Climate Week at Caravan of Dreams #6 · Cleaned Transcript
September 23, 2026 · Caravan of Dreams, East Village, NY
An afternoon presentation, demo and workshop in the Dream Room, hosted by Arcos and the Buckminster Fuller Institute, recorded on the house mic. This is a cleaned and condensed transcript: filler trimmed, crosstalk smoothed, the shape of the afternoon kept intact. The live demo is described in the speaker's words; the screens are not reproduced. The table conversations at the end were not audible on the recording and are left out, as is the next event in the room, which the recording also caught. Names and organisations spoken from the stage were checked where a source exists; where none does, they stand as the speaker said them. The three presenters are named; people asking questions are not. It is not verbatim.
Download as .txtArena · The Buckminster Fuller Institute and Ben have been huge catalysts for us, supporting us, making this event possible, and pushing the three of us, who have been heads down building for the past six months, to come out and talk about what we're building. This presentation came together in the last day or two, because we have literally been building. We built another app last night. We're glad you're all here, because we need to be doing this together.
My name is Vincent Arena. I'm here with Wendy McLean and Rob Hurwich from the Arcos team. We're going to talk about infrastructure for coordinated impact. This is what we have been working on for the past five or six years. We've worked with hundreds of organizations and networks to help them map their ecosystems, and the thing we kept seeing is that they are all trying to solve the same problems, independently instead of together. If you take one thing from this talk: we do have a pathway to help people coordinate more effectively.
This is a pretty obvious statement, especially during Climate Week, but the field is not short of efforts, money or events. We know because we mapped them. There are 1,800 events happening that we know about, and probably another three thousand we don't. And yet where are we on climate change, or on any of the grand challenges of our time? A lot of what we face will come down to our ability to coordinate. We have the solutions. What we're lacking is coherence.
If anyone has heard of system dynamics: a basin of attraction is a place in a system where everything will flow over time. Spread a hundred golf balls around a golf course. Over time they'll flow into the pond or the sand traps, from gravity, from wind, from a pigeon picking at one. That's just where things tend to go. Every organization sits in one of these basins, and often they're siloed. It isn't anyone's fault. It isn't because we're lazy or don't want to work together. The forces of the system push us into silos. Climate Week is like all of us in the center, cohering for a little while. On Monday the forces push us back into our silos to be disconnected again. Gatherings are really important, and I'm so glad you're all here, but they're not enough. Proximity doesn't mean we're changing the system. It means we're close to each other for a moment, not that the forces will keep us here.
The silos exist across domains: all the people working on the metacrisis outside climate, in health care, education, mental health, should be in this room, because their piece is just as important. They exist between scales. Two days ago I was at a talk with funders deploying tens of millions in capital at a very global level, and not once did they mention how to measure the impact of their funding on projects on the ground. Someone else will handle that in three to five years when the MRV tools are ready, they said. So there's a huge gap between global networks, local communities like the one Dear Crisis is building here, and the individual change makers on the ground. There are silos across time and stage: as a project becomes more entrenched it gets harder to get out of your own way of doing things, and we need to connect people across the first, second and third horizons, and connect students with a vision for the future to people who have been doing this for sixty years. And my favorite: silos between technology platforms and ecosystems, which, frankly, are the infrastructure that controls how we connect and coordinate, especially when we're not in the room together.
Arena · I'll come back to this graph a few times. My theory has been that most technology sits along an axis. At one end is something highly fit for purpose, like a vibe-coded app made for one circumstance and never used again, or like Luma, which is really great for ticketing but not for anything beyond that. At the other end is something like Google Sheets or Airtable, which everyone uses for everything, and which is actually not great at most things. Our vision is tech infrastructure that is both fit for purpose and highly usable, where all the effort that goes into different platforms and tools can be connected and coherent, so we build on each other's work instead of constantly recreating things.
Over the last five years we built a tool called Catalist. It was probably the most interoperable multi-use platform I knew of at the time. The constant feedback was that it's too complicated. I see some nods in the room from people who have used it. I'd say, but it can do everything. Doing everything is not the same as doing what you needed to do well. Ben's feedback has been incredible here, pushing us to build very specific fit-for-purpose tools that are also connected to the interoperable ecosystem.
We also found that most people who want to create a technology don't have a clear vision of who will use it or what it will be. So through OMNI-Mapping, an officially sponsored project of the Buckminster Fuller Institute, we started volunteering our time to help people work out the vision for the specific map they wanted to make. Without that we couldn't customize the flexible infrastructure into something that worked well; it doesn't just work out of the box. We've built hundreds of ecosystem maps that way, each fit for its own purpose, with data that can be shared across them.
The hard part is that the infrastructure people end up using needs, in my theory, to sit in that top-right corner. If not, it's a foundation trying to support things it was never built to support. So people use Google Sheets to coordinate needs and offers with private information like their home address and where the key is under the mat at the back door. I saw that doing mutual aid coordination on Long Island, which is what got me started on this work. Or you're in eight thousand WhatsApp groups with no way of filtering, so you turn off your phone. Or you make an attendee directory, a two-hundred-page Google Doc called Intros. I see people laughing because they've done these things, as have I. It's not our fault. The big, entrenched infrastructure is what's readily available, so we use things that are non-ideal because that's all we have.
The core primitives we've been prototyping for six years: first, nuanced privacy permissions. In a world with AI, having the information on every change maker and what they're working on is the most incredible tool an organizer could imagine. It's also one of the scariest things if we're entering an era where surveillance becomes more prominent. So you need to be able to say: my email and phone number are private, this is anonymous, this is shared with people in my networks of trust. Those membranes don't exist in most of the tools we use. Ben put a question on every Luma event asking which of your contact information you want to share with the group. Imagine adding a second question to every question in a Google Form to collect privacy preferences. Privacy is an afterthought, and we're groomed not to think about it, so there's a big cultural piece too. Second, humans and AIs don't work well without nuance and context, and condensing everything into a two-dimensional spreadsheet won't work. Behind the scenes what we've built is a multi-dimensional knowledge graph. Rob will talk about the global knowledge commons: so much of the data already exists, sitting in the corner of someone's Google Drive, and it needs to be easier to build off each other's work. We've also built a UI library of the ways you can visualize data, and permissioned provenance, with data living in multiple places. All of that is theoretical, so let me show you what we've actually built.
Arena · Two weeks ago I went to Wendy and Rob and said we should build a Climate Week calendar. They said that's crazy. I said we're going to do it. I had built a system that aggregated all the dance events in New York City, and we applied it to Climate Week. It pulls data from WhatsApp groups, calendar feeds, the Climate Week website, a bunch of spreadsheets and a bunch of Airtables, and it merges them in a way where you can see the whole chain: this started on the Climate Week calendar, then someone curated it in their Google Sheet, and this is how it got here. That matters, because we know where the information came from and who to credit. Thank you all for submitting events to it.
There are 1,800 events. You can filter by category, theme and price. My favorite part is the map, because it helps you not have FOMO: you can see you can't possibly go to all of these. You can go to ten. Every event is part of a graph that shows how everything is connected, and within about twenty minutes we made all these curated calendars: the UNGA events, everything the Buckminster Fuller Institute is hosting, a calendar on policy, one on climate and tech. Instead of recreating an event from scratch, you search for it and add it.
We have a matchmaking system. About fifty people have filled out full profiles, and these are their suggested matches, the organizations they should talk to and the events they should go to. This is where the privacy permissions come in. I can say who sees what I work on: everyone. The days I'm here: only my connections. My email: just me, or everyone signed in. That needs to be a standard in all the tools we build, so an AI also knows what it can't touch. The AI matchmaker is itself an account, with access to some data and not other data. It can connect me with someone based on where I live without being allowed to tell them where I live. It's an anonymous matchmaking system, a neutral third party that helps people coordinate.
Behind the scenes is a knowledge graph of all the events, which I can't show on this screen because it would be too insane, but here's a peek. This event is hosted by Arcos and the Buckminster Fuller Institute. Two degrees away are all the other events hosted by BFI and Arcos. I can jump to the Buckminster Fuller Institute, see its website, see related organizations in the Climate Week map. This event is at Caravan of Dreams, and here are all the other events hosted here. That's what we want to talk about in the breakout: where this goes next, because it should live on and doesn't have to die on Monday when we all go home.
We've also made it so any data can be viewed in almost any way. Here's a moodboard of things we're exploring for our branding; switch it to a gallery, or a spreadsheet of how things are connected. This is another app, for the Long Island coastal bay region, where we do geographic mapping of protected areas and shapes and see how things connect: this article about oyster reefs was enabled by the Shinnecock Bay Restoration Program. Being able to see the connections, and to connect information across contexts, is one of the most valuable pieces of this tool. It's honestly really hard to get right and make simple, and that is the gap between the capability and the talented designers we're going to need.
Design Science Studio has been one of our partners from day one. For them we built the most complex ticketing platform ever to exist: a database of all the partners and sponsors, multiple ticket types with conditional logic. It was the most fit-for-purpose thing we could imagine, and now Earth Kind and Dear Crisis can use it; it took about a day to customize for the next person. Everything we build with a partner gets reused for the next partner. That's the commons getting better. Every item in a space can have its own view and edit permissions. You can leave a private comment on something public, or a comment shared only with your team. And in my personal space I can see data across every event I'm part of: what I viewed recently, what I've saved, what I have a task open on.
What we think this requires is shared data, shared standards for how we create these maps and tools, and specific micro-applications that are fit for purpose but connected so the data flows across them. If right now everyone has their own vibe-coded app, what we want is to build the channels that make it easy for information and funding to flow where they need to go. That's very different from pushing people to work together. It's creating the incentives so that collaborating is the obvious thing to do. And technology is nowhere near the only thing collaboration needs. Wendy spent seven months on the legal barriers that stop people from even wanting to share data or work together. We had to build our own legal structure and entity, with an open source operating agreement others can use, because the systems don't encourage collaboration either. Everyone give it up for Wendy McLean.
McLean · Thank you, Vincent. Hard act to follow. I had an idea for a knowledge-sharing platform twenty-five years ago and I held on to it until I met Vincent and thought, finally, somebody I want to collaborate with. We collaborated for years without an operating agreement. A lot of people told me I was an idiot for doing that, and it was absolutely the only thing I wanted to do, because getting this infrastructure out into the world mattered more to me than anything else. But the time came when we needed an operating agreement: to invite in other collaborators, and to invite investment. We found a couple of legal experts who wanted agreements like this, but nobody wanted to write one. Finally I threw up my hands and said I guess it's up to me. I thought it would take a month. It took seven months and a lot of work. All the documentation is open source.
This is our waterfall. It says a lot about what we're willing to do with profit once it starts coming in. In order: first, legacy member capital, the people who gave money early, getting it back. Second, legacy contributions. Any contribution that comes to us, that we talk about and agree on a value for, goes on a ledger, and over time, as the company makes more money, that value is returned to that person. That's one of the biggest benefits for collaborating. If we talk to someone holding a lot of tech or knowledge, a huge data set they've spent years curating, and they want reciprocity, we can say: great, we can't pay you now, but we can pay you in the future when more funding is flowing. It encourages everyone to put their pieces into the pool, and when things start flowing everyone benefits at the same time.
Third, the commons: a holding spot for when we're part of a larger ecosystem, tithing or gifting money back to the center point that coordinates everything. I have no idea yet what that will look like, but it will become essential, because there will always be those center points, the community networking, the coordinators and weavers whose work we'll benefit from. I think every operating agreement should have this component, so I put it in. Fourth, investor preferred return. Notice it doesn't come first. And investors are not tied to ownership. In our model, how much you give has nothing to do with how much decision-making power you get or how much you own. Ownership is tied to role. Investors are invited into relationship with us, and we return their money as a thank you, plus a multiple on top, up to a cap. They also share in the next one, abundance. Every contributor, not just investors, not just owners, shares in the abundance. There's a threshold for what counts as a contributor, but after that, when we're successful, everyone gets the same amount per person. When we win, everyone wins together. The last piece helps those who have given a lot, the owners, to leave without breaking up the company by demanding all their equity on the spot. It converts automatically into a recovery pool, and they're paid back over time. The entrance becomes softer and the exit becomes softer.
Traditional coordination is like: we're getting married, we're going to do an agreement. Then, oh, this really wasn't my thing, I'm leaving, here's two weeks' notice, and it's very uncomfortable. We created an operating agreement that supports what naturally happens. I'm doing a thing, you're doing a thing, let's try something together for three months. That was fun, it worked, let's do more. Maybe let's sign something small. I layered in contribution levels so people can participate without being owners or managers or taking on those bigger roles. Legal infrastructure is also coordination infrastructure. This is one offering we've put into the commons to help create the incentives we all need to stay in the collaborative space and get out of the competitive one. No one else should have to do what I had to do. So here you go, it's a gift. I'm no legal expert, but I did a lot of research. A 135-page collaborative operating agreement, with 16 schedules and 24 exhibits. Ninety-eight AI working sessions of research and deep dives. Nine companion documents: the investor documents, the manager document, the legacy contributions, the IP reassignments. Thirty-two meetings with lawyers and CPAs to vet the work. This is not just an idea. It's a working instrument, signed and in operation.
I'm starting to publish the story so other people can understand how I got here and what we learned. The first post went up last week, on Substack as Arcos Earth and on LinkedIn under my name. We know we can't do this alone. We're part of a larger network, with partners including the Climate Cooling Initiative, and Mycelial Law has taken this on as one of its cornerstones and is going to help advance these agreements for other people, because that is definitely not me.
Hurwich · I really appreciate the ownership and governance model Wendy described. As much as I love the tech and the platform, to me it matters more how you do something than what you're doing, and that groundwork gives something the foundation to be truly collaborative. I want to talk about collaboration and the commons, and how to design that in. Vincent showed the Climate Week app, which I think is fantastic. For me the big question is what happens when Climate Week ends. Usually, at a certain point, the energy dissipates, people go home, and the maps start to die and decay. That's not anybody's fault. It's the structure they're built in. So how do we build on each other's work instead of recreating it? The idea we're working with is that you have to design it in: into the tech, into the legal and governance structures, and into the social and cultural norms of how groups and people collaborate.
Why do maps die? The Climate Week app is a good example. There's a bell curve of activity, really sweet and juicy in the middle, and then it dissipates. If people aren't using that app as their regular tool, it's really hard to stay in touch even if you love everybody and promise to. Imagine the feeling of connection you have now, still there three weeks later. Imagine next year at Climate Week all of this information still here, and a year of building on it: more information, the gaps visible, what's been done visible. That's the dream we're designing for.
The main point I want to get across: we're not building a map. We're building a commons. A map is a snapshot of a point in time, so its nature is to decay unless someone maintains it, and most of the time the people maintaining maps have a lot of goodwill until their bandwidth runs out or the grant runs out. A commons compounds. It builds over time. A map is something someone made about you. A commons is something you are in, a participant of. And a commons isn't just mush. It has membranes, boundaries, principles that can be designed in. David Bollier describes it: a commons is not just the resource. It's the resource plus the social and cultural norms that govern how it's managed. Those norms are what we're talking about designing in, and we've been building them with everyone we've worked with over the past five years. Who curates, who makes the decisions: that's a collaborative act. I'm not against maps. Maps are fabulous. But a living commons that keeps compounding can generate thousands of maps, and those maps will keep getting better and stay up to date.
Why does a commons work? Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize in Economics for studying the commons. She came up with eight guiding principles and showed that commons do work when they're in place. One of them is the largest indicator of whether a commons survives or collapses: commons survive when the people using them are the people maintaining them. Building right off that, people maintain what they are already using for their own reasons. To me this is the key to this working and not just being a cool idea that lives on goodwill. Set up properly, it rests on people's own self-interest, which includes the self-interest of the commons.
McLean · It goes back to the right incentives. When the incentives are aligned, it just makes it easy.
Hurwich · That's exactly it. And the commons is already here. Over the past five years, with Wendy as its primary curator, there are frameworks and items and networks already using it, and as they use it they're already contributing to the commons.
Arena · We haven't turned the commons fully public yet, because the nuanced privacy permissions have to be crystal clear first. Once it's turned on, it's like undamming a river: things will just flow. People aren't used to a system where they bookmark something and say, I want this public, but I want to add a private note, and a note shared with just my team. Most tools are built for a single purpose, so we're working out how to communicate through design how things get reused across the system. What we have published: 20,000 public items that people said they want shared and found, and 238 framework sets, like the Sustainable Development Goals or principles of commoning. When you build a form you click and add those, instead of re-entering every SDG indicator. Anytime anyone adds something, we're building on top of it.
Hurwich · Last: why Arcos? Arcos isn't designed to be the one and only tool. It's designed to be part of a larger collaborative framework, a larger collaborative planetary tech stack. And because of the structure we've built, this doesn't end when Climate Week ends. What we've created is a giant knowledge graph of Climate Week. It exists, people have already claimed their organizations and profiles, and it doesn't stand alone: it joins everything else we've built.
McLean · I'm noticing the time, so I'll speed up. We've built a lot with very little. When we calculated it all out, we've put in over three million dollars of value across five years of work. We've had a couple of investments, but our revenue is really small, because we tend to work with people and clients who don't have a lot of revenue to share. And we are poised for tech collaboration: unlike others who want to be the one tech platform, we want to collaborate, and now we have an operating agreement that helps us do that. It's the three of us who are now the bottleneck. We can only work at this level with three clients at a time, and we need to be working with many more. We could name thirty-five-plus organizations right now asking to work with us. We're literally working around the clock, and it's not enough. In the short term we need to build our own capacity; our business model is consulting and subscriptions. The long-term vision is tech collaboration, which will take a lot more funding, because it means reciprocity with the people already in the field who have been doing decades of work without being paid either.
Arena · We've chosen partners for values alignment, not for how much money they can give us, which is why we're such a small team. We use technology, and technology shapes us, and we shape it back in a feedback loop. We've set up our model to accept philanthropic funding so we can spend our time co-developing with the right partners and ecosystems, and not have to go partner with a two-hundred-thousand-dollar client doing fintech AI growth. The question we make decisions by is whether the person coming onto this tool will shape it in the right direction, and right now those people are typically not the ones who can pay what we should be charging.
McLean · There's also the obvious connection to the Buckminster Fuller Institute, and now the Climate Cooling Initiative, because we need help with that coordination function too. We're partnering with you, and with another group that's just forming. These are organizations seeing that need and starting to fill it as we try to make the long-term vision real.
Arena · Please, we want to work with you. Help us build this infrastructure to make collaboration easy. This is what we'll be working on for the next five to ten years no matter what, because there is a lack of infrastructure for coordination. If what we're doing doesn't work, come tell us and we'll pivot again, as Ben does, knocking on my door at 7am once a week to help us pivot. Thank you all for being here.
Q · If you have a user profile and you're going to events and experiencing different content, are you modeling that for the user over time?
Arena · We have a log of changes and updates, so, like Wikipedia, you can see the trail of what has been changed and edited. The difference is that on Wikipedia everyone edits one article and it's text. What we do is more like databases and spreadsheets: rows and columns. You can put privacy permissions on one cell or one column: anyone can edit the description, no one can edit the title, anyone can suggest a change to the copy. And instead of one source of truth, you can have ten versions of a page from different perspectives. The aggregation of ten people's perspectives on one page is way more valuable than converging on one source of truth.
Q · What's exciting is having that stack from year to year, event to event, so you could see the topics you've been attached to, associate them with impact, and see where a problem isn't getting enough attention and form a group to take it on.
Arena · Or the opposite: everybody converging on one topic, and making sure it gets the support and resources it needs because the energy is already there.
McLean · This was a pet project of mine from a long time ago: showing an entire system, where the gaps are and where the synergies are. Helping people understand what to do with something like this is where the design Vincent mentioned comes in, so the average person can navigate it. We're not there yet. That's part of why we need more support.
Q · There seems to be an implicit assumption that we're all aligned here, but I imagine you're not building for the fintech AI bros. Cell membranes are permeable, but they keep some things out. Are there people who are not good stewards of the commons that you'd keep out?
Arena · There's a direct correlation between the amount of aggregated data and the power to do anything with it, good or bad. We've erred on the side of caution for five or six years, keeping data private while we figure out the answer to that question. During the pandemic I built an aggregator that pulled in all the messages from about a hundred Discords, WhatsApps and Slack groups. It was the most powerful dashboard I could imagine for seeing what was happening in mutual aid coordination and knowing where to direct my time. And I thought: no one can use this. I shut it down, and no one has ever seen it, because you would not be able to control it. This is going to be a huge problem with AI. It can already do this. That's why we need privacy protocols built into all the tools we use, and why we're open sourcing the protocols we build. It's going to happen, it's already happening, and we need to maximize the upsides and minimize the risks. One reason people use WhatsApp and Google Docs is that there are no alternatives. The planetary tech stack Wendy mentioned is about designing tools where we set the rules and the social norms for protecting the commons, because you bet your boots these huge companies are not doing that. They're racing for the most powerful AIs.
McLean · Some of our partners, people we've been in relationship with for years, have spent all those years on security, standards and protocols. With a little more capacity it's my dream to pull those people into a room and really figure this out. It's a lot of people's dream, and the reason it hasn't happened is that we struggle to coordinate it.
Q · If I understood, there would be many overlapping commons: a sub-constellation could hold a commons amongst themselves within a larger pool, and the modularity is part of the point, with communities defining that for themselves?
McLean · Yes. The idea is that each piece of information, say our own website, is represented once in the commons, and everyone else references it or puts versions on top of it. If another community wants a different description, because they want their people to see it a certain way, that's a layer on top, not a copy.
Arena · A tangible example: we made a little micro-app for the salon last night with Nate Hagens, with a needs and offers board. When you add a need or an offer, you say who can see it: only people at this event, the smallest concentric ring; everyone in Dear Crisis, anyone who came to any event here during Climate Week; or the public. There's a difference between where you create something, who owns it, and where it's found. Something can be found in eight places. The paradigm of files in a folder in a filing cabinet is long gone, but we don't have good metaphors to help my mom understand that if she adds something here it will be in eight places and twenty AI agents will read it. We've been building the infrastructure; what we need help with is design: how to communicate those overlapping membranes clearly enough for a twelfth grader, or my mom.
Q · On the software side, is part of the vision to open this up to developers or other networks, so they can use the protocols in the back end?
Arena · The only thing stopping us from opening it to a developer community, or to other platforms using the data in different interfaces, is that foundation graph. If other tools don't have the same granular privacy permissions, we can't send them the data securely. Dear Crisis is a group with an ID, and there might be three platforms hosting Dear Crisis data, all abiding by the same rules. When you say only people in Dear Crisis can see my phone number, that has to hold across all of them. That's what's missing. If I create a Kumu graph of this, it's either entirely public or entirely private. There's no nuance, so it's a lossy conversion. That's why this needs to be an open standard, and we bring in partners as they meet it. We can already pull data from any platform with an open API. We just can't publish ours out yet. Ben built the salon app from a fork of the code I gave him, and in about ten minutes we had a map of the climate ecosystem: the people in this room, and your matches, who you should meet here and why, brought in from Luma. There's no barrier to building right now. The barrier is coherence.
Q · Since there's a protocol adoption process that needs to happen, how are you thinking about facilitating adoption at scale?
Arena · Most of our clients have come from large pools of money put in the middle of people to force them to work together. The Collaborative Technology Alliance got a grant, and $100,000 was distributed to projects on the condition that they write proposals to work with other platforms. Then people found it was easier to work with the people who wanted to work with them than to go find clients.
McLean · This is where collaboration with other tech platforms and partners advancing protocols and standards comes in. There will need to be a central point where people come together and say: these are the current protocols and standards, let's all try to use them, and then steward that, the same way the frameworks in the commons are stewarded and the knowledge sets curated. What that looks like, we're still learning. It could be experts in their field curating a whole set of things for everyone. It could be someone with expertise in a bioregion, or Indigenous wisdom keepers saying these are the things people should know. The same would be true for standards and protocols.
Q · Is there one commons? Say a group of people is working together and developing knowledge at a trust level, and someone wants to take that knowledge private. Or there's information like who has funding that's not public. Is there a way to share that within the group, as part of the commons or a specific iteration of it?
Arena · I'll let Rob answer, and then we probably won't have time for more questions out loud. If you scan this QR code you get the little app with everyone in the room, so you can connect, and there's a tab to post questions. We'll respond in the app or reach out afterwards, and compost them into our next phase and working group.
Hurwich · It's the same idea as the earlier question about layers of groups. A group of three or four collaborators, then maybe collaborators across three or four organizations, then networks, then the top layer, the global commons. The architecture is built so each network has its own membranes and decides its own rules, all the way down to individuals. We live in so many contexts, so each person also has their own profile within each space or network. In a business network I can be more buttoned up. In the dance community one, my profile can be completely different, crazy hair and all. And like everything else, I share those within the boundaries I choose.
Arena · We're going to break out into three tables, each for one piece of the infrastructure we described. If you have a burning passion to switch tables, you'll have two minutes. Who's most interested in tech infrastructure and design? That table. Legal, social, cultural, governance: how we actually work together? This table. And the middle table is the commons and commoning, at large scale. We'll have about ten minutes in these groups for a deeper discussion, then five minutes to hang out before the next session. Thank you so much, Rob and Wendy, and thank you all for being here.
Host · Hello, friends. There's an event starting here at four o'clock, so I'd love for your discussions to continue, ideally in the other room, where there are plenty of tables, because I need to reset the space for the next group.