Re-invigorating the open apps ecosystem?

Thanks so much for raising this subject @lynnfoster . ☺ I'll try to respond here tonight.

@lynnfoster i just had to share that there are some very complementary ideas for similar initiatives that have come out of a recent gathering in SF between a whole bunch of networks, including members of enspiral, loomio, cobudget, hylo, metamaps and quite a few others.

a first step in one of these is to co-create and adopt a very simple seal representing an explicit intention to work towards interoperability of the tools within the collaborative ecosystem.

I imagine this seal being low-friction, low-barrier to entry way to make explicit what is already happening between our communities. At the onset, this alliance can be rather informal - it doesn't have to include any responsibilities or accountabilities beyond the posting of it on our respective communities and platforms somewhere visibly, and linking to a site that describes the seal in more detail. Therefore, it would be great if we could draft something collaboratively that can resonate across this ecosystem, and is free from any particular biases or ideology. The idea for this is that its easy for communities, platforms and individuals to say 'yes' to - a way to build momentum explicitly and visibly.

i've created a draft of this here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1afRGCfjj-SyqHyabraJgpeYO6QKSA-brMFUR8yB7f1o/edit

@edwardwest has written some up about a Collaborative Software Consortium, which i also highly value, and which the idea of the seal may evolve towards, while governance and other aspects may be figured out on a more formalized consortium or entity. More on this here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_hlY4Uscm1xq3XWyTWlgxeejbZ41edqcL3q8FoLvJ-k/edit

Be very glad to hear your (and everyone's) thoughts on this!

@ishanshapiro excellent, will study! And will respond tomorrow.... :)

The original Open App vision has been a key inspiration for me. I too perceive that some forces are converging. Some comments on your original post, @lynnfoster :

The new workgroup is potentially interesting. Although it came out of a focus on media and fundraising, several people are determined it needs to be out from under any funding umbrella and will have its own identity.

I'd like to help encourage that; or at least, to get it out from under any traditional funding umbrella. I could imagine consolidation under some sort of crowdfunding initiative, if the ownership, management and administration of the new tech work is radically (and I do mean radically) distributed.

I think it would be really helpful to create a list and eventually a technical architectural diagram of some sort to depict all the pieces of software and how they fit into the picture

I think that could be helpful, but also potentially stifling. I guess it depends on how general or specific the suggested 'tool types' are. Also, would the suggestions be as specific (or not-specific) for software which hasn't been at all resoureced or developed yet? 

I myself will suggest a number of tool types which haven't been developed yet, but purely as a "request for comments" initially.

• For developers looking for funding, where are opportunities for joint funding rather than competing for the same funds

This is super important for the future of getting stuff done effectively and efficiently.

Potential principles (for group discussion):
* Software is open source

For me personally, this is practically mandatory in any efforts to develop a broad user base. I don't think it's appropriate to ask for much public buy-in without sharing code. 

Some people may want to dissect this further: GPL and/or permissive licenses like Apache and MIT? That question is more nuanced and IMO contextual.

Also note it's not just about licensing: the first big question is, who owns the code? Is collective code ownership practically mandatory?

Very interested in your opinions here @lynnfoster (and others)!

• People are interested in collaborating for a greater ecosystem, not promoting their software as a product over others

This can't be precisely assessed or 'enforced', but it's a great principle. Everyone is self-interested, and that's fine IMO, as long as they don't get to coerce or manipulate others to suit their biases.

I'll make a separate comment later, hopefully tomorrow, on specific open app potentials and tool types I perceive.

While I like all of the ideas expressed above and in the links, I am most interested in concrete steps toward collaboration. What do people have going on, especially that I might not know about?

Hi Lynn - creating this framework for funding is precisely what http://impacteconomy.io/ was about. Suggest a hangout with @tiberiusbrastavice and a couple of others (Warren and Marty) to join in a hangout to explain. In the meantime, there's more info on the Impact Economy website http://www.impacteconomy.io/about-the-summit/what-why-how/

I'll upload a couple of presentations shared at the summit soon (one on the framework; one on the investment coop). Am recovering from surgery and still not home.. will likely get to this Monday.

Will email to figure out a good time : )

Caroline

I have published some pointers from my side over at the PLP instance of this distributed conversation.
If feels only naturally to regard Loomio as a valid centralization point around this request.

The concrete offer was to fork https://github.com/bevry/staticsitegenerators-website and populate it with an initial list of tools.

Also there is some preliminary work on seperating Commons and commerce from TransforMap's side:
Our experience tells us it is important to seperate software development activities from the discussion around mapping many many maps and their schemas. In our federated perspective, this is provided by another specialized Commons. For what @edwardwest calls a Collaborative Software Consortium, our closest idea (still in development, but docs outdated) is http://transforlab.net .

Less for development activities nor funding of coder squads, we also propose free and open infrastructure for Commons activities in the first link above.

there is a great need for tools for governance, communication, etc. Anything that a movement or alternative group might need for infrastructure for their work. A broad consortium of projects and developers.

A consortium, federation, confederation-- whatever we could mutually agree to pursue-- is a project, and requires at least some of the resource-types (such as governance and communications tools) which we would love to develop for diverse use-cases. Small groups of friends and colleagues can often handle such things informally, but I don't think that scales sustainably for diverse groups.

All humans IMO should read The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman.

I love the idea of reaching out broadly for contributions to Open Apps, but I'm concerned that caretakers/stewards may be deluged by lots of complex ideas and existing works. (Potentially including some of my own.) Deluge is fine for unhurried information, discussion and documentation processes, but it can impair the collective intelligence of potential decisions. So, I hope we're all taking our time here.

I write this with immense respect and appreciation for the creators and devs in Open Apps and Value Flows. :) <3

What seems to be emerging now is many centers of software collaboration. Which is a big improvement over many overlapping software projects competing with each other.

But for example, each of the proposed centers of collaboration includes ~some~ of the overlapping projects, and another proposed center of collaboration includes others of the overlapping projects. Some of the overlapping projects hang out in more than one center of collaboration. None of the proposed centers of collaboration that I have seen recognizes the union of all of the projects from all the centers. And I'll bet some of the overlapping projects that would like to be included haven't been discovered by any of the proposed centers of collaboration yet.

Again, I think this is wonderful progress from even a few months ago. But where should we collaboratively go next?

@ishanshapiro

Yes the gathering in SF is a great example of what several of us are sensing right now, some sort of momentum from different but overlapping groups towards more collaboration among us. I'm very happy you brought that into this conversation!

From the document you provided, and some response:

The Alliance for Interoperability of Collaborative Technologies is an informal initiative to make explicit with what is already implicit in our networks and communities. It is a communication strategy to the wider world the connection that already exists between our platforms and our communities

We take a community-centric perspective to building technology, not a platform centric perspective.

We recognize interoperability as a key function of all technologies that we build.

These are great principles and it's good people are working on a communication strategy. When we have a place to communicate, I'll volunteer to collect principles that people have expressed in one place for discussion.

The only comment (not a criticism) I would have on the sentiments expressed in the document is that we also need to move beyond the expressed intentions - we have a lot of difficult work to do to actually create working interoperability between our software.

Great responses and thoughts here from everyone, hey maybe we can actually get something moving together!

@edwardwest really enjoyed your paper that Ishan posted, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_hlY4Uscm1xq3XWyTWlgxeejbZ41edqcL3q8FoLvJ-k/edit?usp=sharing, both the general thoughts and the specific proposed key functions.

@jonrichter sounds like you and others at TransforMap have given this a lot of thought, way ahead of me on the research end. I'm very happy for you to fork https://github.com/bevry/staticsitegenerators-website as you suggested, and can help with populating or making it so people can populate themselves.

What do others think? (It's hard to figure out at this stage what to have some consensus on and what to just go ahead and try out.) @gregorycassel comment might be appropriate here:

So, I hope we’re all taking our time here.

I've been a bit tied up with my mom for a few days (she's 93 and counting), but will have more time in the next week to help gather things up, curate, or whatever. And there is a meeting this week of the Impact Economy generated tech group, which is being organized by Stephanie Rearick of MAN in Madison WI (http://www.mutualaidnetwork.org/), so I will take responsibility to gather what people have contributed thus far to start to get some cross communication going there.

But it also seems to me that getting a place where all the groups that haven't been in communication can start to work out things between us will be a really good step sooner than later. One central place for discussion?

Loomio? New project in Github?

I decided to go ahead and start a new loomio group to accommodate this broader discussion. It is meant to be a neutral space where people can discuss where to go from here, and then we can move to whatever venues that is. Please ask for an invitation if you want to participate!! https://www.loomio.org/g/t2MDNapk/neutral-discussion-space

hey @lynnfoster - would be great to hook the Loomio discussion group with http://impacteconomy.io/, which features bios of all attendees of summit. I plan to update the website as our discussions evolve : )

@jonrichter @bobhaugen

"Collaborative Software Consortium"
Multiple centers of development...

We should probably start by mapping those. The first step it to surface what everyone is doing. @ishanshapiro proposition of "The Alliance for Interoperability of Collaborative Technologies" smart badge is great, because this tool does that, if it is smart. It could actually report back to an aggregator how everyone is connected to everyone else.

One cluster of development we are trying to create is the http://ovn.space/ for OVN infrastructure development.
I identified at least 3 other clusters.

We can do static mapping, using metamaps.cc for example, but having a dynamic map being built by placing a badge on a web property would be of great help.

@lynnfoster I think what you are proposing can also emerge from this smart badge system, if we allow structured data to be associated with them.

I think we should take the proper means to federate... If we don't do it, talking about network of networks, who will?
This federation will not form otherwise, because of its complexity, because of its opacity, because we can't understand how we complement each others...

Here's my prediction:
I see that there is a lot of good will and will to federate.
I also see that we're getting lost in emails, some of us being part of more than one dev. clusters.

Without a dynamic mapping tool we'll just get tired/burned and we'll naturally seek a quite corner, going back to what we know best, working in a small cluster and recreating redundancy in doing so.
As more and more of us will do that, some of us will grow impatient and perhaps even angry. Moreover, we'll see some of us getting access to dev. resources and we'll get jealous. Some will try to get in, but the experience/frustration of not being able to work in large federations will generate push-backs, which will undermine our social fabric even more.

SOLUTIONS:
1. Start by developing the dynamic map, based on a smart badge that all the groups will use.

2. Start by using whatever tools we have to manage resources and projects as a network, the OVNi is one example, if you have a better idea let's use it too.

Without 1. we can't see the large picture and can't self-organize at larger scale.
Without 2. we'll not be able to co-develop and share the benefits at large scale, because value flows between different groups will be hindered.

@ishanshapiro @tiberiusbrastavice - is the badge that Ishan proposed (which I will be delighted to adopt) actually a smart badge that connects into a dynamic map?

If so, that's a great idea, but how does it work?

@tiberiusbrastavice - what do you mean by OVNi? If you mean the NRP software, it is not a good fit for software development projects at the moment. Lynn and I are the proverbial shoemaker's children who are the last to get shoes. I have a reasonably good idea of what would work, but it would need to be developed, and I'd do it on top of the ValueFlows vocab rather than use NRP as a base. In other words, protocol > platform. The value equation and value network rules will fit perfectly, though.

@ahdinosaur wrote about this a year ago. Its time may have come. (I also stole protocol > platform from him.)

See also Sustain from @joshuavial

Here's my prediction:
I see that there is a lot of good will and will to federate.
I also see that we're getting lost in emails, some of us being part of more than one dev. clusters.

@tiberiusbrastavice That is why I created the new neutral discussion space. But not too many have signed up yet, so I am doubtful that it will work actually. (Note you did not post your comment there....)

Dynamic mapping tool could be a good tool! May need something more manual in the meantime.

would be great to hook the Loomio discussion group with http://impacteconomy.io/

@carolinesmalley yes exactly! Trying to do that over in the neutral discussion space.....

@lynnfoster why do you see Loomio as a more neutral place than CM? People are more than welcome to join! http://thecitizensmedia.com/pub/group/impact-economy?id=132

All updates on what's happening post summit will be shared there. @tiberiusbrastavice ...thoughts?

I don't understand why we use Loomio as a discussion room... It's designed for decision making

@carolinesmalley I had the impression CM was not yet ready for discussion or decisions? Maybe I am wrong. In terms of neutral, loomio the project is not involved with these discussions, while CM is very definitely involved, as a key player. So loomio the tool seemed neutral, we would just be using the tool rather anonymously. And I hoped that would be just for a few days until we could collectively figure out where people do want to have discussions and make decisions! Sorry this seems to be a sore point.

@tiberiusbrastavice suggest someplace better, I don't personally care one whit where we discuss, except that it be neutral! I do think we need to make a few initial decisions, mostly where and how to communicate, how to organize ourselves across the several centers of current discussion...... then we go wherever is collectively decided and do it.

Who can help implementing the badge? At lest let's get this thing going... One project at the time. Action will bring more action, one small success story will feed more action and will bring people together.
If we want this network of networks to form, we need to take the proper steps.
Can someone create a Github space for the project and kick it : )

Sorry, I am an action guy...

I appreciate action folks-- hi Tiberius!-- and I will always try to complement their efforts with a personal focus on deep infrastructural issues. Speaking of which...

I'm personally not aware of any great discussion apps out there. Tech and practices for inclusive online asynchronous discussion just don't seem to have gotten much attention. This has been one of my main areas of concern and research this year.

I mention this here because I think that a really powerful and flexible discussion tool should ultimately be part of any open apps ecosystem.

In theory, Loomio itself may eventually become such a tool, but the devs are currently juggling an awful lot. I imagine that Loomio will only get there if if eventually bifurcates into separately usable (and sustainably supported) discussion and proposal apps.

I'll make a separate comment about the badge idea.

Good. We want action! I am not connected enough to the badge to do any more than adopt it, but we are working on actual collaborations between projects.

I'll write up something else about some actual collaborations going on that we know of, but are not involved in, over in the neutral discussion space, by Monday or so, but first I got some improvements to make for some NRP users and I need to get "thecm" NRP instance deployed.

I'm all for a badge which clearly and usefully identifies participants in an internetworked alliance for the interoperability of collaborative technologies. However, the alliance itself needs to have some sort of identity. If that identity is not developed in a reasonably open, inclusive and unhurried way, I think that a badge will probably be a case of putting the cart before the horse.

I apologize for being generally late to the scene, and failing to properly prepare relevant ideas so far. If anyone wants to see some of my general thinking on the distributed governance and administration of online media commons, they can take a look here . However, that model is (1) somewhat outdated (2) probably overkill here (3) not easily applicable using any combination of existing tools which I'm aware of.

@gregorycassel - the people who have responded are already allied with each other, but in different groups, with different histories and cultures, but still a lot of overlap.

Maybe it's not necessary (besides being improbable) to bring them all into one big formal alliance, at least at this stage. A badge is not the same as actual interoperability, but it might help and it won't hurt.

Here's an example of a badge with some other overlapping ideas:
https://ind.ie/ethical-design/

Although I don't think that badge does what @tiberiusbrastavice wants...?

Actual interop is hard, and the people who would need to do the work are usually heads down on their own projects, so you really gotta wanna to make it happen.

the people who have responded are already allied with each other, but in different groups, with different histories and cultures, but still a lot of overlap.

@bobhaugen , at the risk of seeming too obvious, that's precisely why we know that this energy and potential project exists. Such implicit exclusivity is not a problem, even from my radical perspective, as long as we can work towards openness and inclusion.

I didn't mean to imply that a formal alliance is desirable right now. Probably not. However I don't share the view that a badge has the potential to help without the potential to hurt. I think that really depends on the attributes of the badge. If the badge is in any way(s) exclusive, then the properties of its exclusivity will be determined by the process which creates the badge.

So, I'm very cautionary, but I don't mean that the brilliant people here aren't already capable of designing a great badge which facilitates reasonably open, inclusive and collectively intelligent networking.

@gregorycassel I appreciate your passion for governance. Please take a look at the Governance page of OVNs, governance for long-tail organizations and feel free to contribute. http://valuenetwork.referata.com/wiki/Governance#Access_to_governance ( http://valuenetwork.referata.com/wiki/Governance#Access_to_governance )

I still don't know how much Ishan's badge idea and mine overlap, but I feel that the intent is the same.
The "smart badge" on a web property signals adherence to a set of basic principles.
In the aggregate, it communicates the scale of a movement (the more you see on the Internet the larger the movement gets)
These badges need to contain some specific data about the individual/group/community/network, which is useful to do mapping, trace relations, do matchmaking, ...
Somehow, we should be able to search and find all these badges, and perform all sorts of analysis on them, producing different types of visuals, in real time, which provides the big picture on the movement.
Perhaps the badges gathers and offers data about the use of that web property...
Perhaps the badge points to other web properties that are intimately related to that particular web property, thus mapping the virtual environment of a community or network, for example social media channels (Facebook page), repositories (Github, 3D warehouse, Flickr, Youtube channel... ), content management space (Wiki, website, ...).
Once this information is available to every one of us, every on of us can aggregate it the way we find fit.

No governance needed. We can even have an open list of principles from which every entity can pick and make their own collection, so that we can also see differences in what makes us tick, which can feed matchmaking algorithms, etc.

I think a bigy here, for the badge, is trust-wordiness. There should be a mechanism by which the rest of us can affect that.

great conversation - my original "seal" idea did not incorporate the smart badge aspect that @tiberiusbrastavice has laid out, which I like the idea of and hope to develop towards...but right now I'm really interested in first, collaborating on the text and the design of the seal - and getting at least 5 platforms or networks to adopt it. we have a 1st draft of a seal, and its being discussed by people from Enspiral, Loomio, Hylo, Metamaps, now NRP, Sensorica, Las Indias, more already, and it could be many more, very quickly. by design, this approach doesn't require that we build a piece of technology right now that will take significant effort or time until adoption, nor struggle with weighty governance questions that would come with a more formal entity off the bat. not saying there aren't some governance considerations in this approach, but i believe they're manageable to start. Low barrier to entry ftw!

in meantime process is open on both the design of the seal and the principles, so if anyone is interested in not talking about the seal but co-creating it through action, please simply comment, suggest, co-create, iterate here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1afRGCfjj-SyqHyabraJgpeYO6QKSA-brMFUR8yB7f1o/edit

@bobhaugen @gregorycassel @lynnfoster great to hear that you are warm to the idea of the badge - and yes this is no remedy towards tangible collaborations. the conversation I am exploring there currently is in the direction of user experience and interoperability at the interface. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw5A7_BlGI8

Think of this seal as 'parallel processing' on the culture/communications/storytelling side.

Thanks for the added perspective @tiberiusbrastavice and I should mention that I'm a big fan of the OVN research and development. :)

My emphasis here today may run the risk of creating a "mountain out of a molehill", when I doubt there's much actual difference. So let me try to focus my concerns more precisely.

The “smart badge” on a web property signals adherence to a set of basic principles.

The key question to me is this: is that adherence purely self-determined and self-assigned? If so, then I think that we could face some challenges, but I'm definitely not worried about governance. Whenever feasible, I greatly prefer efficient information and communication protocols instead of formal structures, such as exclusive permissions and privileges.

Whenever there are any exclusive permissions and privileges, then there is governance, even if it's deliberately minimal. I think that's often okay: governance has a place. I think that should be a reasonably simple, clear and well-lit place.

I think we're kind of heading in the same direction, but from different places with different areas of concern. I have a terrible amount of experience with the corruption of both formal and informal group structures and processes. I hope people will have some patience with my concerns, and/or ignore the aspects which may seem irrelevant to them personally.

Not sure what's meant by badge here? Impact Economy based on model for collaborating proposed by CM. CM has been all the functionality needed. We will use Loomio for decision making. Anyone can join. I will work on the site layout etc in the next two days. I will then create a features and benefits needed list, which I will share along with an invitation to discuss infrastructure via Github. This will be done by Monday. Anyone interested in the ideas proposed at Impact Economy will be more than welcome!

@carolinesmalley can we please clarify whether you're extending an offer for people to
1. join discussion about Impact Economy, and/or
2. move (any, or all) discussion of Open Apps Ecosystem to CM?

I think it's important to keep Impact Economy and Open Apps clearly distinguishable at this time.

I personally would be very interested in joining discussion of Impact Economy wherever it occurs, if time allows. From what little I've been able to follow, I'm sure the work is quite valuable. On the other hand, I frankly would be reluctant to move Open Apps discussion anywhere unless it's an open source and nonprofit platform, because that's pretty close to the essence of the Open Apps vision.

@tiberiusbrastavice (and others) if you'd like to associate a badge with some sort of peer approval/endorsement system, I'm all about that :)

@gregorycassel - a fairly large group of projects met at the Impact Economy Summit, some of them software projects that are part of this conversation. Conversations about collaboration have continued afterwards with some of the same people and more. Lynn and I were not at the summit, but have picked up on the conversations afterwards, hosted by the Mutual Aid Network, which is close to us both geographically and in thought. So CM is part of this whole network of networks.

@ishanshapiro - I just watched your "user experience and interoperability at the interface" talk. I like it. I was a little afraid because of the other doc that mandated user experience first, and we don't work that way, much to some people's distaste. So I thought we would be ostracized. I won't try to defend our methods, except that you would need to understand what we've done to understand why we did that way.

Anyway, I like everything in the video. Especially that lack of app and platform branding.

So we (that is in the ValueFlows project) have been focusing on a global value network economic model, based a lot on the experience of implementing Sensorica's OVN model. But implemented as a vocabulary in Linked Open Data and a set of protocols for engagement, especially Conversations for Action. In other words, yet another back end, but radically decentralized. Using a consistent set of UI/UX patterns on top of that would be gorgeous. So bring it on!

I love it! Through this discussion we're painting the larger picture and we can all get a sense of the desire to create larger structures.

Once we've re-launched CM's website (presently set up for navigation around 'The Great Debate) and proposed way forward in achieving goals, which includes how we intend to use the NRP in making the platform open, would love to share a hangout with you all - along with the programmer I work with - to get your feedback. Concerned that we move forward together and communicate as effectively as possible. So much can get lost in these discussions as well as email. Are you in?

Hi @carolinesmalley , thanks for the warm invitation to everyone. I'm personally in pretty deep on the open source side of things, but I'd like to point out that I'm not always opposed to proprietary code--and I'm certainly not opposed to investment. In fact, I'm critically concerned with various forms of equity and debt crowdfunding, as well as NRP models. NRP can evolve into something which fairly and intelligently accounts for all possible sources of revenue and involvement, including equity investment.

I think it's fantastic that you and other strong leaders and strategists are looking for bridges between traditional investment and NRP models. That's pricelessly valuable, so thank you.

There's a deep chasm in today's global economy. On one side of that chasm, there's a world of externalized exploitation: financialism, which is not really investment! On the other side of the chasm, there's a world of undervalued and (often) unsustainable nonprofit work. Some of us may end up working mostly on one side of that chasm, but we can network and collaborate on both sides of it-- and I really believe we're heading towards the same place.

@gregorycassel - I don't think @carolinesmalley is here as the representative of proprietary code. I'm not sure if that's what you thought, but I did want to have it on the record that everybody on the software side of the Impact Economy Summit was open source, as far as I know.

Thanks @bobhaugen - spot on! PPL is the idea - managed through the NRP. This is why I've asked to use it. Any contributions to building applications added get incorporated in the NRP, such that any 'profits' generated get shared with contributors in direct reflection to the part they play. @gregorycassel the platform we've built is in Perl right now and has been going through a number of iterations since we began back in 2006 (!). We are seeking funds to re-write the very basic framework in Ruby on Rails.

No @bobhaugen , I definitely do not think of anyone as being a representative of proprietary code, here or elsewhere. I address points of potential concern, in this obviously limited and disjointed discussion format. Thanks @carolinesmalley for the added context; much appreciated.

In the spirit of giving credit where due, I think what a lot of people are excited about re NRP is actually the Value Equation, or contribution economy. Here's some of the history of the idea. The current implementation in the NRP software was a collaboration between @tiberiusbrastavice and @lynnfoster.

Love it @bobhaugen and @lynnfoster !

@carolinesmalley - PPL? I must have missed an acronym.

Three letter acronyms are mandatory for everything! peer production license right?

sorry @bobhaugen ! @gregorycassel ... yes! indeed :0) http://p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_License.

I've been digesting a lot since the summit. Not sure if you've seen these, but here are links to the 2 presentations shared at the summit. Will try explain more on exactly how I see the PPL working in the model. Important that it provides a way for participants to see how they 'own it', and make it a means of securing their livelihoods. Right now most are still dependent on cash, but as the network grows, alternatives to money will become more prevalent and accessible. The intention of Impact Economy is to build a system that acts like a bridge to 'the new economy'. It won't be the only movement, but one of many that - in time - will simply cascade into a new way of being.
overview: https://youtu.be/Q7C85SOG06I
investment coop https://youtu.be/SNCblJyZcNs

much chatter on communication and coops taking place in The Next Edge on Facebook! ..just shared this (slightly aged) video - thought may help to share here too? https://vimeo.com/144826976

I hope so. And I'll take ten seconds to plug metamaps.cc. there, I did it.

I lack capacity this weekend but I'll try to watch the three links @carolinesmalley . :)