 This is the Fellowship of the Link for Wednesday, May 3rd, 2023, and Pete participated in something over the weekend that I wanted to, but I just, I opened the hood, looked inside, and I was like, I can't do this. My brain's not going to handle it. It was, what was it like? It was complexity adventures, right? Yeah, it's really interesting actually. It's a little bit like OGM or the Metaproject or, you know, one of these kind of, I don't know, cluster, I don't know, fuzzy organization, a fuzzy organization. They're actually a little bit less fuzzy than OGM. Yeah. But it came out of complexity science and there were people getting together I think every month and then the pandemic happened and they couldn't get together and then they figured out they could get together virtually and then it's still involved from there actually. It used to be called complexity weekend and now it's called complexity adventures and twice a year they have what they call a summit, like the top of a mountain, where it's a 48-hour conference basically, 24-7 around the world. So wherever you are in the world, you know, somebody would be awake and hanging out with you. I already want to go. It's super fun. They hold it in Gather Town and that works pretty well. So Gather Town, you, it looks like an old center map and you drive your bot around to, or your avatar. You drive your avatar around to a room and you cluster next to people. I've been to the conference there. It works quite well. I've de-webbed SF uses Gather Town too and I've always been a little bit shy, I guess, or something like that. So I always never quite got it. But it actually worked this weekend where after session the person who had invited me dropped by and, you know, we were chatting and I was, and then he introduced me to somebody else who was standing close to us. And so then I was going on about exciting stuff and a couple of people came by just like a regular cocktail party. So the interface actually worked and did its thing. So they have what they call guides and guides sponsor an conference room. They run sessions for a session. Actually I think they only have one session. You know, they run a session and then it's an hour break. Session for an hour, break for an hour, session for an hour, break for an hour, for 48 hours at least. A couple really strong people convening the whole thing. And right now they have about a third new people every summit. So then they have what they call base camps every month after that for the teams that have formed and have been continuing to get together and, you know, work and whatever. So super, super fun, good group of folks. It's a little bit, so again maybe compare it a little bit to OGM. It's a little bit, it has a little bit more focus because they've got this complexity science through line, you know, they've got a place they came from kind of, which I guess our place, the OGM place is something like thinking tools or thoughts or hypertext, hypergraphs, I don't know. But theirs is a little bit more structured and so then they have a little bit more shared language amongst each other. Another interesting thing they're doing, they run everything in Keybase. So instead of Mattermost or Discord, they have Keybase. And I did not know that Keybase has like groups and teams and whatever and channels. So there's, they have a, I'm on the team now, the Complex Adventures team, and they have a bunch of channels like it's in Mattermost or Discord. I think that's one of the other things that discouraged me was in the run-up, they said, hey, if you've got Keybase, sign into our Keybase. And I'm like, I think I uninstalled that a long time ago and just not up for the wrestling with another platform between Gather and Keybase. I was like, it reminds me of like, you know, Jamie Sawinski, he's all about like every app, I think he was in every app grows until he can send email. Chat is the same for like the accreditation. Jamie Sawinski is one of his, his rants are the ones that I like the best. Yeah. He's got an amazing rant on the Mork data format for the old, the old, old, old, the original Mozilla export format for all of its data was in this thing called Mork. And it's just a joy to read his, I think actually the rant is not just a text rant, it's actually, he wrote the parole code or something to untangle this thing and just the comments are just sterling. One of my favorite reads. A cervix. Yeah, I really like it. Yes. And to the point, very, you know, he's has, he's a very observational one and has a very, so, so then Steve Yeggy is another one like that and just a joy to read every time. Steve Yeggy, maybe the reason I work at Google, yeah, essentially, yeah, one of the reasons, I mean, but, you know, essentially because of the original like articles on Google, you know, and then his rant on Amazon cloud versus Google. That's a Google platforms rant. Yeah. Yes. Still true today. Yeah. Anyway, so I will be speaking to the person who hosted me kind of Michael Lennon later today. And we'll do a quick credit for Plex. So there'll be a few more pointers and screenshots and stuff from Complexity Adventure. Thanks for asking. And thanks for the great explanation. That was really super. The funny thing is I didn't really talk about the any of the sessions or, you know. Yeah. And my first question, my first question was going to be to you. Are there any the monthly meeting formats that appeal to you that you think you'll sort of go to that that sounded like they were up up your alley? I actually don't know how the monthly meetings work. And I don't know. And I don't know how they so they've got a little bit more delineated. Maybe it's the way that they've they've they've got a little bit sharper sense of the teams. You know, they charge her they do a pretty good job of helping teams convene themselves during the summit. A little bit sharper than OGM does. And so OGM has teams, you know, fellowship link or or Marley or, you know, some of the related things like massive wiki or something like that. But they they put more work into kind of maintaining or fostering maybe as better ways at fostering teams. I had originally had the sense that they they have more people than just just there's kind of more people in the orbit than OGM. And I'm not sure if that's true or not. I think they are a little bit bigger. But cool. Thank you. Part of what I was reporting in before that was that I'm in another conversation where building a shared memory and massive wiki kind of things would make some sense. But I don't know if they make entire sense. But like this is in the air. It's like there's a bunch of a bunch of places where we need to sort out how to know what we know. I've got kind of related to that. I've got to you know, actually another funny thing about the weekend. I don't know if this is everybody or just Michael, but but he was he talked a lot about the mycelial networks, you know, within and within complexity to venture and then spreading out from complexity to venture. So but anyway, in another set of mycelial networks, one of them is Lyonsburg. And then another one is David Bovell's David Bovell and Modi, their map of the future. They're both talking about organizational structure. And it's it's something that I and I guess it's funny. There was there was some point at which complexity adventure was was saying, you know, hey, all this stuff is free and we'd love to do it. And by the way, we're getting to the point of being a 501c3 and you know, your text or your donations aren't text deductible yet, but they will be at some point. And I was like, oh, man, you know, if they could hook up with Lyonsburg, which has got a bunch of the 501c3 infrastructure already built. Lots of lots of people working on organizational structure. And I propose that I spoke yesterday for the first time with Hank Holliday of quorum one, and I posted here his post, what is quorum one? And remarkably, and not remarkably, it's another organization that's on a quest to figure out what are the new governance mechanisms? How do we reinvent democracy? No capitalism, no both. Oh, I don't know. And he's he runs really deep. We had a really nice, we only had a half hour slot. We're going to talk again. It might make sense for more of us to get involved if you're interested. But he's well along on this quest and has sort of some running code and things like that. And I'm just genuinely interested in all the different communities that have this quest in mind and some running code, not to create one ring to rule them all, but rather to figure out what works from each of them and how do we share and blend? How do we create some interoperability without hegemony? All of the above, which probably is what the Fediverse and IndieWebs are busy trying to do also, right? And those are two of the communities that would be obvious candidates to go talk to. Right. And it seems very interesting, I mean, this very much to the point also, like for the same discussions I'm having this week, precisely, and also past week, for me, for social co-op, you know, part of the community working group. And there's this recurring like on different levels, right? There's like the, essentially the, you know, federated cooperatives approach, which currently is not very widely in use in the Fediverse, even though the Fediverse itself is federated, of course, in my nature, the actual work that goes towards making work is not. So every instance is like a very base cooperatively managed, like social co-op, you know, in that sense, we have been quite well. Many are like individuals, but even the cooperatives are not sharing too much. And the same, and this has been coming up as, you know, can we share, see something work? Can we share like, you know, setup? Can we share like, maybe moderation? To some extent, it's like the governance, the same governance aspect for both instances on the network. And this, and I had a conversation later this week, and I had one last Thursday about MeetCop, you know, Meet.Cop. Yeah, right. So Meet.Cop is like, you know, it emerges like a, also like a take on, you know, how to cooperatively run big loata precisely, which you were discussing. It's a fork of big Louis Vuitton, right? Essentially, it's like an installation of the Louis Vuitton, just running pretty vanilla, I think. But, you know, it may have some mitigations, and I know it's been, it was set up. And then, you know, like the idea was like, cooperatives will become members and they will continue towards the upkeep. But then the issue of the, you know, every cooperative needs to have like a disarming team, essentially. Like on staff, on call, ideally, as well, if you provide a service, it came up again. And it was about to be disbanded, actually, because, you know, they didn't feel they had enough, like momentum to like actually make that work or interest. And now there's like, we are discussing, can we have like a federated hosting? Or like where, when the cooperatives federated hosting or federated, like even like, see something, but the cooperatives that take a part actually contribute, but also this work directly. So, like, you know, like some sort of like a federation of work, precisely. So, going back to the original problem, it's like all these organizations trying to solve like governance, finding tools, even like just sharing knowledge about the tools they use, the coordination work. If we could do it on top of some federated hypothesis, you know, if we could do some kind of federated or distributed platform or protocol, then maybe it will have like the right traits, right, the woodstraps. And I guess we also go back to the problem of gathering the data indexing, making the connections and to some extent how this all seems to, am I correct in thinking like this works because people know each other and then they introduce each other to the right people and is there some organization that does the connection of this label for projects that you see, you know, in the space or does it happen only, you know, people, person to person? I mean, at some level, LinkedIn offers suggestions for people to connect to with algorithms that is trying to figure out who you might want to connect with because they know that the richer their graph, the better. So, that's kind of casual. Fensin, could you ask that again? Yeah, sorry. Yeah, yeah. So, I guess, like, you know, like, this is an meta-level, like, I come to this meeting, watch, I know. And I learn something interesting every week, I learn about like organizations, you know, we keep bringing up, I think, collectively, as a group, just different organizations which are like trying to solve the same problems. But we are doing, it seems like it's always on the legwork of individuals, like, you know, you Peter learned about this conference and went and like Jerry is like an ex-host and knows, like, you know, other people approach and so on. And we are doing this, like peer-to-peer, right? Is there some, so, is there some power or platform or organization? Is there some higher-level efforts we're missing, like a repository of person in this space and so on, right? That we know of? It's a, thanks for going over it again. This is one of the, it's a conundrum that I kind of wonder about. If I don't distract myself, it also reminds me of a question that came up and I was about to answer it and we got distracted over the weekend, actually complexity adventure weekend. Somebody was saying, how could we, how could we merge knowledge bases or something like that? And the kind of the answer I wanted to give that thing about knowledge bases is, I don't, I have a hard, it's hard for me to, knowledge bases, I don't, I think, don't work. Like, you can't transmit knowledge, like, or you can't, I guess the question was something about, you know, an organization has knowledge bases, other organization has the knowledge base. We could, like, merge them together and I'm like, you know, it doesn't work that way. Yeah. And just the fact that it's written down doesn't make it knowledge. You actually, you, to un-serialize the knowledge and the knowledge base, you need somebody who knows the context of it and they'll help you find the right page. They'll, you know, tell you, read this page and then you, and then, you know, whoever reads it will go, well, I don't get it. Can you give me an example or something like that? And, like, knowledge to me also seems like kind of the same thing that you just asked about. It's like, we think we can kind of bottle it, but in practice it doesn't work that way. It's person by person and conversation by conversation that you kind of relate things. And going through that answer in my head later, I think I'll get to talk to that same person again and bring this back up. But there is a kind of knowledge that each of us uses all the time. The example that probably is familiar to almost all of us, maybe not Jerry so much, but, you know, it's like, you go to Stack Overflow. You need to know, you know, what the syntax is for this Git command or you need whatever, whatever, right? And it's like, that's actually a kind of knowledge that you can, you can actually access, you know, without relate, without, without much relationship to the person who asked it seven years ago and the person who answered it five years ago and the commenters, you know, like, I don't know any of those people, but there's enough context for me. And I guess the question is small enough that I can actually go mine and knowledge base. So I don't know how to There's a coordination point, right? Because like most people use, it's a coordination point in this case because Stack Overflow is sort of like Well, and, you know, and I'm talking particularly about Git and I'm talking about the syntax of a particular Git use case and like, you know, over time, you know, 20 different people have run into that same thing and they keep upvoting the same thing. And, and so it works like that. Now with ChatGPT, ChatBT kind of like layers on top of that, another another easy to use interface that's conversational now. That's great. To kind of come back to your question a little bit, Flancy, and one of the folks that we know really well is Vincent Darina, and he's got Catalyst.network, and it's exactly what you described, right? What is the name? I'll type it. Thank you. And I think you're going to be made to it. And I'm never sure which is the most recent proper URL. Vincent Darina? Vincent's been building this database for probably a couple years now. And it's, it's pretty thorough. And Vincent is a genius at database schemas. So he does a lot of work making the different elements of the data. So it's, it's a way to track people and projects and organizations around the, you know, roughly around social good. He's been a genius at kind of relating them in, in novel ways, and then being able to present them in novel ways. So one of the things he did was like, you know, after at some point, he said, oh, and you can look at it, you know, through the lens of SDGs, you can look at it through the lens of spiral dynamics, you can look at it through the lens of yada, yada, yada, yada, right, all these different frameworks. And I'm like, hey, that's cool. So the, Vincent and I are main folks in something called flotilla. Flotilla was a community interest kind of the, and we're, we're dipping down right now and we're going to reconstitute, reform a little bit and reschedule especially our Friday calls are going to not be on at the same time anymore. But, but anyway, so I, I've kind of watched Vincent continuing to develop this and we theorize how to make it interoperable with other things. And it's just, I, the, that there's a, what my, my hypothesis was Vincent, my hypothesis for Vincent has always been. I, Vincent, I think is hoping to build something that can be used by anybody. And my observation is that a rich directory like that is something that is actually not user-friendly. It's not, it's not something you can come up on and just use. People don't know what they're looking for, how to describe it the way they want to. Maybe in, you know, maybe in a year when he's integrated chat, I could say something like, hey, I'm looking for regenerative agriculture stuff and I'm based in Florida and I'm interested, especially in growing watermelons or, you know, pollinators or something like that. And, and maybe chat GPT can kind of answer that. Most muggles lay people when they go to a complicated directory, they don't know how to do filters and sorts and facets and all that kind of stuff that, you know, us database folks love to do. So my, my hypothesis for something like Catalyst has always been that there's a layer of specialist around it. The generic term I use for those kinds of people is matchmakers. But matchmakers in this case would, would understand the database pretty well. They know what's in there, know how to look for it. They're, librarians are also matchmakers, right? Librarians in the old school sense. You go to a librarian and you tell them, I live in Florida. I'm interested in pollinators and watermelon and I'm trying to figure out, you know, and you don't even know to say regenerative agriculture, but the librarian says, oh, I know what you're looking for. Here's the terminology. Here are the databases you can look at. Here are the directories you can open up and flip to the right page and so on and so forth. So it's, it's tempting to think, especially for us database people, that you can just mount a database up in the web and make it sortable and searchable and blah, blah. Nobody can use it. No real people can use it. The real people need to talk to a specialist that talks to the database. And then if that's the case, you, you kind of want a guild of, of librarians or a guild of matchmakers where one matchmaker says, huh, I know all about regenerative agriculture and I can get whatever I want to out of this. This person is asking about space technology and rocket ships and stuff like that. I have no clue where to look. I know the database has it. I don't really know how to look. So that the, that matchmaker can reach out across the matchmaker guild and find a specialist who knows all about that subject matter, right? So kind of the same thing. I kind of, there's another to another kind of facet to your, the answer to your question. And I, I actually know of organizations that are very close to what I'm interested in. Collaborative Tech Alliance is one of them. And I, I know Collaborative Tech Alliance to somebody in Flotilla. Michael Grossman and Vincent know Collaborative Tech Alliance pretty well. Collaborative Tech Alliance, CTA. I know the folks pretty well. I've been to their their collaboration platform is Hilo. Hilo is maintained and built by the people doing Collaborative Tech Alliance. So it makes sense. Tibet is one of the, one of the conveners at CTA, you know, and Tibet and I wave at each other. You know, hi Tibet, you know, hi Pete. Every couple of months, I send them, you know, questions, every, every Plex, I send them a, hey, what's up Tibet? Tibet, and I'm not complaining at all to that doesn't have time to answer it because he's got too much stuff going on in his, his part of the, the, the network, right? So CTA and I just have missed each other kind of. And I think that's another thing that happens. You end up falling in with whatever people fall in with. And there's the time zones work, right? The tech works, right? You know, they're using a tech that you don't hate, or you don't bounce off of like Keybase and, and Coda and, you know, and Gather. It's like, okay, that's, that's a stack. It's not the stack I'm used to. And it's not even the stack that I go to once in a while. It's a completely other stack that I have to build up on. Yeah. So just, yeah, go ahead. No, I want to say like, we did why, well, on just seeing catalyst network while you were discussing, if you to have the right shape in the sense that I believe that the end, the kind of entity that has, that should emerge, you know, like in this higher level space of like connectivity should be an integrator first. So when I see that there's an approach on like integrating like a variety of tasks, a variety of tools, I think that's, I mean, my, my feeling is that that's completely necessary, because if not, you will always be just as you can cry to like, you know, the stack problem essentially. So in flotilla, we, we part of the reason for flotilla was to talk about interoperability. So we haven't done this for a while, but three of the, the main flotilla people are Vincent and me and Michael Grosman. Michael Grosman has a, a bookmarking platform called Factor, FACTR. It's great, another great platform that, you know, I should be using and I'm not for whatever reason. So a lot of the conversations we had in the flotilla Fridays were about, you know, how can we interoperate? How can we integrate? What would, what would catalyst publish and consume from Massive Wiki? And what would Massive Wiki publish and consume from Factor? And what would Factor publish and consume from? Right. And I think that there's a great framing for a special discussion, which is like just intro, I think like, like a market on the interoperable level, I think, you know, like opening channels for consumer provider or whatever, for federation, essentially, you know, in other framing. The, the, I, you know, it's a, it's a tricky problem. I, what, what happens is everybody's, Vincent, Vincent and I did a number of experiments. Vincent also grabbed stuff off of Manimost. So I'm running a Manimost instance, and Vincent knows how to, how to get his bot to put stuff into. Vincent and I are also working on Zoom artifacts, recordings and transcripts. Nice. Oh, that person. Yeah. Okay. So why isn't Vincent here? What I was going to say is, you know, we, Vincent and I experiment on that kind of stuff, and each of us has our own project that consumes like all of our time, right? So intro ends up being a second class, third class activity. And so going back to just a quick connection to the like a work workers commons or the work federation, you could imagine this is the kind of thing where like, you know, our community commons first approach for like buildings, this interop mesh, which goes back, you know, like Samuel is not here today, but you know, like interlay, you know, right, the interlay approach. I mean, we are, it tends to happen. And I talk about these with like projects in general, I always ask, would you federate, which format will you interrupt? And the question is always like, oh, we don't have time. I mean, we don't, I know how it is. So this will be ideal to, we could actually stuff up if we are willing to like, to get resources, if everybody chips in to say essentially pay, pay someone willing to be specialized on interop. So essentially, actually, you know, in projects, chip in to say, we're going to stuff up like an interop working group that just manages to intervene all the formats that will be up early. My impression is that will be high, high value. Maybe it will work. A quick, a quick insert here. I had a nice conversation with Ida Josephina, an entrepreneur, and we got to talking about wouldn't, there was this problem that a lot of startups in the tools for thinking space have, which is that they've already got some code going, they're too tiny for angel investors, like, sorry, they're, they're a little too big for angel investors and they're too small for VCs. So they kind of fall into this weird funding gap, because they need more money than angels will probably give them. So, so we thought, what if we banded a bunch of them together around the concept of interoperability and created a fund or a pool that would allocate funds, you know, inside for startups, etc., etc., it's a little complicated, but, but could be really interesting. And then, and then Ida said, so we would just sort of need to pick what are the protocols to merge toward or write toward or whatever the right phrasing is. And I kind of in that conversation said, that seems like a really hard question to solve right now. And then, yeah. And then my next conversation an hour later was with Kyle Shannon, who was on a, on a like contact high from chat GBT, and was like, you know, just totally blowing the doors off what you might do and what was going on. And I suddenly realized, oh crap, it was some good prompt engineering, you could semi solve that problem at least probably in a good enough way with some prompts with some chat GBT and go, hey, how would you organize something that were these things could meet and I'm relatively sure, but not experienced enough to know that chat GBT could find a workable solution, which presented back to a bunch of companies that were semi, semi similar in the, in a space would be like, oh, okay, I could do that. And then maybe form up a pool or a collective or I don't know what they call this thing, or a DAO or a, but that was really interesting. And we kind of left the idea there. But in this, in these weird funding times, that might be a good way to go about doing some of this. And then you get in the larger coordination problems of having multiple entities in a larger pool of funds with multiple priorities. And how does that work out? Yeah, I mean, it's like indie web or tiny web, or stuff like that, right? The idea is there's sort of an ideological core that makes these sites joined together in an informal way. And then the question becomes, could they come together in a formal way that would allow them to raise money as a single unit? Seems like the way to go. It does make me think a lot about, I've mentioned Yak read before, and the person who runs that has been thinking about going and turning their, or their sort of time into a nonprofit. I've seen a bunch of other folks like some of the, the mastodon instances have been looking around that route, too. It's like a way to become a nonprofit, to gather groups together to gain funding to output the projects. I do like the idea of an interop fund, where it's like, let's build out these things. And the only condition is that whatever your software is, it can talk to these other pieces of software, or at least have its data be consumable by these other pieces of software. I mean, there's a really good argument on the business side that like, there's a bunch of legal requirements that are going to need that to happen in the near future anyway, right? We have data checkout in GDPR. We have data checkout under California law. Right now, data checkout is like a null, right? You just get a bunch of CSVs or a bunch of JSONs or a bunch of CSVs and a bunch of JSONs. And that doesn't turn into anything useful for you as a user unless you have somebody who's built some sort of program to work with it. So there's a lot of, when I've talked to legislatures and lawmakers and regulators and that type of stuff, like they recognize this problem, and there may be an opportunity to think about the interop from that standpoint as well, to say, hey, all of these organizations that normally do not get along all have similar data forms. How do we make it so that when they come out of the system, you can take your data and move it into another system really effectively? Because without that capability, data checkout is pointless, really. That's a very good connection. I think, yes, like, in essence, I mean, of course, like the interop fund, essentially, where it's another seed, another name for a seed for a commons, right? It's like, it's like, just like a more like a narrative or like a context that could yield that. Essentially, like some alignment with like commercial interests or regulatory interests, like you're saying, that's a very good connection that will increase the chance that, you know, different entities are enticed to coordinate. And on top of that, I guess we can, maybe this goes into at least like, you know, a saleable points for the commons to some extent. Yeah. Yeah, so we can sell off the commons. Just kidding. Go ahead. I've got two things I want to cover. And one of them, they actually contradict a little bit. So let me come back to organizational structure. But let me start with a little bit of skepticism about the interop fund and interop like funding somebody to do the interop stuff. I like the gut feel for me for that is that the incentives align wrong for that. So I think back to the old IE TF days in the early 90s when people were building internet protocols and stuff like that. And one of the ones that I can think of really clearly is IMAP. There was a guy, Paul Hoffman, who ran the IMAP interop stuff. And I think he funded it. His work was voluntary, I think, or maybe he got a little bit of funding from one organization. But the interop that I've seen working and IMAP was a good example of it, but doesn't come from funding an external group that's helping everybody interop. What worked was each IMAP software developer company or back in the day academic institutions worked on their own interop. So you would get a committee together of all the people doing a thing, IMAP. And then the committee members would tussle out the next version of IMAP going from two to three or whatever. But each of those committee members was working for a university or a company. And you end up with kind of the incentives in the right place. There was a marketplace incentive, hey, if we want to be an IMAP provider, IMAP player, we need to join up with the people writing the RFCs for the IMAP. And we have to participate in Paul Hausmann's IMAP interop events. He had regular events every six months or a year or maybe on a new version or something like that. You'd get everybody literally together in a hotel conference room on a big land, and everybody would run IMAP clients and servers against each other in a big matrix and find lots of bugs and go home and fix them. I think you need that tension of, you know, so for massive wiki for instance, maybe that's a bad example for Vincent and Catalyst. The person who can build interop for Catalyst best is Vincent or people on his team, right? Yeah, I mean, honestly, that makes sense. When I said that thing, I was like, well, actually, software projects are, I mean, the medical month could be the medical, you know, but we even work here, right? Essentially, like developers, like touching code bases they don't own or, yeah, we're not even working in a company, let alone in the internet. Yeah, or we're working from documentation that doesn't really reflect reality. So let's think about, I think the things that used to work in the IETF days was you had the IETF promulgating standards. So, you know, if you were doing an internet thing, you had to, and the standards process was open enough that if you wanted to start a standard or join a standard that was competing with another standard, you could do that. But that central clearinghouse for people doing standards work was super important and whatever incentivized people to participate in making standards was super important. And then Paul Hoffman's bake-offs were amazing. Not all the different protocols and stuff had that kind of thing. That the IMAP bake-offs were just amazing and they were amazingly productive. Having somebody run an event and they have everybody, you know, focusing on a hackathon, essentially, before we called them hackathons, was super productive. So then, how do we fund, you know, or how do we get the resources to create, rather, you know, you still need to interrupt funding, but it's for setting up the standards by which everybody plays and incentivizing people and maybe subsidizing developers, you know, working on on-prem that help an organization meet up in the middle. I mean, the other, that makes complete sense to me, Peter. Yes, I think that has a little more chance of working. The other, like, possible fund, and it's not like we need to, like, push and hold this into the fund aspect, but, you know, going back to regulatory aspects or this is something I also, at some point, I discuss with log-seek people and other people that I was trying to, like, see if there was interest in, like, getting different tools of thought into, like, a commons, right? And some of the arguments for, like, actually maybe trying to motivate these entities, one of those was, like, well, if you just get data into the repository or in this format, then this and this and this may be solved already for you. For example, like, getting that data massaged into a format that passes regulatory requirements, right? So, essentially, the shared services approach. Or the other, just flipping it a bit, it will be maybe, you know, each tool is providing cloud hosting, right, and charges for it. Maybe they will be interested in providing, we may be able to provide cloud hosting for the backups or even the live data for other tools. So, essentially, could we have, like, a market within the commons, which would be a feature for, like, the commons at a higher level than the market, which, personally, we need, but that's a larger topic, no? So, I guess the other, I guess the topic would be, like, different ways of providing incentives. So, now, let me dig into organizational structure a little bit. I think one of the, it's top of mind for me because I've got two groups I'm participating in that are both working on this deeply. And their premise is that maybe I'm going to, I'm going to, like, riff a little bit, and maybe I'll overstate some of the things that they're thinking, but it kind of makes sense if you extend it a little bit. The premise is that one of the problems that we have now is little groups of people doing good work don't have enough support in creating an organizational structure that people feel like they can contribute and understand the context of the contributions. And have some say in the governance of the organization, have some, if it's not a complete nonprofit, which is maybe important sometimes, if it's got some for-profit component, how do I make sure that I can contribute to this thing and share in the profits that come out of it, stuff like that. Both of these organizations are working on templating that for people and making it much smaller energy-wise to set up the organization structure to join up in a federation of other organizations and participate in kind of having like templates and catalogs of agreements and things like that between organizations. So wouldn't it be cool if Massive Wiki wanted to work with Catalyst and instead of Vincent and I scratching our head or asking ChatGPD, how should we organize ourselves if we could just go to a catalog and say this is the organizational form for Massive Wiki, poof, let's implement that. This is the organizational form that Catalyst should have, poof, let's implement that, they're different. Here's the templates for agreements between those organizations, poof, let's do that. So kind of what happened with Larry Lissig and Creative Commons and the other fine folks at Creative Commons, Aaron Swartz and all of them, they templatized just the copyright thing. What if we had that like 100x or something and we were able to plug these small little groups into essentially the equivalent of what much bigger businesses have been able to do except to do that business, they spend thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousand dollars on lawyers to get the right templates and stuff like that. What if we could just kind of take that off the table and it's like we have that common setup, anybody can do that for very little dollars and what if we can set it up so those can plug into the existing legal structures. We have an understanding of Deloers, C-Corps and Wyoming, crypto friendly LLCs and the different kinds of cooperatives and stuff like that that they have in Europe. So not only do you pick a kind of an internal form but you also pick a way to interface with the rest of the world. Maybe it's in Wyoming, maybe it's in Finland or Estonia, maybe it's someplace else. So I guess both of these organizations envision that whole ecosystem coming together based on templatizing and then providing small organizations like this. I guess another key part of it for me was David Bowell saying these organizations could be really tiny. They could be like two or three people coming together for a couple weeks. That's, you know, you want to make it so easy, ridiculously easy organization forming, organizational structure, right, and ridiculously easy inter-organization agreement structure. So Map of the Future is working on that and Lion's Berg is working on that. Lion's Berg has the additional thing that they've got a kind of project management backbone that they're going to let members use and they've also got funding structures set up for being a non-profit, at least in the U.S. You can essentially be, you can have the the donation and reporting and all that kind of stuff taken care of for a 501c3 kind of thing in a push button in a few days and you don't have to, because you become a grantee of a larger structure that they've already built. So now into that I can imagine an inter-op team forming or multiple inter-op teams forming and maybe you don't write the code for Vincent for Catalyst for inter-op, but you can at least help Vincent write the business case for inter-op to present to his constituencies and help him write the technical plans and things like that. Interesting. I wonder, are you familiar with the Holochain and HoloSourcing project? Is that in that category as well? I wouldn't think so. Yes, on Holochain, but not so much on HoloSourcing. Can you explain a little bit about HoloSourcing? I cannot. I just, I got a conversation about the style of this one with someone who gave me the conceit that this was involved in the idea of joining smaller organizations together into larger contexts. I have to hop early, but I am very interested in exactly this topic and going deeper into it, so maybe you'll follow up next time. Bye, all. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Jordan Hall. Interesting. That looks like a good quote. Yes, apparently it comes from this person. I said for Jordan Hall and he gave me like a sports hall, so no big VR delays. Okay, interesting. HoloSourcing. Plus some protocol with different agents involved in co-creation established assets stewardship and valuation agreements. Right, so maybe market oriented. HoloSourcing Google is very poorly for me. I get Nada. This is 2020. Number three. And Holochain is another one of those communities. I mean, if you go look at the meta currency project before they split off Holo and all of that, they were thinking about every damned blessed one of these issues that in depth for 25 years. Unfortunately, then the project that I first saw them building was an email client and I'm like, why are you doing that? Interesting. Yeah, you're going to pry Gmail out of my cold, dead hands. But if you added a grease monkey script that did something in Gmail, useful, now we're talking. Anyway, so the challenge, and I've had this discussion with both of the groups working on this ecosystem of ecosystems kind of thing, the challenge is always we interrupt with all the ecosystems as long as you're in our ecosystem to interrupt it. So that's it. That's the challenge. So this is where I guess my mind always goes back. I don't know if this is at this point, but it always goes back here, which is maybe the data formats for an interval. Defining the formats as the minimum viable implementation for an interrupt. And I guess I like to, like, you know, what that answer was about, like, how this may align with the legislation and so on. But I don't know, maybe it's just like, that's how my head is shaped just because you know, like, I wasn't going to say it. It's from wearing the earphones for too long. I have the same thing. I, you know, that's where I go. I think the secret is actually organizational structure. Yes. You know, I think that's a very interesting, very interesting point. So is there a way of accreting this by picking one platform that does one thing that's important, that does it elegantly in a way we really like? And I'm going to say comacry or something like that, that just does one thing. You sort of log in, you get an account, you do whatever. And then figuring out where that grows to and what it does, but just getting something useful working across a broader community of people on distributed projects. Because I think, yeah, I think I like, I like where you're going with that. And I wouldn't even pick a platform. Having been on the horns of this dilemma, am I doing the David Bovo structure or the Jordan Sukut structure? It's like, actually, what you have to do is sit down with right right now, actually, because we don't have good templates yet. Linesburg is almost there. David Bovo is almost there. Comacry is almost there. I think what you have to do is sit down with your your your teammates and create your own actually. Wait, doesn't that exacerbate the problem like crazy? Because you've just gone and built yet another platform and that's the thing we're trying to avoid. I'm trying to skirt those rocks. Yeah, that's the state of the art right now. The state of the art is that there isn't. There's a so if we if we had an agreement on rich soil data format, meaning, hey, we leave information in tuples on GitHub repose and this sort of satellite. And it was a really like, earthy data formats back that we could agree on. And then apps could come basically lay eggs in that like like rich substrate and everybody else could pick up the eggs and go, oh, I'm a make an omelet. That would work. And then the platform would be indifferent, but the data would be shared and we would be okay. But Pete is nodding his head in a way that says that is not only a pipe dream, it is physically impossible because it defies not only Newtonian, but also quantum and crystal physics. The question is why do people use data formats, right? Because they come with tools. It's because they've got an organization and they're trying to accomplish goals. So whatever whatever structure they've got that is trying to accomplish goals is incentivized to accomplish its goals. However, it feels best, right? And so two teams are going to go, they're both going to look at that data format and go, yeah, that's great. Let's invent our own common data format and it will be ours and we understand that much better than anybody else. So data formats is, it reminds me a little bit of wikis and wiki people. Wiki people are always like, but you just need a wiki for this. It would work beautifully. Why don't people use more wikis? Right, right. Well, maybe it makes sense to break the problem down into phases, right? Like first is like the problem which is having nothing itself of getting people who want to collaborate to collaborate. So like, you know, the coordination just shows when people already agree, right? And then there's the other of like how to get organizations which have their own like mainly either profit driven or start to seeking or just like goal oriented problems to find enough use in the common approach to actually adopt it. But it will seem to me like the first example of wiki, right? There's a seed group maybe in the first one. Yeah. So which is why I sort of feel like, again, like it's sort of also the, you can spot like this in many dimensions, you know, like it's one