That would be awesome. And then you can add a coda about how relevant his thinking is today, and how that fits, and other people kind of opinions, and all that kind of stuff. We can riff on it and fold it into the thing. Can we call them elegant handles? Because if complexity is here, simplicity is sort of, on this side of it, elegance is going through the complexity. And so I think Latour couldn't have come up with what he came up with without going through the processing of all of that complexity. And so I think this idea of the elegant handle is on the other side of complexity. Sounds great. So elephant handles. Elegant. Elephant. Elephant handles. I mean, maybe that's true. I like it. Cool. Welcome, everybody. We're on our Thursday OGM call, Anil. It's lovely to see you all. We check in. Normally the order I pick is to go look at my grid, and I go from the most recent arrivals back up so that we don't always get the early birds first. And we're just checking in. So it's what's OGM that's in your life?  And then I sent a second invite for an 8 AM call tomorrow, where we can do some more talking about that and flesh things out and just figure things out as well. So we run out of time today. We got time tomorrow to start doing this. And you'll see it's a progressive design where we've got pre-work. We've got some homework going into the 29th, which is when the workshop is. So let's start with, oh, great. Let's not start with George, because this is, I think, his first OGM call. So let's start with Hamilton Neal Jay. Hi, guys. Happy Thursday to all of you. That's all I have to say. I just spent the past hour being IT support for a 14-year-old. Oh, perfect. It's a question of what's more fragile, her anxiety or IT network. It's both. So anyway, it's good to see you all. That's going to be my update for today. Glad to be here. Thanks, Hamilton. Neal Jay, Jamie. That's not fair, Hamilton. I was hoping for at least five minutes preparation time, and now look at me. I'm just dropped in it. I feel like an elephant trying to go through the elegant handle thing. No, I've got my trunk in. But generally, the rest of me is too big for most people. And so I've been having some of those interesting challenges of trying to bring what I've risen to come across the term as sort of an eco-poetic approach to sensing into what needs to be considered before we get to the detailed design stage, before we get forced into other people's boxes, before we get forced into the expectations of an agenda. And that's been a tricky couple of weeks for me because I've been gently stretching agendas but having difficulty within my own team to get them to recognize the validity of bringing that size of potentially changing the culture of Europe to the project, even though the hints are there for somebody who can see the connections like me. And then when I carefully word the right questions at the right times when that team is in conjunction with the team that's trying to bring them in, the other teams are all going, and I still can't get my team to see the validity of what I've been doing.   And so it's just this trying to get the elephant through the eye of the needle and recognizing the different levels of hierarchy, the different levels of constraint, the different levels of consciousness, capability, maturity, and literally developmental depth that are needed to try and thread this vertical thread rather than the horizontal coordination thread. And the connection to OGM is that as a knowledge slash wisdom commons with multiple curated inputs and multiple potential outputs, a lot of this is going to come down to at what level are we communicating to whom about what? But what's the overarching vertical thread which requires a more liminal space, not fully structured at first type thinking. So I'm holding those two things in juxtaposition and I'll go and tend to my elephant. Thanks. Yes, I think there might be a common thread in today's conversation. Jay, Jamie, Hank. Morning. Having grounded a bit back home and reached out and trying to orient how to support people in the valley, especially the most vulnerable populations of people that have lost their homes. I've been having a lot of conversations on this territory in two major fronts. One being almost like what does the future of housing look like? How can we leverage some of the temporary structures that I love that I support such as geodesic domes and things like that in the current iteration to be able to support people that are just kind of floating around? And also there was a ton of support that flooded in through GoFundMe to a lot of people that told their stories or people that told their friends' stories. And the thing is that there's a gap between where that fund, the funds come in and actually where the housing buckets fill. So this kind of idea of creating a system that brings people from not just getting funded but also connecting them with who has a piece of property, who has land, who has an extra room, enhancing that. So been kind of heads down in that and besides all my other things. Thanks, Jay, and I was just typing in some background. You live in Ashland, Oregon, which is right close to several cities that were wiped out by the wildfires recently. So that's the context for what you're saying. Jamie, Hank, George. So hello, I think this is my first official OGM call. So it's nice to be here. Welcome, thank you. And what's OGME in my life is a variety of projects that I'm working on. One is the actual argument mining and knowledge curation project that is the Society Library. And we focus on three topics, COVID-19, election integrity issues and climate change, which I'm looking to get back to. We have a specific method for that, but in addition to just working on this knowledge curation and this logical articulation of all points of view on these subjects, I've also been working with a variety of different people in the information ecosystem, because essentially we're mapping the territory of what's going wrong in our information ecosystem. Our relationship with information is clearly one of the most important relationships a human has and society has. So what's going wrong? What could be improved? And so we're mapping out what are the issues, who are the actors and what are the projects that are in existence and maybe we can steward a larger partnership and a more coordinated and effective response to some of the issues that we're seeing perpetuating. So that's what I'm working on. That sounds incredibly OGME. Thank you, that's really, really tremendous. We really appreciate you being here. Hank, George, Judy. Yeah, well, welcome, Jamie. I don't know if I can really follow that up. I'm not working on anything nearly as elaborate. That said, just kidding, I am. Sorry, Matt and Ham. No, so just a little peek into my life. I mean, a couple of things. One, I've been reading a lot more and just a quick little thing. I started reading Man's Search for Meaning, which is a book by Victor Frankel. And just I saw it on so many reading lists that I just decided to like read it and I didn't really look into it. And the first half of it, as some of you guys may know very well is like his experience in the work camps in Germany. And so I was just kind of like, okay, here we go. So I just feel like I want to go see a movie called House on the Hill and thought it was going to be like a nice, pretty movie and then realize that it's like not a fun house to be in. But I'm still like learning a lot from it. I think that that kind of shock really made me like pay very deep attention to it. So that's kind of on the more like leisurely side, even though it's not, it doesn't feel super leisurely. I think the second thing is, we've talked a lot about the climate around here, whether it be social or political or whatnot. And I know in my past couple of updates, I've given a couple just nods to the discourse or lack thereof going around. So I think I've taken the opportunity to really kind of dig into some of the arguments that I'm hearing on like the other side of issues that I take, really just to one practice, kind of like not being scared of them, not that people who don't grapple with them are scared of them, but just kind of grappling with points of view that I don't necessarily subscribe to. And it's been honestly extremely enlightening, if not just to orient myself to like, okay, how are they thinking or how is this person thinking so that I can either strengthen my argument or just kind of really like understand where people are coming from. And it's been great. So those are my updates. Thank you, Hank. That's an amazing exercise these days. And in ordinary times, that's kind of an abstract exercise these days that feels all too real. So George, welcome to the call, George, Judy, Kevin. Go ahead, George. And you'll need to unmute yourself. The Zoom dance. So can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. So I'm the new kid on the block and it's very nice to meet with a number of old friends here. And so the last week was a very interesting one for me because a number of areas of my research interest and different communities of practice that I belong to, seems to come together in inspiring the grave by a new toy that I discovered that's Obsidian, which is my choice for linking personal and collective knowledge ecosystems. So there is this crowd, the people who are into knowledge ecology, very much inspired by the Engelbart, DKR kind of thing. And then there is the other crowd, sense makers, meaning makers, all around Daniel Schmackenberger series of sense making. And then there is also people who are committed to profound social transformation or movements for civilizational renewal. And I feel being part of all three and it's very interesting to see how these domains are articulating through my inquiry, not that I tried to create a master map of anything, but more it's like a truly emerging process. The new insights and inspirations are emerging from the conversations that I am having on Twitter, on email, in Zoom rooms. And then I try to capture the highlights to see that I just want to hang in long enough until some interesting patterns emerge that I can then feed back to OGM and other places. So I'm very pleased of, inspired by the work that you guys are doing. I went through the Google Doc, made some comments and yeah, originally my first reaction was that, oh, there are so many other globalizing initiatives that is trying to be a hub for everything. But then I saw who are the people here and what is the quality of thinking. Then I decided to join and I want to contribute and be available, check them. That is wonderful, George, thank you. And you're reminding me that in the last couple days I've had conversations in some cases, the same conversation that ranged from what probability do you give that on November 15th there will be violence in the streets of the United States that is sort of more or worse than what Portland tasted during this time, all the way over to, in the event of a blue tsunami where it's a wipeout for the Republican Party, what should we do? Like really, how would you reorder this country? What might you pass and do to create a layer of legislation and action that is like the New Deal of old and there's talk about Green New Deal but the Green New Deal is sort of different. Like what would you do if you took a clean slate? So those conversations are exciting. So at the same moment, like fear and excitement just all mingled in a moment when the cost of communicating is zero, the marginal cost of communicating is zero. So it's crazy. So we have Judy Kevin Scott. Good morning everybody. I love where we're going, both the depth and the action. It's sort of like the honey spot of how to really make change happen as we reach out to other people. And I think the nexus of that for us, for me anyway, I'm just trying to take the thinking and the possible action plans and the tools to all of the individuals and communities I can interface with here, which is a couple of different nonprofits where I'm on the board, some folks at the university, some students who are doing outreach, some neighborhood groups. And the traction is starting to build, which is really exciting. And what I'm finding most helpful is kind of a what can we do right now sort of question while we're learning how to do more. And that seems to be working if there were a simple rule of what's made me happy in the last week, that would be that conversation. Thanks Judy. And it feels like there's hundreds and hundreds of groups like this that are all trying to figure out, where are we? What are we doing? How do we do it? Some of which are more advanced and more into action than others. And we're in some ways sort of crystallizing and making contact with each other. And one of the roles that I think is really important for OGM is to be a bridge and a bumblebee for the other groups and to serve the other groups with better infrastructure, with processes, with things we come up with and do. So I'm looking forward to that. Kevin, Scott, Lauren. Yeah, I've mentioned in here, I'm working on a series of financial products and initiatives that are related to an interconnected economy versus the economy of rugged individualism. The third one got approved and I'm dropping the slide share link in the deck. But it's a friends and family funding for black and brown entrepreneurs who don't have a rich uncle using a mix of equity and donations that are a clever subversion of the tax law. There's this thing called a pooled income fund. Places like Stanford use as a planned giving tool. And it turns out you can tweak it in a way that lets people invest $100 and get, essentially 50 cents back on these funds and the deduction and the capital gains and all that stuff.  And it's a bridge step beyond microfinance. And anyway, it's up and the slide share, it's an FAQ if you're interested in emailing. But a couple of foundations and some high net worth individuals are interested in funding it here in Nashville led by this African-American woman I've been working with for a couple of years. And anyway, I worked on it from like 6 a.m. to 9 30 last night and actually people where my team was emailing back this morning. So I don't know, there's about 16 hours in that crazy deck. So anyways, they're all kind of late. That sounds great. Kevin, briefly, how is that different from microsavings programs as opposed to microfinance? Because microsavings are basically pooled small donations. Yeah, I mean, yeah, they're completely different. I could explain, I can. It's revenue share financing, you give them equity but the people who put up the money get a deduction coming in. And then they get a revenue share for life after the fund recoups your donation from the revenue share. And then it replicates them and goes from there. Cool, thank you. Scott, Lauren, Charles. Hi, everyone. Couple of things for me this week. The first is I agree with Judith and how things are starting to get traction and spread. And it's caused me to think about Dunbar's number, which was proposed by a British anthropologist, Robin Dunbar in the 90s. And it says that because of our brain capacity, we have approximately 150 people that we can maintain cohesive relationships with. You can argue it, it's 100, 150, 200. The point is that it's not 1,000, it's not 10,000. It's a small group. And what I'm noticing is that the more people I'm connected with and it's been exploding since I've been part of this group, the less well I'm doing with each of them because it's thinner. It's just these little touch points that are very exciting, but then I have less time to actually dive into each one of them. And it's been studied quite a bit. They've done, they've looked at Twitter, they've looked at Facebook, they've looked at organizations that actually, I can't remember the company, but as they got to 150 people, they found it more productive to split and make another building. And now they have a group of 150 people with a whole new parking lot. They're all right next to each other. But it's these little groups. That's WR Gore. Thank you. Yeah, so it's just a fascinating little thing. He also had some other numbers. Five people are the people that we spend 40% of our social time with. And 15 people, if you add another 10 people, that's 60%. So again, it's these small little groups. And the reason that it's explained this way and something that I've known quite recently is people are the most complex thing that you will ever interact with. Things are easy. People are not. And in order to maintain a relationship, if you have three people, you are you and the relationship with each person, but you also have to have an understanding of the relationship between those two people in order to make a conversation work at another person. And now you, it just exponentially gets out of hand. And so it's just something to think about as we think, how can we bring in collaboration? How can we develop these spaces when the group that I have on my screen feels really manageable and yet still bigger than I can even know all of you. And it's not a huge group. So that's one thing to think about. The second thing was I found Doug had mentioned something about redesigning Zoom. Here's some things I'd like to have seen in Zoom. And I saw an article this week and I thought it was really fascinating. They had three or four design firms come in and say, what would I do to Zoom? And one of the things I thought was most relevant to this group was that they had, let me read from here, give people a little map and they can drag themselves around into different groups. So the visual is there's these little groups of interest that you can actually see from sort of a top-down view, if you will. And then you move yourself into the group and it's different because they were talking about going to one of the conventions and how you walk into a room and you have no idea who's there and what they're involved in. The other thing that I thought was interesting about that is you can take yourself out into a white space and that's a rest area. So now you're not necessarily involved in any of the groups. So I thought those were two interesting ideas for this week. Neil, did you wanna chime in on that real quick? Just a very quick little one on Scott's point about moving in and out of rooms and it was an experience I had many years ago and I'm sure the more famous amongst the gathering here than myself would have had this on many occasions. I made a couple of comments at a forum with about 50 people in and then they were all breaking for drinks afterwards and I went to the toilet, came back and the groups had already formed around the wine tables and the coffee tables and so on. And I knew if I go there, this is the conversation I had. If I go there, this will be the conversation. This will be low brown, this will be high brown, this will be something else. And in that moment of indecision, I just stood there and sipped my wine and I realized there were individuals at each table looking at me. And within about two minutes, a group had gathered around me and it was the people that weren't comfortable in the group they were in. And it was an insight to being the strange attractor. And so the strange attractor has to produce something different than what would otherwise be available, right? Because otherwise people will be around it and it has to be attractive enough and provided with enough empathy for them to see the sense of being with you. So you can create relationship by being strangely attractive. I just specialize in being strange. But the point is that it's not just how do you join a group but how do you attract people to join you through being different enough in the level that they're operating? And this again is part of that vertical differentiation not just horizontal coordination and playing with those models around adjacent possibles and networks and seeing how to do that. But also recognizing that each individual you encounter could be operating at different levels if you give them the space to move into it. And so how do you give them the opportunity to show up more fully whole? And they have to see that in you before they can connect. So I just wanted to bring that into that process. It's not just numbers, it's actually vertical depth as well. A couple of quick comments. Neil, were you wearing your like pirate badge and hat and parrot? Is that like what did it? Second. The peg leg. I think the peg leg. Yeah, that's totally a strange attractor. An old colleague of Pete's and friend of ours Ross Mayfield just announced on product hunt basically a series of Zoom add-ons, a platform for extending Zoom, which sounds interesting, which I didn't have a chance to go look at. And then we have Charles Pete Bentley. No, sorry, Lauren Charles Pete, my apologies. And then I have to switch rooms. So I will be muted, but I'm listening. Hey everyone. And I wanted to say hello especially to George Ford. It's so nice to have you with us and how exciting. And also Jamie, another female. We always liked that.  And Scott actually presented on Monday at Keekalab and it was delightful. He had just has like tons of tricks up his sleeve in terms of creative frameworks. So definitely while we're checking out his stuff, we were super excited to hear him present and wanna try out his creative frameworks and in Keekalab in the future. And what else? And Scott also led us to Tony Caffrey, who has another problem-solving framework. And I'm meeting with him in my Zoom room tonight at nine o'clock. If anyone is interested, you can join. Scott, do you wanna tell the group about him? So just really quickly, he's from UMass and he teaches computer science. And he has the best brainstorming book I've ever seen. How to break any creative problem. I can't remember the name of the book, but anyway, his work is on the intersection between AI and innovation. And his fundamental thesis is humans are not as good without computers. Computers are not as good without humans. And he has a model that allows, it's a linguistic based with model that allows the computers to do what they do, which is provide the options. And the humans are the best at making the connections between those options. And that's kind of his thesis. And he can't seem to get much traction on it, which is odd because he's got all the support behind it. And I think this meeting with Kiko Lab is gonna help. Can you throw his info in the chat? Awesome, thank you. Charles P. Bentley. Hi, great to be here. I'm sort of tucked in the corner of the skating rink restaurant where my kids are out on the ice having a class all week. So I've been a little derailed by just being dad this week, which is great. It's wonderful. Oh, so we have to give a lot of love and shout out to Robert Best, whose wife had a baby this week.  James Best, I gather. And so that's one of the biggest newses. Another one is that we are gonna welcome again Howard Reingold on Monday at the Kiko Lab session. Noontime Pacific, nine o'clock in Central Europe. And that is continuing in a series of conversations on craft detection. So Jamie, going back to much earlier, I was resonating with your RIF on relationship with information and we would love to connect for sure about a bunch of things. But if you're around on Monday, you'd certainly be welcome, as is everyone. So that's like pattern jamming. It's an exercise that we've tried out a few times in the Metacogs, which is kind of reaching toward a pattern language, and in this case, a pattern language of craft detection with one of the gurus of craft detection, Howard Reingold. We're also gonna be in the beginning part of the call, looking again at the learning garden, the co-learning with kids, peer-a-goji for kids stuff, also with Howard and a few others in our camp. And I don't know what else. I'm feeling progress amidst fragmented responsiveness these days, but there's good stuff going on and just gearing up for Monday with Howard. So thanks, check. Charles, thank you for the youthful sounds in the background, they're actually lovely. I used to attend Quaker meeting when I lived in Connecticut and when a baby cries and during Quaker meeting, it's not like immediately usher the baby out, it's actually sort of the sound of God in the room and it's treated very differently from what you would expect, it's lovely. I can leave the mic up if you want. In this case, probably not. But thank you. Okay, great. Leave the Godlings to their work. Pete Bentley-Doug, please. Good morning. The emergent pattern for me ended up being I tweaked the real-time transcription engine I'm using a little bit and it's actually a lot better now. It's amazingly, it's running on the background and working well. So now there's still a lot more work to do, but I didn't expect that this morning and it ended up kind of happening and poof. So hopefully we'll get to share more in the future, I guess. The other thing that I thought was interesting, I saw a short post by Doug Reshkoff. He's posting little snippets of his book, Team Human Book. And I'll drop a link here. He said with robots taking over our jobs, maybe we got tricked into thinking that we actually all needed jobs and that we needed careers. So that I thought was a really interesting, fascinating observation and kind of reminded me actually of the discussion going on on April's Flux List about portfolio careers. So maybe we do a little bit better. Some of my best friends have jobs. Yeah, some of my best friends have jobs too, but some of them don't. And so, anyway. Part of that folds into sort of kind of the Blue Tsunami question is like, okay, so if we can actually clear the decks and loosen politics so that we could do something, what might we do? And in that case, you'd want to have a brilliant sort of techno-industrial policy so that you could achieve fully automated luxury communism the way we were promised so many years ago, right? Falk is a thing and Matt doesn't want that. But that raises all kinds of questions that we haven't faced in centuries, which is like, but if people didn't have to go to work and didn't have to earn a living, wouldn't they shoot themselves because they'd find no meaning? And I'm like, Jesus Christ. Anyway, all kinds of interesting things get opened up by this conversation, which I really, really love. So maybe we do a pop-up OGM call on like clean slate. What does this mean? In fact, I'd love to do a sort of a Blue Tsunami call to think about what that might look like. Bentley Doug Ken. Everybody. So just a few personal things. I'm starting a new job this week. It's a part-time job. It's a startup dealing with interactive textbooks. And then I'm working with Jamie on a debate and helping people understand very complex issues like climate change and just lots of stuff. And then I've got several other projects to save the world. So we'll make the world a better place, right? Like everyone here. So I don't have much interesting to share. I like the conversations going on. So I'll be listening in. Oh, and I guess for Jerry, I'm not sure I know the homework or I'm invited to that meeting on where we're trying to bring OGM together. I'd like to participate. I don't have to if it's already full. So. So there's just an open, open to anybody kind of call tomorrow to follow up on what Matt says today. And then what Matt says today is gonna set the agenda for the next couple of OGM Thursday calls, as you will see. So I think you'll see how this is all kind of unfolding. So. Right, yeah. I've been out of the loop and want to make sure I don't miss anything. Sounds exciting. Cool, totally watching the loop. Neil, did you want to comment? Just a quick one. Bentley, where did you get the background that perfectly matches the tone of your T-shirt? And when is the portrait shot happening? Yeah, this is Olin Mills, 1980. I just downloaded portrait backgrounds because I wanted something funny. But yeah, I don't know if Olin Mills, I don't know how big they are, but that's where we got all of our pictures taken when we were in middle school. So. Oh, okay. I was like, what's the Olin Mills reference? It was a photographic photography studio. Everyone probably had something like that in their childhood. It was only a guess, Bentley. It was only a guess. Yeah. Just for fun, just for a moment, everybody pose like your high school photo. Like this? Yeah. Cool. And now we have Doug Ken Mat. Okay. It's been a very complicated week involving a lot of things. And I'm losing my voice from talking too much, which is probably a clue to not talk too much. Some of the issues are, if you deal with things locally, trying to connect the dots, the internet hangs in the background as a resource for connecting communities with each other. I think we've all lived for 20 or 30 years with the hope that the internet would be a learning, communicating, democratic environment. But the reality is it's more of a security and military and state control medium than we were ever prepared for. The issue that I've been facing lately is the degree to which the internet and the technology companies and the banks together are a kind of sponge soaking money out of the population into a few hands. And if we don't break that link between technology and finance, we're gonna find that it becomes increasingly corrupt and working against us. And we need the internet to be a place for learning and open conversation. And we're losing it. And I don't know what to do about that except the thing that it's really important. So here from Northern California, that's the thing that's mostly on my mind, except to say, I'm finding it increasingly hard to be in a conversation like this without breaking down and crying. We're surrounded by a tsunami of pain and it's gonna get worse in the next week, it's gonna get worse. The people have been unemployed for six, eight, 10, 12 weeks, no income, no resources, and they've got kids. It's just terrible and nothing is happening really. The food banks are running out of money. Anyway, you all know that story because you're probably all in it one way or another. Thank you, Doug. And thank you for the sobering thoughts. And there is something happening. I watched some of the Amy Barrett hearings. And when she did her opening conversation, she introduced her kids. She basically opened her presentation as if she was at a church social on Sunday. And I was like, wait, wait, wait. Your nomination is incredibly controversial.  You're pretending this is like a church picnic. It was insane in its absurd normalcy in some weird way. Anyway, Doug, thank you for grounding us in all of the things that are happening. And the next month, the next month it could very likely be incredibly hectic and crazy. And so we'll see where that goes. Ken, how is our itinerant census taker doing? Hello, everybody. This is the final day of what's known as NARFU, the non-response follow-up count. According to the internal census figures here in Northern California, we're at 99.98%, which might be an accurate figure in terms of number of cases closed, but it's not an accurate figure in terms of number of cases correct. I think I mentioned last week that I got so angry what I was seeing internally that I actually contacted my representative, Jared Huffman, spoke to his office. I don't remember what I told you, but basically they said, thanks for the information. There's only not much we can do.  So I joined Doug very often at the end of these calls, I'm feeling very teary just because I don't know many but I feel this love for being here, for being with this group of people who are so like-hearted, we're very different minded, but man, I feel the likeness of our hearts and it moves me deeply. And I'm on the other end of things, experiencing this rage, this, I don't know how things got so broken and why we are so ineffectual at fixing them. Somebody said to me yesterday, well, that's the government. And I was like, no, it's not the government, it's politics. I've met so many brilliant career civil service people who are dedicated to their work.  It's when a political appointee comes in and says, we're changing the entire management structure. We're throwing out all the intellectual capital that exists and negating it and saying, we're gonna do it this way. And it just, it makes me so, rage is the only word I have for that. It's way beyond anger. And then there's the despair of what's going on in the world, how many people are being injured. So I hadn't meant to go down this path. Thanks, Doug, took me in a different place. I was gonna say, I'm actually feeling incredibly grateful for clean air, the air career here on Saturday for the first time in weeks, where I could walk outside and do my Qigong practice outside for a change, because I do a lot of real deep breathing inside. I don't want to be out there breathing 400 particulate air. So it's been just a joy to recognize how much a simple thing like being able to breathe clean air means. So I'm kind of all over the map. I'm really looking forward to closing up the census. It's been, I mentioned to somebody that despite the craziness inside the census, it's kept me isolated from the craziness out in the world because I've had such an extreme focus on getting things done. And so I'm looking forward to just having some time off and being able to dive into what I've seen going by in OGM, all the, having had a chance to read so many of the things that are posted. So looking forward to that. And just really feeling happy to be here with all of you again. This is a link in the chain of my sanity are these weekly calls. So thank you all. Ken, thank you. I just, let's go into a little bit of silence just to be with what Doug and Ken just said. I'll bring this out. I was about to bring this out of silence and then that cuckoo was in the background. I'm like, okay, gotta wait for that. That's, that was cool. And Ken, just some framing that I'm using to preserve sanity, which is my belief is that a whole bunch of people voted for Trump because they want the system shattered and that he is actually scoring pretty high on that. That what you were living in, in one department of our government is what's happening broadly across the government that he gave his people instructions to go break this thing, make sure it doesn't work, disable it. In part because my higher level sort of narrative on this is that the far right, the alt right doesn't have anything that would logically pass muster with anybody. So they have to break down discourse, dominate the field, you know, treat this as a power play, basically gaslight everybody, in fact, accuse the other side of doing the thing that they're planning on doing, which I'm thinking of as flamethrowing, not just gaslighting, because it's an offensive strategy. And so we're reaching this cusp where we could either slip further down that rat hole and go in the really dark place or this could be the last thrashings of the dinosaur era and we could break through into a really interesting, wonderful new place. And so I don't think Trump's base wanders below 35% because there is a bunch of people that are dissatisfied with the system and like to see it being shattered. They want to see it shattered because they don't see any better future for themselves. So a huge thing that we have to do in a blue tsunami scenario is actually redesign the system, not reinstate the system. And I'm worried that Biden wins and then goes back to, takes everything back to end of Obama era by hitting control. And I'm wearing my undue T-shirt. There's an eraser with control Z on it, right? Because that's like my feeling of what we have to, we have to hit control Z a whole bunch of times to sort of get back to where we were. Neil and then Matt. Very brief poem to capture a little bit about what's been said called crochet, if that's okay with the group. Soilful fractals from the mind, stream in flows of liquid love, threaded dreams that wrap combined head and heart like hand and glove. Holes imagined, spaces filled, artisanal composition, tensioned, loose and sometimes frilled, threaded hues positioned, touch and feel are finely tuned, heart and soul aligned, legs and hips wildly cocooned as love fills hearts assigned. Thank you so much, Neil. Matt, we've prepared the table for you. All right, everyone. It shows that my mouse is almost dead here and I can't find my charger. So we'll see what happens. So quickly from an update standpoint, Pete, I think it was you who put in the chat last week, a link to Robin Wall and I apologize for the pronunciation by Kimmerer. I don't know if that's true, Pete, that you put it in there, but she's from the Potawatomi tribes, indigenous people. And I put a link in the chat earlier to her YouTube video and I think there's something really amazing about one of the concepts that she's put out there, which is, or it's not even hers, but it's a deep, deep indigenous knowledge about the honorable harvest, right? Things like never take the first thing that you find, ask permission for what you take, listen for the answer and respect that answer, take only what you need, use everything you take, be grateful, minimize harm, share what you've taken and then reciprocate the gift, give yourself back to the thing that you're harvesting. And I'll say that the OGM has actually catalyzed for me a great, I think like many of you sort of a great personal set of like reflection and I'm going through catharsis, right? I can feel that and systems change for one of two reasons, enlightenment or catharsis and catharsis requires breakdown. And I remember bemoaning Trump's getting into power with one of my wise uncles who said, well, maybe this is what we need. Maybe the people got it right and that we need the system to break down. And as you guys all know that I've been listening and reading Latour and one of the things that Latour states about as I understand it, states about why people are living in this sort of disregard for everything that exists, Jerry, like you were saying and willfully trying to break things down is there's a recognition that the two ends of the spectrum, a spectrum of moving to the future of modernism, which is also equated with globalism is kind of this utopian fantasy that can't be achieved. And the other side of modernism is sort of this conservatism and sort of going back to going back to what was in the past and believing that the past is the glory days. And so there's sort of this tension between this utopian view of the future and in this utopian view of the past. And that's the spectrum that we're on. And Latour says that both of those utopian views for some of the people in this world hold no truth. And therefore their only response to that no truth is actually burn it all down, make up fantasy worlds, QNAN and all this kind of stuff. And that's the reaction that's happened here. And what he says is that reaction is actually not in some ways not unwarranted. In fact, it's a rejection of these stories. And I'm a modernist, right? I've always been a modernist. I've always seen opportunity and wanted to move forward and always thought about kind of where we could get to if we only work together hard enough. And I'm recognizing that that's also false. And Latour sort of talks about sort of a real re-inhabitation of ourselves in the context of the small critical zone that we live. And what does that mean and what does that look like? And that's the third attractor that we need to move toward in his mind. So that's been going on in my mind and kind of getting back to Robin Wall, Kimmerer is this idea of indigenous knowledge. And indigenous knowledge is the knowledge that is built of the ecology in our ecology. And I think about all these people, Ken that you're referring to in our government systems that are basically being tossed aside and that's indigenous knowledge of how our government really works and it's true concept. And so we've given up all of those things in favor of modernism. And modernism has the view of you can take whatever you want and you can harvest the land and now we're into a place where you can harvest the people and all social media and Doug what you were talking about social media as sort of a, not even just the internet it's sort of as a part of the military complex or the capitalist consumeristic complexes that they're harvesting us the same way that we harvested coal and harvested the land. And I think that there's something really destructive there that we have to come to terms with. So that for me is my why of OGM. And I don't know what OGM needs to look like. I know that there's plenty of people working on platforms. Scott someone invented something called spatial which is exactly what you and I put it in the chat as well which is exactly what you're talking about with some of these things. There is a proliferation of platforms and everyone thinks they're gonna cure this thing with platforms and I think that's also a kind of a techno-futurism modernism that may be false as well. So with that said as a conceptual background let me just share my screen and share what I would propose as being a process for how we might move this group from what has been an effective set of conversations into the next stage of our being. And so here's what I have as a set of objectives and I think we need to align on these objectives and just to say this, we wanna invite everybody who's been a part of OGM whether they're on these calls or whether they're in discourse or whether they're lurkers or those things into this process. And there's still more to be worked out but the hope is here is that collectively we can name our aspirations and intentions. We can put language behind them. We all have been attempting to name it but how do we collectively name those aspirations and intentions? I think we also need to define the boundaries and the edges of the system that we're trying to create and we've done things like say, well, we should all be in about the food system or we should all be in about the climate system or we should be about education system. I think I heard today that, we should all be about the blue wave. Well, what are those edges? And how do we conceptualize the boundaries and edges of what we're creating and that's could be internal boundaries and edges as well, right? This is part of systems thinking here. We have to articulate then the form of what this thing should take and what is our operating system? And I use the word system, not necessarily technical but all parts of how this thing works and how the pieces relate. And then we want to launch an initial set of pursuits in the today, in the now and organize those pursuits and activate some working groups and know how those groups are working and how those pursuits are working together so that we feel like we can focus on pieces of it because we know the whole is being tended to. Right now I think we're all just muddling about in the whole, which is good but if this thing is so big we need to break it up into pieces potentially. So that's what I have for objectives. Let me pause. Do these objectives resonate with people? Am I missing anything? If we got this stuff done would that be a good next step for us? So I'll open up for a second. One question I just had, I want to ask. We've actually kind of gone through this similar process with another group. A group of us who have known each other for a very long time we decided like how collaborative and overlapping our projects really such that like we should probably just start naming what it is that we want to do and see if our combined technologies and talents could accomplish something that may not be what each person wants on their own but is similar enough to our, you know combined and overlapping goals that we would want to work together and lay down our differences essentially. So one of the questions that came up is is it okay to submit for consideration something that you've already built or your own complete set of processes and like for the Society Library for example like we have a specific method and tools and yeah, okay. Absolutely. And you know, I know in talking and part of that you'll see in the design of the process everyone gets an opportunity to provide their individual perspective on this and these individual perspectives are based on these conversations but it's based on everything that we've learned to date and I know Neil has, you know a library of models and frameworks that he's used. I know, you know, Judy you've been working on lots of frameworks in mind. I mean, so this group is flush with ideas and models frameworks and previous knowledge and we don't want to lose that kind of our version of indigenous wisdom. And so yes, that stuff will be brought to table but ultimately, you know what we're trying to answer is why do we exist? What do we stand for? What do we do? Who do we do it with and for? How will we know we're successful? What will distinguish us and how will we work together, right? These are the kind of the core deliverables that we're working toward. And I don't pretend to think that in one five-hour session we will get there but this is what we're working toward and there may be mechanisms for us to begin tracking against these things on a big board over time. But I know I've wrestled with this with my organization and with organizations I'm, you know, partnering with. I'm sure you have too. And so we want all of that stuff to come into fold. And so the process is going to be what we, Neil, yes. Yeah, just one observation and just checking in if I'm wrong, please correct me. One of my starting concerns when getting involved with this group was where is the power? Where is the money? Where is the legitimate authority? Where is the anticipated authority? And so in the context of any system if you're coming in to try and disrupt something that somebody already thinks they own already think they're doing already has control of. My understanding now based on the conversations that we've had is that there isn't a vested interest. There isn't a particular ownership model that this is actually an open slate in terms of how we codifying how to move forward together. So I just want to check on that if that's still the assumption because that was a mental barrier for me in terms of how to engage with this. How carefully do I have to tread in speaking my truth if somebody else already has the truth, right? So just flagging that as a something that might need to be posted upfront. This is our intent in this way because I think you need to give people the space to have that conversation rather than the assumption that hey, somebody's about to walk off with all profit because that's one of the barriers I see everywhere I go. Yeah, I think that we have to talk about that. I think that has to be in here and you'll see in the questions that that is one of the deeper level questions that is one of the things and share in the value. I think that that's a good thing to add. Thank you for adding that. Anything else on that before I jump into the process because I know we're at 11? Yeah, Jay. Just real quick, I just really appreciated your intro to this so however that can be captured whether that's kind of informing core purpose. I just wanted to note that and then I'd also say it might be implicit but I'd say small wins are really important. I think we've all been kind of yearning for that so I just want to include that. Great, great. And that's included and I'll show you where but I appreciate that, Jay. And look, my intro was my intro. Each of you have your intro and I think we have to capture all of those, right? Yes, Pete. I think another good deliverable is how we resolve conflict or where it's kind of where's the authority? Yeah, and I think that's part of it is how do we work together, resolving conflict, governance, all that kind of stuff. This operating principles and practices has to be embedded in that. Maybe let me jump ahead because some of these questions were involved but let me just talk quickly about process. So what we'd like to do is to issue an individual assignment to everybody who has stepped forward to be a part of this group and you don't have to do it but it's an invitation to do the individual perspective and the individual perspective will be an assignment that gets you to think about a scenario of the future and here are all the questions and hopefully these questions cover the full waterfront and I'll come back to that in just a second. I don't want to get lost but everyone will be invited to do an individual perspective. We want to launch that today. We'll get that out. We're thinking that next Thursday's call, what we do is instead of doing a check-in like this, people will be broken up into small groups and individual perspectives will be brought into those small groups in one of three ways. Way number one is during that check-in, whoever is here can share their individual perspective in a verbal standpoint and they'll have eight minutes to sort of summarize and synthesize just a few minutes to say, here's my perspective and you can bring visual aids or materials that you want to bring but maybe it's a little longer, maybe it's 10 minutes per person or something like that and we get into small groups. The second way is if people want to just do a written piece, those written pieces will be funneled into whoever's participating in the session and can participate in the session and then people could also do a recorded piece. Again, no more than I would say eight minutes or something where they record their presentation and get it in but people will have a chance to do an individual perspective and there's an assignment that's a prompt to do that so you can produce something that's an artifact or you can come prepared if you're more of a verbal, like to be out loud, you can come prepared for next week's session to share that. Next week's meeting we'll do a share, we'll break people up into small groups and share and we're gonna make sure in that share that anybody who's participating in the session itself is we're dividing them across the share. So not everyone has to participate in the session and have their voice filtered in. I'll say if you're participating in the session, there's a higher probability that your bias will get integrated but we're gonna try to honor everybody's voices. It's gonna be really difficult but that's part of what we're gonna try to do. And then from October 22nd through the 29th and we're trying to do it on the 29th, we can adjust that but we're trying to get this in before the election because I'm fearful that if we wait until after election, we're gonna have other things that are on our hearts and on our minds. And so just trying to fit it in, I know it's short but during this period of the 22nd to 29th, that's the people who are participating in the session's opportunity to reflect on what they heard in the individual thing, read anything that came in from the other sources and to watch any videos and to learn as much as you can during that time and to really reflect and process so that you come prepared for the session. I mean, then during the session, what we're gonna do is whoever can attend will be put into small synthesis teams and we're gonna create almost like continental drift. We're gonna have multiple synthesis teams pulling in all that information and trying to create their first draft of these sets of deliverables, right? And again, there's a lot here that we have to wrestle with but it's gonna be using the majority of those five hours to create the first draft of these deliverables in which they'll report out to each other but and we'll record those report outs which will also then become a report out to everybody else. And then from there, we will organize some after action conversations to do some synthesis and to create some deliverable teams. And then those teams will get together and propose what their deliverables will be and get on like almost like a two week sprint horizon or a month sprint horizon where we might take every other one of these checking calls from check into moving into or create a different call where we will then have each group starting to do some sharing and some comment periods so that we get in some rhythm of pushing these things together. And I could see like some groups working on the economic models of our things or the sustainability model, some group working on the technical systems. And so forth, but we'll let that emerge out of the process. And so again, individual perspective, a sharing process of those individual perspectives. And then when we get together on the 29th beginning to synthesize, the group of people will begin to synthesize those individual perspectives and then start moving into deliverables and actions. So that's the process, divergence and then beginning convergence. Yeah. Briefly, do you want to describe the day of the 29th for people more so they know what the commitment is? What's what we're doing? Yeah, I will. Let me start here. And I will pull my screen down. I don't know what you guys can see. I don't know if you can see the top and the bottom of this page, is that? Yes, we can see from assignment down to the last bullet. Great. And so what your assignment is going to be as an individual assignment is we're going to ask you to, and I'm going to highlight this and then unhighlight this. This section here, the scenario, we want everybody to imagine, an old, someone that mentored me said, it's harder to get there from here than it is to get here from there, right? Which is basically this idea, if you think about a maze, if you start, the best way to solve a maze is you start at the end and you work your way backwards versus starting at the beginning and working way forwards where you can get lost in all of these holes. So one of the... Of course, the Irish version matters that, oh, if I was going there, I wouldn't be starting from here. Exactly, exactly. And so, what we're trying to say is five years from now, we've been on this remarkable journey and we've become this amazing force for good, however you define that. And what started out as an imaginative set of conversations between groups of us like this has actually turned into this self-sustaining ecosystem or ecology, capable of materially impacting the world for the better. And as we sit back and reflect on what's been achieved, we want each of you guys to take a moment to describe what we created together.  And so there are more questions here than necessarily can be answered, right? But what we're looking for, and I'll send out this document, what we're looking for are really your view of these deliverables, your initial view of why we exist, what we stand for, what we do, who we do it for, how we know we're successful, what distinguishes us, how we work together, and how do we resource this endeavor and share in its value. And so there's lots of questions. Why do we exist? What are our objectives? What do we, what value do we create? What are the principles that guide our work? So some high level things down to what are the technologies we use? What are the policies, processes and practices that we put in place? How were we funded and sustained? What were the operating principles and practices that we had to put in place? How did we govern this venture? What sources of inspiration did we draw on? What other models that came before us did we pull into this? As you guys seen, what did we build? What did we leverage? What mistakes did we make? Where did we struggle? What roles did each of us play in this thing in its success? And what motivated us to stay involved? We all have lots of things that were involved in. What motivated us to stay involved? So these catalytic questions are not meant to be exhaustive. They're meant to be starting points, ways in for you to define the mental model. And some people will be way up here. Some people will be way down here. Some people will be way over here. Some people, but that's part of this idea of the continental drift and taking the diversity that is of this group and bringing it into fold. So everyone will have about a week to think about this assignment, to do as much as they can to produce some sort of sets of artifacts. And again, if you're on the call next week, you'll have about eight to 10 minutes to share your vision. We'll do questions for clarification, not debate at that time. We'll also then, for all the participants, we'll give them recordings of each of those shares, as well as recordings that anyone submitted that couldn't be here in live or any of the written objects that people couldn't, for people who couldn't be in the share live. And then the process is going to be quite simple. We're gonna give a lot of time for synthesis. We like to get more further into convergence, but we just think with the robustness of the divergence that we're gonna need time. We may need a second session. We don't know, but we're gonna see where we get to, but we're gonna put people into small tiger teams. I've heard people say this, but basically synthesis team groups, they'll have start out with a large block of time to begin to say, here's what I've learned. There'll be an assignment, but basically it's around those kind of core deliverables. But here's what I learned. Here are the ideas that stimulated me and start to put some shape to, start to put some shape to those deliverables based on everyone's individual perspectives that they resourced. Trying to create almost, we're gonna do our own version of story threading. So everyone bring the tools that you wanna bring, whether it's in Miro, whether it's in the brain, and we're all gonna be working to do our synthesis. We'll give some like a 30 minute break for lunch, for dinner, for snacks, whatever it is for people to step away and reflect. And then we'll go into a second round of synthesis that is really pushing further down the path of creating kind of a, these shared mental models to model out what the system looks like. And then we'll end with a sharing conversation, which that will be recorded as a large group, which will be a deliverable going back to everybody who submitted any material. And then post session will start a synthesis process. Again, these will be right now, Jerry, Hamilton, and I and Hank have a Tuesday morning hour call. I imagine we'll open that call up to beginning to do the synthesis where we're gonna identify buckets of work or trajectories of effort, however you like to think about it. And then what we'll do is it may be one or two calls, we'll come back to a Thursday group and then say, here are what we think the buckets are. We'll do a little bit of synthesis to make sure we have them right. And then people will vote with their feet. And we do like, and we wanna have equal numbers and good diversity in those buckets. So not all the technologists, people go to the platform and not all of the philosophical thinkers go toward, the ethos groups, if those are the buckets or some of the buckets. And then we'll start mapping out their first deliverable is, here are the first deliverables that we think we can produce and when we think we can produce them. And then we'll start that process of checking in an alignment and all that stuff. So it's gonna be emergent, it's gonna be loose, we're gonna adjust along the way, but this is the framework that I have. All right, whoo. Questions, comments, thoughts? Yeah, can you say that again? No. No. No. Pete, how's the transcription working? Yeah, what was the middle bit? I have a question in terms of what you're describing, Matt, is the buckets because the buckets make a lot of sense in terms of alignment around philosophy, technology and so forth, but the integration of that is also really important. And so how we hop back and forth between it because there's a whole different set of buckets that are goal-based in terms of outcomes. And so I don't know how we deal with that complexity, but I think we need to deal with that complexity. Yeah, and how we've dealt with that in the past is we often find coming out of these sessions that one of the buckets becomes an integration team that doesn't live in the weeds, but really acts as a sort of the air traffic controller, the integration. We usually have one member of the integration team assigned to each of those sort of domains of work. Sometimes we say that the first five buckets are this and we have another set of buckets that we put on the back burner. Sometimes we do check-ins and shares across the bucket so that there are mechanisms that we're gonna need to continue to do that integration because that's the secret sauce here, you're absolutely right. The other thing is we often find that the integration team takes responsibility for working with the teams on cross-communication and kind of publishing as well. A lot of this is maintaining good communication discipline like you said. So we find that not only are there buckets that are kind of vertical, there are some buckets that are horizontal, there are some buckets that are about the system, and there may be some buckets which are about the system in action, meaning we might say we're a building OGM, but one of the reasons we're building OGM is to tackle the food system and there's a bucket around the food system and the people working on the OGM system are in service of the bucket on the food system. So we will creating a network map of how these things relate with each other as well. That's part of the synthesis is not just what the things are but how the things work. There are lots of different tools but working with Max who's a part of this that I met through this group, he's been showing me things in Miro that have, they're almost AI driven system map type things, kind of topic, we're gonna need topic mappers. So there may be ways that the buckets actually are in service of the buckets, right? And that's how we'll build meta kind of meta categories plus kind of systems of action as well, right? Yes, Jay. Yeah, to a certain degree, thank you so much, Matt, it's beautiful. To a certain degree, I think we're also talking about a collective story and I just wanna volunteer as one of the tools kind of creating dovetailing journey curves because it's all collective, we've got our individual vision, our individual place where we came, our individual components that we're bringing and the kind of shared innermost cave that could be supportive in this process. I love it and as a facilitator, I just wanna point out to the group that the process is already working, right? Jay, that comment, I would imagine that you are bringing that into your individual perspective and Judith, the comment you made is a part of this individual perspective. So now we're starting to advocate what we need and that's really what we're asking for here is what's the mental model of how you think this thing looks in the future as well as there are some questions here which is where did we start? And I think we need to say is, what did we put in place first, right? So this is what we're talking about. We're looking for all of your ideas on this and this is what we have to sort through and part of it is we're trying to bring into the conversation, the complexity so that we can then start to work to the other side of the sort of that kind of the elegant models that we're gonna use to help us move this thing forward, right? Yes, and I'm sorry, I don't know your name and I can't see it with my share of you, but please. George. George, nice, George, thank you. Matt, I heard you mentioned something about the call on Tuesday morning. Can you say more about that? Yeah, so on Tuesday AMs, Hamilton, Hank and Jerry and I, that was our first call and we've been doing that every week since March and that's where we said, okay, how are we gonna get OGM off the ground? And just to be clear, one of our first action items was, boy, we need to just create an open invitation and get people excited and George, your involvement this week is a demonstration that that objective is being met, right? And it's so great to see some people returning, there's also great to see new people coming in every week and our group is growing. So now we feel like we have a critical mass of diverse thinkers. We wish we had more underrepresented populations on this call but we do have a good start there and so we feel like we're ready to kind of take this next step but those Tuesday calls, which are kind of organizing calls where the Thursday calls have been kind of checking calls, we may open that call up or create another call. I think we have to decide but we are focused on organization and moving this forward versus the relationships and the connections and Jerry, please. Yeah, and I'll just explain a little bit more of the history too and I think going back to the question Neil asked at the start of this conversation. So Peter Vendor connected me to Hamilton, who connected me to Matt, we all started talking and we were like, holy crap, there's something really interesting here. And so we started talking on Tuesday and Thursday mornings back in March and we were talking like that for a while. We had a rhythm going where we were like thinking this thing through and the three of them work at Collective Next and we're pitching projects. So Neil, you're asking like how's this funded or who's behind this or whatever. And part of the idea was to try to sell some gigs that would fuel this project so that this project could grow and become a real thing and become maybe a part of what Collective Next does and how it does it. So Matt was like, these OGM ideas really, really smell good. I think this might be describing some of the future of our enterprise or something like that. And then we were like, well, let's invite people into the conversation. So we opened the Thursday morning calls and turned them into what we're having right now. And so we're still meeting on Tuesdays and talking about what's up, what's going on and so forth. So we could repurpose the Tuesday call to be project team check-in, to be something else, et cetera, which is just the rhythm that we've been holding. And I'm involved in pitching a project through that could easily fuel OGM efforts. And I think part of the goal of the workshop is to figure out how exactly does that work? Like, what does it mean to have a container? I always describe OGM as a container, not as a platform, not as a single company, but as a container for things that could be as different as some open source software that we just released into the world and commercial projects that are paying some people in this group to do work that is super skilled like story threading or storytelling or whatever else. And so fleshing that out as part of what this project would be like. And so that's so far none of these projects we've pitched has actually closed. So we don't have revenues coming into OGM of any kind. We haven't filed any paperwork to become a for-benefit or a corporation or an LLC or anything. And my bias is toward public benefit corporations or some sort of open structure, but part of the question here is how, part of what happens here is how do we work? How do we organize? So I'm hoping that some of those questions come up and get answered in the process of this workshop. And then some of us are interested in all sorts of different slices of the horizontal and vertical aspects of what we're talking about here. So I think what we're trying to open up is how do we get those conversations to be really fruitful, to feedback into the whole so that we can build this little puppy as we fly it because there's several different ways in which we're kind of bootstrapping this as we in fact have the conversation. And this could easily be a nice conversation where we check in on Thursdays and it could be a community and that would be satisfying because I think that the humans we have here and the like-heartedness we have here is valuable in and of itself. And in fact, a danger is that we pollute that by over commercializing it. So I think we need to figure out as a container, how do we hold both? How do we manage intellectual property conflicts or whatever, fairness and distribution of... Issues are gonna come up if we're successful and if we have a strong community and a lot of trust, I think those things will play out really nicely and we can figure it out. And a piece of what I'm hoping OGM is, I'm hoping that we model for other organizations how work happens in the world. What are the tools that we use to share what we know and to discuss and debate things, how all this works and not that we're gonna invent all of that because as Jamie said earlier, there's a whole bunch of organizations who've been wrestling with all these things and have templates and have working methods that are very copyable intentionally because they're working in the open as well. So how do we pick the best of those, integrate them and make this work? Other than that, I got nothing. Yeah, and I've been working on a project trying to get it off the ground with Jay. We kind of are in a strategic pause there. That one's a little hard. I'm trying to sell some OGM type things to two of our clients. I mean, we're talking about some really big complicated, long-term sales cycles on some of these things. And Hank will attest that part of the problem is, at least with our clients, is they want us to collapse to building things that fit within their systems. And what we wanna propose and what we wanna do is to say, we will not sell you something that fits within your system. What you have to do is recognize that we can help you build a completely different system for thinking about these issues and thinking about things. And therefore, what we don't wanna do is to just to view them as consumers and we'll give them whatever we need so that they'll buy it. And so that's gonna be an interesting tension as we go through this, right? But I can see right now, just from a collective next standpoint, I can see projects where we need to ping the world of OGM for interesting thinkers who can help look at those problems in different ways than corporate America or corporate Europe or those sorts of things. And so I see this network as being really powerful, but we have to think about how that's gonna work and how it's sustained and I know those things. Any other thoughts? Cause this has been great adding to these questions. And there's a lot. I can see, this is big. I don't mean to interrupt, but there's another dimension of, as this grows organically, which I believe it will and perhaps very rapidly, how we manage that growth and engagement will be critical. And I don't mean manage in a control sense, exactly. I mean, manage in terms of engagement, involvement, positive action so that it keeps growing. And that's something we should spend some time discussing at the right point. Great.  Oh yeah. I'll put a link in the chat right now. Well, I have a link called OGM Neighbor Communities, which includes the category you just described, but mixed in with a bunch of other efforts that are kind of OGM-y. So I don't have one that calls out major efforts like Society Library that have sort of gone and formalized a bunch of different working processes. So they're folded in with a whole bunch of others. But I'll put that thought in the chat right now. Excellent. Thanks. Just picking up on that, the peer-to-peer group and the commons-based principles are also very powerful mechanisms that would also increase the, what's the word? Not so much legitimacy, but the visibility in this group. So I posted the OGM-based principles up above and they cover some of the things including what Judith was saying as well. We want to grow it. You want to bring people in, but you're probably gonna have, probably have some sort of entry requirement. You know, you don't turn a three-year-old list with the keys to the car. So how do we, well, you could. But the point I'm trying to make is that you're creating containers with different levels of engagement on behalf of the whole, but you're trying to protect without pathology the core DNA. And so there's question marks here over how do you make sure that this due diligence around who is allowed to play in the space can do it respectfully. So it's those sorts of issues, not just the conflict resolution, but what is the container and how do we make that work? Yeah, how did we invite new people in, I think is an interesting question. And what's so interesting is I pushed Jerry on this early on and Jerry said, well, you just invite people and you see who shows up and if they're lurkers, they're lurkers and if they're this, they're that and that's okay. And so I think philosophically, there's some really interesting debates there. You know, do we need to manage it? Do we wanna manage it? If we do, how do we, right? So I think these are all great things for us to debate and to think through. Yeah. Go ahead Neil. I just wanted to qualify that if I could. That works fine for a volunteer agency doing good for nothing, right? It doesn't work as well when you're starting to throw pots of money around or projects around and you're randomly challenging the group that's already got an effort and a cohesive team with a new player you just parachuted in because you thought they were the right person. So you need mechanisms for how you engage and how you allow entry that doesn't tip over what it is you're trying to create that might lay the golden eggs to keep more happening. So it's how do we get to that? I understand your, I mean, I understand your belief here but again, I wanna leave part of this process and I just wanna state this, I wanna leave it open for everybody to bring whatever it is. And if you feel strongly about that and other people feel strongly about something else how do we reconcile and work through those differences and I think that's gonna be important, right? You know, this is as much about us going through a process like this to see how we navigate these complicated issues, right? So two quick thoughts before we wrap our call. One is that in the chat I posted earlier a bunch of role model design principles that has Ostrom and a whole bunch of other really interesting things. And then I got to thinking right now from what Neil was just saying about the peer to peer community, peer to peer foundation, Michelle Bowens, et cetera, there are many really interesting large scale projects going on that are neighbor communities that are next to us but not the same as us. And I think this exercise should help us figure out how are we different from those? What do we, how do we overlap with them? What have we borrowed from them? What is our mutual DNA? How do we operate that helps them or bridges them or something like that? Because I think that our ethos is different from most of us. If we found an organization out that it was 10 steps further down the civilizational curve than we are but have exactly the same structures we should just join them. Like we should just go be a part of them because one of the problems here is that there are too many projects in the world. So I think that what we're doing is considerably different. One of my hopes is that our meandering is here on how to build software that helps us share what we know is that we invent the next storytelling platform and the next decision making platform and that other people wind up using it because they're like, holy crap, this thing that these people came up with is better than going into some forced choice model or some this or some that or incorporates a whole series of models that we could then work through, something like that. So I think that those are the kinds of explorations that we can be engaged in. But what I like about how Matt and his team have framed the exercise is that I think it will let us enrich the conversation and deepen it into all these different corners that we're really interested in understanding because each of us is trying to figure out so what is this and where do I apply my in life energy? Great, okay, so next steps, guys. We need to, Jerry, maybe I can send you this material. You can maybe do a quick little video, one of your classic little video things that invites people and tells them kind of what's going on and then sends out the assignment and everyone will get this. And then hopefully we can get that out today or tomorrow so people have the weekend and early next week to get things in place. Cool, one last thing I just wanna get in the conversation because I don't think we mentioned it during is on the 29th, the intention is to have a five-hour workshop. Now it's in the schedule and all that but we would love it for that to be an RSVP workshop and for people who show up for it to commit to stay for the five hours. The rest of this is drop in, drop out, do whatever you want but for the people on the 29th, we really would love, would love, love, love for people to be committed to be there for the whole process because that's really gonna make a difference in our ability to get through it together. That's the only thing I wanted to add in so that we're clear on that. And the reason we want RSVP is not to keep people out. The reason we want an RSVP is because we wanna know our numbers so that we can engineer groups and those sorts of things. And the full five hours is one thing that I've known is when people pop in and pop out, you have to start over. And so we wanna build momentum through this. Totally agree and support. Okay. Thank you. Any other last minute questions before we wrap this call? I've got one, Jerry. Oh, please, Pete. Real quick for George and Jamie and whoever else. Another part of OGM is the mailing list. Make sure you're on the mailing list and there's also a discussion forum called Discourse. So send Jerry an email or me an email and get yourself on. I'm pretty sure everybody in this call is on the mailing list because I've been adding everybody manually. So I know I'm not sure about Discourse. So we have to figure that out. That's a good point, Jerry, because these friends that I wanna invite that are thought leaders, one is on the OGM list but I don't know if she's on the Discourse list and another one, I don't think she has joined OGM yet. Okay, cool. Neil, last word. I just want a quick question. The status of the document into which we were dropping thoughts, diagrams, ideas previously, how does that play into what we're doing here and is that still a working document or what's happening with it? We're going to pick that up tomorrow and compare it and contrast it with this document and see the beginnings of how these things may fit and where we're heading. Yeah, that's sort of like a, beginning set of conversations between a group of people and what we want is each of you guys to individually kind of step back, draw from whatever's happened and then to re-propose what we think. And we might build back into that document, right? And Jerry, do you get in Google Docs or in Discourse or where? It'll be in Google Docs linked from Discourse. We'll do that. Okay.  We're trying here to design a system that'll hold initiatives in multiple domains. So we're not that focused on how to solve the problems of a particular domain. That's not this quest. This is a quest to organize us so that we might actually then go, say, awesome, who's interested in food system, agriculture, et cetera, go and come back and report in. And we need to understand what that flow is and how that work works. Yep. And is there a place for a kind of meta-conversation about what the implicit and hidden assumptions are of what the different groups are doing? I think we need to create that on Discourse. And I've been extremely guilty of not participating enough on Discourse. So I think I need to get over that and get in there. And that's a really good place to host that because that's an important conversation but that will swamp other conversations if we don't kind of put it in a place. Yeah. I think, again, that's a good question. I think, if you think the answer is yes, we need it. I think that fits into what you would propose here. And I think there's a question here that says, where is it, and there's some editing, but where do we focus in what problems do we work to solve? I think there is the meta-problems of what is OGM trying to solve, but there's also what are the problems that OGM is applied to solving. And we have to talk about both of those things, right? Okay. Good comments. Just if I can just pick up quickly on Doug's point that I tried to start a conversation around that and the entry of those that came into that comment was not sufficient to have that conversation. And so this is the challenge. You then ended up having to try and administrate what are we actually talking about here in big picture meta stuff. This again is the vertical differentiation. It's not exclusivity, it's capability, maturity, capacity to hold complexity. Correct. And so there will need to be some sort of mechanism for holding generative discourse at multiple levels. And I'm just flagging that that is a challenge. And I hear Doug saying because it's a barrier to those that can see more complexity staying in and it's a barrier to those who want to have a conversation and feel like they're left out and we've got to work at how to do that. Yeah, this is definitely one of the biggest challenges that we have, right? Agreed. That's a very important dynamic tension. Excellent. Thank you guys. We'll get something out to you guys. Obviously, you can start your assignment now by just trying to frame how you imagine this thing working in the future. That's that ultimately we're looking for your mental model of what is OGM in 2025. So we'll get this out to everybody. And for those posts we need, we're gonna put a word limit and a time limit on whatever posts are created just to force brevity because we won't have time to read 15 page posts by everybody, but we will have time to read 1,500 words or 2,000 words from everybody. Like that we can get through. So we need to somehow enforce some brevity in our expressions to each other for this stage. So if a picture's worth 1,000 words, I can only use one and a half pictures, is that right? Actually only like two thirds of a picture. Yeah, thanks everybody. Y'all are awesome. Thank you everybody. Let's be careful. Thanks everybody and great, great effort, Matt and team. Yeah. Thank you so much. Well, thanks everyone for your feedback and input and I'm looking forward to taking this to the next level. Me too. Everybody stay safe. Yeah. Bye. Thanks. Yeah, get some rest, Ken. Yeah, I plan to, thanks. Yeah.