Yeah, I'm doing pretty good morning, you. Yeah, I like your glasses.
Oh, thanks, I've been struggling with high twitches with all the screen time.
Yeah,
I guess this is when I really like it never had to wear glasses
before you usually get to spend time like I don't know outside. Have you been more engaged in like the actual farming side of things.
I wish I run a
youth garden at a high school. And so, like some time outside and a lot with my kids. Yeah but, yeah, just hold us all screentime.
A lot, a lot.
At least it's with good people though right,
yes. Yeah, yeah. How are things going at Regen Network.
Oh, they're good just a mile a minute and a million different directions. Totally. No, no you know exactly it's, it's funny in that way, but um, it's good I feel like the,
yeah, it just seems like there's always so much news coming out.
Yeah, it feels like that but things are moving forward with like our Lancers we've got some great folks that we're working with and the science team, Sophia, did you ever know Sofia.
No I didn't. I roll up with Joelle.
Okay, nice. Yeah, yeah, just got off with her. Yeah, so there have been some shifts and some changes in roles but everybody's good.
Cool.
Good to hear. Well Haney hi hey Sienna.
Hi, how are you. Good, how's it going. Good, good. Just
seeing folks trickle in. We have to bet on our side, Miriam. Hey, Charlotte. And we should have Rob joining us, and think, Doron and Laura has a maybe something like that.
Cool.
I see rev joining Hey Rev. Hello. Hello. Hi, welcome back. Glad you can be here.
Good to be here. Yeah,
I'm just gonna grab the Miro link and drop that in the chat so people have it handy.
Sorry I can make it last time and call attributes video. I appreciate the appreciate the scheduling flexibility and it's really good to see you all. I have to say this is one of the dudes doing room, where at this moment. All women, and it's not meant to be an explicit the Oh,
yeah, yeah, it's pretty cool.
This is great. We can totally just keep doing this. Yeah, and we have, we have Aaron listening in. And he is on, on baby dirty mostly but he will be doing some design demonstrations during this call. And we have to bear with me over here so it's not, it's not all women but we're clearly holding things down. All right, well, I think we can get started. Yeah. Laura is here Hey Laura, good to see you. Do you know if Darren's gonna be joining us.
Yeah I think so.
Okay, cool. Okay, cool. Yeah, great. Okay, well, in that case, I will go ahead and share my screen and let's get started.
Yeah,
here we are today. Oh, need to update that date. It is the 30th last day of September. Wow. And today we're talking about collective governance, and I'm so so excited to be having this conversation because it's something that my team thinks about all the time, it's really one of the core capabilities that we want to give to people using Hylo and interacting on a community platform is like how do we give communities, the power to self govern in a meaningful way over real resources, ideally, and real life actions. And so today we're going to be talking about that and especially zooming in on OpenTEAM as a use case, and specifically OpenTEAM interacting as a community staking doubt in the region foundation ecosystem. So we want to identify in even more detail the last time. What will OpenTEAM or parts of it need to do what functions are necessary for them to participate in. As I sat down and do some of the tasks we identified last time. And we also want to surface, our shared values, so that we have something to guide us as we develop these features. Governance is just such a huge topic and there's so much theory and philosophy around in so many different directions to go. That's pretty intimidating to talk about, and we're excited to hear from all of you about how you approach this topic and what is guiding you, as well and we'll touch on that and and talk about the advisors, we look to the methodologies or frameworks or technologies that we can draw from as well, because we don't need to be like reinventing anything per se, there's, there's so much amazing work being done in this field and we want to make those connections and collaborate and integrate as much as possible. So, yeah, first we're gonna do a little values exercise, and then we'll get into OpenTEAM as a case study and really just focus most of our time on that topic. So, I'm gonna hand off the mic to Neha, to talk about values.
Awesome. Thank you all. And, this topic is so big, I just want to name that in our time together, we're only going to be able to touch on a fraction of what really encompasses collective governance, and we really want to start this out off with a good foundation. So before we dive into the different theories and papers and types of voting, we want to take a couple of moments to think about what matters most to us about creating tools for communities to self govern and most specifically what values and aims should we hold to. So what we'll do is I'll start the clock and let's do about five minutes heads down and fill in some posts, and from there we'll be able to look at all of them and identify themes and see where we go. If you have any questions feel free to drop them in chat and I'll start the clock over here. Hopefully everyone can see that in the Miro, and go crazy, start populating.
Just about 40 more seconds shot that loss.
Incredible. There's a lot of really good stuff here. So, I'm a left I started to try to pull out themes of what I was seeing, and these buckets are not final, nor are they exhaustive, but I'm seeing a lot of desires around transparency. Some desires around collective collaboration and how we do that, I'm seeing notes around adaptability and flexibility. And I'm also seeing a big piece around equity. Now I know people are still populating and I haven't read every single post it. So there are likely other themes that are coming up, but I'm gonna start to be moving postings underneath these buckets so that we can start to see where we are, maybe what outliers exist, or what might be surprising to us.
And as I'm doing that I'd love to hear from folks, if they feel comfortable sharing what's coming to mind as they're populating this or as they're looking at the board.
If anything,
something I'm seeing is how deep feedback loops can really hold space for a lot of these cards, naturally you know like dealing with a lot of issues that come to the table like as long as all voices are heard, then a lot of these cards are addressed through deep feedback loops, I like the idea of like processes that move as everything changes, instead of one process, you know, acknowledging that this will evolve.
Yeah, I'm really glad you highlighted that one. I'm curious if we can speak to deep feedback loops a little bit more, because I'm making some assumptions about what that means and I'd love for whoever put that on to share a little bit more about what deep feedback loops mean to them.
Yeah. Can you, can you give an example of how that might play out.
Sure. So right now we're thinking of, for instance, how to engage land stewards and product developers with blockchain and just how to cross that huge chasm of knowledge difference, and the way someone on Discord just wrote, can you make tech talk more farm talk for me you know that kind of divide and so how can we create loops where we're engaging, asking them questions, continually, not just like an initial survey to ask questions, but once they're engaged, we're creating a you know a cycle that's ongoing, to continue to get their feedback. As we know that the technology is evolving with also these communities are evolving with it too. And I, what I fear is that we initially engage with a lot of excitement and eagerness with these communities and then they end up getting lost and intimidated. So we talk a lot about like what are those feedbacks look like that are efficient stinked that worked for us, and work for them not just benefiting us but also making sure that you know they're benefiting from it too.
I really appreciate what you just said Becca i think i i also think about, And put a couple of comments on there on just, yeah, how farmers and trusted ag networks really can take this tool and run with it is that is that they need that constant engagement and deep feedback, where, where as the platform evolves and the tools within OpenTEAM evolve that they evolve, due to their feedback, right, in a way that serves, even a larger network and the larger networks that they're a part of. So I think yeah this talks a little bit about self governance but also that all of the tools within the tech ecosystem.
Yeah, that's great. And a lot of what I'm hearing in that is thinking about not only the moment where things are launched, but actually giving more attention to how we engage, over time, and making that a really easy process to be a part of. And I'd be curious how we give attention to that because I know that we do want to have a session in the future, about how we do onboard folks, and I imagine that after that we'll probably want to have a dedicated session to how we continue to engage with them over time. Great. Well, I see people putting things in different themes and really appreciate the collaboration here. Are there any other items, or posts that are surprising or things that you wish were represented that you don't see here.
And
what I'm going to say falls in neither of those packets but I just want to articulate a philosophy here. I mean in practice when I think about my experience with collective governance, or being in instances where that was in white versus what you would think in terms of traditional forms of governance is, there are two things that stand out for me, traditional forms of governance usually is more hierarchical and that usually means there's a people, or a group of people who are more in charge, and the decision making lies largely with them. So the rest of the group that just goes along with it right in collective governance, sort of, that's that's usually not the case people are doing it together and we have all these projects about equity and everybody having a seat at the table and so on and so forth. And to me it's, it's really important to remember that it comes with rights and responsibilities. The good thing about it is if there are more people included in the system. Here is that it makes the system more resilient, because when you do have this deep feedback loop, the system can self evolve and grow, and because of this, it built in resilience, and it means that the word around changes. The community can change along with it, and change its own practices. In reality, for that to happen. It comes with a lot of self awareness, and each time that the system needs to grow and evolve it. There is, there is dissent in the community, and there is a decision to be made, where people consciously come together, go deep within question sort of their own personal biases or whatever else, and decide to come to a space of a collective decision, because that is better for the community. And when as a result there are some personal growth, and there is collective growth and. And so what I'm saying is that essentially we're building a tool to facilitate this right but it is a tool, but there is a lot of offline sort of growth and emotions involved and it can get intense. So just allowing for the space for that, and understanding that some aspect of it will be beyond the collective view, people will need to speak, one on one and say Hey, I see that you don't agree with me, how do we sort of understand where you're coming from where I'm coming from. So just making the basis where even if it's just online and realistically in this circumstance. It may be mostly online right where people are using the tool that there is still speeds to make that happen, that space for space to understand each other, build that additional layer of empathy with the other people in the community and as a result of growing the entire system.
Yeah, yeah that's really great, thank you for highlighting that I really love the notion that more people in the system makes the system more resilient, and hope to really keep that in the field, and we are at time for this section but I'm really excited that we brought a lot of these elements into our field of awareness because we're going to apply this to different examples and case studies, and really see how these can be embodied in real life examples. So Laura, I did see that you unmuted. If you did want to throw something out there I'm sure something happy to hear and then we can go back to Claire
thanks me, I think, my mind just goes towards the existing structure around conservation and grassroots efforts on the public and private side maybe, and just farmers, I think getting most of their knowledge and working out disagreements to in person on a tailgate. And so how that translates to this form of governance, especially when Revathi thought about talks about just kind of, that there are disagreements and dissent and how do we bridge the virtual with the. Yeah, in person. Yeah, happy to dive into use cases.
Amazing. Thank you. Back to you, Claire. Hmm, wow.
Yeah, thanks. Thank you everyone for your comments here this is really awesome. I think it was Laura that added the adoption pathways section which I was struggling to come up with like the name of the category of those post it notes, so I really appreciate that. And yeah, that there's kind of this like meta layer that I think you were just speaking to about, like, it's not just about what happens on a tech tool at all. Like this is what happened. This is going to directly relate to what is really going on in a real human community. And there are going to be a lot of conversations that happen, offline, and a lot of decisions that happen off chain, and we have to be aware of that and be actively including that in our design. And we want, we want all of that to continue and flourish. So, yeah, it's an interesting yeah it's just such an interesting landscape to work with.
Cool.
So
now let's ground it a little bit more. So, last session that we had was a deep dive on the region foundation. Mission around community staking Dows and being able to delegate tokens to different communities, and then have those communities, self govern when it comes to how to allocate those resources as well as how to participate in the governance of region ledger, and there was a flow like a workflow that we heard of different things that communities would need to be able to do in order to carry out this role as a community staking Dao. So first I want to run through some of the different tasks that we heard, and see if we got it right, if we're missing anything or if anything needs to be changed. We can do that first, and then we hope to talk about some ideas for how a community could go about doing these different things, both, you know, from our perspective from the Hylo world from, you know from read from your perspective, from what you're working with common stack, and then from the OpenTEAM folks as well, like, you know how you would approach this. So there's, there's going to be room for all of us to share perspectives here. So first we're going to check and see if we got this right. We heard that communities would need to be able to have their agreements and their goals, and like to signal that like this is what we are agreeing to as a community, this is, These are our goals as a community, our identity and a sense, like that needs to be clear, another important one is leadership of that community. The community needs to be able to decide who represents them, and indicate who they have decided to represent them. And there's different roles that might be taken on we heard a lot about the role of like the digital intermediary who might just might not have any special power per se but whose job is to it with really high fidelity represent the voices of people who aren't participating themselves in a digital platform, and other big ones are just people who are moderating the conversation and who are keeping it flowing and and helping make connections. So then another big one is to allow anyone as a community member to create a proposal for a project they would like to do. Perhaps they need funding to do that project, they're putting a proposal out there about what they would like to happen. And then anyone in the community should be able to comment on that and make suggestions or changes to that proposal. So yeah okay nearing the end here, there needs to be a way to reach agreement about a proposal do we do we support this proposal as a community. And then, how much do we support it how much resource gets allocated to it. So, like, getting into like a quantitative measure of just, you know just how much do we, yeah, do we support this. And then the last one we thought of was some kind of accountability, round or feedback round around. If the proposal was approved and executed. How did it go, was, you know was that successful. Did the people carry out the proposal, the way they said they would. And just, yeah, getting some information into the community around the how that went. So, before we go into details about any of these, I'd love. Yeah I'd love reflections maybe from Rob or anyone else. Are there other big tasks that you see a community, needing to do.
I think this is a really good encapsulation deeper things together. Something which is probably included in this. Just call
is
right now proposal does happen. For region specifically, on, on the regional network forum, and this is probably self evident to those familiar with network but
not.
I can I can post a link you're in the Zoom chat. And if you see there, an interesting case may actually be an ongoing signal signaling proposal which is proposal number four is called. So there is a question of both from to the tool. Video No, this is what's going to stay for how governance is going to be on the ledger. But for now it is right, so getting a proposal that's there on the forum, into, if we're saying Hylo is the tool that communities are using into Hylo I think requires two things one is just of course the technical aspect of here is a proposal that's there, how do we represent it here. And there is a second part of, especially if you look at proposal for, for instance, a difference in jargon. So that space, about being able to translate the proposal, almost. And I think I would imagine that happening both instances on whether a proposal comes in from the region network forum, and it's, and sort of the community representative or the intermediary talks about that to the community, or whether it's a proposal that's outgoing from the community. Very. There's a signaling proposal in the community and there's an agreement that this is something we want to take forward, and then you take it forward to the larger network. Even then it might be that you need, sort of reframing of the language involved and so on. And I'm thinking out loud, there's the danger that the reframing can change the substance of the proposal itself, and you need to have checks and balances against it, but just cluttering it up.
Okay, that's great. That's really good. And this is our, this is a specifically for proposals for Region ledger governance.
Yes. And that's for the region network governance right where I'm talking about to the to translation but I think the, the aspect of reframing might also be true. And Laura don't feel free to chime in here. When it comes to tech decisions for some sort of a tool or where you need to give feedback and things like that. Like, if there was a question on SurveyStack and they wanted to know from the community for certain features needed to be implemented to communicate that to Lance to woods in. I don't know, in Maine, for instance, they may not care as much about what do we want to implement this JavaScript of, You know, functionality, which makes this particular thing cool in this way, no they want to see what it means to them. So there might still be some pre framing involved, but it really chairman.
Yeah, okay, that's, yeah that's a good one. I'm going to add another category over to the side for that one,
definitely trust robot these experience working in this area, far more than what I have to contribute but I'm two thoughts, one around feedback loops. As part of this decision making. I think that it's like one task that, at least at this stage we definitely should consider. Even on how we carry out tasks, and the second would be on leveraging resources in addition to whatever a Dhow actually has from the region network so leveraging it with other foundation funds or local Working Group and disk conservation district, or funds are in, you know grants and stuff like that.
Right, so, yeah. Oh god.
I don't know exactly how that plays into like decision making work other than does have a an impact right at the end on what can be accomplished. So I think it kind of needs to be a part of this scene.
So, let me check if I heard this right. There are multiple possible funding sources for some projects. And so when a community is going to decide how much resource to allocate to a project, they might actually be able to take that resource out of multiple buckets and say, well, for instance, I would put 10% of bucket a on this project, and I would put 50% of bucket b on this project. So my vote right yeah my votes, not just about one source of resources, it's about potentially multiple. Right, and and
funders often look for matching funding right so far expects 100% match in kind cash,
right.
Dorn might have other thoughts on that.
Yeah I mean I think this is all part of the discussion too in terms of how we make it easier for funders or some of these pockets to be combined from more user friendly to both from the funder and from the, you know, so that, you know, so that, ideally it isn't five buckets, but you know we can treat it like one.
Sure.
But that's, that's, again, part of this is all in development and. But that's part of, you know, I think part of the community platform is to provide transparency from, you know, the, the available resources and how they're allocated, and to get a better result for those who are putting money in, which may be from the community or from outside the community, as well as gaming so I think that's the key here is I think aligning values and outcomes and outcomes and entropy and creating a platform for the community to create, you know, a trusted process. That makes sense.
Yeah, yeah. Thanks Darren, that's really yeah that's good. One of the things I heard from that is, if there's a trusted leader in this space that leader can say well, we know that we have these multiple funding sources, so we're going to put them together, and now all of you can vote as if this is just one funding source and you can just focus on how much you think something should get, but because the leader is trusted to do that, then we can, we can do that and that there's transparency around that we can do that kind of thing, to make it simpler for people to participate. Yeah, so. Okay, so we've gotten into some really good discussion. Just to keep it going, I would like to share. So yeah, just go, going through a little bit of how Hylo has thought about some of these things, and, and would love to also have space for all of you to share how you might have been thinking about some of these topics. With regards to the agreements that is a big priority for us, like making sure every community on Hylo has is encouraged to and has the ability to say like, this is what we value as a community. These are our rules for engagement. This is how we treat each other. This is what we value and it. Yeah, it might be that, that simple. And then every community member stepping into that space has an opportunity to say like to read them and say, I agree with these I'm signing on to these. And that creates a field where hopefully people are going to refer to those, and listen to those and use them to guide their behavior. And one of the things we know from that pro social framework is that having clear agreements, and having a clear purpose for a group is really helpful for that group's success. There's a lot of data on this. So, one way to do that is having that trusted digital representative just input existing agreements, There might be some way for us to create a feature for people to be collectively working on those agreements and updating them together. Yeah, so those are some thoughts on that one.
Um,
let's see, trying to decide if I should just like run through some of our thinking on these or pause on each one. I think I want to go to Aaron, because Aaron has some designs, especially around the topic of who the leaders are and how they are trusted, and the Yeah, I'm going to stop sharing and make him
able to share.
Oh wait, I can't do that because I'm not a host. Let's see. Looks like Sienna is a host CMS it just updated it sounds pretty good to go. Oh, perfect, thank you.
Right. Good morning, afternoon. Hello. I'm so yeah we've been thinking about this stuff a long time, I, as a designer, have been working on this problem and researching and studying it for, I don't know, say in earnest about six years. But obviously we encountered the power structures and have reactions to them from the beginning of our work life. I think we've all experienced the weird power dynamics that arise from top down power, and the chaos and confusion that happens in bottom up environments, sometimes. I guess I'm, I'm curious about the specific level of knowledge in this group. And I'm really curious, has anyone participated in a doubt in governing a doubt, and staking or people shake their head. No rev rev you have raised your hand.
Yes.
Tao cooperatives have you different non hierarchical non-hierarchical.
So I just wanted to share a brief story about how, why this became interesting to me and Tibet and why we, you know, in studying it as a group, a collective. So about, I don't know, 12 years ago we built a solar company together to ignite we were the technical product team, and it became successful and true to nationwide, than to Canada and traditional like old school power dynamics came into play, and the equity table got restructured, because of reasons, and the company sold for $140 million, and people who were there from the beginning, did not get to participate in that decision or perceived benefit from it. And to me it was this moment of like seeing something I've worked on reaching, reaching the top of some mountain I had my mind, and saying that, like, actually the power structures are really important, and it needs to be something that there needs to be an innovation here. And this is right around the time that blockchain started happening. I started getting involved in various projects with Tibet we, our first project was group income working on distributing income among the group and deciding how to distribute income and group. Our second project as Terran was. We were the product team for an organization called Duck, duck, duck, duck slow round you can go and look at the, the Dow and see people voting on insurgents right now. And the idea behind Dow stock was to create a protocol layer for governance tools. So, to be agnostic about what type of decision making. The people needed to do, but recognizing the power of the public ledger, and that decisions can be, you know seen forever by everyone, and everybody knows who's accountable for it. And so we, we did a token sale, and we're, you know, raise $30 million, and built out the first set of tools, and immediately began encountering user experience challenges that I think a number of you have already reversed that the chain right now, they're interacting with most chance right now is really challenging for non tech natives, and even some tech natives struggle to figure out how to install a wallet, for instance. So we, you know, we worked on that project for about two and a half years, and I left as a designer product maker, sort of really realizing that the innovation that needs to happen is, is, now that we have the ledger and systems of Ledger's the innovation needs to happen around us, like, what, what are the patterns that we need to discover that will empower people to behave in a bottom up way. And whatever those patterns are can be applied to any chain. And so I feel like in some ways the the work that we're discussing here as a group is at that level, like what, how do we empower people who may not even have a data plan to participate in these decisions using this new technology. So, right. Okay, so the first thing I'm going to show you is like, like how do we select our leaders if it's bottom up. How does that even work. There's many models, many people are trying very many different things. What I'm going to show you is actually similar to what common stack is proposing. In some ways, from what I understand of what they're doing. And the goal is to just make it easy to have visibility about who is leader, and why they are a leader, and have members be participating in both of those dimensions of power. So I'm gonna start sharing my screen. So, but four years ago we. But four years ago we came up with this idea called the trust graph and we started researching it and thinking about it but it's basically what it sounds like it's a graph of who trusts who, in a group, like we all agree to share who trusts you, and we found out that
a person in the web three and distributed web community named Harlan Wood had already figured out the protocol and designed to release code for it. But it's an idea that is we think pretty powerful for groups like this to very quickly for the group to voice their everyone to voice their opinion for everyone to see who's voicing their opinion. And for that process to select leaders. So here we are goldenfields farm. Can everyone see this. Okay. And this isn't the final design or anybody, an example of like a group choosing a bottom up form of governance over a top down form of governance. So here we have three options between the, you know dictator to distribute. And when you're in this group, and you go to the people in that group. You'll be able to see the moderators by going to that section. And you see immediately that you can participate in deciding who is the moderator, and we start out with just saying what the rights and responsibilities of moderator are. We have the ability to remove members new members remove posts, comments etc. And then it says, Well, how much do you think, as one of the members of this group that, what is the number of people, or the percentage of people in this group, necessary to select a new moderator, how many people should be required to say yes, in order for, for us to for the system to recognize that someone is should have these powers and hear the group's preferences 25% That is the average of the group. So everyone else has already voiced their opinion. And the average of those numbers is 25%, including my preference which is I think it actually should be harder to be a moderator, than it currently is. As we go down we start to see the moderators and these are shown in them, order of the percentage of the group's trust. So, similar to conviction voting I don't know if you all read about this at all, but it's really interesting stuff that comment stack is working on that. I'm really excited about somebody to conviction voting this is not like an election where there's a date, and everyone has to vote by that date. There are sliders for every for every person in the group, and you say if you trust them, and how much, whether it's the full amount of trust that you can possibly ever give somebody or not. And if that person reaches 25% of the group, giving 100% They pass a threshold, and are offered the, you know, keys to the group. And if, if something happens in the future, and people change the slider, those keys are taken away the system revokes those privileges because that person is no longer in the same acting in the same social capacity with the same social licence as they were before. Okay so now we have the group deciding who's boss. And that's great. But really, it's not just moderators and admins that we're talking about here. We're talking about treasurer's for collectives of farmers who will handle the money and distributed to many people. We're talking about distributors. Other forms of power in the farm, or in the groups of farm spokespeople, so next I'm going to show you. It's like how, how are these roles, what this list of roles that people can say they trust people's abilities in. How do we modify that list. So let's zoom
out. So, in order to have the roles have meaning. Responses responsibilities need to be real. And, and the power of the rights, the authority that is given needs to be respected. So we need tools to sort of be very specific about what what exactly does this rule mean. And if we break them up into very specific powers. In the future we can, you know, match those that we can create a graph of those powers and say, hey, who in the group has these skills and abilities, and the system can for instance automatically reach out to those people and be like hey there's a new role, seeking people with your skills. But that's a little bit of a rabbit hole,
can you just show the roles really quick. Yep, yep.
So, awesome. So here's, I just want to do the responsibilities real quick so I broke up all the sort of administrative powers, And then at the bottom there's a field which invites the administrator of the group to add responsibilities title them and describe them. Very simple. Likewise, we have roles. And these are the default roles that I was thinking about that, a general type of group would want. But obviously, we're gonna have farm types. So, what types of groups would we want for farms, or research coordinator, groups, and so on. And just like defining roles. We can find responsibilities. So, with, with these three ideas the, the, the trust graph responsibilities and roles you a group can really create a very dynamic power structure, and really divide up the different responsibilities, and whether if the group is top down, you can just assign people and say here here's your job, here's your role in this group, or if your bottom up, people can say hey, I actually think that I'm not, you know this person is best for this role. And what else there is there anything else you want to miss Sure.
No, this is great, thank you so much. Yeah, I think we should talk about it.
Stop Sharing.
Yeah. Thank you, Aaron. That was a lot of ideas that were introduced. There's so much to talk about, and we only have 25 more minutes, But yeah, I would really love to welcome reflections on anything he shared. I'll go back to the bureau board, and everyone can feel free to add notes as well.
Yeah. Thoughts on thoughts on all that.
That's super awesome, thank you for sharing. And so, so just for context, I am familiar with conviction voting and common stack, and we have been looking at that, or something similar for the ledger. And the network, maybe would start with something that the foundation sort of proposes and then movies would want community vying for the whole network in the ledger right. The reaching ledger, but something that I have especially been grappling with. I don't know if you are an if you looked at the current interface that common stack has that that others for conviction morning for instance I think for the trust with the community. The dashboard is something like 82 parameters that at any point, the slider that you showed for instance to choose the leader, similar to the other 82 parameters are define your preferences at any moment, which is something that a token engineer or an average common stack community member would love right because you can sit and look at what are your, your preferences for each of these and you can move them around and customize them and all of that. But I was reflecting that if I were to look at Compass you know in Ecuador, or a woman, clubs, Amin cooperative member in rural India data the overwhelming. The second part of it is. It also assumes a certain level of numbers literacy, which, which seems pretty basic to us, but it may not be in huge parts of the globe. Now, we could be saying that this is sort of like a prerequisite for someone to be involved in the system, and be working with them in this way, but that's just something to kind of call out, or think about
explicitly I think sort of
say that this is an assumption we're making when we think about the overall system design.
Yeah, thank you for sharing that, um, definitely we we want to be surfacing all the assumptions that come along with it with anything that comes up in this conversation. And I don't think we have seen the comments deck interface itself, we've been reading a lot about them, but if you have any links or a screengrab to share or add later that would be really really helpful. And yeah,
I find that, um, yeah, unfortunately I didn't think that being as good about documenting all of them, it just makes me think, so I'll try to find that and add that little bit later.
We'd also love to have a bit more of an understanding with the common stack piece around the tools that they're building. Is there potential for those tools to be leveraged to serve all of the community Dows. And for instance be incorporated. Yeah, in the, in the governance process for for many different communities. So we'd love to understand that we'd love to understand like how far along they are in building these things. And of course we can have a separate conversation with them later about potential to integrate it with Hylo, but we're, we're curious if there's any additional context, that would be good in this conversation.
Good. And it's
definitely sort of on the cart, if they want to integrate it and I know some folks in the reading community have been especially excited about convention warning and such, and they are excited as well some folks in the comments tech community but the stage where it's at, is the, the community itself sort of needs to take a vote on how they want to engage with the larger region network ecosystem, and we. So, essentially we could go and propose that one way to do that would be Hey, perhaps this could be integrated in the region, ecosystem, and we view that as a pilot or with Hylo and whatnot. So that's on the, on the cards possible, But the conversation has not fully gone there yet, that question, and I'm happy to sort of facilitate the conversation as well, little bookmark that for me.
Okay, great, thank you. Yeah, we're excited to learn a lot more about what they're up to. So, I would. Yeah, I'd love to keep the conversation going and before any of these items in the In the Green any tasks that a community might need to do together. I would just love to hear reflections on how a community might do that in ways that cohere and agree with the values that we've surfaced. And maybe that's really broad but I just want to create space for reflections
of questions and questions. I
think this is all fascinating to me, and way out of my typical like background and knowledge at least. Yeah, on how that I know a lot of farmer networks operate. And so I'm just kind of really curious to know how we will bridge this with the networks that I'm most familiar with, And I'd be curious to revert the if there are any, even articles or stories that I could read about or listen to on how communities you've worked with have used a collective governance system of this sort whether online or offline. And I just think of like, even the work that I've done with conservation districts. So, that brings together like landowners across the US to operate and support local decision makings with Working Lands Conservation dollars. I know that there's just kind of a challenge of recruiting new leadership and new participation and engagement. For those districts, and so I kind of wonder, what, what is really going to draw engagement here, I know funding is one thing. Um, I think, a, an attractive social media platform is another thing which I think like Hylo could be. But I also think farmers just love to be when they're not farming. Yeah, they love to be with other peers and with their families. And I can say like my husband's you know he's working 7am to 7pm. Last night I was out there with him until about nine, like this is just normal life, you know, so like, I'm just trying to ground this work, and in my mind and for us all. And, yeah,
yeah we're I wanted to echo that too and one of the things we're talking about is how we, you know, so much of this feels new. But there are elements of it that exist and in current, or, you know, attempts at some of these solutions and things that we're more familiar with. And so I think what I'd love to sort of be thinking as you said, like, local conservation working, you know, working groups or cooperatives or other things that have different names but are trying to do some of the same things, How, and the thing that occurs to me is like, how we currently do things and say, you know, Robert Rules of Order or sort of proposal structure that is so painful and really not. And I think it's not that there's a reason for that, and people are and are familiar with it and there's also, not necessarily a great affinity for those all those structures. So, I think it would be an opportunity to you know look at remapping what we're proposing but, as you say sort of ground that with things that are more familiar that may or may not be something that you know familiar in, you know, both in its positive sense and perhaps some negative associations to and seeing how this fits in. But I think this speaks to sort of some of the theme that we've had throughout these sessions is looking at, You know, the language that we're using. And that was one of the early comments is sort of creating an agricultural layers of language on top of the technical or academic sort of social theory, because I think there are ways that we get, what sort of speaking circles here but, yeah, I really liked the idea, yeah basically coming back to your point, Laura is that I like the idea of saying, let's take a use case that might be really common across the US and say, how might we do this same function with the same people in a little bit of a different way
better. In fact, I think, I think there's a better way. Yes, better
with less frustration.
You know, I've talked to younger potential Conservation District members are like I'm not gonna go to a monthly meeting where we're gonna sit around and use these Robert's Rules of Order to discuss XYZ so like, how can we, like, say, you know, we know you have this like it's mandated through state legislation. How about we try this out for the next year or something, you know like what would that look like for for Hylo
because the other one as much as it's I was trying to get at this to Laura and you said to is like the other system isn't like the status quo isn't working,
you're not actually yeah, there's an opportunity, it's
a fail it is in process of failing.
And we can see that too. It's like commodity groups, I mean, themselves, commodities like advocating for more corn or more soybeans or whatever like maybe not the best approach and strategy so like, how can you their governance structures are also a product of like the 30s to the 50s right so there's opportunity I think to say we want to make it better, but we have to, I think, grounded in the realities of what it is right now, So that people can grasp the possibility.
Sounds like there is an opportunity for really specific question of like, who decides what gets planted or, you know what, yeah, what crops are being grown by who. But more generally, what I wanted to say is responding to your saying Laura, I think there's a really powerful opportunity to bridge the digital and in person interactions in a way that is not really happening or being thought of and a lot of these digital governance platform conversations. And with this has come up before in our conversations, but yeah, how do we have the more informal conversations that are happening between people in the real world. Then get translated into signals of preference and voting on. You know, in the technology, and not necessarily have to have that happen through a monthly online meeting, or monthly in person meeting that's one way but there's, you know representatives that are kind of holding the technology part and then are gathering feedback from people in different ways. And there's some really interesting things to explore there. And I also just want to say that in my experience at Dow stack. The biggest problem in general across the whole Dao space, that kind of blockchain governance space is everybody's like trying to solve governance through algorithms and technology, which is not, I don't think it's possible and we watch too, you know, all that we've seen so many attempts, and then I think there are certain cases and certain types of decisions that work well in an entirely digital environment for very specific groups of people who are digital natives. But even then, so much of the kind of governance is a social process that involves social capital. And, you know, who is actually getting to write the proposals, who is has the time and energy to sit and look at a computer all day, and comment on proposals and understand the technology to vote. And so, you know, like they're trying to like solve governance through technology and ultimately it fails because of the same human social dynamics and problems or succeeds but. So I think it's really important to find the right places for technology to help, and you know ledgers, are really good for just tracking outcomes, what actually happened and was decided eventually and so everybody knows that transparently and it's on a ledger somewhere, but the actual process of decision making. Isn't what needs to be much more fluid and dynamic and again bridge the like in person and social dynamics with the technology. And so, it's is a really tricky problems. So, but I think the space that we're in is a really good one to be exploring it.
Thank you so real.
So I really like that framing Tibet, and I think it fits well with some of what we've been talking about with our sort of the language in our, you know, we've been talking to OpenTEAM about the Fellows program essentially technical assistance roles within communities as facilitators that can work in person. But then be trained to represent the community in the outcomes and the tools that can provide feedback. By accessing through this global knowledge set are those Ledger's or what do you know provide that feedback. Also we spent, Revathy and Laura and I spent a good deal of time this morning, particularly on sort of what that might look like. But, it occurs to me again as we're thinking about use cases or audiences, and this is for, who we're building for is perhaps it's, you know, not just farmers or members of group that are being represented but also building force that the in between role and how do we support the social context and the tool, a broader toolkit for how they're used in person or online, and I love the idea of sort of pulling out digital tools for in person interactions, right, where the tools are a backdrop, but not front and center, they're not in front of you, they're not in between you and the person that the group that that to me is really intriguing because I feel like that's that we're seeing this constantly within the OpenTEAM ecosystem with the role of, you know, the huge advantage that we all recognize of getting the information into this exchangeable digital format, but that, that, that it's, it's just an uncomfortable and sometimes the process isn't trusted it's not necessarily pleasant, like all those things that we've talked about before. Do I, yeah, yeah, framing.
Yeah, I want to just acknowledge that there's a certain element of what we're doing, where we're designing for an ideal future where there has been a cultural shift towards collective stewardship of our land and our communities, and not just farming communities but like any kind of group, because all of this is going to be made available to every group on Hylo right like every group is going to want to self govern and that desire is part of what's driving like the big wave of doubt technology innovation.
And
this isn't all going to make sense to everyone in today's world, right, and it's going to be our job to build bridges, and to create that on ramp to a future where we are able to practice collective stewardship for things like our common resources and our future depends on bringing that reality into focus.
So
yeah that's that's part of the design challenge is how do we get there and how do we Yeah how do we go from here to there, and who are the early adopters who are willing to go along with us on a journey like that. Part of what I'm going to take away as homework for this, from this collab with en and from this particular category of thinking is, what's a good plan for how we test this out for example with OpenTEAM, and I have some some posts here about an example, flow, like we could agree on some, some specific governance, use cases very specific user stories, for example, the conservation districts was a great one. And we can zoom in on on how OpenTEAM would function as a staking Dao, for instance. And then we can test it, and we can test it with different groups within OpenTEAM and have an actual metric that we're aiming for. So just like a totally made up metric that I came up with is by mid 2022 We have 10 OpenTEAM hubs that are participating in decisions through this platform on how to allocate rewards staking rewards to proposals in their regions. So it's just, there's a number of people representing farms and groups of farms that are just participating in the decisions like that could be something to shoot for, that's just an example. But the point is, let's come up with what we want to shoot for. And we can build towards that goal and then test and iterate around that goal. So, I want to get us all to a place where, where we can think about like, Okay, what would be what would be like a good test condition for this stuff and maybe not every single farmer is going to sign on for this pilot, but we can work with the people who are already in our circle we can work with for instance, the hub's that have already signed on to test the technologies with you, and see if we can get this to work. Is that does that sound generally good.
That sounds like a really good hybrid between OpenTEAM and region foundation objectives that we're looking at here. Yes.
Great. I will add to that and say that's really the moment that we're in also with our M stewards, following the digital or network steward route, and using our swamp, some steps at Land Steward group as a pilot for that also. So it sounds like there's just a lot of overlap in this moment with the same goal of figuring out their needs, and how to involve them and learn from them.
Yeah, yeah thank you yes and of course all of this draws on our previous conversations around Land Steward engagement and what is the right way to involve actual land stewards and giving input on all of this in a way that is respectful of their time and meet them where they're at. And, yeah, and this is part of that, we have a lot of homework coming out as collab with on from everything that surfaced it's been amazing. And yeah, that's, that's for sure just going to be part of the homework is thinking about how to run a pilot for each of these different pieces of functionality that we've identified. And then we just have to do it, and we're going to learn a lot.
One of my biggest questions is still the relationship with common stack, figuring out what that is.
Yeah, and I think we're gonna have a follow up conversation with Rev and with some common stock folks in Doron maybe, whoever it wants to be part of that conversation.
Yeah, for sure.
Right because anywhere we can be combining forces and integrating other tools that are doing a really good job with any of this stuff, we definitely want to do that.
I think I think that sounds like a really complete touching point. It would be helpful if what you shared, in terms of continuous voting, and the hiring status of what's Darrin Hylo, if you can share that, and then our team for setting up sort of meeting.
Question I think
there's this certainly both an overlap, as I see it in the, in the version. Some aspects of common stack that maybe can be used on some aspects at home the SEC has not figured out which is the culture of confidence or common, to your point, we're saying about thinking of governance in writing tools and so so I think there's a good compliment charging here and which, which, which would be really beneficial to explore it, that Cobra Jetty already exists in Hylo.
No, no it is not.
It folks and have talked about integrating it in. Yeah. I mean,
I don't know all the tools that exist out there but who budget for instance, is one of them when I know you know, Francesco. So on that end to I mean it might be interesting to explore. If you want to work with existing tools, or the features that may be missing, And if it's better to start from scratch.
Yeah, absolutely. Yeah.
And that's our goal to figure out a plan around what you know what is the most urgent thing for us to be building right now based on everything that surfaced and directing our energy towards that and testing around that. Because a lot of tools are already out there. Some of them we can incorporate some of them yeah as you're saying some of them we might want to build for our specific use cases. And, yeah, I'll be creating a whole proposal based on everything we've heard and sharing that for feedback with all of you in the time, like, in October, basically in the time after the collab with them.
So that is what is coming next.
Thanks for great session.
Yeah, thank you everyone and if you have links or references or frameworks or technologies that you have been looking at around this topic, please feel free to keep adding to the bureau board so that we can all be learning from each other.
