This is the Marley call on Monday, May 15th, 2023. And we have a treat this morning because last week Stuart mentioned a piece out of a book that he wrote. And he would like to explain that to us because we were busy talking about agreements and trying to figure out what goes where. And this is a nice foundation for that. So I think with no further ado, because I think you only have a half hour with us. If we could wait for a minute, maybe. I think Joanne's gonna join us. Oh, cool. Just gonna ask you that, I just texted her. Okay, good. And Jesse up just joined, and we may have another couple of people. Would anybody like to sing a tune or tell a joke in the meantime? I had a song, oh yeah, I had a song that came to mind that has to do with the kind of agreements. And it was Billy Joel's, it was Band of Brothers, I guess, and we would all go down together. That's sort of like the feel for any agreement I wanna be a part of. Cool. Okay, Joanne. Hi. Hi, everybody. Hello. Hi. Band of Brothers, Billy Joel. I think that's what the song is called. I don't know, I just heard that song in my mind. It sounds like a Billy Joel song. Yeah, it's funny, I was listening to him someplace recently and it's pretty amazing that he hasn't recorded any new music, I think, since somewhere in the 1980s. And his music is still very poignant. So I'd probably just wanna like rewrite it. Like instead of just brothers, like maybe shifted brothers and sisters, tweak these little things. I'm not finding a song called Band of Brothers by Billy Joel, but I mean, I don't know. I'll find the chorus later. It was just the sentiment of the chorus. Yeah.  Yeah, I remember that lyric. Maybe it's just not named Band of Brothers, the song that it came from. Right. Maybe it's named Goodbye, Saigon. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Just maybe. Just maybe. Just maybe. Well, I asked chat GPT and I didn't fact check it by the time I said that. That was the next thing I was gonna do. So there's obviously a hallucinated song. The GPT says it's part of 1982, the nylon curtain album. Yeah. Okay. We probably should let Stuart start. Cool. We could go on this way for a long time. Now we've got the quorum. What was the name of the song again? Good night, Saigon. Thanks. Okay, so I don't know if anybody saw it, but in the feed this morning, I just decided to respond to Jerry's announcement of this meeting and I sent out a file with the elements of the agreement. They're also posted in chat, okay? And that's what I'll talk to so you have it. By way of context, and this is a really interesting piece of background. In the late 1980s, I was working with a consultant trying to come up with an innovation for the legal profession. And it was in the years where mediation, also known as alternative dispute resolution, was kind of filtering up and people were talking about it and engaged. But where my consultant thinking partner took me was, well, maybe there's a greater innovation than resolving conflict in a mediated fashion. Maybe we can prevent a lot of conflict if we have what we'll call agreements for results as opposed to agreements for protection, i.e. if you look at legal agreements, they're all about protection. What if this goes wrong and what if that goes wrong?  Having said that, the agreements that are prepared only get pulled out in a traditional sense when relationships break down. And that's when everybody starts looking at the specific language and the verbiage and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And that's what all the legal battles and litigation are about. That being said, when I wrote my first book, Getting to Resolution, Turning Conflict into Collaboration, I really wanted to write the book of agreement because that was the innovation. But even my publisher as brilliant as he was and editor didn't get it, he just didn't get it and ended up pushing me towards writing this book about the whole process of resolving conflict. So I had to write a second book called The Book of Agreement in which I articulated what I'm about to share with you. So by way of process, and I've done this many, many times in many, many different contexts, the real essence of what we're trying to do is make explicit what's implicit so that everybody is really on the same page and we dot all the i's and cross all the t's in terms of what it is we're doing together.  And what I wanna do is drop in the aim and create clarity on this project, what it is we're doing and how it is that we're gonna get there. So what I would offer to do is facilitate an agreement and my deliverable would actually be a written agreement and I would kind of scribe as people are talking as we go through this process. And so the elements of what we would talk about and we're not gonna wordsmith this but what we're gonna do is see what the shared vision is. The first element, number one is what's our intent and vision? What is it that we're trying to create? And if we were real successful at it, we could look at it six months out, a year out. What's the vision of success look like? Number two, what roles? What roles are necessary and who's gonna take responsibility for picking up that particular role? What are they responsible for? We've already talked about an editorial board, things of that nature and other things that we think are critical in order to reach the vision. Number three is promises. And that has two components. What is each one of us gonna do to bring this vision into reality? Everything in the world starts with a thought and idea and then you try to manifest it in reality. So what do we need to do? What action do we need to take? What promises that we need to make? And the other piece of the promises is how are we gonna be with each other in this process? How are we gonna be with each other? What's the little culture we wanna create for this project? Number four, time and value. How long are we in this for? But the more important one is value. What value does each person perceive that they're taking out of the project? Because we all know that if someone perceives they're not getting something out, often performance stops. And when I say value, it's not necessarily any kind of monetary value, but what's the value? I mean, for me working on this project, it's pure psychic value in terms of contribution to something that is a contribution. Number five, metrics. One of the reason projects often fail is people have disagreements about whether or not they actually succeeded because they hadn't articulated clear metrics. So what are some of the metrics that we're gonna use to measure our own success? Concerns and fears. As we begin, what are our concerns and fears? There's a very classic business story, business parable called the Avaline Paradox wherein people make a nasty trip to Avaline, Texas and only to find out that nobody really wanted to go. But everybody was afraid to point out the concerns before they took off. So it's an important element of articulating a good agreement. Renegotiation, we know what we know, we don't know what we don't know. And so as we move forward, we have to be open to the whole notion of ongoing renegotiation. Consequences slash atstakeness. So what's at stake here? What's at stake for us in this project? What's at stake for the people we wanna serve? What really is at the core of what it is we're doing? What's at stake? Conflict resolution, how are we gonna resolve inevitable differences or conflict that comes up? And I see conflict on a great continuum. Differences only turn into conflict. Differences are a good thing. Differences only turn into conflict when people become ego-identified with their own particular positions. And the last element, after all of those things that we just talked about, each of the elements, agreement and trust, are we on the same page? Do we trust each other going forward? Do we wanna say yes in moving forward? So that's the essence and really the simplicity of this process. The challenge, the biggest challenge is that most people don't stop and articulate this before they begin a project. And as you've seen a little bit of my own frustration over the past weeks, whenever I show up for a meeting, I keep kind of pounding on this fact of, what are we doing here? What are we doing here? As we kind of get into the weeds before we painted kind of a big picture and created a little bit of a container to hold what it is that we're doing. So it's a little bit of a... Yes, in the book of agreement, there is actually an agreement about a really good marriage agreement. The book of agreement explains the theory and then it has about 35 examples of agreements that I've created over time. And since I wrote the book, there are hundreds more that I've done. So that's the essence of what I would propose to do. Thoughts, questions, comments. And then, oh yeah, one more piece. Then we have a written document. Maybe it's three pages long or something like that. And then you have something to look at as a charter. And every quarter or few months, you take a peek at it and how are we doing? Are we still aligned here? What do we need to tweak, et cetera? So that's my offer. Have you ever considered or posted this as a template so that people could just pull one down and start filling it out sort of thing? Many times, but not in the past few years. I thought it would make a great app for people to actually use this as at the beginning of a project. That'd be really interesting, especially with a little bit of extra coaching for the different stages and so forth. It would make a nice app. Yeah, questions, comments, thoughts, anybody. Looks really good, Stuart. Thanks. To me, it's like a little no-brainer when I talk about this stuff and teach about this stuff. They're used to VA many years ago, a commercial for Frem oil filters. And the tagline was, pay me now or pay me later. And then translates to do a little work up front or you're gonna get into some conflict later on because you haven't created clarity about what it is that you're doing together. Other questions or thoughts? Found the Frem oil filter commercial. It is, of course, on YouTube, the nexus of all knowledge, all of humanity. Chilling. Yeah. He just posted it. Yep. And I'm kind of interested in Pete, how you were unpacking this in your mind and contrasting this or overlaying it with, both everything is a project and your sun, moon, stars idea. Yeah, before Pete says anything, let me interject that everything is a project. Yes, for a while, I was on the PMI circuit teaching this stuff in all of the local PMI chapters and some of the regional chapters. Cool. And Jesse has her hand up. So I don't know if Pete, you wanna go or if Jesse should go. I think Jesse should go. Jesse, jump in, please. All right. Well, thank you so much for sharing this. I'm just always inspired by these kinds of frameworks. So thank you for putting it together and sharing. Yeah, I was just, as you were talking, I was curious to what you're most passionate about, what revs you up the most when you're talking about this as an outcome? What is your manifesto, your vision? Having, on the other side, having shared this. That's what I really wanted context for this conversation. So. Great. So in 10 years of law practice, many years ago, I saw a lot of crap. And given who I was, my essence is to see systems and try to create things that work for people. I mean, that's essentially where I live. And this is one of the pieces I came up with as an innovation. So just sharing this and having people see the value and benefit kind of is exciting for me. It's actually what I think and hope and we'll go down as a piece of legacy. It's actually at the core of the essence, there's a bit of a movement in the legal profession called conscious contracting. I've heard that. And this body of work is at the core of that. In other words, the people who have moved conscious contracting along acknowledge that this is the core. Got it. Thank you. Yeah. It sounds like you're setting up people for success and looking around corners before things happen and conscious decision making at its core. And I'm just curious, like what are those signals that you're going? Uh-huh, this is working. Yep, this is working like in the beginning, everyone's happy and saying yes and nodding their heads. And then something happens and they get through it. Is that a signal that this is working? Yeah, absolutely. So what it does also is as you engage in this process, essentially you create relationship at a more explicit level. At a more explicit level. And when we have relationship in a project at a more explicit level, we tend to work together well. We tend to move through stuff. We tend to have already articulated how we're going to resolve differences and conflict. I love it. Sounds like a journey instead of the destination. Thank you. Thanks for sharing. Briefly also just slipped something in before Pete, it seems like once you have an experience with other parties and using these agreement forms, then several of these things just become default settings. And you don't have to sort of talk through all the different parts, but hey, here's how we do conflict resolution. Okay, good, we figured that out like five years ago and we're just going to keep doing that until one of us decides there's a better way to do that. And then we'll swap in a new module kind of, but experience would be helpful here because it really would reduce the time needed to start to spin anything up. Yeah, there's a few of these elements, Jerry, are boilerplate, okay? So yeah, everything is not necessarily fresh. The other thing I want to say is that there's not a huge amount of negotiation or wordsmithing. In other words, it's a shared vision. It's cumulative. So it's not either what Jerry thinks or what Pete thinks, but it's what they both think. Pete, over to you and the booth. Cool, I think I don't want to say too much. So Jerry and I and OGM have, I've been coaching OGM with a framework I call everything as a project for a couple of years. So I put links in the chat. The Earthman Start Space framework is also relevant. So thanks, Jerry, for asking about them. Stewart's framework is a lot more, I leave a lot of this stuff out as defaults kind of the way you said it, Jerry. So Stewart's done a really good job of explaining things and being clear about, so metrics is something that, I guess it kind of hit maybe in everything as a project on EMS, SS, concerns and fears I don't, but I think those are really good. Renegotiation, I don't include those. It's really good. There's a bit of a difference. Everything as a project and then EMSS is kind of everything as an organization. It adds a little bit more framework kind of for the administration of the agreements. So that's kind of the difference. And then I want to flag something which I've been working on for a year or two, which is autonomy. So one of the, and I'm not saying this is something that Stewart would lead us into, but one of the things that can happen with a well-fleshed out agreement like this is you can, in the past, it's typical to set up an agreement and then everyone subscribes to this agreement. Yes, I agree to all of this thing. And a failure mode that can happen is you get people who sign up to an agreement, but they actually don't agree with the whole agreement. So I've been working on decentralized, autonomous individuals, organizations, and then decentralization of the coordination, the agreement part. And the one of the keys is to make sure that everyone, everyone agrees with everything that they're agreeing, they say they're agreeing to. If somebody says, we agree to value number four, Stewart's got time, slash value, you know. Here's how we've agreed to value my contribution or value your contribution. If somebody doesn't agree with that the way that is, but they say, yeah, sure, whatever, because they wanna get done with the agreement, then you've got this little whole weakness in the overall structure. So that's something to kind of watch for, I think. It's really easy for a group of people to go, why don't we all just sign this agreement because it seems reasonable. And that's the typical way, especially in a corporation, you're agreeing, so an employee is agreeing with management, you know, here employee, you agree with all this, right? And the employee looks around and it's like, okay, well, I guess everybody else is signing it. I think there's a lot of BS in here, but I guess I've gotta sign it too. People will sign up for things that they don't necessarily agree with. So I'm, because I've been working on decentralized autonomous organizations for a couple of years, I get really sensitive to making sure that we're not doing that in situations like this. So I know Stacey wants to say something, but just a few thoughts about what Pete shared is fresh in my mind. So in terms of administration stuff, under rules and under promises, that's where that kind of stuff would come out. I appreciate your concern in terms of people just kind of going along, but part of this, and I'm really glad that we've got a smaller group here, part of it depends upon the integrity of every individual who's participating, feeling all right, this is not about going along to get along, this is about creating a shared vision for something that we think is important that we can manifest as a bit of a gift to the world. And I think that that's important that people stay in integrity around that because one of my premises, after you've talked about one through nine, you don't say yes to number 10, that there's an agreement and trust until really the eyes are dotted and the teeth are crossed and you're ready to jump in and you feel that there's a great level of kind of alignment. And the optionality of aspects of an agreement is a variable to play with in designing these sorts of systems, but the more optional these things are, the more everyone is unlikely to be sure about what each person's stance is on the full agreement. And insistence on signing off on a full agreement forces the issue of negotiating and agreeing to the different parts of it so that you have one standing thing. And I know that you could have a web page that says, for Pete, for me, for Stacey, here's the pieces of it, here's how we're agreeing to work together and that could work well. So I don't know what that balances, but the process of having an agreement, but then trying to make sure that everybody understands it does reduce doubt. Yeah, yeah. So as a practical matter, here's what it would look like in terms of time. I think we could do this in one session, one 90-minute session, we should be able to kind of knock this off, assuming I can type fast enough and you guys talk slow enough. Well, we also can collaboratively edit a document and we have a live transcript running, which we can copy, paste from pretty quickly. So that will help as well. There you go. And so after one of these meetings, we have an agreement that we can look at and then we can do a little bit of wordsmithing slash tweaking and off we go. Pete, if we went through that in a session, how much of everything is an organization would this cover? Is it like 50%-ish? It depends. You could cover 10 or 20% or you could cover 100%. Depends, depends. It would be nice, it would be, I'm interested in doing that and then crafting it so that it covers more, not less of what you were looking to do with us as well, Pete. Yeah. Anyone else? Stacy. Yeah, I just want, and this may have to do with the difference of what is an organization, but I wanted to point to, now the chat just changed. Pete had put in that he had put in Stewart's text into the HackMD subject to Stewart's approval. And for me, that's an example of something that would hold things up, whereas if the organization already had an agreement as to whether or not that could have been put into a HackMD. So I think there are certain things that we don't even think of, of things that belong to an agreement. So I would have actually stopped and I would like to ask Stewart about that and have that conversation because what Stewart may say to that question may be different to what Klaus may say to that question. And I want to know what each of the people within the organization have to say about that because that's how we really learn even within an organization, there's different groups and teams. So what's the question, Stacy? Maybe I'll try it. Stewart, some of us had trouble reading the word doc. And I know this organization is HackMD literate more or less. So what I did is I took all the text from the word doc, pasted it on a HackMD. And then in the chat, I said, I've done the subject to Stewart's approval and we may just delete the whole thing by the end of the meeting. So Stacy, the reason I said it that way is because I actually, I bent the rules a little bit because Stewart's a published author. I understand that. I'm using it as an example. I understand what you're saying about you. I'm using that as an example of, yeah, I understand why you did what you did. What I'm saying is there will be different OGM members that because they are published authors are gonna feel asserted in way or because they hope to be published authors are gonna feel asserted in way. And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But those are things that people usually don't verbalize. And to Stewart's point when Stewart, you were saying how conflicts, how they start as differences, but they don't have to be disagreements. Another reason is because sometimes they just get avoided. And so, you know me, I'm about bringing it up to the surface so that we don't avoid things. So my quick response to the background question that Pete raised is even though I'm a lawyer, even though I'm a published author, my view of intellectual property is a Native American review. View, okay? It's kind of like, it's even beyond commons. It's please use it, okay? Please use it, use it, use it, use it. And I didn't know that about you. And one of the reasons I asked you if you had put these templates out earlier was exactly the same impulse, which is I really try to publish everything as openly as I possibly can for reuse. And then as we got a little deeper into the call, I was in my mind, I was like, ah man, could we create a very, very simple portable web app that absolutely amplified this and points right back to you and what you've done, but that is contagious everywhere. And that says, hey people, here's a way to go do this. And here's a very simple process that'll step you through it with some hints and tips, et cetera, et cetera. So I was kind of excited about that already. Love it, great, beautiful. I gotta go into another meeting, but just let me know I'm here. Thank you, Stuart, that was perfect. My pleasure, thank you. Since we're contemplating, since we're working in publishing, I guess, so the question I didn't get to ask Stuart real quick is, so is that, so you all probably know creative comments, you know, hey Stuart, are you thinking CC buy or CC zero or whatever? So those are shorthands for legal frameworks that other people have developed. Unfortunately, most of our world, our civilized world doesn't run on Native American beliefs about the commons. So you actually do need to put a legal stamp on it and the legal standards, the framework, the CC framework is somebody spent a lot of, someone's spent many, many, many, you know, thousands of hours setting it up so that we could say, is that CC buy, is that CC buy and see, is that CC zero or whatever, you know? So we have those frameworks and I would suggest that we use them, we don't have to, but it's gonna hurt if we don't sooner or later. Other thoughts, questions? Go ahead, Pete, did you wanna clarify something or had I- You know, so just on the HackMD I put, I did something that Stuart didn't really ask for, but it's a nice thing. I said this was by Stuart living and this is not, not in his original text, you know, makes sense. So I was super tempted to put CC buy here or some CC buy and see or something, but we should ask him about that. The other one I really love is CopyHeart. Some of you have heard me talk about CopyHeart. So CopyHeart is very similar to what Stuart said. Do you, do we have implicit permission from Stuart to post this to the OGM Wiki? And if not, would you like to ping him and say this is what it would look like and this is where it would go? Cause I don't think it would be a great start for some of what we're talking about. I think we should, well, we have implicit permit. Yeah, he said do what you want. Yeah, so if you will simply just write it out that way, I think that'll solve our problem for where it is. And then we can share that back into the Marley channel and know that we've got it and move on. And is anybody else interested in, this is a side dish. This is not a really, well, gosh, this is sort of a Marley thing and I'm happy to explain why it is. But I'm interested in this, not just being a template that people could sort of pull down and start answering questions in, but rather something that sort of steps people through. And when Stuart said this could be an app, the app world in some cases is moving away from apps as far as I can tell toward simply mobile web, mobile web app like things where you just bring the thing up on your phone. But it's not a separate app you have to download but it runs really elegantly on a phone as well as on a browser. And I can envision that this could be a really fun, simple, short thing that would be very useful to people. Raise your hand if this is puzzling, intriguing to you. It's intriguing and it doesn't sound simple or easy. Okay, go ahead. So the content of this is easy to read and it's well put together and stuff like that. The process of drafting an agreement, Stuart was offering help as an expert, right? And he could take us through this in 90 minutes. I think if you give people this text or an app that wizarded them through this text, that's missing the magic of what Stuart or some other experienced facilitator would be doing. So I can imagine an app that does the skilled facilitation that Stuart would do, not as well, probably because it wouldn't be a human, but that part isn't simple or easy. Agreed, go ahead, Stacey. When I was watching your wheels turn while he was talking, because I was right there with you and I was thinking about the Marley project and I was just wondering because there were parts to his text that I would wanna pull out. Like I was thinking when Pete mentioned like Dows, for me, OGM and the different people and the different working groups, I envision them as like different Dows, like different groups of people kind of work under these unspoken rules when they work together. At least that's what I find with people that I work with. It's kind of different sets of rules. And I thought that that would, like what we were trying to do with the sample book, like I always thought the idea of the sample book is to show how we could pull pieces out and use them in different places. So I thought we were, again, it was the uncomfortableness of not knowing if we were able to use his material that I was focused on. But so there are pieces of his thing that I would wanna pull out if let's say I were working in a group with Joanne and some other of my friends where we would just need to have this one or two pieces of that. And Stacey, thank you for bringing our attention to that. That was a really lovely point to make in a very Marley way. And when I said this is actually more Marley than I think it is, what I meant was, we're thinking of publishing books, a book or several books, but then the books are not as interesting as the thing online, the thing behind the book. And also some components of any of the matter in any of the books might be animated or automated or whatever the right word is there into something that could be really super useful. And it sort of collapses up into a couple pages or paragraphs in a book book thing, but then it's more interesting in a different manifestation. And the more we can lather and repeat on that, the more useful and interesting whatever it is we're creating, I think is. And that sounds like a great path. Other thoughts? Yeah, I think that intent and vision, once that is defined, will impact the remainder of these, not the remaining nine questions. And so far we don't really have much of intent and vision on the table. So we're talking more about infrastructure and process, but not intent and vision. So where are we going with this? So a thing we could do rather than wait, and we may wanna wait for Stuart to facilitate the whole process in a one 90 minute session of these calls. Or we can dig right into intent and vision right now. We're recording these calls. That would give us a big leg up on what we think we're doing. We could take some notes together and we could at least dig deep into that first topic, which I think is super important. And Klaus, I think you're totally right to steer us back toward that. I wonder if maybe I almost hear Klaus's, I hear Klaus in a little bit different way, which is okay, great. So now on yet another call, we've spent 40 minutes on infrastructure and process and zero on content. I think, so maybe Klaus, I disagree a little bit. I think we have a pretty clear intent and vision. We've got it written down in a couple of places. We've decided at least to have what Jerry's written, I think, and maybe what I've written some and the outputs of this meeting. We have those on a few pages. Here's the intent of the project. Here's the vision. Here's especially a vision for a first book. And I think we could take all of that and use that in that 90 minute session with Stuart, you know, lift and shift. Here's the intent and vision of Marley and the intent and vision of the first book. I think we already have that. I don't think we... Can you put this Korean? Can you put this on the screen? Sure. So a couple of things to what Pete just said. First, I don't think everybody's aware of the pages you just described, Pete. So we haven't done a good job of sharing out and talking through together what those things even are. So when Klaus is like, hey, what's the intent and vision? And when Stuart is frustrated because we don't have an agreement to where we're going, I think that's evidence that we haven't really even shared those things out very well. But then also to take a different look on your different look of what I said originally, Pete, I think that having the discussion about vision and intent is in fact, where infrastructure and content begin to meet in a very nice and in a very elegant way. That diving into the first step of Stuart's process is both infrastructure because, hey, look, we're doing this process to get to an agreement, but it helps us consolidate and figure out what we mean by this project at all, which is like work we need to get busy on right now and would please Klaus and would please me and might please a couple of other people on the call. So I think it's a very nice convergence point. Not a, I don't think there's a dilemma there. I think that we should like get busy as they say. Dave, I noticed we got you to tears early on. So that was- Yeah, I know I'm having, it's just another symptom of age, I'm afraid. And I apologize for being like diving in from nowhere, right? So please- That is how we work, dude. I apologize in advance for all the non sequiturs and I miss what Stuart was saying and everything, but I mean, I had two observations. And one is Klaus, I kind of agree with you on the vision and focus thing, but I do think there's two types of people in the world and there's the people who, you know, dialogue is in and of itself kind of a good process. And there's other people that's in dialogue and like me more like if you, if dialogue only serves a purpose, if you have a purpose kind of, and I've run it, I've kind of internalized this notion that there really are two types and I'm in, I want the purpose side of it, but the other type exists, you know, I try to be patient with them. But then the other thing, I just wanted to toss into this notion of the book and again, I don't know the backstory where you guys are on the book, but the email on some of the OGM list, like with Klaus and Ken recently had me thinking about the value of the different perspectives. I was thinking of, you know, what's that, there's that meme that goes around where you have the nine, you know, from two different directions and then like some people see it as a six and some people see it as a nine and they're both correct. And I was thinking that the email, that the point of what the problems, a lot of the issues we're dealing with depend on the perspective use from which you see them. And if you could develop a tool that lets you play with perspective, that might be really useful. And so, you know, instead of a book, could we do a kaleidoscope or something that is a perspective choosing device or something like that. And one of the, to me, the outcome kind of things that I think is important is that we need to find overlapping perspectives or shared perspectives. And I was thinking, for example, we shouldn't be, you know, we shouldn't be talking about, oh, I was having an argument with a friend of mine who's like really big into climate change. And I'm saying climate change is the wrong focus and he says, you know, look, if we had a tax on carbon, we could return that to people and when we reduce poverty. Right?  So anyway, I'm just wondering if the book project could be a multiple perspective creation device or something like that. Thanks, Dave. Yeah, that's great, Dave. I hope it, I hope we'll do that. I was going to share a screen and look at the documents that we've got. So in the Wiki, which is also a website, let me put this link in the chat. So we're kind of, we dance around a little bit the, let me look at what this is called, intent and vision. So we've got intent pretty well defined, I think, at least to get us enough off the ground and there's a bit of vision too. I think we can kind of between this and, maybe cherry picking some of this, this has actually got a fair amount of vision stuff in it. I think we should just like kind of grab this and get it doing, you know, kind of 80%. This is what we're trying to do. I think we've got enough understanding to do that pretty well. So then we've kind of got us, I think we're Jerry and I were thinking we could flesh out the remaining 20% or 30% of intent and vision of Marley. We kind of identified that if we just wrote a book, so this is kind of a one-level definition of intent and vision. So this is kind of a one-level down intent and sorry, I have to keep going back to this intent and vision. So this is a sub-project of Marley. Our first sub-project is the quick first book and the intent and vision of this is to have a book that addresses this. So the vision is to articulate this in book form and we've got a fair amount of, we've been accumulating this kind of, so you can, maybe another thing, you can see that I don't know that it's super well articulated here, but we're part of the Marley, I think the vision and intent that we'll come to agreement on is that Marley isn't just creating a book, it's creating a bookshelf of books and they're not really books, they're new books or whatever you want to call them and that there are things like production process and the design Bible and documentation about how to do this. So Marley is a project to systematize the creation of additional books, kind of like the quick first book is. So I think that's, I think we could sit on that definition, we could continue to blow out the definition of vision and intent, but we kind of 80-20 debt and we've got the 80% done and we've got, not only do we have the Marley done, we've got the sub-project, quick first book done 80% and we could just assign tasks, do writing, figure out who's going to figure out how to publish it and all that kind of stuff, we're kind of ready to go. Or anybody who missed it just in case that there was a photo of our namesake at the bottom of that page, Marley is Stacey's recently deceased pup, but let's go back to clarifying questions or Klaus, does that help you frame intent and vision or what's missing? Yeah, I mean it depends on how actionable we want to make this. So this is a very high level introduction and it's good, Peter, I like what you did to you. But where do we go with this in our DED? So maybe I can interrupt and say, everything Pete just showed was not anything about agriculture or water or the substance of regenerative anything in the quick first book. I don't know if that is its own project and organization that would probably need an agreement for what that book is. I'm just guessing here. So what the agreement that Pete was kind of what the intent and vision that Pete was matching up with here was really about the whole Marley project, which is not substantive on any particular topic and could be a collection of books as Pete just, exactly as he just said. But the moment we dip into, hey, here's the proposed outline for the quick first book or here's an alternative outline. Then we get into a very detailed specifics about what is the goal of that book and the vision of doing stuff with it. And I don't know if I'm being preemptive here and assuming that was part of what your question was class or not. So my impression was that we want to create the topics proposal of this Marley project, a series of books. And then our first goal is to call right a quick first book. And so my understanding is that's where we are. We want to call right a quick first book. And that quick first book is about food revolt, fix your land, eating, missing our bio-rations. So that's where I'm at. I mean, that's where I was. Exactly. And I was trying to tell you why we didn't talk about any of that stuff so far. Yeah, no, no, I get this. But then my question is, so what we are doing now with Stuart is are we talking about this big umbrella and face that out further? Do we have enough information? Do we have enough thoughts put into this? Or do we advance into a quick first book so we get our feedback, so to speak. So we can practice on one project and then we can add other projects to it and go through a similar process of finding, first of all, who are the right people to contribute, what are the subject matter experts we should be talking to, and so on and so on. So that's sort of my thought process here. Anybody? So it's a prototype, right? I mean, look at it as a prototype. Which is a prototype? Look at which is a prototype. I mean, doing the quick first book, right? Could be seen as a prototype project on how do you do things like this? Yeah, no, I asked because I mean, that's how I see it. And to be honest, I see two books. I see the food thing, but I also see the thing that Stuart just introduced as a book in itself bringing like what Dave just talked about of different perspectives. So I'm going to start, you know, we're talking about we, I'm already thinking about, regardless of the Marley project, something I want to write for the Plex. And it all fits in and go ahead, Jerry, jump in. Oh, that's fine. I'm waiting to hear that. So again, I came here to support the project and we decided we're going to work on this one book. So like actually that's why I asked Joanne to come because I happened to know she, well, I didn't know at the time she was interested in gardening, but I knew she was interested in editing and I knew there would be a place for her. And so I, and I liked being with her. So I asked her to come for, you know, to help for whatever. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that's where the renegotiation comes in. Like as things are becoming clear and different ideas are sprouting, like we may need periods where we talk about what we're doing because well, there may be one great vision. The intense for each little project are going to be a little different. You know, Pete's intention is always going to have to do with infrastructure. Somebody else's intention, my intention is always going to be centered around values or getting people to engage. That doesn't mean we won't do other things to help other people. But again, this is a, I mean, yeah, I'll stop talking. I wonder, I can imagine a couple of things we can do for 35 minutes. One of them is going through Stuart's model, either for Marley or the quick first book. Another thing that we could do is continue to work on the quick first book, which I think would feel good. Do we have a, so I guess, and I guess, so a question I have for Stuart is, and maybe for the whole team, my hypothesis is that Marley wants to be an organization and each book wants to be an organization. A lot of books will probably just copy paste the whole Marley agreement and kind of ratify it. They probably won't change it much. They might change it a lot. Some of them might come in with something else, like earthman stars space would be, you know, could be a Marley project, but it would have its own model. So I think there's, I think one agreement for Marley is going to constrict all the additional projects. So my guess is that they're actually each is an organization. I don't think that I'd like to hear Stuart's thoughts about that. And maybe we need to think about that as a team or something like that. I don't think we need to do that now. I don't think it's good to try to do Stuart's process without Stuart. So, so maybe we should work on the book. I wanted to throw something else in from something you said, Stacy, in the middle of what you're, what you just said, which was from Stuart's contribution that he showed us at the start of this, at the start of the school, several different thoughts. One is, well, gosh, he's that's actually an excerpt from a book he actually published years ago that is a finished book. I assume the publisher has rights to it but don't know. And that raises a bunch of really interesting questions about just that book and its presence in the world. The second thought is, I have a funny feeling that that Pete in a parallel universe is writing a book about the future of organizations and how people in distributed groups share value and work together. And that some sense of a chapter on agreements that might reference the agreements in Stuart's book might be a component of a book that people would like to co-write with other people thinking about those issues. And so what, so I feel like we need a parking space. And I've forgotten the conversation we have a sandbox, a shelf, a place to put contributed pieces like Ken, Ken sent a couple of us basically two, three pages worth of group dynamics illustrations that were interesting, but we're not really even a chapter for a book yet. They're basically fodder for the seed of an idea. And if the seed then germinates and turns into something that smells like a book, then Pete's book might be like, not about, hey, how to get to agreements. Pete's book might be about this is the future of organizations, of distributed organizations. And here is a stake in the sand about that. And it might be super interesting because it could be a vast exploration of the future as opposed to a handbook for how to do agreements. Right. And Pete, I'm making all this up, but I know you well enough to know. That's exactly what I'm thinking. That's exactly what I'm thinking. But then the question is in our process, and this is why the Marley process is sort of interesting this way. It's about how do we recruit people who have interest in these different kinds of books? How do those people break off and find an agreement? And I think by that I mean that 10 steps of Stuart plus some Earth, Moon, Stars, something like that, so that they can go off and decide, oh, our book is going to be mostly locked down in electoral property. We're going to find a traditional publisher. We're going to go make money from this book. It's not the way I'd like to work, but somebody in Marley might want to do something like that with an original idea they've got going now. And I think our general spirit is to build things that are extremely shareable and extremely open. And then if somebody wants to buy the book as a souvenir, rock on, and those funds will come back in to cover our costs and maybe be distributed out among contributors, blah, blah, blah. But I think that how we frame things like Stuart's 10 steps to agreement is an interesting Marley conversation, so we understand how Marley functions. I think it's a great opportunity to shelve that for now, because I'm not really that interested in doing that. Well, I think shelving the contribution is the right thing to do with it right now because we're trying to sort of go toward the quick first book. And this is not a component of that. But I loved your enthusiasm about it earlier and I share it. And I'm trying to put words around what that means in terms of our longer term process. So for the Marley project, I think the reason I say I'm like, they're like, for me, there's two agreements we need, and we could talk about that at another time. We don't need to talk. And so that's why I'd rather not, like, let's let's work around classes, the book. Cool. So, Pete, sorry, before I switch topics and head back into doing a little bit of work with the 30 minutes we have left. Anybody else have thoughts, questions, reflections on where we are on this stuff? Cool. And Baird Kehler changed author rights a lot way back when they revolutionized the author contract. This is something April learned because BK is also her publisher. And they, they're really good for authors. So that's, that's cool. Thanks for looking that up. Any other thoughts, reflections on this spot where we are. Okay. There being none. Then Pete, how do we talk about the book without going into the intent and vision and agreement part of it? What's a, what's a comfortable way that we could do a 30 minutes of work on this together and make some progress. The other thing that we'd want to talk about. Before we could really start working well as roles. But I think if we just start talking, maybe with a hack and D open. I'll try to drive that. Sounds great. Stacy, I wonder, we, you kind of, you kind of accepted the role of projects are, at least until we get something. Sorry. No. Oh, oh, perfect. Awesome. No, keep that on. I want to go out later. This is still you, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. For, for, until we get the first book done. Yeah. Okay. So. I think. We could talk about the title and how we think about titles. I think we've currently as food revolt and we decided that was kind of a holding. At least a holding name for now and then we can rename it and then we can go back to the title. We could talk about. We could talk about. This. Outline. And this outline and see if they're how close they are. Or how far away they are. We could talk about who might, who might write. And who might help rate. We could dive into a deeper thing like what's a bioregion. Yeah. And I was interested two calls ago in the bioregion question about how it becomes the framework for a book and all that. I'd love to have that conversation. Yeah. I was just. Coming back from a conference on. It was a retreat. Out in the woods. And that. Was hosted by a group of NGOs. We were working with them and they had their. Right. Right. I'm in groups and focus on public lands. Management and so on. And the overarching. Public really in, in terms of fire region. Is an understanding of soil. And I've noticed how people really respond in a very emotional. entity. So in our western culture, you know, we have lost the understanding. I mean, I've never really thought of soil as a living thing. My own son, I showed him one of my PowerPoints, and there's a slide where there is a spoon of soil. And it says that this spoon of healthy soil contains more microbes than there are people living on this planet. Now, and it really, it really hit him, you know, how amazing that is. And so it really starts with, I think, as from an introductory perspective, it really has to start with our soil is completely alive. And over four billion years of evolution, the soil and the microbes, the life inside the soil has specialized to the bio region within which it lives. Because it all depends on the type of soil that it's dealing with. It depends on access to water. It depends on its climate. So the living conditions define how soil has adapted itself to that. And then out of that soil, of course, compliance, which feed animals and within the soil, the microbial life spawns higher forms of life, you know, insects, worms, which then in turn feed birds and mammals and so on. So it's this, this understanding is this emotional connection to soil as a starting point. And then then an explanation of how soil, how this life has adapted itself to local conditions. And how what can be grown here and what can be consumed in a way from a very indigenous thinking perspective has to be aligned with the capacity of this local bio region here to produce sustainably, you know, specific types of foods that nourish us. So I think that's sort of where bio region has the understanding of bio region has to sort of initiate. And I love the framing as bio region because I can get a good representation of kind of the like, I don't know, this next era issue, right? It's the thing that doesn't have a governance structure around it. It's the thing that requires large scale collaboration, it requires negotiation, things like that. Sorry, Jerry, Mike. Oh, don't be sorry at all. I was just raising my hand to go in when you're done. Okay. Well, and so and it's out to me, it's a pretty fun example of why I want different perspectives because so class just denunciated kind of a soil perspective. But if I don't yet care about soil, but I do care about jobs, I want the job entry to the bio region discussion or I care about pretty rivers, you know, I want the pretty river entry to the bio region. And so I feel like if we could have these somehow lenses that then lead you into the next lens, right, that's the translation connection part. Because the bio region regeneration answer, I think, is going to be multiple reinforcing perspectives, right, successfully engaging collaboratively, right? So it'll be the soil people and the mining people somehow coming to terms, right, or whatever it is, the soil people and the tourism people coming to terms, right. And so, you know, how do we can we can we create a device that allows us to, you know, enable that kind of convergence? I have a quick story. I apologize, John. Maybe I can tell it real quick. Dave, the mining, you know, soil health thing reminds me of a story in Australia. There's a mining magnet who's, you know, kind of stripped mind a lot of a lot of Australia and as he's gotten older, he's he's got religion kind of and he spends a lot of his money now working on the oceans and kelp and things like that and using kelp to regenerate soil and stuff. So he's kind of trying to balance back his his life in in one person with billions of dollars and, you know, thousands of people. But it reminded me of that. That's great. I kind of took it because of old Regenesis. Regenesis has a case study about I can't remember what city it is in Mexico that they're trying to do a redesign of, you know, a regenerative design of this area. And it's a it's like an oil production facility, you know, and basically the Regenesis point was, look, you may not like this oil production facility, but it's the heart of your economy. So you have to somehow grapple with it, you know, and then they're able to figure out ways that the oil company and the, you know, the men people want nitro-preservation can work together, right? So that, you know, it's it's like we do need mining probably for some period of time, right? So this guy may have done it poorly, but it's not going to stop even if it's done well, right? I mean, yeah, the bioregions probably going to have mining in it. Joanne, do you mind if I go quickly? I didn't use my Zoom hand, but so bioregions are likely a thing that some people have not heard of at all, and we could just explain them. And that feels to me a little bit like a science text. And I'm proposing here several different texts, and I want to know which one you're interested in writing. And to me, a descriptive text about what how bioregions work and why they're kind of cool and so forth is interesting, but not gripping. I'm not like, wow, that's awesome. A text that says, hey, bioregions are the next governance model for the world is a different thesis and is gripping to me. And John Wesley Powell, basically, the guy who just sort of floated down the Colorado River with one arm because he'd lost one in the Civil War, tied to a chair on the deck of some rowboats, he submitted to Congress a plan to take everything west of the Mississippi and map the new states out according to their watersheds, not bioregions but watersheds, which I find a really, really interesting notion. Of course, that's the era of slave states or free soil states.  And we're sort of still sitting with that. And if Greater Idaho sees seeds, we'll see some changes on that. But anyway, the idea of bioregions as a new governance model, and maybe also as a proposition that we should create a virtual bioregional governance system ourselves and screw how states are organized and just go do that and create an alternate form of government, which is not at all what you've been saying, Klaus. I'm just saying that's a really interesting book that requires all this cool information about what bioregions are and why they're important. And now I would be like, oh, now I need to understand more fundamentally how bioregions operate and how they're different, et cetera, et cetera. A different book would be one that says, hey, the food system is screwed, big egg has a screwed, all the middlemen have a screwed, a lever to pry the food system away from them would be to think about food in a bioregional way. And I don't know enough to say what would be in that book, but that book would have to explain bioregions and why they're cool also, but it wouldn't stop there. And the pieces of that book would be like, hey, we're taking back our food system. And this might be food revolt, which is a title I like, but this would be a food revolt against big ag. And maybe you don't explicitly a go against big ag because you don't want to do a negative thing. How do you tune that? How you frame that as a whole different question. But I'd be very excited to contribute to that book as well. So I'm trying to say, even though we're trying to do a quick first book, and I know it's only going to be a couple of chapters, and we're not going to go that far with it, it would be cool if, or maybe this is the second, maybe the quick first book is a descriptive book about bioregions, the second book takes that and wraps it into two different theses, or three, that are all about food and agriculture and all that. And that's where the things I'm putting on the table show up. I don't know that I may be over complicating things, because that's how I that's how I operate all too often. But I hope I hope it's making sense that what I'm saying about there's lots of things we can say that make the argument about bioregions much more richly than, hey, bioregions are important. And cause did that make sense what I just said? Yeah, you know, I just posted an article here by your regions, you know, what is your bioregion, and that I think speaks very much to what you were just saying. Cool. That's still very descriptive. It still looks very sciency. It doesn't have a thesis. What do you just said? What do I mean to how to, how to frame it and how to word it, but just have an agreement on the topic itself, right? So this is, this is the frame. I mean, this is a bioregion. Germany is a bioregion, but then it breaks down within smaller subsets of bioregions because Bavaria and North, North, North, North and West following as different cultures again. But so, so here we have a lot of bioregions in the U S, but they have been overpowered, you know, by a centralized food system that negates the uniqueness of Oregon versus New York, you know, Florida. And so just to make, and this can be a wonderful textual storyline, right? How the amazing bioregions that we have within the United States and how unique they are in their flora and fauna and how we should cherish what we have and promote it. So, yeah, we can absolutely do this.  It's part of the story because why would we overpower this nature with GMO crops and how that require heavy doses of chemicals that kill our local ecosystem? That's sort of line of thinking. Thank you. Thank you. Joanna and Pete. So, oh, am I muted? Oh, no, I'm not. So, I am one of those people, few people probably who get excited at the talk of soil. I can watch and read stuff about soil all the time because I garden might see the difference between like healthy soil or not. And I just want to say that I was excited about what David said. I know from knocking on doors for political stuff, you can't just say, hey, this is important. It should be important to you. You have to pick up someone say, what's important to you? What issues concern you? Same thing with soil. People who know soil and know how important soil is, not everyone's going to be excited about soil. And what David said was perfect. You've got to find something to people might not care about soil, but they'll care about other stuff connected to soil, that soil. And so he did it perfectly. And I totally agree with that. And I think that's really important because we want to get as many people as possible. It's such an important issue if we could hit as many people as possible to realize this, and it might not be through soil. They might not even realize that soil is what we're talking about, but find something that could make people want to create better soil. But what cost is to hit something I was going to say. If you can't talk about soil without talking about the GMO crops that need infinite roundup and other herbicides and pesticides, I mean, I remember the first time I saw on a documentary, a farmer picking up soil, it was dirt. It wasn't soil. If you use these chemicals over and over again, you have to start buying.  When Claude said that one handful of dirt carries more organisms in it than all the population in the world, that's if the soil is organic, or if it hasn't had year after year after year of these chemicals going in there. And I think you have to, I'd like to include something about the fact that soil is wonderful, soil is great, but we're destroying soil and there's dirt out there that should be soil. And when Jerry mentioned big, big agriculture, we, there's two things you could try to get rid of big agriculture, or you could try to influence big agriculture, like peer pressure to get big agriculture to change their ways. And I don't know which is like, I mean, it would be nice to things that we might not be able to ever get rid of big, big ag, but maybe if we could get them to see that either their stockholders or somebody cares if they change their ways, that might be something. So I'm done. Thank you. Immuted Pete. Rookie. This first zoom. Joanne is about 10 feet that way from me. So I muted while she was talking. We're getting close to time. So I think maybe we should switch to next steps a little bit. So we're, we've talked about doing a 90 minute session with Stuart to write the agreements for Marley. QFB needs probably a set of agreements too, maybe. Maybe we can just kind of copy and paste the Marley ones and tweak them a little bit. And then the quick first book needs to get written. So we need to kind of take some of this discussion and continue to continue to use the one or the other, both of these outlines and the draft summary to write the book. So I wonder, I've got a question for the group. Do we want to spend, maybe allocate, it's a better way to say it. Do we want to allocate these meetings for book writing? Do we want to have that in a separate meeting? Is that all of us? Is it a subset of us? I have a feeling until we get down to the nitty gritty of what's in each chapter and who wants to pick up this piece and go write it and all that, which we're not standing right in front of. We probably want to go march forward as a group. So we learn as much as we can about the process. And when we get to that spot, then whoever is really interested in writing Food Revolt goes and creates separate meetings and does that. But let's get to that point together. I like that idea. And I worry about being a committee, working on a project. I think two, maybe three people working together could merge the outlines that we've got, identify the overarching narrative so the thing makes sense and yada yada. I worry that doing that in Plenary is going to be kind of overweight, which maybe I do like the idea that we should keep the team together and learn together. But at some point, we have to get into work mode where it's literally writing stuff or editing stuff out of chat GPT and agreeing about the outline and things like that that is going to be slower with six people than two. And that's the point at which I would say that it should be the two or three that want to be doing it. And distinguishing when we're at one of we fit that spot is important. Joanne, then Stacy. Yeah, I just want to say I thought someone had said or Stewart had said that what Stewart's thing could and in itself be a book. And I'm wondering if you're going to do that before actually writing the first book and Stewart's book to be the first book because as you're doing it you kind of could it doesn't it doesn't even have to be like a big you know 300 page book like like while classes or the food thing could be the first book. This is like a pre book or something like that. So it seems to me if you're putting all that work would not make a great book. I don't know if Stewart has that book already. The one he actually published or the one he wanted to do that the publisher said no, let's publish another book. I thought he said he had the book and they didn't want that one. So he wrote another one. Which he wrote. Yeah, so they wouldn't this be like the ideas he had isn't a little bit different. So probably what we want to do is spend 90 minutes with Stewart and get Marley agreements set up and then get to work on the bioregional food book. Even though it would it would be because it seems like that's kind of within our grasp. It's you know yeah okay and it's something that we have to do together rather than having Stewart be way far ahead of us on his homework. Okay. So this is how I feel which sort of combines a few different opinions. David mentioned the place where they were people from different viewpoints converge and so I always come here with that hope that this is where people and those conversations come together. So to that point I'm going to put in so this is my friend Hillary's project and I had been speaking to her in class I wanted to introduce her to you because I was talking to her about a different project that I'm really excited about and we want all of a sudden I find out that in her working life she works in regenerative agriculture and it just connected everything to me because I wanted again I had told Pete and Jerry that I had this like other thing that I wasn't going to put any kinks in this thing but I was still working on which had to do with women's voices. I shared some of it with Joanne but anyway I recommend you all look at that project because you'll see this grander vision and it has this very Disney kind of feel to it which whenever I see Disney I think Jerry and Klaus and myself this Disney has really influenced me but that's another story. The point I'm where I'm trying to get to is I probably won't attend a 90-minute Stewart presentation on making agreements. I'll show up maybe for the end and make any agreements for me. I don't really know that it's necessary for the Morley project at this point. Parts of it are and how I would find it useful if there was a call where people were showing up and we were actually talking about what is my personal intent? What is your personal intent? What are you personally willing to do? What are you those kind of things were coming out because as much as Stewart said yeah I'm totally willing. I'm like the native way. There are other people that I know by watching them. They don't feel that way and that's fine but I'm interested in getting those conversations out but because I know Klaus, I know Hillary, I know Joanne. If I'm working in a group with them and they're putting together a first book those issues are not coming up so there's no reason that I have to work on a set of agreements to work on this sample book. You can actually just it's still worth that whole agreement framework. At any point you can say we just agree to trust each other. Next thing. But respectfully I don't want to and I mean I'm saying it look like that but wait listen just let me finish. I'm not holding you back from it like I said I probably won't show up I'll come in at the end and whatever you guys decided I'll be like oh yeah that's fine so it's not like I'm saying no you guys can't do that I'm not doing that at all I'm just saying I'll step out while you're doing that and I'll do something that's more pleasing to me because it's actually more pleasing to me to not do that because I'm coming from a place more of I know if I put the right people together those things are done we can still verbalize it we could still like like I have an agreement I have an agreement that I value I value community engagement over production knowing that something is being produced that isn't being seen that's my that's a personal value I have somebody may agree somebody may not it's good to know that upfront because that's going to shape how you go ahead and what the tasks are and and you can decide if you want to push you know say well you know I'm working with this group so I'm going to push that aside I'm going to do it their way which is what I'm doing I'm going to do it your way but I just might step out of the room the the process of coming to an agreement isn't to write an agreement and have it look all legal and stuff like that the process of creating the agreement output it's actually I think just what you said a bunch of people talking about individually what's important to them their intent their vision and how that matches with everybody else so I think if you step out of the room for the agreement part and then come in at the end and say oh yeah whatever you guys said you've missed the the part that you both like and that's important to you so the reason for that is you know if we're drafting a legal legal document I I agree I you know why would we do that if we're talking about well I thought you know the the vision that I had from early was you know blah blah and then everybody stitches that together or somebody says well okay I'll see you go later this is not the thing I signed up for that's the agreement process and the agreement is the exhaust of that the process of working it out together as a group talking about what's important to each of us that's the that's the meat of it that's the juice that's the and in my experience maybe because we don't usually start with questions I don't really hear that we get to talk about that it does for me and this is mostly in male environments a premise is usually thrown on the table and then we get to like work around it it's yeah so the that's if there's a premise that that you have to agree with to be in the room then we've we've messed up the the agreement process is broken and you should just you know you you should just say hey guys I don't agree with this or I don't agree with part of this or and we can either talk about it or kind of what you said already you can just log out you know and say okay I guess I'm not part of this I'm voting with my feet I'm leaving the if if we don't do an agreement where we actually talk about what's important to each of us we've messed up the agreement process I agree and like we've just been doing a little bit of that right now and this is the way I like to do it um anyway so I all I want to say is I put the video in I really would like you to see it because I was going to invite her to a call anyway to introduce her if we're gonna because I thought we were gonna just focus on the book so I thought you know and that's why having Joanne there and having Hillary there I thought just having a conversation might spark some new ideas and then maybe people would want to come to add to that book and at the same time we've also had another conversation which is the agreements the values the we the kaleidoscope and some of those people might be interested in writing that and the conversation you know can split off and come back together and the relationships are building between the different groups of people that go in and out of you know that are interested in different things and you know kind of the way I think about it if if a group of people want to if you Stacey if you want to skip the agreement process I think that's fine and say let's do a book um you don't need to have the agreement written down you don't have to go through all the discussion or everything kind of what Stuart is saying is you you know you pay up you pay me now or pay me later what happens if somebody disagrees or what happens if somebody's feelings get hurt or whatever but that's fine if you if if there's a group of people who say you know we could be a lot more effective instead of spending this 90 minutes writing you know talking about agreement stuff let's just write the book they should do that they should just do it so so maybe the thing to do with Marley maybe the thing to do is to say someday we'll get all this written down let's just get the freaking book written let's just do it that would be a fine and wonderful way to proceed so when I wrote down the next steps you know write the agreement with Stuart write the Marley agreement or sorry write the QFB agreement I put in front of that in no particular order if we're writing the book and we don't need to do this Stuart agreement process to do that more power to us let's get the book done I think that's wonderful I have one other option to throw in to you know to be one of those three to be one of three choices um what about inviting people like I would be inviting my friend inviting people to this call around this bioregion book to come and have a conversation a discussion just about the book about sharing their thoughts and getting to meet people like if you know a person that is working in this area that has the personality that would fit that you know just using your judgment a friend of yours that you actually like working with that you would love to be working with something on and that's something that you click on invite them and let's let's work together next week on that call that would be my that would be my suggestion to work on the book but invite somebody in to talk about the subject matter because that's the word or maybe even divide the fall well so to my understanding your project lead right now um I think what you should do is say here's what we're gonna do next call well my my leadership style is to throw it out and get a feel for what you guys want to do because I'm interested in community engagement so I need to know what would I know how you feel I know you I know how you feel how do I feel what what would what do you think I want to do I don't want to I don't want to have to state it I really don't know the thing that I want to do most is right the freaking back okay no I don't want to do that if I made just because I think we're truly a lot of time if I put my imagining hat on for a while since I spent 10 years with Disney doing stuff like this you know every single project starts with a blue sky uh imagination part right so so you have a blue sky vision creative idea that of something that you want to do so you you flesh that out as much as you can then that goes into a feasibility and reality check now with Disney it also goes into a financial feasibility part you don't have to worry about this but it goes into how do you do this what are the technical uh a frame that we need to do this with right and then you spin it out further well we are sort of on step two right but we haven't done step one which is what is this creative concept that we're discussing here so my my expectation today was we talk about intent and vision because that drives the whole project you know once we have a definition of now are we talking about bio regions in what context and how do we frame this right so once we have that fleshed out then you know the rules and promises and so on will fall into place after this now so it's it's but always always creative intention dominates right that's the only thing we really have and then we have to figure out how to make it work from a technical perspective yeah um agree with what you just said class and i think that the unexpected thing that stepped in the between is that we were talking about an agreement for the marley project which doesn't go into the discussion you would like to have which is the agreement for the quick first book project if that makes sense so there's two different levels and the marley project conversation which we don't need to have next week or the week right after in order to get working on writing the book but but is really about the vision for marley as a whole now we could skip that and do intent and vision for quick first book as a call next week i'm just offering this up as a possibility for what we do that that's a focus of our conversation next week which i think serves multiple goals one of them being it gets some progress on the book and gets us to agree on what the what the skin and bones of the or the skeleton rather of the of the book is and then be it does some work on the agreement at some level i'd be happy doing that that sounds good sounds good to me is it your click was that yeah it works because yeah i agree it'll it might do two things at once it does a little bit of both i like that duran you have maybe the last word actually you and i just have a quick question so are you saying that there's going to be an intent and vision for the marley project and then each book in itself will have an intent and vision i kind of think they have to okay okay that seems to be the way this is that this is playing out that that that because everything is an organization and everything is a project or some hybrid thereof that marley is a project which is sort of like a modern publishing house where it's more than publishing okay good so what the hell do we mean by that then each of the each of the projects that that float into marley and decide that this is a really nice host this is a hospitable harbor and shipyard for our project they have to figure out okay so what is the intention and vision for this particular book and you think we could go ahead with the first book before getting the whole marley project intent and vision done okay i think so i think i think we sit down and start like diving into intent and vision for the book for the quick first that will do some backfill work for us because we'll start to understand what we mean by the project but which we can go back to but it'll also make us feel happy that we're making project on the book okay thanks is is everybody on board more or less with uh how that works sounds good yeah you're muted thank you mistake um so we'll discuss and hopefully agree on intent and vision for qfb sounds great uh the whole call half the call i have no idea how long it'll take us i would dearly love to get some actual work done to me that's actual work um but uh class somehow i'm not hearing you yeah peter listen i just wanted to comment i want to get some actual work done because to me the actual work is the is the creative intent is the creative component of this book i mean that's you know that's that's if we have this down everything else will fall into place it may not be as perfect as it wanted to be um so we'll probably do check in for five minutes or something like that and i think we'll have after thoughts from this conversation that we want we'll want to sort of feed back in that sounds great uh and and if we get the intent and vision agreed to then a book group can go figure out when they want to meet separately and start dividing and conquering on what that might look like well pete's thinking there i just wanted i i kind of trash pete's document a little bit farther down but kind of i was trying to enunciate elucidate to myself what the lenses kind of thing would be one of the things that came out of the lenses i felt like is a nice freak there's the recursiveness to it that somehow like the lenses lead to each other somehow and there's so there must be some notion of a of a hook back to another part kind of i mean we're just doing hyperlinks here really but but but logically within a bio region all that's the issue is that all the different pieces relate to each other you know and so i'm thinking about my business but my business is related to the water supply and is related to the schools and is related to the agriculture you know so can we have a book that has that kind of you know my perspective connection to all the other perspectives kind of approach it's really cool dave yeah we can have chapters right yeah yeah and somehow the trappers like you know it's like yes soil is important but then somehow the business chapter has to say and we need soil you know so that i don't know cool so it feels like we have a mission and a project and pete you'll if you'll push that uh to the ogm wiki that'd be great both both pages yeah um sounds awesome thank you good works all thanks everybody bye bye guys you're fun bye