 This is the first Weaving the World Operations call on Wednesday, October 6th, 2021. Thank you for being here. I think what I'll do, I've got a Google.going, which I will share on screen right now just for a sec. Actually, maybe a way to talk, maybe that's a way to talk through it. Maybe let's just take a moment to check in and find ourselves in this spot. And if at the end of check, and it makes sense for me to sort of lay some context for where we are and where I think we're heading, that would be great too. So how about if we go Hank Bentley Stacey? All right, so I'm very excited. It's late afternoon here. I woke up very early this morning and did a positive cartography session online with the Sustainability Hub Norway. And 32 business people and entrepreneurs, mostly quite young. Well, let's say 20 some things, 30 some things into the 40s. Accounts is very, very young. For me, that's very young. Anyway, yeah, it was extremely successful. It exceeded everyone's expectations, including mine. It was an abbreviated form since ideally you do positive cartography in three days or three weeks. And we had done a three hour version, but this was a 90 minute version. There were five subgroups. One looked at the future of sustainable business in 2030. Two different groups looked at the future of sustainable business in 2050. And two groups looked at the future of sustainable business in 2099. There were great conversations in all the groups. A lot of good ideas, a lot of commitments made and it tastes like more. So that's my checking for now. I love your last sentence there, tastes like more. Fabulous. In the event that anybody left behind artifacts that we can point to and that there's a web link for that session or whatever, pass them over just because I'll curate them into my brain and then they can become an artifact as we start weaving the world and feeding the fungus and all that. But can you give us a taste for what anyone, any one group came up with that stuck in your head that made you like this is hitting a special note? Oh yeah, global guidance for new values, leaders as facilitating organizations, totally rethinking the economic systems of the world. A world, a culture of kindness and caring where everyone is very happy to take responsibility for things and be accountable for the things they take responsibility for, stop measuring GDP and financial transactions and start measuring how people contribute to the well-being of society but stop measuring everything, there's too much measuring going on. Wow, cool. So this happened on an alternate planet then? Well, remains to be seen. I know, I know. I figured this thing out so it happens on this one. Yeah, well, let me just share my screen for a moment. I'll show you a board or two without going into details. Where is the sharing screen? I come here in a second. So we had set up, this was where I was working in 2099. What's your preferred future for sustainable business seven generations from today on the verge of a new millennium? People chose photos or images or uploaded their own sense making and storytelling zone. Lots of input from the group, it all went so fast. There was hardly time to move on to journeymaking. What are the steps in an emerging process? How do we think to get there in the next seven generations? Lots of new ideas and a whole set of commitments that people said we're going to do it. So that's just one of the examples. There were five boards like that. But it's a young group who were so enthusiastic. They said, let's do more of this. We've never experienced something so positive. Everyone is, I mean, it's a sustainability hub and they're all worried about the collapse of ecosystems and climate catastrophes. And this game just got them. And especially in the 2030 and 2050 groups got them into rethinking their own strategies as people, but as entrepreneurs and business leaders. We're very happy about it. I'm glad, thank you. And you're giving me good ideas for workshops too. That's really helpful. Bethany Stacey. So I'm a little tired today. So I'm not sure how effective I'll be. I woke up thinking about logos both for my brother's project business and weaving the world. So that's where my head is at. Cool, thank you. It turns out that one of the employees at Ziba is a textile artist. She has a degree in textile arts and then sort of shifted out of that once she graduated and couldn't really find a way to make that work. But I talked with her about maybe getting together and looking at some of her stuff and just taking some photographs, maybe producing something. I don't know, we just sort of explored the terrain as I was talking about the weaving metaphor and how that all works. So she will hopefully dip into some of our calls, but I think she got very excited about going back into the work she cares about metaphorically for around this work. So that was kind of cool. That'd be great. Yep. Stacey, Callis then Pete. I'll save my time for checkout. I'm excited. I want to get started. Awesome, Klaus, Pete. Yeah, it's busy. It's impossible to keep up at the moment in the regenerative agriculture space because the UN summit is focused on food this year and the surrounding initiatives are just incredible. So there's an interesting split happening between the United States in partnership with Purcell and UAE of all places, United Arab Emirates because they're producing synthetic nitrogen with a state layer of gas. There's a contribution there. And apparently the rest of the world, Germany leading, pulling China, Korea, Japan, other big players, the Africa into this regenerative movement. And the split is profoundly difficult for the multinational companies to rely on monocop cultures. And so here in the U.S., we are pushing also now concerted on monocop cultures as the root cause for the environmental degradation because when you put the same crop into the ground over and over you then rely on chemicals to keep that thing alive. So that's exciting. It's creating enormous tensions in the political bosses as you can imagine. I mean, all this noise obviously has underlying reasons from behind there. So that's amazing stuff. But I'm onboarding with this group on Friday as a brand strategy consultant. It's planetary care. And that's a pretty big group. They have over 50 members. They just got a million dollar grant. So it's, and have some really viable projects. So I'm excited about that. So I will have to talk some other things to focus on my time. So when you say onboarding, you mean as an advisor? It looks like they have- As a partner. Wow, cool. Yeah, that's his forest. He has been in touch with our group. Oh, cool, forest lighthouse? No. Yeah. Oh, okay, great. And I've got some catching up to do with foresty. Quite possibly beers together in Portland at some point soon. So I'll contact him again. I had posted this article in the food systems chat, which was like the critique of Bitman's new book. And it was interesting because I thought it explored the space between big food, industrial farming and small farms very nicely. And part of the critique of Bitman's work was that there's sort of this ideal like everybody will go to a small farm, small farms will make it work. And there wasn't, and I'm paraphrasing badly here because I'm remembering it badly, but it said that there's really interesting sort of strategies at the medium and large scale to actually make big shifts. And I'm wondering if that factors in some place. Do you know a lot more about the systems than I do? But I really liked that piece. So just thought I'd put it back in the conversation. Pete. Two quick things that feel kind of related to leaving the world. One of them is, Rob asked an interesting question, I think in the OGM Calls channel. He's like, so I don't go to the calls. What's going on with y'all? How do I find out? And Jerry and I both answered. I had an answer. It was basically wander around and ask people, otherwise there's not a central place to look. You can look at Trove. And Trove has got a lot of the big tent poles or the big masks that you would see in the flotell, but it doesn't capture the news of the day kind of. And so then I made a joke about wandering minstrels and Jerry replied in kind. I woke up this morning, it was half a joke and half not when I posted it yesterday. And then this morning it's like, yeah, it actually, I mean, it was meant to be fun and light. And also there's a lot of kind of qualitative stuff that you wouldn't capture in a dashboard that each of us, I can tell this group, each of you know a chunk of what's going on in OGM that would never get represented in a dashboard, right? The way Wendy M is doing stuff with Jerry and me or the way Wendy E is doing stuff with me and Mark Caronza or it's just, there are big projects, but then there's gossip in a good way that I wonder if weaving the world is gonna pick up some of that. Kind of interesting below the fold kind of news of the network. The other thing is that Jerry and the crew yesterday on the build OGM call, I ended up bumping or I was maybe it wasn't that call, maybe it was another call, but anyway, I was poking around in YouTube. I've gotten a little bit conversant with the YouTube lingo kind of our YouTube culture in a really small corner. I watch music video, musicians talking about music on YouTube. And so they use some of the idioms that you find other places in YouTube, the way they edit, the language they use the different styles of videos that they produce. Some are for performances, some are reaction videos, some of them are mashups of a couple of different channels together and another really cool thing, people that don't even know each other will start to refer to, oh yeah, I'm watching this person over here and they're doing some wonderful stuff or something like that. They actually, a set of people in the same kind of general realm will start to knit together pieces of things though. There was a really fun one where one of the people that does a lot of music analysis did kind of a takeoff. I think they did like 30 seconds of everybody else doing the same kind of thing and they did it in kind of an, they did an impression of that person doing it and it was really funny and spot on and it also tied together all of those folks in this larger conversation that's happening on top of YouTube videos. Some of it is a little too dear. Jack Conti actually is part of some awesome projects on YouTube, he's been doing YouTube forever and he's doing awesome projects. One of his latest ones, their production style is over the top, it looks like clickbait if you're not paying attention. I guess now that I think about it, there's another guy, a supremely awesome bass player and about 20% of his shtick is completely shtick. It's this camp, he's kind of got a character, he lays on top of his awesome performances and awesome stuff. Some of that is a little bit over the top for me and I could do without it, but on the other hand, I don't know, I can also kind of plow through that and get to the meat of it. There's some amazing kind of creators, thinkers, performers doing stuff collaboratively and around kind of on YouTube that I didn't really think of that way until Jade started talking about Weaving the World and I started thinking about what would the Weaving the World podcast, video podcast be and is there a larger space for more of those similar things interacting together? And you end up having to pick up some of the YouTube culture, YouTube lingo to do that effectively, I think, so. Thanks, Pete. And that took us into a really generative space imagining things we might do in Weaving the Web that would be different from a standard video podcast which is just a bunch of episodes posted separately. And so that conversation included like a Mystery Science Theater 2000 kind of version where currently Weaving the Web would probably have normal episodes and then post-processing sort of feeding the fungus episodes and then there could be meta, there could be like commentary on any person who could do a commentary on any of the above and then feed that into the stream and we could build links of those commentaries connected up to the episodes. And at some point that it like explodes, if participation goes crazy, like there's too much for anybody to watch, but if we find ways to get the insights from all the different participants back sort of into the main flow, then it gets really generative and fun. And I think we need the energy that Pete's describing of different creative people, different talented people taking a look at these issues and taking a swing at them. So that was really cool. Thanks, Pete. And do you mind forwarding to me the download link for the call? Yesterday. Yeah. Already done only minutes ago, but. I didn't see it, shit. Okay. Well, you've been moderating. Thank you, perfect. Mr. Grossman. I'm coming in late, so I don't know if Pete touched on this earlier, but kind of continuing in that thought I mean, certainly people know that TikTok is really a hotbed of weaving and, you know, duetting and duetting, I don't know what you would call it, tri-edding, quad-edding. There are videos that are layered and layered and layered where you have people adding harmonies to musical bits, people doing reaction shots, people having conversations in a sort of asynchronous chain. And one thing that strikes me as Pete talks about that and thinking about the idea of weaving the world and weaving the web is that as a practice I, you know, the practice that exists elsewhere is basically, you know, a pretty spontaneous and unorganized. I'm going to add myself to this existing mix or just this one existing person or this thing that's happening. And the idea that weaving the world as a participatory exercise would involve not just adding yourself to something that is some content that has been generated, but pulling something together with that. In other words, you know, the practice, the rules of the game might be that like your duty is to connect a different thread that might not otherwise be seen as connected with a thing that you've observed. Like two people who don't know about each other but should, things that are musically related, but that relationship hasn't been highlighted by anybody. So it's almost like a reverse pyramid scheme. Like the more it goes on, the more one it becomes instead of splitting out the pyramid scheme analogy it's not quite right because it is pyramidic. Anyway, just wanted to throw out that thought and urge people to, I don't know who here is on TikTok but it's a really interesting pulse and really dynamic place to see a lot of different things going on. And it's not all lip syncing and dance moves and there's some really brilliant stuff happening there. It's like watching early filmmaking except that it's hyper collaborative and clever and stuff like that. There's there in like people, it's amazing how creative people can be and how engaging and how collaborative like stuff like just explodes. And all of a sudden there are 20 people who don't know each other. They don't know where they are in the world even and they're doing this, essentially this video jam. And video is not quite the right thing. It's like performance in the round, right? So like take the best improv theater. It's better than that. It's freaking amazing and super fun to watch and it's emergent too. It's the part of the fun of it is you've got so many participants that you can get these emergent phenomenon that happen that aren't because there's a troop of improv players who've been doing it for 10 years together. It's like magic that happened in the web because of the web, because of a video, because of a duetting, it's amazing. There's the New York Times has a tech columnist who does online culture. And she's really, really good. I'm totally spacing on her name right now. She does longer pieces that have lots of visuals. You're a... It's not Emily Badger. What'd you say? What's her first name? Shira. That sounds really... I'll get her name. I'll look her up too. I kind of want to find her take or someone else's take on the phenomena that you just described. Or anybody's like lots of clips and how the interplay works and all of that. I mean, I will say it's like emergent from the capability of the tool set. And that this was not by TikTok's design that this happened. This is a really great and easy to access tool set that participants educate each other on ways to use or to bring in third party things. Here's how I... I mean, just like in the music sphere, somebody... Pete, that thing you posted where somebody was breaking down Billy Eilish's Ocean Eyes and the tracks. And this was in the Meta Music CSC Metamos. And that a lot of... There are a lot of videos on YouTube explaining how to make both videos on YouTube and do other things. I mean, it's a good place for the how-to's that people have gone to YouTube for. But they would be unmakeable without the tool set that the TikTok has made much, much easier than YouTube ever did. I mean, you know, you make it, however you make it, you put it up here, but we're not helping. So I do think that that's something that I think about in terms of work I'm doing is like how it takes really ace tool creation and technical knowledge to make things simple. And that, yeah, I mean, how did you guys... They kind of accidentally invent, like TikTok was like, oh, it would be cool if you had a talking head and then somebody else could talk against it or it'd be really cool if somebody could sing one part of the song and then somebody else would do a harmony or something like that. But then you can take that, the duet and then you can duet that, right? So all of a sudden you've got this like mix in time kind of thing that happens. And then the really amazing thing is that given this little sliver of creative potential kind of, there are people accidentally in the world who can pick that up and do this amazing thing and then they can keep the chain going. It's just crazy. And it's crazy. It's this demonstration of how creative, like you give humans just a little bit of the ability to be playful and creative and bam, you get people just doing it. It's like frickin' amazing. I got one of the small stories. This isn't one of the big ones, but one of the small stories, a woman is kind of like humming to herself. She says, I think this is a bop. And so she's in her car, literally in her car, like with her phone and she's seeing this little like hesitant kind of, and somebody picked it up and do edit it and he was a real amateur music producer. So he was like, okay, well, also we need a drum track. We need a little vibes. We need to like, and he just magic did up and he cut together all the stuff that he did that probably took an hour or two to do into like 20 seconds of like, let's take this thing and amp it up. And she's like, oh my God, this is so cool. So literally after the course of like, like six or eight back and forth, they did a real version of it. They they amped it all up. It's this super well produced song that I went and like favorited on Spotify because, you know, it got big enough that it's like on Spotify now. It's really amazing. And that's a small one. That was like only two people jamming the heck out of it. Love that. I'm adding a couple of things. Amanda Hess is the reporter and she's really, really good at what she does. Like her pieces are really incisive and she's been online a very long time. Knows the means, knows the forces but has a really good way of expressing them. And so I'm kind of, I'm bubbling up a question which is how can weaving the world pick up some of the mojo from duetting, remix culture, et cetera, et cetera. How can we make this also fun? And co-creative in the ways we've been just talking about right now, which is a lovely, a lovely thing to fold into our conversations. Oshara, yeah. Very interesting. And then a whole bunch of reporters have gone off and become sub-stack reporters, basically, you know. Done Charlie Wurzel, a bunch of others, yeah. It's very interesting. It's an interesting moment because I'll just ask a rhetorical question that maybe isn't which is how can we encourage and frame and maybe model some of these people stepping into weaving the world as artists who are making a living because the weaving that they do in the piece that they play and actually making sense of the world is popular and lots of people subscribe. So should weaving the world have a sub-stack blog that's paid? And then we all, whoever contributes posts to our shared sub-stack shares the revenues. I don't know. That would be very simple to set up and experiment with. I wanna pipe up just to note and caution us, you know, having been in that spot like continuously in trying to make a business a thing that our super smart, you know, awareness of like this cool thing and that cool thing and this cool thing wouldn't it be cool if like all these things could be together or there's a lot of hubris there and everything that we add to our thinking makes it less likely that it's gonna happen and like figuring out how to not be so omnie ambitious and find our lane and get in and do that really well. You have to engineer for serendipity, which if you engineer serendipity, it won't happen, right? So you need serendipity and playfulness and fun and then hopefully other people will pick up on and jam with you. So you can't make it happen. You can actually each of the people I think about and they've got a lot of playfulness and a lot of inventiveness and a lot of production actually. They're making very clean productions, even the guy who does silly stuff. It's very well done. So when everybody's doing this high production stuff and everybody's being playful, you end up getting these bubbling cross connections. Also, I'm kind of importing some things from the spirit. I'd love for our work to be more like Morris dancing and less like coal mining. And so if we can invite other people to riff and do things without us necessarily going and building them. And then when they send in the link, we can shine the light on them and go deeper and talk about it. Let's just leave the door open for interesting things to show up, I think. But Michael, you're pointing to a general tendency also that I know I have, which is like, let's try to eat the world. And that's really hard to digest. Stacy? Yeah, just as an aside, like the example that Pete used of that really good musical person who just added on to the other woman. You can do that when things are playful, but what I see happening when it comes to like there's business involved, people are less likely to want to add something of their own and people are also less likely to want to receive something because it's their baby. So I think that's saying that we really need to always think about because it's always underneath. That's it. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. Other thoughts on this creative stretch and cautions, quickly welcome. Good, so why don't I for a moment share, share the doc and then what I'll ask you all, sorry, this is a Google doc. So far I haven't created it as an open link. I've just been inviting individuals in. Shall I just invite us all in individually or shall I do the create a link that anybody with the link can basically commit an edit or comment? Anybody with the link. So let's do this one. All right, let's post that to the chat. Whoops, I'm in screen share so I don't see my chat easily. There we go, and then I'll go back to screen share and go back to the doc. Did you set that to edit or? I don't know. I guess it looks like it there. Does it? Okay. It says to raise the access. I think I need to change the setting, but I figured it didn't give me the option to change the, just this copy link. It doesn't actually let me set, change the preferences. So I will go now and it's gonna open the document again with the dialogue. So you want to click, there's another thing you want to click there. Okay. Anyone with a link. Yeah, I didn't see that. That's my usual plan, but we'll find it. So I also wanted to go through this. Now my computer is gonna, I think bring up the. I think I need to do it now. I don't think people can open it. It's not coming. Okay. I was waiting for this document to open the permissions dialogue because I was, I had clicked on the notice that said, give him permission. So I was expecting it to slowly bring up the dialogue which is now happening. Computer now doing too many things officially. Yeah, there's Michael. I asked the question while we're waiting. This is my first weaving the world gathering as opposed to a commons gathering. And I'm just curious about the relationship between the two and whether weaving the world is in the comments or weaving the world is a totally, you know, other thing that's OGM proprietary or it gets in that existential. That's totally fine. So this is as open as we can make it. So these calls. I just filled it. Oh, you did it? Yeah. Okay, great. Thanks. I was wondering why it had changed. Oh, you might wanna see editor there. That's what I was gonna change exactly. So copy link done. And now let me repost that to the chat just in case. Here's an updated link. Didn't change anything. It's just the permissions that changed. Okay. Let me go back to your screen and just talk through the document for a second. So there's a bunch of sort of digital assets that exist already. There's two websites weaving the world and the big fungus dot both.orgs, both of which I own are in my account. So at some point those probably need to be moved into a commons account. But for right now we're starting there and I set up simple baby sites on Google sites which are really, really simple for collaboration. Anybody who wants to, I can add as an admin or editor on either of those sites. And I think that on weaving the world site we're going to need pages free to the episodes, a bunch of stuff that a normal podcast would have that there's, you know, that's a little bit down the road. Pete and I created a new account on Gmail called OGM Forge which is kind of the, I need a shift from posting all of the episodes through my account over into a different account. So that's what this is. And I think that a lot of these assets will probably move over there. Also created a Google Drive folder for digital assets. If we build a logo for this, it should go in that folder and a sub folder called assets, that kind of thing. We have three Mattermost channels, one called Weaving the World which is really intended for public discussions. It's really about when we start the show we'll tell people, hey, come chat over here. This is the place where we'd like to have an ongoing conversation. Ops is for this conversation and designing Weaving the World and designing the fungus and all those kinds of things. And then there's a Mattermost channel for the big fungus to figure out. How do we talk about this thing? What are the common implications of other kinds of topics? I think that'll be an emergent conversation. We've got several GitHub repos that have just been organically coming up around OGM. I've done nothing special to create a new repo for Weaving the World, but we probably should and will. We've got a light conversation going with the Internet Archive and I think that donating our assets to the Archive early would be an interesting piece of workflow to do. And then I created a very simple schedule spreadsheet that looks like this, that Wendy Elford went and posted an offer into. So ignore this episode one, I'll delete that, but the idea here is that we'll have candidates basically listed someplace. And I just started with a spreadsheet. Candidates for episodes of Weaving the World. And then we'll talk about them here and then sort of put them up into a schedule and then start enumerating them. And then as we post them online, add links to them and other kinds of data that we need in the spreadsheet here. But this is just an ancillary piece and it's really simple on Google sites, for example, absolutely trivial to embed that spreadsheet on a page on a Google site. So once that thing turns into a reasonable looking schedule that might provoke other people to send in ideas, I don't, and I'm quite sure I don't want that spreadsheet openly editable by anybody in the world, that spreadsheets that do that go down the tubes, but I'm very interested in soliciting suggestions and figuring out how to bubble up that schedule. One of the goals of this first couple of months effort on Weaving the World, I think is to create an explainer video, which says, hey, here's what this project is. This is why this is not your average video podcast. Here's what we're doing underground metaphorically and how these things fit together. So I started another Google doc as a baby script and I think there's gonna be a bunch of different Google docs that's been out of this, like, you know, intros and outros for the various assets. Under here, this stretch here is all the common stuff about Weaving the World and I'll come back to it. But then I did a little bit about staff and how we collaborate and then budget and episodes, but then there's two sections toward the end about producing the video podcast and producing the audio podcast specifically. So the stuff down here is only whatever is different for video and audio. And I had a really nice conversation with Jim Rutt's producer, Jared Janes, I think his name is. I'm just remembering it wrong off the cuff, but he's delightful and he's gonna sort of write a proposal back about what they might do because Jim offered some of his production capacity, but I don't know to what level and a piece of the budget that he's granting to us to build this stuff goes into production budget. So there's money actually for somebody to do video and audio production here for kinds. And for example, Jim Rutt has two different levels of podcast for his show, which is the Jim Rutt show. There's the Jim Rutt show, which is like high production value edited with care and apparently six, seven, eight hours worth of editing for every episode, like a lot of work to do. And then there's a second one called Something Like Conversations, which is meant to be less formal, less edited. So intentionally like that. And I think we're aiming for a production value that's not, certainly out of the gates, we're not aiming for shiny and polished we're aiming for real, authentic and like productive and useful. So, but there's interesting things here. And I think that one interesting thing to think about is given YouTube's affordances because you can mark chapter headings in a video you can do a whole bunch of interesting kind of metadata to YouTube. How much of that should we do? How much of that can we automate? What would that look like? And how does that make the videos that we post more useful in general? So that's a conversation to have down the road. But this created new YouTube account for it is the new Gmail account that I described to Pete when I started. And then there's a question that, and Pete, maybe this is just you and I sitting together, but if anybody else is interested, like I get an email from Zoom, many of you do too, whenever you record a call, I get an email from the Zoom that says, hey, your recording is ready for downloading because I almost never downloaded directly to my computer. What to do with that recording and how much of that can be automated so that some of the editing, posting, clipping can be done sort of quickly and automatically instead of manually. Because right now, I do it all manually. And then for audio, I looked at anchor.fm when it was just a baby and it's a podcasting platform that's kind of soup to nuts. It lets you actually run calls while using anchor, including throwing in sound effects, including calling a guest and having the guest join you. The newest version of anchor on an iPad is actually quite an awesome thing. You can also use anchor when you have a recording from somewhere else, as we will, because one of the files that we'll get from Zoom is an audio file that we can just drop into anchor once we, and then maybe add an intro and an outro to that and then just post it. And the idea here is to have the intro of the audio only version say, hey, you're listening to something that's actually quite visual and every now and then there'll be a moment that's puzzling to you on audio only, but we'd like to make this available to you when you're driving and walking, so here you go. And I think just if we can automate the production of an audio only podcast, we greatly expand the people who can reach what we're talking about. And I think also a lot of our conversations will be cool, will be fun, will be like just the conversational parts will be worth listening to. It may turn out that we need to have somebody pay special care and edit out the very visual parts of the audio podcast. I don't know, I think it's not a tremendous amount of extra work to do the audio podcast as well, but I do know that setting it up at the very beginning is going to be a little extra work with, in particular, we need to have some kind of icon, some kind of visuals for how these things work so that it looks like a podcast when it shows up at the other end when people are looking for what podcasts to listen to. But I think that's kind of all doable. So that's kind of what I'd put in the document so far. And again, I think what'll happen is, if we wind up with a design Bible, which I don't think we need early on, but a lot of entities have like a design Bible that says, here's the font we use, here's our color scheme, here's the general, we use material design or whatever and here's how we go about it. That could be its own separate sub-project. And part of what I'm trying to figure out is how to crowdsource a lot of this stuff among OGM to figure out who would like to pick up a piece and do something. For example, I am clearly not an expert on end screens on YouTube. I've made them, I've used a couple, I don't typically add them to our OGM calls. I haven't created a lovely end screen that I like that I can just pick up because YouTube Studio is pretty good about, hey, here's the end screens you have in your kind of gallery, but I haven't done one. So none of our videos going up has an end screen that says, come join OGM, do whatever else. I would love for somebody who understands that really deeply and just can do it quickly to just sit down and do that. Hank is writing, who is the audience? Which is a great question. And kind of what I'd love to do next is stop my screen share, read what you all have put in the chat and then see which of these questions you'd like to dive into. Yes, I have a folder, Bentley, I have a folder and I can give everybody permissions to the folder. One question I have that I guess I didn't put in that list because now it's feeling sort of like old tech is usually when I do things like, I haven't done anything as big as this, but I often start up a Google group and I use the Google group as an access control list. And what I do then is I give the Google group access to the folder or the docs and then I just add and subtract people from the Google group and it kind of acts as a kind of overall access control list for different Google properties. And it does so pretty elegantly. Or I can go just add people to the folder directly, but then I wind up having to control folder access somehow carefully. So anyway, open to cleverer solutions. So I think as long as you just have one top folder, you don't have to manage anything below that, I think it's easier than to manage that folder than the Google group. Yes, but I'm afraid of making that folder completely open to the world. I would love a little bit of like- So just do access control on that folder. Yeah, what I've done in that case is I have a main folder that has access control and then beneath that I have one that's called public that I have opened to everyone and then we can control what we want just by moving it into the correct folder. Well, that's good. I like that. Let me get to my, the folder I created and we can just stare at the permissions and see what that means. I don't know, in general, what I like is having everything commentable by the public so I don't know that they really need to edit. I've done something very similar to the Bentley's thing but for clarity, we had a shared folder and then one public and one private. So it was really obvious that- That helps. That the private stuff was private. Gotcha. So here's weaving the world folder. You know, when we talk security, they really should have a separate link for anyone with this link and a separate link for anyone- Yeah. So shall I go to- Read only. Shall I go to share here? Is that am I in the right place? Is that permissions for the overall folder? And then what I'll do is I'll create a public and private folder and move things into those right here. That's a good idea. And maybe we also need to take a funding for you to get a faster laptop there. One of my goals is to get an M1 laptop. Thank you. The other, it's not just the CPU, the other thing is memory. Yeah. I want to get like a mega, a megateric, I want to get a petabyte of memory. How about that? Yeah, it might be enough. Okay. So anyone with the link for the, so here's the deal. Do we want commenter at this level or what? At the top level, you probably don't want to give, you probably want to cancel out of that and just run it by security. Oh, sorry. Don't know what you mean. Share. Cause we need to share this folder so people can actually. Instead of anyone with the link. Well. The top level folder, I think you actually share with the, it's essentially admins. You share that with, and then the public one you share with everybody and then the private one you share with, with all the, all the participants. Gotcha. I guess the challenging thing about that is that when people have, when they're searching for that in the share folders, if it's just labeled public or just be public. So you may have to call it. Yeah, I have to. That would be public. I was working with Ann and CFS on this. And the name, the name was really clumsy. It was public CFS, you know, shared files or something like that and private CFS only or something. So here, should I add a couple of you as admins? Yeah. Cause I'm in the high level and I think I agree with what you just said. If you want Pete and me to help you out. I volunteer Pete with me. Perfect. Thanks, Bentley. And Bentley, your Gmail address? Yeah, that's the best one. Yeah. Oh, wow. That's an old photo of me that popped up there. See, this is what you look like in other people. And Pete, I'll use your Gmail address as well. Yeah. Cool. Anybody else want to be an admin on this folder? Speak up. Yeah, I can always add you later. This is a good moment. I think I saw Michael go raise his hand. Michael, I can't see you. I'm not actually looking. Do you, would you like that? Oh, we can't hear you either. Yeah, exactly. Let me, sorry, I was on a different screen. There we go. And I've only got your factor address. Do you have a Gmail address? That's my, I do, but I'm generally in that mode. That's fine. Cool. I'd like to be added. Sounds great. Jerry, can you add me too? I have you right here. Great, thank you. Brilliant. Okay. Well, in that case, let me join as well. Okay. I'm not sure what it means, but I'm certainly committed to helping with this. Brilliant. I do have a Gmail address. Why don't we use your Gmail address? I think instead. What is it? QN 47. Yeah, there it is. QN 47, a Gmail. Let's use that one. How about that? Terrific. Cool. I will create two new folders in here, public and private. Is that right? Actually, it makes them a fancier. Let me hit return on a Zoom chat thing. Something like this. You want to include the name of the work, so WTW instead of CFS. Right, right. And then for the public one, you kind of need all of that. It's shared, it's a folder. It's publicly visible so that it's really clear. So that it's really clear. Gotcha. Okay, so new folder. And the reason for that is people just see that name in their G drive. And if you don't have all of that stuff there, it's completely opaque what it is. I forgot. You might want to spell out leaving the world. Good point. Leaving the world private files, just private. I would just do private. All right, because everybody knows there's files in here. And we can move all those in and then leaving the world public, visible to all. I like the way I wrote it. What did you say? I think shared is important and I think publicly visible is important. So should I say, sorry, leaving the world shared and then publicly visible? The way I wrote it is shared folder dash publicly visible. Got it. The reason for publicly visible instead of public is opaque, it's not, you don't know what that means. Right. And then the shared folder part is more descriptive of what this is. Okay. And how much, so part of this is about who gets to come in and edit stuff, which is the reason we're creating two different folders. But if we're gonna be building this in public view, we mostly want this stuff in the public folder, right? Yeah. Or wrong. Like what kind of stuff will we wanna put in the private folder of a budget spreadsheet? Well, budgets should probably be publicly visible too, right? Yeah. Where we got to with the OGM steward stuff is the main stuff you wanna have private is something that has personal information about somebody. Right. The other thing is draft stuff or, you know, op stuff that doesn't make sense to, you know, I guess meta stuff. Yeah. So right this minute, I'm gonna drag all these things into the public folder, the shared folder. Does that make sense? I see, I don't see anything I've got going so far. So let's think through the private and public folders a little bit more. Thanks. For weaving the world of participants, you want them to have right access. And for everybody else, you want view but not right. Exactly. So I guess. If you have admin, maybe you and I should do that since one month. Okay. Rather than making Jerry. I'm happy to learn this and do it in front of all of us because some of us don't know how this works and I think we can all learn so. And I'm just realizing we're getting near the top of our hour. So actually. I'm wondering if we want another, I wonder if we want two public ones, one that's public read, right? Maybe, and then another one, which, yeah. So the publicly visible folder could contain a bin that's completely open to everybody, where everybody can drop files into whatever as I think Bentley was just describing. And then the other folder can have a closer in permissioning, I guess. I think the way to do it is publicly visible as the sharing setting is anyone can view. And then you add people in with right access individually. I think that's the way you end up working. So we end up actually working an access control list at the folder level in Google Drive. Yeah. Okay. That sounds fine. Well, let me postpone that because I wanted to spend the end of our call just sort of talking about priorities. One important question I've got is when should the first episode be and who should the guests be? That's like really important at this point. I was in a great conversation yesterday which was part of the mapathon that Keala was kind of holding that included Joe, Mila, and Amber whose last names I can produce on request but are not in my head right now. But we ended, pardon me? No, the lean or something like that. Something like that. But we had a really delightful conversation that was kind of generally speaking toward diversity and all those kinds of things. But it was the kind of conversation I'd like to have early in weaving the world. And so I'm gonna offer them a brainstorming call to figure out what that is, what shape does it have? And I don't think that every, so I don't think every episode of weaving the world needs to have celebrities in it. I don't think this is a tour of celebrities. I think this is a tour of people who are trying to figure out how to improve the world in different ways. And in some cases we'll have five guests who are collaborating. In some cases we'll have one guest who's a spotlight, whatever. And then another design question that's important to me is, I think the pattern is that there is an episode which is an official episode. And then there's some post-processing which turns into one or more other calls that are connected to this episode that are trying to weave what was discovered there and what we think of it into mine and other, over time, multiple points of view on all this. And we, and connecting those things. Are those all in the same stream of the same podcast which is my default setting now? Or is the underground work, so to speak, a separate podcast and a separate behind the curtain kind of thing? And one of the things that Jim's producer said is that when you post podcasts these days there's a lot of metadata you can put in. So you can, one of the fields you can mark in is that this is a bonus episode and this is a regular episode, for example. So we can maybe just use some metadata in the podcast streams to say, hey, this is a capital E episode. This is a post-production behind the curtain kind of thing. I don't know. But those are working questions that I'd like to get a good starting point on as we set this thing down. I think if I were a viewer, I guess. If I were a viewer, I'd wanna see the live episodes and then I would wanna see all those in one stream and then be able to also access the behind the scenes ones in another stream. So it's kind of like they wanna be in the same channel but maybe different playlists. I guess the same channel, different playlists. A cheap, exactly. A cheap trick I would do with that is just separate playlists. And I kinda do that with the build OGM calls. So I have a playlist called Open Global Mind and every OGM call except for the free Jerry's brain calls, I add to Open Global Mind. For the build OGM calls on Tuesdays, I think I have a second playlist called build OGM and I just add it to that. So then I can send people a link to just the build OGM thread or the larger thread. I guess what I don't have is I don't have, that's interesting. I don't have the thin down list. If you only wanted to watch the Thursday calls, the check-in calls, I don't have a playlist for that but that would be very easy to set up but that has not been my habit. So on YouTube, it's pretty normal for channels to have a second channel and that's where they put the secondary comments. And the reason you don't use lists in that way is that people can't subscribe to one or the other if they're in the same channel. Sounds great. So setting up different channels would be much better. Yeah. Okay. So we have- Have you set a theme, Jerry? Sort of an overall sort of an umbrella that would then allow you to link those channels into a common theme? Well, I think the theme is finding people who've got solutions to move civilization forward which could go everywhere from mixing art and technology and spirituality in a ritual all the way over to what is the next technical stack for businesses? Like, you know, we could have an interesting discussion trying to compare comacery with disco co-op with steward ownership with dowels. That would make a like that would probably make several interesting calls and then process all that and filter all that into the shared artifact. So the theme is distilling really interesting stuff from lots of different people. And Wendy Elford made the point that if this is weaving the world it needs to be people from around the world. So not just focus on Americans, Merkins, which sounds pretty cool. She also thought it was really important to start with somebody from the world rather than from America. Right. And if I do, if we talk with Joe and Mila and Amber, for example I think that's a really lovely international kind of call right there. I mean, that's a, I think that hits that note beautifully. So Klaus, I think the theme and I'm posing this back to you as if this is not satisfying but the theme is that we're trying to weave together people's ideas that are trying to fix the world. So we're weaving the world kind of and I'm just thinking this throughout right now but one of the interesting things about weaving and basket making is that you can repair woven artifacts by weaving into the fabric. You can reconnect in the old days you didn't throw away the wicker chair when it died. You actually like went back in and fixed the wicker kind of thing. So I think that the weaving here is also collaboratively making a better artifact with other people. There's that whole thing. I haven't, I clearly haven't found the crisp clear language for it but those are the metaphors that I'm working with. Yeah, I think it would be helpful to create a logo of some sort that and create a headline and a subline that really concentrates what you're trying to express. Agreed, totally agree. Open for candidates and we'll elaborate that in the planning doc. That's a great thing. Other thoughts at this point about where we are? Brow something from streaming TV and call this season one. I was, can I use a numbering scheme of S numerals, enumerals? Does that make sense? Like season one episode one? I think you also need to say season or if you were a British it would be series but I think you have to expand the S sometimes. Yeah, the shorthand if it's in a title of an episode or something like that would be I think fish, the shorthand. The reason that comes up for me is if I were doing this, thankfully I'm not, thankfully it's you. If I were doing this, I would figure the first season is kind of the one where I'm making all the mistakes with pilot episodes. Yeah, so it's like, okay, I want to kind of cluster those together and then you can kind of, this also goes with your funding basis I think too, right? In season two, we hope to be talking about blah, blah, or we'll add a producer credit or whatever. You can start setting up a longer narrative, a longer arc of the podcast in the series. We also work with a broader headline, maybe starting out by saying, why do we need to leave the world? Focus on the brokenness of our system and just speak generically, not offering solutions but speak generically to the pathologies that have evolved invariably over the last few decades and then move into the next phase into here are some ideas where we could be moving to. So this is exactly why we need the explainer video. This is precisely the content that needs to be in the explainer video and the explainer video needs to be very visible, sort of high in the stack of our materials but that story of wait, what? Why are we doing this? What is the context? All of that is hugely important, totally agree. And then a last note, which is that I think one of the things that we'll do here is have correspondence. And I think Stacey might end up being, weaving the world's first correspondent in the sense of Trevor Noah has correspondence who do reports from the field and do different kinds of things. And Stacey will arrange it in whatever way is comfortable for you. So it could be that you're the- I'm not sure about the way you're framing that. Good, and it could be that you're the producer of an episode in one of the series and you're behind the curtain, but you figured out what's the topic, what's the guess and I'm actually facilitating things. That could work. But if you wanted to step in and be facilitator and all that, I'm like totally into that and I'm happy to coach you or to whatever level of comfort and participation you want. Let's work that. Thank you. I'm really interested in the post-production part. I think there might be a lot of opportunities there. So thank you. I'll take you up on that. Cool. And I think I need mentally to figure out better how to explain and what is the relationship between weaving the world at the big fungus because what I have now in my head is that weaving the world is one of maybe eventually many different shows and other entities that are feeding the big fungus together and that the framing of the big fungus is temporary and it's a starting point and it's our own funny tongue and cheek metaphor for the commons, which all of us should be feeding and so I don't care if anybody else calls it the big fungus but I care that our commons connect in a much more fruitful way than what is happening right now. I mean, the good news is that right now there's a whole bunch of GitHub repos and other places where you can find code, book, writings, other sorts of artifacts. That's great, but they're not woven into a shared story or set of stories or other kinds of things. So that's kind of the idea for the big fungus but how to explain that well and also practically what do these, what does this higher level layer of linkages actually look like and we're, that's what we've been wrestling with in Preachery's Brain and a lot of OGM for the last 19 months now, 18 months now, I don't know, as long as lockdown. The real gap in communications with the channel of public is a lack of systems thinking. I mean, the understanding of systems. So interestingly enough, when I was interviewing with the Planetary Care Group here, they asked me, so what should we call you? Should we call you the Viva? Literally, I said, no, I'm just, I'm a strategist, right? So the idea of strategy really is an understanding of the connections that need to be relationships, right? That need to be pulled in and just to start out by explaining how our thinking must advance to understand the connection, moving out of our individual area of expertise and seeing how we are linking and impacting other areas. I think that's the most important piece really to get more people to move. Okay, agreed. I was a couple of times this call, I've thought about Estal Caswell and Boxer Worm. This was a fairly short series, but they produced them really well. And that thinking of this makes me think of, I can look at this podcast and, you know, talk a lot about what I see and why it works. So each one is around a question and the question is really intriguing and interesting. Caswell does a great job of kind of explaining something. So like how a recording studio mishap shaped 80s music is the story of Gated Reverb and how Phil Collins gifted a sound to the, Phil Collins and his producer, gifted a sound to the world that really changed 80s music. And here's an episode that I curated into my brain about Coltrane's changes in the Circle of Fists, which I knew zero about in this fabulous, fabulous episode. So it makes me think that it would be productive to start collecting those from everybody and then having the person who collects it and maybe other folks go, this is why this podcast was really interesting to me and this is what I see that they did, production tricks or the way you frame the question or the way you edit and all of that. Because as I watch these different folks doing stuff, there's things that, one of the interesting things that now only in thinking about all of them together, Andrew Wong has a thing where he talks really fast and by the way, there's another, I'll have to find it and share it. There was somebody who did, a research group did a video editing robot that could emulate different styles of video editing. And I learned a lot just from the way that they built this robot, but you have close shots on a face, you have long shots with two people talking. You can have long edits or short edits and they actually went through, here's a cinematic edit set of edits around a thing. Here's the YouTube style version of it, it's very short and very chopped. But anyway, Andrew Wong does the thing where he's talking and then he high fives the screen. The Slop Base Guy, I don't even remember his name, I think of him as a Slop Base Guy. His whole podcast was about Slop Base, more or less. But he also does the thing, I think he does a slap. So there's a interaction with the screen and the viewer and a hand that is different than it makes it materially different because you're doing that. It feels clunky the first time, a couple of times you see it, it's like, I don't see that on TV, I don't see some actor high-fiving me through the screen, but it also is a connective thing and a demonstration that you've got hands, not just a hat. So thinking through all of that stuff and how these folks have put stuff together and what was successful and what wasn't is a, I think that will be a useful thing to start to tease out. And as consumers of YouTube videos or TikTok videos or whatever, I think if we start to articulate those things to each other, we'll learn more and maybe get better at it. Everybody pick a random direction, up, down, left, or right, and then put your finger at the edge of your screen, I don't know wherever that is. Everybody pick a random spot, up, down, left, or right, and then take your finger to the edge of your screen. So if you're going up, look at yourself in the video. If you're doing up, go down to your finger. Just about disappears off your square. Yeah, exactly. So Hank, you need to get your finger over to any edge. Point to the edge. Hank, point your finger out from you, and then no, you're off camera. I said, I want to show you the camera. Bring your finger back, bring it back. Bring it back. Yeah, aim your hand outward. Yeah, actually go to the other edge. Take your hand to the far, to your right, I think. Yes, now hold your finger out like this, level, horizontal. Finger horizontal, good. Pull it back, raise it, pull it back, back to the center. Stop, now put your finger out like this, horizontal. If Hank is not mirroring, mirroring would help him. This is hilarious. Oh yeah, mirroring helps a lot. Yeah, mirroring, it's pretty hard. That's why I guessed right or left and it seemed to work. So all we want is a finger at the edge, any edge of your rectangle, that's what we're looking for. Actually, because he's not mirrored, mirrored top or bottom would probably be easier. Exactly, top or bottom would work better. Yes, yes, we've got it. Can anybody take a snapshot of the screen? I've got my hand here. I can if we don't wait for a sec. Cool, everybody hold on. Hank, hold that pose, hold that pose. Say cheese. Everybody say cheese, cheese. Excellent. We can take it. So we can do that and that's like a formal meeting. Except it was harder to do than we might have thought. And what's interesting is I was thinking to myself, looking at this, oh, you know, from on my screen, Stacy and I were the only two people whose fingers were touching, but then I realized it's probably different for all of us. Exactly, and that's why I said pick a random direction because I knew that there was no, there was really no way to make it actually work uniformly. But then there's this nice serendipity about it in that, you know, in the snapshot, somewhere there's going to be some connections of the rest of us are pointing in a way that we want to weave, right? This is sort of a gesture of wanting to connect in a way. I don't know, I'm just playing. That was fun, thank you. I got this shot, but then I think I might have deleted it accidentally. Oh, you need another one? Let's do it again. All right, come on everybody. I'm switching directions. Okay, switch directions. Switch directions. And Hank, go up. No, don't do left, right. Trying to get it out of the blur. Hank, Hank, follow my instructions. Put your hand right in front of your nose. No, right in front of your nose. Now raise your hand a little bit until your finger goes up. More up or stop. Now go to the right of your head. That's your left, oh, that's your right, good. That's good. Hold it right there. That'll do. And then another trick is to look at your camera instead of the screen. Oh yeah. Three, two, one. Captured, I think. Thanks. Excellent. Cool. We missed Bentley. Bentley, do you want to? I actually did take one while you were taking the other one. Oh, good ball. So I still have a, we could merge them all together. Sounds great. My hand-eye coordination is terrible, but I did play right field for a softball team in the softball league many years ago. I was going to ask about sports. That's the long time ago. Moving to right field, no, no, no. The other right field. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Look at that. Any last thoughts on this call? I have a question. Yeah, I wanted to know what the laws were in terms of adding YouTube clips from other videos to one's own, like are there, like I don't know what the copyright laws are. Sort of quoting other YouTubers and like taking a piece of their video and adding it to yours. Yeah. If you do that with a Taylor Swift video, the law will send on you sharply. No, let's say it's a video posted in another Facebook group, so to speak, or let's say it's the same guest that is now being. I will let Pete speak to that. Do you mean the whole video or? No, no. I mean like 30 seconds. I think 30 seconds. In the US, and I know US better than international, international is actually a little different, or different countries are different. In the US, there's a fair use thing, right? If you're showing a little bit of something and you're not like taking the whole thing, it's kind of okay. A long time ago, I remember that being kind of six seconds. If you were showing, you know, a few seconds of something, then it's not a big deal. But it's not a rule, that's kind of a guideline because if you got somebody really litigious, if you took six seconds of a Disney cartoon, for instance, Disney might say, well, I think that six seconds was really key and you're hurting our revenues and they might be able to convince a judge or jury of that and then the guideline doesn't matter. Part of it is who you're borrowing from. Part of it is it's actually really nice to say, hey, I just produced this thing. I want to include five seconds of you, you know, is that okay? And if they say no, a lot of it is guidelines and being polite more than there aren't hard walls. And also one of the keys, I'm sorry, go ahead, Michael. I was just going to say one of the keys in internet context is if you're excerpting something with attribution and linkage, you know, if you're saying, here's five seconds, here's 30 seconds of an interview so and so did with such and such and you can find the entire thing here with a link. Nobody minds that, you know, it's a plug for them. So that really is, you know, most of the best of what you see of excerpting that isn't referred, nobody feels ripped off, everybody feels. That's a more question of etiquette though than of legality. Well, I mean, the legality come in when somebody can say you are trading on my good name, I mean, that's where you need a fair use defense is when somebody's coming after you for trading on their good name benefiting from what they've done. And it doesn't really have to do with percentages all the time. I mean, or a number of seconds because, you know, percentages come into play like somebody produced a 15 second video that went viral and you use, you know, six seconds of it that's a much bigger deal than six seconds of something that's an hour long. So yeah. It's very judgmental. It's kind of an etiquette guidelines thing but in reality, what it is is how likely is somebody to see you and how likely are they, how likely are you to be able to defend yourself? So then there's also kind of a social thing too. Like a YouTuber probably isn't going to see you because it's not worth it but you can get a stink reputation if you look like you're ripping off people, if they can get a million people to, you know, cue and cry about what you do, then you don't want that. So since we're going to be weaving and remixing a lot we need good attribution. We need to put links in the descriptions, for example. So that's a great thing to keep in mind. Second thought is hip hop music and the sampling in hip hop kind of broke the music business a lot because some songs sample like 30 or 40 other songs and there was no way to clear everything in their sampling like a little piece. And yet at the same time, you know, if Ice Ice Baby's Backbeat is found in someone else's song they will sue the hell out of them. So there's a lot of that kind of in the background and then remix culture totally was another wave over hip hop sampling culture that just ripped everything up and threw it on the wall because in remix culture you're intentionally ripping on lots of other things. And then I heard, I'm not sure, but from Jamaican reggae culture reggae artists would ship records with a B side. So the A side of, and I think this is for 45 for singles the A side would be the song with lyrics and the B side would be the song with no lyrics so that other artists could lift and quote your music on purpose. It was like a courtesy so that within reggae culture it was considered an honor to have your particular beats or tune included in someone else's. So there was a, within one community there was a culture of, hey, here I'm making it easier for you to copy me. With real quick with the attribution, Michael and Jerry, thanks for bringing that up. One of the things to watch for with attribution is it's one of the common things that happens is people go, oh, well, I give you attribution. It's actually, when you're doing an attribution it's better if you can reach out to the original author and tell them what you're doing. And then a lot of times they'll be super cooperative, right? It's like, oh, can I also give you this? Can I give you this? If you don't talk to them and you say, well, I gave you attribution, that's not polite. And they can still feel, they can still end up feeling ripped off because they weren't able to give you, if you weren't interactive with them, if you weren't conversational, they didn't get to say, oh, could you please use this clip instead of that clip because that one's old or something like that, right? You can still hurt somebody's feelings even if you give them attribution. You really want to use attribution is the end result of a conversation rather than a preemption of a conversation. Thank you, that's really well put. Awesome. This has been really useful, helpful, generative. You all have access to the docs now. So L-M, let's talk on WTWOps between calls we may. I may just do a pop-up call for some ops stuff. I think getting a schedule up quickly, like who are the guests and when is the first call and what is the schedule is important. So I'm going to focus on that a bit, but thank you. And that conversation will be on the matter most. On the matter most, WTWOps channel. Okay, great, thanks. Bye everybody, thank you. Yeah, bye bye.