 I'm sorry, this is the Marley call for Monday, May 8th, 2023. Go ahead. Yeah, so this destination piece, so we wanted to summarize what does a community look like that has secured its environment, its watersheds, and its food. And so I introduced the idea of the bioregion and to explain why that is an important part of a local original food system. I had a chance to explain that in some detail at a meeting we were invited to by the biotech industry. So this is a magazine, an online magazine, and they're going out to some huge number of people. It's a global audience. And that's really the first time, to my knowledge, that someone from the regenerative movement had an opportunity to talk to the biofuel sector and explain the idea that 40% of corn being used for biofuel is not a great idea when you have food shortage just breaking out all over the world. So anyhow, so that was my understanding of what we are doing in this context here. Hi, Patty. Hi, Pete. Is to define what does it really look like when you have a destination, where a community that secures its watersheds, its environment, and its food supply in a nutshell? Thanks, Klaus. We started it with Klaus and me, and I was like, what would you like to see come out of this? He started back with Garden World Politics, Doug's book, and then moved toward bioregionalism as part of that. And that's kind of where we are. So if anybody would like to check in, you can do that. Go ahead, Pete. Thanks, Stray. And hello, everybody. I would like to do a show and tell for a few minutes of Earth Moon Star's space and the organizational structure of it. Because I think it kind of demonstrates the organizational structure I was thinking that we might want to use for Marley and actually all the sub-Marleys, I would actually make them separate organizations. So I'm excited about it because it was just yesterday that I wrote everything down, and so it's top of mind. But we could also wait on it. But I think it might be useful for Marley. I'm interested. And I'm forgetting what mode and what medium you shared that with us. Because I remember this is you asking. The OGM list. OK, this is you basically writing short stories with chat GBT or? It's the idea of having a thing kind of like plaques, but it's fiction short stories, very short stories, 100 or 200 word stories, and an illustration. So it's conceptually very similar to, I don't know if that's true, conceptually similar, not very similar, conceptually similar to Marley. Not that I was patterning after Marley, but the special thing from this call would be talking about the organizational structure of it. Cool. I love that. Not that I think Marley should have the same structure, but at least it should be inspired in the same realm. That sounds great. Please, I'd love that unless somebody has an objection, and it sounds like they're still working on your ceiling? Yes, and you can hear me OK? Yeah, just fine. The funny thing is we've had a respite for like four days or something like that with the weekend and some rain and stuff. So while we haven't been having calls, it's been totally quiet, I don't know if there's a call. They know. They know. I guess. So let me present real quick. I meant to be a little bit more prepared for this, but I had another call go along right before this. And just in case anybody wants to look at the message you posted to the list, I think that link will get you there. Yeah, a different, yeah, that's great. A different list would be wiki.star space. This is so the wiki is essentially a business plan. All the pages of the wiki are business plan. You can you can think of it that way. And then there's a prototype of the journal, which is here. And for plex readers, it should look familiar. And I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing. I came up with the idea and I wrote it all up and just did it. I didn't even ask anybody if they. So usually it's not a bad idea to ask another human. Hey, what do you think about this and get some ideas? I just went for it because I could kind of see the whole thing in my head. So the organizational structure is patterned after something that I'm starting to document myself, but it's related to the Lion'sburg org structures and the David Bevels map of the future org structures. So it's in that context. So the idea of the organizational structure, one of the key things is even though this is a tiny little project, it's a whole organization all onto itself. So think of it like a little startup company. The other thing that is a key, I think, is the project owns itself. So there aren't equity owners of this project. The project owns itself. I am doing this after listening to David and Jordan talk about this stuff for a long time. And I am making stuff up. In particular, both of them have more experience meeting up with the legal system for this stuff. I have gone kind of, I haven't done that. So I think some of the ways that I've said stuff, it's the right flavor, the right idea, and morally right maybe is the way to think of it. I don't know that it's legal. And both Jordan and David have legal structure that attaches to the morally right part. So caveat for that. So anyway, I say that this project owns itself and all of its project assets. So then a thing in this game, the way that you play this organizational structure game, is you're really clear about what assets belong to who. So there's assets that belong to the project. There's assets that are used by the project, but aren't owned by the project. I kept the option to this cool domain name if it's cool or stupid. I'm not sure which yet. I kind of retained the right to own it. I'm loaning it to the project for the time being. And if it ever wants to buy it from me, I'm happy for that. If it says, eh, I don't like this whole loan thing, we'll just make another one, Pete, and go away and take our ball and go home. Actually, your language on the page says it's loaned to the project indefinitely. It doesn't say until further notice. Let me read the next sentence. Oh, gotcha. Hadn't read that. I had to twist my arm to put reasonable notice on here. I'm just going to yank it. And then the Earth, Moon, and Stars space project said, no, it has to be reasonable notice, Pete. So this project, the business model for this project is focused on generating stories in community, maximizing social good, not profit. It's not extractive. So the idea of this, there is income coming in to cover server costs. And I hope to pay contributors a little bit. So nobody gets equity in this project because it owns itself. But the project does, let me find a page called Stories. The in-game currency for this project is called Stories. So if you write a story, which includes the text and the image, if you write a story and it gets published, you've earned one story's worth of in-game currency. There's other kinds of things that get denominated in Stories, particularly like server setup, server assist administration, editorial barred people. Editors get paid per hour in Stories, and stewards get paid in Stories for their hours. Yes, Jay. Would it help to name the currency different from the element that they're getting rewarded for, even if it was a phonetically different spelling, like S-T-O-R-Y-S, so that when you said Stories, people wouldn't confound the currency with the artifact? It is a great idea. I don't know if that's a good idea or not, but I like it. I actually like that. I like the one-to-one nature of it being spelled out of Stories. But then it's confusing. I totally get it. I like the one-to-one value correlation. I'm going to get rapidly confused if they're bound together name-wise. Totally fair. Partly just for convenience, I had already spent hours and hours on this, and I was thinking, oh, I could name a currency. And then I was like, the idea to misspell Stories is a good one. I like that. David, I think, tends to use a thing called VAS, V-O-Z. It's a good comment. Thank you. I did another word. Since we're talking about Stories and denominations and stuff, there's a weird thing where these quick and dirty Stories, there's another question of whether or not this is even a good idea. And so you're welcome to fill out the questionnaire on that. So far, it's kind of like, it's interesting. Anyway, I really, so personally, I'm weird. Maybe I really enjoy asking Chat to you, PT. Tell me a story. And tell me a story about lighthouses. Tell me a story about frogs. Tell me a story about frogs and pigs. It's really good at this kind of stuff, making up little Stories. And you can tell it to make a small Story, a bigger Story. This particular size of Story, 85 words, I was trying to get it to fit in my stupid 500-character limit on my master non-account. And that's the only reason it's so short. Otherwise, it would have been a couple hundred words. But I was experimenting with squeezing him down. And this is still over. It's like 520 or something like 510. Anyway, long story short, it turns out that, oh, that's so sweet. They rekindled by, it's like, oh, this is cool. It's a cool little parable. I like interacting with Chat to PT, having it tell me little parables, and saying, well, that was a stupid one, or make up another one, or whatever. So maybe other people will like this. Maybe they want whatever. This is me going, OK, well, 85 words is really short. What if it was a little bit longer, make it longer? I did a pretty good job with that. So I forget what I'm going on about this. So anyway, one of these stories takes me somewhere between 10 minutes and 60 minutes to put together, including the image. Wow. And this one, I did the diversification of this. This one took an hour. I started with this image, which was probably a totally random image I asked it to make. And then I was like, OK, well, by the way, so now I can tell you a secret. A premise that I have, part of the whole conceit of this thing is nobody, like, it's so easy to generate images nowadays that if you post them anywhere, nobody is going to look at them because it's like, yeah, that's a great image, Pete, but I've seen 20 of those, and I'm going to see 20 more in the next two minutes, whatever. Similarly, like a little poem or a little story or a little parable, it's too hard to read. I'm reading other stuff. I want to read about the Kardashians or something interesting or the Coronation, something interesting. If you put the two together, if there's a story and an image, I think it's a special thing. I think it's interesting. And there is some human curation stuff that has put them together and has been thoughtful about them. So it's easy to make this image kind of automatically. It's easy to make this text automatically. Putting together is actually a little human exercise. And so this one took me a frickin' hour or something like that because I was like, well, should it be verses? Should it rhyme? Should it not rhyme? Should it be what's the wording? What's the anyway? So somewhere between 10 minutes and an hour. So I'm writing up, here's the project roles. And I think we've talked about this in Marley. There's going to be different kinds of. Yeah, I had the role thing in the original. So editorial work, stewardship work, system administrator work, two stories per hour. So if you are on an hour meeting as an editor or an hour meeting as a steward, you get two stories worth of in-game currency. And so part of me is like, Pete, do you really want to incentivize people to write, try to write two stories every hour? Really? Isn't your quality going to suffer because of that? And I'm like, well, I don't know. So I went back and forth on one or two hours of stories per hour for hourly work. So now I'm confused again. And this is because it says it's valued at two stories per hour. And I initially thought, oh, okay. So that's the currency and only means the currency. It doesn't actually mean an actual story was generated. It means that if you participated in this community in some other way, some other way than generating stories, like being a sysadmin or a steward or an editor, you would have earned stories. And that would be equivalent to the work of generating a story and posting a story. And that's really cool. And then you just contradicted that, the sentence after. And I'm like, ah, shit, what? So I'm like, because then you said, do I want this system to be generating two stories per hour? But what I did was I flipped words, I flipped meanings really quickly. And this is an argument for having different words, probably different pronunciations now that we're talking through it. What I said probably was something like, if I'm an author, if I'm a contributor and I'm looking at a stewardship thing, it's like, huh, you mean all I have to do is sit my butt down on a call for an hour, which I hope stewards don't do and I hope editors don't do. But anyway, all I have to do is hang out on a call for an hour and I get two stories of in-game currency. Why should I bust my ass trying to write stories when I can just sit and chat with people and I'll get two stories every hour instead of, so if stories take somebody two hours to write, they should spend their time being an editor instead. But if they take 10 minutes to write? If they take 10 minutes to write, then they should write stories, maybe not be an editor, yeah. Another question is, what if somebody's gaming the system and has figured out how to create 100 stories per hour or 1,000 stories per hour? It turns out that, I hadn't thought through that, but it turns out that there's some place where the editorial board basically picks what stories get published and there's gonna be a limited number of them. So no matter how many you generate, you're not gonna win the game because you're generating so many stories. That is in contribution standards. Story quality needs to be decent and editorial committee is gonna be who decides what stories gets published. So it doesn't say it in here, but stories published is what counts for story points, not stories generated and submitted. We're getting into the weeds. An imperial committee that has to read all the submissions. Yes. Okay. They don't have to, they get to. It's like a joy and wonder of their job. They get to read all the submissions, not just that. Anyway, an interesting thing that happened was me writing up the founder thing. So as founder of this idea, I felt like I should, I thought about it, dreamed about it. So I gave myself something called founder recognition bonus at 12 stories because I spent a lot of time walking around thinking about this. So this is a little bit different from, hey, I'm a co-founder and I own 20% of the company for in perpetuity. You can see my contribution is outweighs everything else at the very beginning, but pretty soon, after six issues or something like that, this is gonna be fairly well diluted. So this is an interesting thought experiment right here and something that I think founders need to go through. And do you have a place that's toting up how many stories each participant has? It is called the project ledger. And it's held in an air table base. Okay. And it's right. I assume at this point it's honor system. Each participant logs in their own credits in the air table. The funny thing is, the funny thing is it's all part of the project record. So and so editor editorial board work and stewardship work is gonna be on calls. It wouldn't be a solo. But still automating who was on this call and then toting that into an air table in some kind of kind of automatic way seems like. It's kind of voluntary, everybody's gonna check everybody else, right? Yeah. There'll be evidence, there'll be a bit of a trail but it's still manual honor system. Yeah. The other thing is this is a centralized ledger. It's not a blockchain ledger yet. For this project, that's fine. For a project where you've got a bunch of different people participating from different organizations and you can't necessarily trust that volunteer access to the air table, then you would maybe use a blockchain ledger. I think we went through them. Oh, another really interesting outcome of trying to write this all up was that you wanna have an idea of the project health. So if we're meeting these metrics, then the project is healthy. If we're not, then something is going wrong and the stewardship council needs to figure out what's going on and fix it or kill the project or whatever. But most of the stories will be generated by generative AI? Most of the stories, it's an interesting way to say it. I'm gonna say it a different way. Most of the stories are generated by humans using AI. Anybody else? We have a different view of how the AI human relationship works, which is fine. And not the interesting part for Marley, I think. The interesting part for Marley, although actually Marley is gonna be inevitably using a bunch of chat GPK for better or for worse. The interesting part is the way the structure came together. There's roles, there's proportional shares. The proportional shares are not equity. The proportional shares are governorship, governance and profit sharing, if there is such a thing. There's accounting, there's a ledger, there's accounting for not like in-game currency and things that you have to convert from hours to in-game currency. Everybody else has been quiet. Thoughts, comments, reactions, suggestions? Yeah, I have too. I haven't been around for a few weeks, but I all of a sudden felt, and Pete, you alluded to this, like I was down in the weeds of something. As I understand it, Marley is the name of the big quote book project. And this is kind of a subset. And I'm still wondering, do we have a purpose or mission statement for the project? Let me try to take that. And apologies for the confusion. And the confusion is totally reasonable. Even more confusing, what I just presented is actually not Marley is a, it's maybe a cousin of Marley or a good friend of Marley. I would suggest pretty strongly that Marley itself and then individual books within Marley have this organizational structure, which sounds to me like a really big, heavy, when I say it out loud like that, it's like, oh my God, Pete, great. You just saddled this whole thing with a whole bunch of, so thanks for going, yeah, that makes perfect sense. The way that decentralized work gets done is, or the hypothesis is that decentralized work, that's a mix of for-profit, nonprofit, social good, whatever, the way that gets done is by, the thing that we've been skipping over, OGM has been doing this because it's been trying to figure this out, you set up a project and then it doesn't have the rules here. Nobody's talked about, is there a thing that gets owned? Is there a thing that we're building together? Is there, how do we do shares? How do we account for shares? So if you kind of upfront, go through all of that, and then everybody knows the rules of the game. I hate that there are rules of a game. I wish that we could all just kind of kumbaya and just work together without frigging all this stuff out, but it works better for everybody. There are other mechanisms. Yeah, and the thing that this does help with is when you've got people from different cultures and different backgrounds and different expectations, especially about, oh, I thought we were all doing this for free, or I thought we were all getting a grant and we were all sharing the money proportionally. Even though I didn't have to do any work, I showed up and anybody who's a member gets whatever, right? So set up the rules of the game, this particularly helps in situations where you've got different expectations. It's an expectation-setting thing. So now, to answer your question, come back a little bit more, Stuart. This is, Earthman's Star of Space is a separate thing, but I went through the trouble and effort of writing down the structure and I was pretty happy with the way it came out. Marley could lift and shift it. Marley could re-implement something totally different. Marley could also mix this with whatever it sees from Jordan or David or whoever else. I think it's really important to have an organizational structure for Marley and then probably for each book. The reason I think it's important to have the structure for each book is because if I'm contributing to a book, I'm not necessarily contributing to Marley and vice versa. So the rule of best practice maybe, best practice is it's something like if you have different people contributing in different ways or if the assets are different, especially if they're different kinds of assets, you want to make a new organization even if the people overlap largely. And this is something that we don't see in corporate, it's like everything is part of the corporation, everything accrues the corporation, everything. So they have trouble doing anything that's a little bit different or different shaped or you have to go through a whole biz dev process to negotiate things beforehand if you want something in the middle. This is kind of built so, or the right way to do it is not to create a situation where there's something in the middle of Marley that all of a sudden needs to be separate. It's like just separate it at the beginning. Take a template for this organizational structure, implement it, poof, you're done. Oh, so I'm still a little flummoxed. I get the need for structure, but you know, and I've said this- What the heck are we doing? I've said, exactly. I've said this in every meeting I've been at. I can't put the details in without some larger structure. I don't know where to hang them organizationally in my own mind. I gotta go. Oh, we gotta go. We'll see you, Patty. Oh, sorry. Bye. Bye. So we kind of have an idea of what we're doing. We're building a bookshelf of new books for OGM and whoever participates in OGM. My guess is one of our problems- For the purpose of? The way I've described it to other folks is, you know how OGM is this kind of beautiful, fuzzy organization? It has what I've, it knows a lot about certain things. And when we all get together and Kumbaya and OGM space, we're talking about soil health or regenerative agriculture or carbon, you know, carbon mitigation or social justice or whatever. We always just talk about it. We don't write stuff down. So why don't we kind of try to crystallize that, condense the vapor into something that has more form and shape so that we can at least start to, one of the ideas is just so that we can start to remember what we know, because I've heard class talking about soil regeneration a lot, but there's no book for it. Let's just have a book for it so that OGM knows what it knows, right? And then once we have that, you can imagine that once OGM has a book about regenerative ag or social justice or group facilitation, then we can share it with the world, right? Yeah, so what I'm suggesting in some ways is the obvious, but I think it needs to be clearly and succinctly articulated. OGM is a network that has been going on for X number of years, exploring three years, exploring major societal challenges and dilemmas, period. We have started a project with an OGM called Marley so that we can create a record books, something to share with others about what the OGM group or certain individuals see. And that's what the project is. I mean, I would feel more comfortable with that. So we've said that over and over, but we haven't had a framework, we haven't had a governance framework in which we said, okay, Marley has said this, Marley has said this, not Pete on behalf of Marley or Jerry on behalf of Marley or Stuart on behalf of Marley, we haven't done that. So kind of the next step is saying, okay, there's a Marley organization, here's the organizational rules, here's who's governance, here's the editorial, here's the way the editorial board is set up. Is a book on the sequel to Anarchist Cookbook, is that an OGM book? Editorial board says no, who's on the editorial board that says no, what's their charter, right? So. Great. One thing and then Klaus said, I'd love to know what you're thinking and I think Stacy's on the road. I'm happy to hear from you as well. So I think I see Marley is too, I'm only going to describe two things right now. One of them is Marley is kind of the publishing arm of OGM, which means a bunch of different sorts of things. It means we're going to actually create artifacts that come out of whatever wisdom OGM holds and there'll be an editorial board of some sort that figures out which one is an artifact, which is not, what is in bounds, what is out of bounds, how do we do it? Well, all that kind of stuff. And that makes a lot of sense to me. And then how we treat each project is a separate deeper question. There's a different aspect of Marley that's really important to me, which is Marley is an experiment in pushing and leveling up media and in stopping thinking about books. The books are just shiny objects to bring people in to go, oh look, there's a book. I know what a book is. The more interesting thing is the curated wisdom that is on markdown files in a kind of wiki and in the commons in a space where anybody could confine it to which we're going to do a bunch of other stuff aside from sort of linking it together, but we're going to repurpose some of the modules, reuse them in multiple Marley volumes, et cetera, et cetera. But the artifacts inside under the hood in the wiki are going to be far more powerful and interesting and useful than just the e-books that get turned out. And so for me, the publishing of an e-book is kind of interesting, but only like a surface level thing. I'm vastly more interested in what happens to the content of those books and how it is made more useful, more accessible, more automatable. So the purpose is to create a resource of the brilliance of the open global mind. Yes. Or in fact, you could sort of turn that up just a tiny bit and say it's to instantiate an open global mind of some sort in some prototype form. Yeah. So, and Jerry, I heard you say two things or that is two things. There's the content volumes, however, we end up calling them neobooks or whatever. And then it sounded like you were talking about the Marley production process. I'm not sure. I think Marley production process to me is still, hey, here's a bunch of markdown files. We're going to roll them up. We're going to put front matter and end matter and we're going to squeeze them out through Pelican or EPUB or something into a book format. So the Marley production process to me is still a book publishing process. It doesn't necessarily bridge into how OGM does knowledge. There's a bigger question. Okay. Is there a Marley media model, MMM? There should be, if there isn't. And is that something, so it's promulgating that media model is something I heard you say. Yes, yes. And I'd love to start some new norms for what happens when a book is published. Like, oh, every book should have this, this, this and this, which are new artifacts that are part of a Marley book that are really interesting, that change the nature of the book. And then we're often running into other sorts of things. I want to, I want to, I want to, I want to drop another small little bombshell. You're pregnant? Which would be a bombshell. I have, I do, I do have one of those, but, but let's not, let's not, let's not talk about that, that today it is a, and it is a health condition. But the idea of when I hear, when I hear dropping in some quote quasi economic structure, I blanch a little bit, okay? I blanch a little bit because as we discussed many times, you know, that's the economic driver that's, you know, taking us all over the cliff. So I, I, I, that's just my thought about, about, about that one. And I want to go back into that conversation as well. I think that's important for us to talk about. I'd love to hear from Stacy and Klaus too. And go ahead. A quick question is, how do you pay for a server cost? Or if you need to hire a graphic designer to make a nice website? Yeah. Well, it, it, it happens. I, you know, we have to figure it out. Right. It sucks. I agree it sucks. Yeah. Many times. I mean, maybe, maybe, you know, some people, some people will write and some people will, you know, read a website. I mean, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just thinking, I'm just thinking out, I'm just thinking out loud. Well, that's why I appreciate it. That's why there's, it's a thing that is important to hear and remember and keep hearing. And that's partly Stuart, where there's the currency equivalence for the different roles in the project. Okay. So that's everybody's writing stories to earn currency in the project. So Stacy, thoughts, questions? Yeah. I mean, I understand the need for structure. My, my focus is on content, you know, and, and so what are we, what are we doing here? And, and so I would appreciate a conversation on, you know, what do we see is the topic that we want to elaborate on. And, and is there, is there no structure for that conversation? Not for how you write it down or express it, but for the conversation itself, because a story needs a skeleton, particularly if, if you're combining multiple stories under an umbrella that lead towards, you know, a given direction, which is where we started with Garden World, you know, Garden World has multiple chapters, has all the blue directions that you can pick and choose. So I would, I would think that now the energy of developing, you know, old plants and, and, and directions and so on would be more content driven and totally understanding that, you know, we need, we need to consider all these concerns that Pete is expressing here. So I'm a little lost, right? Because we have, if, if I may, we have, we have that. So there's a thing called Quick First Book and this reminds me that we need to talk about Wiki structure a little bit because, well, actually, I guess I have a page for it. So there's a thing called Quick First Book. We have, we have a draft summary, which is from, is this last week? I think? Yeah. We have a draft summary. We have outline A is one option, outline B is another option. Maybe we want to meet in the middle somewhere. We have some content around what is the bioregion generated by chatGPT, which we might want to edit. We get to pick a title and so then we need to talk about how we're actually going to do production of this. We also have a task list. So how about you were sending this morning link up to this, what we discussed last time? You know, the, now having a template for structure of participation in Marley. Say we, I'm not saying that we have to do this, but say we kind of just copy and shift, copy and paste the Earthman Star Space organizational structure, tweak it up the way we want whatever poof. Until we have that, I'm not interested in participating. So that's because we end up, we end up chasing our tail always, right? It's like, maybe we kind of talk about it here. You know, there's a publishing infrastructure. We kind of talked about editorial board for this. Who makes the decisions about stuff? Who's doing what? Who, you know, whose name is on the credits for this? Who, you know, and how do we make those decisions? So, so now that I can see that it would be pretty easy to just copy paste a structure and say, this is how we're participating. You know, I feel done with Marley until Marley ratifies something like that. So I know how my contribution is getting plugged in and how I participate in governance decisions. So Marley does not yet have a way to make governance decisions aside from our very soft kind of, you know, consensus over the course of, you know, hours of discussion kind of thing that we do in OGM. I think we could level up our game. I think we could do that a lot more quickly. I think we could assign tasks and actually have people go, yep, I'm responsible for this. I'll go write that chapter. I'll go, whatever. And I kind of get class that you're kind of like, yeah, you know, we could just sit down and just do it, right? But I'm okay with that. But I don't need to work on content until I know, you know, how we're making decisions about working on the content. I don't know if that's an answer to your question. I mean, that's a chicken and egg question also, right? Because sometimes content fives the structure. Organizational structure? I don't care about his organizational structure. I, so to back up a little bit. Marley does have enough, did have enough structure to kind of, kind of softly agree. Let me share my screen again. We've got enough organizational structure to kind of go, yeah, I guess this is a quick first book. Yeah, I guess it's okay. Let's keep doing that. We can keep doing that soft consensus thing about what the content of the book is, you know. Or I think we're at a nice place here where we've actually got a decent start on content. Maybe we can copy and paste a organizational structure. I think we should work on both of those together. I don't think we have to stop one or the other to get going. But I think it continues to be critically necessary that we talk about how we make decisions together. To the extent that there's not, I don't have an understanding of how we make governance decisions. And, you know, I wouldn't come back for more until we understand that. Not because I'm trying to be mean or something. It's just, you know, I wanna be productive with everybody's time, with my time. And make this go far fast, right? And the way to do that is with some task assignments and decisions that get made and that kind of thing. Stacy, any thoughts? Yeah, I have a lot of thoughts. I'm gonna try not to give you all of them. The group that got together for Marley is a special group, in my opinion, what I mean by that, and I will generalize, they came here because they are truly trying to align their passion with doing something good in the world. So nobody here is thinking about what they're gonna get paid in ownership. So it really is an area where we can design for trust. So I understand, like when Pete was saying, I don't wanna encourage people to do, you know, two hour stories, that that is a necessary concern for people outside of our group on other projects doing different things. What came to mind when you said that is, what an interesting way to see what people wind up doing when they're not being paid for. That's actually what I like about it. That's a good exercise to see where people show up and what they do when money's not on the line. I think that, I mean, I really, I came on a little bit late. I would love to see what David and Jordan have developed because I remember back in 2019, these kinds of conversations that I really wanted to be part of it. Frankly, I was not welcomed that. So I would like to see what came out about it, but not everybody's interested, nor do they have to be. I mean, I think somebody like Klaus or Stuart would be like, go ahead, set it up however you want. We just wanna start writing. You know, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Well, I don't know what Stuart is, but I know Klaus, I feel like he just wants to get the writing stuff done and out there and a lot of us feel the same way. So maybe, you know, I mean, again, I haven't seen it, I wanna look at it, but I'd be like, fine, set it up that way. In the meantime, can we start doing the writing, knowing that, you know, there's at least some people that we trust going back and forth and maybe doing two things together. But I don't think that people that are interested in really producing the content for the sake of getting it out to the world, not for the sake of making money or making a name for themselves or producing a book that's gonna have their name on it can get started. That's my two cents. Thanks, Stacy. I mean, Sherry, I see an opportunity for OGM to be promoted to gain exposure, you know, to share what we're talking about and the quality of these conversations. And otherwise, I agree with Stacy with what she was just saying. I mean, what's your perspective on what do you see beneficial about this project? About this project, meaning Marley as a whole or what Pete's bringing up or... Yeah, I mean, we're coming out, let's write something, let's do a book. I mean, how do you see that beneficial to OGM? Yeah, so I think the call we're in right now started out as a sense doing call, which started out from a frustration that we're always talking about sense making. We should do something, God damn it. And even in sense doing, we got stuck and jammed. I think the most we did was we created one or two new puzzles for policy keys. And that's kind of what sense doing did. We didn't really build sense, make sense out of issues and post or publish any new sense made and all that. And that was frustrating to me. And I just really wanted to say for masking and for indoor air quality, could we just drop some like, here are the important questions, here are the best answers we can figure out, here are the places for research, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I'm completely torn on the issue Pete has put in front of us. On the one hand, I think infrastructure and rules of the road and Pete, I didn't look, you didn't describe, but I imagine you thought about like intellectual property issues and what sort of licensing should the work go under? Things that we talked about way back with the generative commons agreement and all that, are probably part of this structure. And if that sort of thing was baked into the kind of platform you're describing, that's interesting to me. The thing I don't understand, there's a couple of things I don't understand is, I, if I took a snapshot of my life at this moment, I could probably count 20 projects I'm part of. There's no world in which I can imagine wanting to trace, track and account for 20 different currencies. Nor would I know what to do with them. But I don't understand the world in which you would want to have that. Like if they were maybe fungible, if we had all gone wholesale into the blockchain and there were exchanges where these things actually worked with each other, maybe that, I don't know, but that didn't play out. We're not in that world. So I don't- I think of it not as currencies, but as contribution entries on a ledger. So- 20 different ledgers. So you probably keep a timesheet, right? I don't keep timesheets anywhere. I'm terrible at keeping timesheets. I've had jobs where I had to keep timesheets. I hated them with a passion, yes. Okay. So you're basically bumping against that energy in me, which is I can't stand tracking my time hourly. And April was a lawyer when we met, had to track her time for 10th of an hour, right? And it's like, that is just awful. And the creative work that I love going into- You can build that into the organizational structure, actually. Which is possible. And I'd love to hear how, because what I hear is, and we've had this conversation sort of back in Lyonsburg days, I'm happy to put bit in mouth if I think I can work within the system. And to me, this is putting the bit and the bridle on my head. That's what I see in the system, right? Also I see that we're kind of creating a finite game out of what feels like an infinite game in the sense of we're gonna have roles. And as soon as you've got roles, then it's like, hey, you're an editor. What are you doing writing content? I see that happening. I may be wrong. I don't see that happening. Well, but as soon as you start defining like where the lanes are, then everybody's like stay in your lane or whatever could happen if the group gets like more political about the structure. But- I don't see that happening. Okay. I think I could see happening is, hey, you're on the editorial board and I want my book published before the other person's book. And even knowing- Can you help me out? But even knowing who to talk to, meaning the person editorial board is very humans on it is useful in this case, right? Yeah. That's good. So let me back up a little bit. Yeah. We can all like chill a little bit. I don't care how it happens. Marley needs to make decisions. Like what book are we working on? Is this new topic okay or not? If we make an e-book and turn it into a Kindle and sell it in Jeff Bezos's Garden of Commercialism for $2.99, where does, you know, if we have to buy a tool to help us make that, who pays for the tool? If we have income from the book, where does it go? So a perfect way to do this would be for Klaus or Stuart or Jerry or Stacy or me to say, I make all the decisions. I'm going to be the benevolent dictator here. Just ask me a question and I'll give you an answer. I would be okay with that actually. I don't have a problem with whatever organizational structure we have. I'm offering an organizational structure which seems to get it's echoing more and more across the groups as a way that decentralized groups are going to work together. But maybe I'm way ahead of the curve. Maybe I'm two years early. Marley has to have a way of making these decisions that's better than we spend an hour kind of talking and we make some soft decisions about kind of what we think is going on. This is my main point. So last time we ended up at the end running some questions through chat GBT and getting back and outline for a possible book which I think is outline B which is around bioregionalism. And a piece of me was like looking forward to it because I don't understand how bioregionalism is the preferred structure for the first quick book we'd like to put out. Unless we're writing about bioregionalism but I thought we were writing about a slightly different topic. So I was interested in sort of a content conversation about the structure of the book that I would compromise whatever if I understood it whatever and we would in gentle sort of discourse and agreement figure out, oh, okay. This is a book we all like or some of us like and figure out who's participating and then figure out what the outline is and then start saying sounds great which chapters does anybody want to work on where are the documents for the chapters? Let's go. And then getting to a point where we have just enough text written that we start to hit the Marley production process question of, oh, okay, great. Now what do we do to make this all roll up into a book and then we might have to buy software we might have to do whatever get to those questions and it might be that I pay for the software and that's okay and that would be fine. I mean, I don't think these are $10,000 bits of software we're talking about. We're talking about small units of funding I think. So I could see doing all of that pretty informally and I could also see that even for the tiny group that we are, we have really pretty maybe different ideas about what the book might be and where it might go but I was excited about the prospect of talking about who is our audience, and you saw me trying to sort of curate the project a couple of calls and over the last couple of calls to let's not include shelter because that just blows the doors open on too many issues. Let's cut it down to what people can do pragmatically with food and sort of doing a little bit of scope limiting so that the quick first book would be limited and sort of sensible and not just a Pandora's box of things that we never got to really talk about. Anyway, again, if there's a platform that helps us execute on this that sets up ground rules that work for everybody and a way of doing it, I'm still happy to jump in and do that. I just wonder sort of what our consensus is on the thing that you're suggesting for us. And the thing I've seen crater on awful and I apologize, I don't know how else to say this but in the three years of OGM, the thing I've seen crater most of our efforts to get stuff done was suddenly getting, drifting off the thing we were trying to get done into structure about how to do the thing we were gonna get done. The, I forget how you said that. We have wound up in a meta conversation. Every time we got close to doing, we wound up in a meta conversation about the doing. The thing that comes to mind that cratered for OGM was the OGM forum and it fell down exactly on not being able to make decisions. The OGM forum cratered because I did not find the time in my life to go participate. No, it was doing really well. It had good participation. I would never have sent it down. The structure of it was getting weird. And we needed OGM, we needed OGM to decide if it was okay to appoint a few people who are ready and willing to go to actually reorganize the structure. And that's how it fell down. You have both decided that. What is on this, Stuart? Can't read it. Yeah, we can't. Agreements for results. Got it. Vision, roles, promises, time and value, measurements of satisfaction, concerns and fears, renegotiation, consequences, conflict resolution, agreement and trust. It's a good list. Is it from one of your books? Yeah. I'm just guessing. I wrote a book called The Book of Agreement. Hello. Here it is. To me, what needs to be done is we need to sit down and kind of scope this out. The whole notion of how do you wanna operate? Ready, fire, aim or ready, aim, fire? Just to create a little clarity. And everything that was talked about today fits into this structure but in some way, shape or form. But we need to have that overarching, what's our charter? What's our agreement? That's what I'm, pardon me. That's what I'm struggling with. Okay, so I think what I heard Jerry say was we can make decisions. We would kind of in general sort of discourse and figure it out. So I think that's Jerry's proposed governance structure. Is just kind of talking it through and figuring it out. Am I catching up? What I heard Jerry say just now is that we have a tendency to start a great debate, to start a conversation and then we get lost in how to do it. That we get lost in the mechanics of it. It's because we're all too smart and too experienced. Yeah, and the conversation that we had last week, for example, was notice when you talk about food, you should really talk about bio regions. And I mentioned some examples and in fact I was doing a meeting and I posted it last week. I was giving a presentation to a magazine, the largest magazine in the world, catering to the bio field sector. And I explained why bio regions are so important where you can't dominate the landscape with GMO crops, not at overpower local soil and water sheds, but you need to honor and respect the originality and the uniqueness of bio regions to do that. So that is a complex topic that requires multiple perspectives to really turn it into a story that makes sense to people because I'm completely into storytelling. It's really interesting with Jean Belanger and I how we work together because Jean is all about making sure charts and graphics and all this stuff. And it helps me immensely to advance my story. But at the end of the day, when you are talking to audiences, you can't come as a chart, you have to come as a story. So I explained and I posted the video, I explained to the audience there in a story format why they should be paying attention to bio regions. And so, and I would love to find ways to advance that. And to hear systems think explain why he hasn't quite gotten it yet. And there is something missing in the story to make it a little bit more understandable and to say from an emotional perspective, this doesn't quite resonate yet with me. So you shape that story into something that really, okay, we got it, right? And then you have something to publish. And then I would say you have a content where you think, so how do we best package this kind of content material into a system structure that we can perpetuate, that know-hows legs, that promotes OGM and all of those things. So just from a process standpoint, right? We, I think when we talk so much about the process structure we're putting the infamous horse before the cart behind the cart, right? Or the cart before the horse or however that works. A metaphor of course and a metaphor of cart. I think what we do is we have lots of muscles that pull and we don't have a skeleton for them to pull against. So the organizational structure I wanna see gives us enough structure to make movement instead of just having these muscles twitch back and forth. So kind of to come back around, Jerry. I think what you're suggesting is that we can just talk and whatever decisions come up will kind of just make them. So Pete, I'm not rejecting the model you just presented. I'm saying there are questions of it that I'm having trouble reconciling and parts that run against how my brain works and how I can work. And it seems like a really, what I was thinking as you were describing it was that if I were to create a cottage industry to mass produce tiny stories, this is a pretty good framework. Bunch of people could make a living making tiny stories and producing them and turning them out. That's what it felt like. It's like, this is a good structure for a factory of stories. And I don't wanna be in a factory of stories. I don't even know where my story ends and the next story begins. One level up above that. It's that the structure I talked about was a way to make little stories, which yeah, whatever. Isn't that kind of the same thing that Marley is doing? And if we tweaked the rules, wouldn't we get neobooks instead of little stories? Sort of, but if the thing- Wouldn't the structure help us define who makes decisions, what I'm talking about is kind of talking about like, let's, so the, let's talk about stuff and kind of make decisions when we need to. It feels like it's just gonna be slow to me. It feels like everybody kind of angles around and we don't wanna hurt each other's feelings about making a decision. And it's, we wanna be comfortable with each other. I don't know that we do that. I think that we, or we can talk things through and we can sort things out. I don't know that we dodge things to not hurt each other's feelings. I think we can get the stuff. So I, now I'm gonna get pissy, I guess. I apologize and I don't mean to be pissy. This is a genuine feeling. I apologize for pushing us a little too fast. I am deep in the weeds on this, essentially technology, it's technology, it's not, you know, and Jerry, you're right. It has edges and some of them feel sharp. This is my dream from what Marley, I feel could be. I feel like Marley could be a machine to be building neobooks, doing new media stuff. And we could do it fast, we could do it efficiently. We could attract, we could say, hey, we need some people to be editorial board. We need some people to be governance board. We need some, we could attract more people to do more stuff and get it done faster because we would have an organizational structure. That's my job. And I'm open to that, go ahead and do it. Yeah, so my offer is, and anytime you want, I will facilitate an agreement slash charter slash overview which can be used to fill in any of the details. For example, you know, Pete, you were just talking about, you know, how do we make decisions? Great, part of the promises of the elements that I just sent you is here's what we promise to do when decisions need to be made. And we actually articulate that, okay? But I think, I really do think that you need that big picture and then you have stuff that you can hand your hat on. I mean, I have this vision that, yeah, all of these books can be produced as Jerry talked about, access to some of the pieces of the, you know, the information that's present in various forms in various places. But let's create kind of an overriding structure that we can operate from. Sounds great, I like that. Pete, if we decided now to lift and shift the framework we said, what would that mean we would wind up doing right now for Marley? In the next 20 minutes or on the next call? In the next couple of days or on the next call. But I'm like, if we wanted to implement what you're saying, what does that imply for us like immediately? I think to do is to, talk about roles to find roles a little bit better. I don't know if that's true or not because there's actually in the, in the original, you know, we have roles kind of set up for Marley already. We borrowed from publishing and that's what we're sort of working with. Yeah. Yeah, but you need something more than just publishing roles, you know, you need some, you know, infrastructure roles, you know, who takes responsibility for what in terms of infrastructure? And, go ahead. So I kind of, kind of probably what Stuart said. I don't think we have a Chris statement of what Marley is or what Marley does. Or what we want, the vision we have for our intention and vision for what it is that we want it to be. Maybe I, to answer your question a little bit better, Jerry, I'm flummoxed a little bit and I'm a hurt for no good reason, none of you have hurt me. No, you know, I have a cute thing and I thought it would be easy and it's not. I have no reason to expect that it would be easy. To answer your question, if it were me, what I would do is lift and shift, copy and paste the EMSS structure. I would change anything that looked like it needed to be changed and say, here's the rules of the game. Who wants to be on the governance? I forget what I call them. I like my thing there better than governance board council. Sorry, let me try to get it right. Editorial council or something like that. Yeah, let me actually find it. Committee, this week I like committee better than like board and council. So who's on the governance committee? Who's making decisions? We do not have that yet as far as I can tell. And I think it's important. Who wants to be on the editorial committee? Who's going, so then right away from that, the editorial committee can say, here's what a new book looks like. It's this many pages long. It's got this kind of chapters. It's whatever, right? Kind of immediately the government's committee can say, here's a few things that we need to do. We need to announce ourselves better to the OGM. A thing that I actually have on, we have a Google Docs agenda page I think for this call, which I set up last week or last week. One of those things is restructure the Wiki pages a little bit better right now. We've got kind of a broken structure in the Wiki and we're going to keep fighting against it. So governance committee can charter me to or you or me and Stacey or whoever to fix the Wiki pages. Is it okay if I fix the Wiki pages? Or instead of me bringing it up as an individual, what you want is for the governance committee to go, hey, what's our list of things that we need to get done? Oh, look, we need to restructure the web folders. Pete, can you do that? Yes, I'll do that. We don't have that right now. We have everything is emergent and everything kind of gets done on a wish and a prayer and discussing and hoping it gets done. And we don't bring up things like project management, for instance. Is it more, I'm sorry, I have a question. Is it more a need for delegation or for giving permission? Like which direction? The delegation. A couple of observations and we've only got 14, 16 minutes left. We may not have Marley calls anymore given sort of where we are right now. We don't have critical mass of people. We don't have content. We're at odds on a couple of different issues here among the five of us who've shown up. So I fear that there's no Marley in a couple of weeks if we sort of go like this. My own instinct is that we attract new participants by actually turning out a quick first book. That if somebody says, oh shit, there's an OGM thing that actually turns something out and I see how it smells and I might want to do one of those. And they're saying, if you have an idea that feels like one of these books come on in and play, then we might actually get a body of people where who's gonna be on the editorial committee? Who's gonna leave this role? Then we have actually human bodies to play with to put in those roles. But right now, if what we're doing is designing a big structure and saying who wants to do this? We don't have critical mass. And I don't expect us to get critical mass if what we say is framework for publishing. I think you're over-inflating that the amount of structure, the big structure. Well, I'm just saying the thing that I think will attract anybody else to join us is seeing some success with output. I agree and I have a strong hypothesis that the people that we need to attract will want to know what are you doing? Which is a conversation I'm totally happy to have at that moment. And then we can say, hey, Pete has developed a really nifty format and framework which we've been sort of wrestling with as we've been doing this content thing, which we would now that we have 12 people here would like to go for it and test this out. I'm completely in on that. I just think that doing that right now feels like we're gonna lose whatever momentum we've got because we're gonna lose class if we don't get working on content and kind of maybe being- I feel like, yeah, I feel like- We're gonna use you if we don't have a system that accounts for value. Nope. You just said- All I care about is governance. All I care about is somebody needs to say, I'm making the decisions. I'm making the decisions. That's great. Okay, what should we do? What should we do? We should assemble a team to help class write the book and assemble a team to help figure out who's gonna work with infrastructure. Can we write? I won't be able to remember that unless we write it down. Can we write that down? Yeah, so I need to get somebody to help me with writing stuff. And what do you mean by assemble a team? I don't understand what that means. It means somebody that could put onto the computer things that come out of my mouth. Well, it's roughly captured in chat a little bit. So two teams. One to sort of come around calls and say, okay, what is the book? Which is basically an editorial staff of some sort. An editorial committee of the type that Pete was describing, I think, that makes decisions about what it is and what goes where. And let me ask you something. Because this is just, I wanna get feedback. I think the way we did it a little bit last week in the terms of a call all working together is a nice way to do that. That also creates something that people can watch, which is a whole nother sprout. Can I have any feedback on that? I'm not sure what you just met by what the last piece you said. Last week, we spent the last however long actually writing stuff together, which I would like to see a whole call doing that. Is that a process that works well? I think it is. The, I tend to, I generally agree. I generally agree specifically. I think we don't need to have, we don't necessarily need to have everybody. I think we would have worked quicker last week even if we had three people doing that instead of five. And I think that's true again. So I like, I like- That depends on the intention of the meeting, Pete. Because the last 20 minutes or so of the meeting last week, you also participated in content. Now you went to chat, GPT, and so you go into the meeting. You go into the meeting is the intention. Today is a content day. We focus on, what are we going to write? I agree. Then in another meeting, we say, okay, so now you're coming close to publishing or we actually have a story. How do we go about stepping that into- So I agree, the reason why I'm saying it's a chicken and egg question is because you gotta have a product first before you package it. And we don't have a product. We talk about maybe- I agree. And the point I was trying to make is that not necessarily everybody needs to or wants to participate in content creation. I actually had a lot of fun last week and maybe if we had, so Stacey, you get to decide what we're doing next week. I'll decide whether or not I show up based on what we're doing or based on what you asked me to do. But it's the thing that the point I was trying to make is that I don't think every call should be everybody working on content or everybody working on structure. I don't think the whole team needs to be involved in a particular activity. It's the point I was trying to make. We should pick and choose the people on a call or on an activity. Well, I think they should pick and choose but I think they should be able to go back and forth. So if we say, you know, next week we're working on the content for this and at the same time there will be or, you know and there's another meeting at this link where they're doing this or maybe directly after we report or I report. This is what we got out of this call. Give this to the next team to see what happened and whatever they're gonna do with it. I think last week we were collaborating to gestate the beginnings of the quick first book and that involved all of us because we're all here and sort of eager to see this thing happen. We participated in different ways during the call, it was really interesting and we ended up with the questions I put I put in the conversation a little bit earlier which was like, I don't understand why bioregionalism is so important. A conversation I was looking forward to have and be convinced about and I put a potential title for a book. Like if the book were titled why bioregionalism is key to improving the food system and solving climate change, I could totally see that the structure of it would be all about bioregionalism and now I just need to know what goes into the chapters and why is it so complicated? Because bioregionalism seems to me to be a pretty cut and dried kind of like, damn you wanna do that, now what, let's go, right? So, but that was a conversation I was really looking forward to having and then once we had gestated something that felt like an outline, then the team that was going to write that book would decide, okay, we need to schedule some separate calls to go do this thing and to just whoever wants to go write that book show up on these other calls for that project team and then that project team is its own editorial board or whatever other kind of structure it wants to have. That makes total sense to me but we were really, really early in the process just trying to bubble out one thing that felt like the quick first book, I think. It's, is everybody okay with Stacey taking charge of the Marley project? Yeah. I am. Queen Stacey. I'm just making the decision, I'm asking for feedback and then I'll just make the decision. To my understanding, Stacey, you're going to know what we should do and tell us what the project is doing. I know enough, I don't have the experience to do that. I can listen to what I'm hearing each of you saying, I can offer up, you know, I can make, like you said, the problem was in the old projects that there were decisions that needed to be made and nobody made them. So I would expect you to say, Stacey, we have to decide, are we doing this or this? And then I can give an answer because I've been listening to- You don't need to make the decision, you can actually delegate the decision. The important thing is to, so what your job will be is asking, are there decisions that we need to make and then delegating the decision? Let's do it before you run off. You're talking about this container principle. Is that the creative structure that you use to put a story inside? I need to use it. Yeah, that's the container for, you need a container to hold what it is that you're doing. Okay, so I know nothing about this, right? So I would love to learn from your work. I also posted the essential elements of agreement. I will read that after I just pulled it down. It also, maybe you can relate to it, Klaus, by thinking of it in terms of even project management, like what's the project charter? Okay, before you begin, you need to have clarity about what the charter is and who's gonna do what and how is it that you're gonna create and bring into being and manifest the vision that you want to? Yeah, okay. Okay, I think we need that. Stacey, I'll send you an email. Well, I was just gonna say, is this an example of where I could say, Stuart, could you give us a presentation for your range? Yeah, of course, of course. Let's arrange for a time where you give us a presentation on that. Great. That could happen next Monday during this call. I'm happy to do that, okay? That's awesome. Okay. Well, it's, what is it's like, storming, norming, forming kind of thing. You said what it is, right? So that's all good. Thanks a lot. Yes, absolutely, absolutely. Forming, storming, norming, performing. That's the one, yes. Except for lawyers, they get stuck in... Billing. They get stuck in storming. They never get out of storming. Yeah. All right. Thanks, everybody. You're very good. Thank you. Thanks, everybody. Bye.