in it, right? So, but if Jerry said that, if Jerry said, I'm kind of like you did with the email recently, I'm ringing the gong. Thanks for all being in the, you know, in the foyer, but now we need to go actually do work and chat effectively. And that tool, you know, is Mattermost. That's a different, you know, and we need that. Otherwise, we kind of mill around and, you know, Pete's waving one flag and somebody else is waving another flag. Yeah, I mean, I think- So, Lauren, to your point, we need somebody to say, or yeah, we need to acknowledge the focal point, a focal point. I mean, you know, I've had conversations about like stewardship and, you know, governance is all kind of like whatever until you're actually stewarding something worth value. And then it becomes real. And then these questions become more intractable. So it's like, it's all kind of like theoretical and whatever until there's, you know, money on the table or something. And then if we've got a contract and there was actually money on the table, who gets that money? How do they decide who to hire and what to do and who makes those decisions? And it becomes really real. Exactly. And that's why I've posted the principles of the commons a couple of times and I can weave in some better words around that when I start to do the value discussion stuff. But commons, a common pool, right? As you were doing with Kikalab last night, that's a common pool harvested from collective inputs. The question is, who's going to do what with it? And that's why I was asking those questions. You know, if this is going to become the rules by which we're all going to be governed, then hang on, you're missing a few, right? If this is already somebody else's beautiful work of art, what am I doing, chipping away with a hammer, right? So you've got to respect what's there before, but you've got to know what is it we're trying to create and how are we going to get there? The contributory and distributory element, as you just said, if there's a common pool of resource that somebody has been developing, in this case, Jerry for 20 years with bringing in all these links, but now a whole bunch of people coming around it, who's expecting what, right? So what's in it for me is one driving value set for certain types of people. The other is what could we do with this on behalf of humanity, which is a bigger picture outcome? So where are we putting that? And if somebody's putting stuff in thinking it's going to be useful benefit of humanity and somebody else is extracting the value from that to sell as IP or as a platform for use by others, then have I just unwillingly contributed to somebody else's wealth at the expense of humanity? Because that's where my integrity starts to go, hang on a minute, what am I being integral to? The team or the cosmos, right? And so there's different levels of integrity depending on how you get there. The vertical coherence element here is how does every action that I do within this set of rules, within this group, within this cosmos, contribute to thrive ability or benefit? So it's not just an overarching concept that's thrown up on the wall and nobody knows what it means. How does my individual action? How does my individual stance? How does my relationship with others? How does their relationship with others beyond here? They correlate in a way that makes a bigger difference than I could alone. Because if there's a value in that and people can see it and I can be rewarded or supported, some sort of basic income to keep doing that, I'll keep doing that. But if you can't see my value, and this is part of what you heard last night, not so much a wine, if people can't see my value, what the fuck am I doing? If people can't see it's important, why am I doing it? If they can't see what I think is a bigger objective, why am I focusing on theirs? And so, how do we get to that vertical recognition of differentiation and the horizontal coordination required to enable whoever wants to get off or what level to do that? And that's the process that I'm playing with in several groups at the moment. The lessons I'm learning internally as well as externally is stick to the guns, state the reality as you see it. And if it resonates, people will go, yes, this is what we need to do. You've got to hit them in the heart and then the head stuff follows. But if you come in with the structure and force them all to fit it when their hearts aren't in it, you're not going to have anybody there when you open the door. I got to go, guys. I'm sorry I have to dash like that. And yeah, forgive my impassioned rants, but I think I felt good. I think we're getting somewhere here and I'm happy to go and play and discourse with something around values. But Pete, if you wanted to perhaps pose the starting question. I think the thing to do is to do it all together. I think to do it on a call and on discourse at the same time is the right way to start. Beautiful, because otherwise it looks like Neil kicking it off and this is the thing. It has to have some sort of head of power that says the group thinks this is a useful thing to do and we empower somebody to start the process. Because then it's at least a generative governance step where people go, oh, okay. It's not just Neil asking stupid questions again because the assumptions that go with that. I'll send an email to the folks on this call. Let's talk to them about, yes. It feels like the right, a good group of people. Well, of course it is, Judy. Yeah, I gotta go though, bye. I hope it's still good when I've gone. Keep your integrity, all of you. Love you all, take care. Bye. I really need to go too. I suspect we all need to go because I think it turned around, I think. It turned into a three hour call. So that seems more likely both here and on Seco calls. Seco calls. That's the most OGM-y thing we do. Well, I'll just keep in mind metacogs. Oh, we need to end this, we need to end it. No, no, no, no, no, no. I need to have some tasks and a meal to get before metacogs. We're gonna try to do more harvesting at metacogs. Anyway, yay, all right. Yay, thanks all. Everybody hugs to everybody. This is so positive. It's just a lift every day. Yay, until soon. Cheers.