This gathering is dedicated to the exploration of tools in response to the fragmented conversation that emerged after gathering 10 and in addressing the question of where to collaborate on the generative process (and beyond).

Let us try to hold this questions on two levels simultaneously:

1. What is the right tool for this job?

2. How to choose / what makes a tool "right"?

Suggested agenda:

1. @Josh Fairhead will do introduce us to Roam/LogSeq.

2. I will introduce CollectiveOne

3. A conversation about the suitability of the tools to the task at hand.

4. A conversation about the suitability of tools in a wider, ethical context.

I feel that our time together will benefit from some async exploration before the gathering ... so if you have space for it ... please pull on the thread :)

Some of my considerations when considering software tools:

1. Necessity: is another tool really needed? If there is an existing tool in the tool-box that can do the job well, I prefer to avoid forming a dependency with another tool.

2. Reliability: is the ecology in which the tool is created and maintained resilient enough to give the tool longevity and reliability?

3. Ethics: do the people and organizations behind the tool have ethical aspirations? If they don't, why? If they do, do they walk the talk?

4. Openness: is the tool open and interoperable with other tools? or is it closed off and aspires to lock me in?

5. Ownership: do I have defacto ownership of the data I place into the tool? If I am unhappy with the tool can I export my data and take it somewhere else? If I was unhappy where I came from, can I import my existing data into the tool?

6. Privacy: am I a consumer or a product?

7. Business Model: does the tool or organization behind it have a healthy business model? if there is a free version is it made possible by others paying for "pro" service?

8. Affordable: does the cost match the value it has for me and my ability to pay? or is there tension resulting in an imbalance between these considerations?

9. Added Value: what am I contributing to by giving myself, my time and attention and my work to the tool?

Principles on tool adoption

My preferred option will always be 

1. an open-source alternative, self-hosted if possible, distributed (no central server) as ideal. That said, I can pragmatically adopt centralized and privative tools when features are "unbeatable" and/or colleagues are already using them. 

2. adopted because of a concrete need felt and expressed by the group.

3. the one that has just the functionalities we need, and extra ones preferably disabled to keep simplicity as much as possible.

4. those that can be adopted together in a comfortable workflow. I assume that I will not find ever a single tool to cover all my needs.

5. Often we won't find the tool designed with the purpose that fits our need. I consider that always exist a non-ideal and very simple tool that will work for us provided that we craft and adopt the right netiquette/directions to use it.  

What we have now

• We are generating tones of knowledge that are structured in threads at Loomio. Far from ideal; but good enough for me. 

• We look for consent (mostly in gathering coordination) at Loomio.

• We have more casual and short exchanges at Discord, and some results are translated to Loomio when appropriated. 

• We have virtual gatherings at Discord. The sound is crappy, I learned that quality audio is a paid featured. Besides that, seems to work pretty well.

• Finally, we use different tools individually to support our thinking and ideas collection, such as Collective One, Roam Research, Zettlr, etc.

What we miss

 If I got it right so far, I consider that (at least) some of us are missing:

• A tool for collaboratively work on the draft of the generative process that @Ronen Hirsch wrote on CollectiveOne cards and later recorded as mp3. Ronen is very reluctant to adopt GoogleDocs edit-suggestions-comment-adding tool type because of bad previous experiences. Using Loomio + a consent protocol did not work in our previous cycle. It is also true that could be either caused because of the high abstraction of the text, the high abstraction of the consent process, or both.

• A tool for better capture and relate knowledge we develop when doing things together, so we can make more effective use of our time.

Some possibilities

In my preferred order:

1. Since the cards are already in Collective One, we could try to work during this cycle in Collective one. In the meantime, we could keep figuring out a good tool. The tool is slow and unstable, but it worked well enough for @Ronen Hirsch to create the process. Also, I think he could suggest a concrete way to use it for collaboratively work on the generative process. 

2. Work with an Etherpad or Collabora office/Nextcloud (both I can provide in the Pantheon server, and a protocol to: 

   1. suggest the addition of cards

   2. suggest changes to existing cards

   3. discuss on those suggestions

   4. find consent to apply additions and changes, either in the same tool or with the support of others we already use (Loomio, Discord)

I also would consider the possibility to capture and move ideas from Loomio to Roam Research together with @Josh Fairhead (and anyone interested), to move them later to an stable version of Logseq.

Links of stuff mentioned in the gathering

I mentioned a post in my Zettlr in Spanish on how to worl collaboratively in Roam, but it points out to Roam Research pages in English:

• Building a Collaborative Second Brain in Roam - Workshop BASB

• How we use this digital jungle

Also:

• A detailed explanation of the Zettelkasten method

Also:

• An introduction to the underscore protocol

Also:

• A reminder of Jam the open-source alternative to clubhouse that @Alex Rodriguez has tested: