We are on track for writing a paper for the journal “Futures”. For this meeting we wanted to look at an initial draft of the paper’s abstract, and share progress updates, and check in on tasks.
  
  
    We took visual notes on Miro. Attendees: Paola Ricaurte, Vitor Bruno, Hermano Cintra, Charlotte Pierce, Ray Puzio, Joe Corneli, Charlie Danoff. We kept the meeting to one hour.
  
  
    We realised that it would be very useful to invite Takashi Iba to a future meeting. Takashi has previously combined “design patterns” and “future studies” in this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVCzQM-KQ50. Charlotte Pierce has some of his publications in her personal library, so we could use some of the examples under Fair Use.
  
  
    Vitor Bruno pointed out that he has an asynchronous game that works well with language learners – and we talked about what we could do with a simple pattern game. We also talked about the relationship between “design patterns” and “future studies”, realising that we might not be the first people to think about this, but there doesn’t seem to be that much written about it.
  
  
    We’ll review some of Takashi Iba’s published patterns, including his pattern-for-producing-patterns. Hopefully we can make a bit of progress on this before we meet him next. We’ll also hope to make some of our own cards (in the style he uses), and have a good look again at the core “futures” literature that we want to be citing & building on in the paper.
  

We wanted to keep learning peeragogy as part of the course

Wanted to work on paper

We talked about the paper, our successes and failures and causal layered analysis Took lots of good notes on the Google doc

I felt like it was a productive session!

Changed the paper Learned about CLA

Incorporate all the comments and ideas into the next version of the paper

Also some of us need to do our homework before the next class on Thursday the 12th (including me!)

N/A

• We made some progress on editing the handbook • There was a small, but mighty group of people going through the course and it went well!

• The regular meeting times we found in January 14 have been invaluable in terms of keeping us moving and giving our work a heartbeat 15 • Like a television show pilot 16 the course still has some kinks to work out, but it is looking very promising for the future

• Running an online online course on peeragogy is fun • Floobits 17 is a nice online tool for editing the handbook that connects directly to GitHub, although it is not the most user friendly for everyone

• Keep improving how we learn and produce things collaboratively!

We want to run a MOOC to codesign a peeragogy-based university: peeragogy.edu.

We develop an outline syllabus and budget, and pitch to the Knight Foundation.

The details of the syllabus are meant to be worked out with students when they arrive, which is somewhat confusing; the tasks and budget are more concrete.

We have a budget breakdown for $50,000.

We should rework the syllabus around the target audience—possibly in a classroom rather than a MOOC.

Could we fund our MOOC on Kickstarter?

We juggle the numbers, and get feedback from Kio Stark, who successfully crowdfunded her book, Don't Go Back to School. She cautions: “on Kickstarter—if people don't immediately get what it is, they're not likely to stick around long enough for the explanation.”

Fabrizio Terzi, peeragogue, suggests that we include time donations alongside monetary donations. We juggle numbers some more.

We have started to describe a value proposition.

Kio tells us Kickstarter is a full-time job: proceed with caution.

We facilitate an online workshop on “Paragogy and Ubuntu.” It doesn’t go well. We want to understand why.

Participants have trouble installing open source software Mumble. There is little activity on the shared Etherpad.

We discuss trade-offs between community and individual projects. Conference organizers suggest a “good outcome” is just increased awareness of paragogy.

We strengthen our shared skills at working with risk by devising the PAR.

We hope to establish a distributed “mutual aid society”—but we need to work harder to make sure that it’s really mutual.

We bid for an Individual Engagement Grant to support engagement with the Wikimedia community.

We propose to catalogue patterns of peer learning on Wikimedia sites. We get feedback Asking for more examples and clearer benefits.

Our breakdown of tasks and deliverables is fairly precise, but doesn’t add up to an obvious “must have”.

We get really into design patterns!

Could we draw on Corneli et al. (2015) in a proposal that clearly addresses the Foundation’s priorities? Could we improve our pattern writing workflow with a federated wiki, per Cunningham and Mehaffy (2013)?

We prepare a submission for the 2018 Connected Learning Summit.

We have a dialogue about the “what’s next” steps from our pattern catalogue, asking what makes the Peeragogy project a sustainable learning community.

At the last minute, we realize we need to anonymize the paper. The content is too much about “us” to stand up well to those changes.

We subsequently revise the text into a successful submission for Anticipation 2019.

We review work that was accepted for CLS

• Finish the initial version of the peeragogy course • Make progress on version 4 of the handbook • Work on a paper to submit • Share our ideas and methods with others • See if there are ways we can help or support others in time of COVID-19

• We made progress on sharing and writing • The course was completed! • We got involved with some interesting COVID-19 projects

• I had fun, learned a lot, and was excited to complete the first course! • What do you think of what we did, dear reader?

• Learned about how to run a course from start to finish • Watched how other groups of peers came together rapidly to produce some neat, timely, and helpful things for their fellow humans, including the Coronavirus Tech Handbook6 and shared medical supply designs7

N/A

We are on track for writing a paper for the journal Futures. For this meeting we wanted to look at an initial draft of the paper's abstract, and share progress updates, and check in on tasks.

We took visual notes on Miro (printout attached). Attendees: Paola, Vitor, Hermano, Charlotte, Ray, Joe, Charlie. We kept the meeting to one hour.

We realised that it would be very useful to invite Takashi Iba to a future meeting. Takashi has previously combined "patterns" and "futures" in this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVCzQM-KQ50 Charlotte has some of his publications in her personal library, so we could use some of examples under fair use.

Vitor pointed out that he has an asynchronous game that works well with language learners — and we talked about what we could do with a simple pattern game. We also talked about the relationship between "patterns" and "futures", realising that we might not be the first people to think about this, but there doesn't seem to be that much written.

We'll review some of Takashi's published patterns, including his pattern-for-producing-patterns. Hopefully we can make a bit of progress on this before we meet him next. We'll also hope to make some of our own cards (in the style he uses), and have a good look again at the core "futures" literature that we want to be citing & building on in the paper.

Explore patterns by various means, towards the Futures paper.

Discussion between Charlie (as "Charlotte" today), Ray, Hermando, Joe, Paola.

• Initially we talked about technology and prog

• Constructing & friendly critique of the Patterns of Peeragogy paper (see attached)

• Revisiting the fundamentals of patterns for background and intro paper

Still nice to talk to Takashi sometime though we didn't see him today! (Joe: I liked the conversation about nesting, we have some nesting in the sections of the handbook.)

Interesting leads on philosophy: virtualisation diagram, Pierre Laviv, Peirce, Plotino

• Work towards a full draft this month (with an additional month for polishing up)

  • Details to be broken down as a next step?

• Join the MetaCAugs workshop on 9th

• Read more Takashi stuff

• Joe to follow up with younger generation

Master a new method/approach to teach and/or learn peeragogically, then add the tech up.

Related to peeragogy, so far I'm learning by doing, I mean by being in the meeting, I still think an onboarding material would help, like a study guide, the first gaming level AKA tutorial.

I'm starting to read by my own about early peeragogy

We became more friends, I mean some times was afraid of being the less smart of the room, I still am, but now it doesn't bother me anymore

Structured learning, some homework, strategies to where are we heading to

As course co-coordinators we expected to learn more about how to run a course in peeragogy. We expected the participants to learn more peer learning and peer production Develop a “product” or focus for peeragogy, “what does it do?” Participants and co-coordinators figure out “What’s in it for me?” with peeragogy and the course itself

HOW: Video conferencing - allows for global participation Open source ethos - Hermano Business orientation - Vitor Get practical/aka no mo’ navel gazing - Charlotte Building the syllabus taught me how to make a markdown document in GitHub - Charlie

I felt like we made a lot of great memories and co-created some wonderful learning moments - Charlie Gave some structure to my day/week- Charlotte Unlike other meetings, I never dreaded these.

Accept “newcomers” - Hermano, Vitor We weren’t always “prepared” :-o We “kept going” Organized on calendar (session 6/8, etc.) Decided on one place to take notes - in this case it was the zoom chat Use of other platforms does not need to be disruptive. But it does help to have a central one that others feed into. Synchronizing different apps and platforms remains an ongoing challenge.

Develop system to encourage participation Maybe circulate agenda/outline for comment a few days before course session Develop system for “getting the word out” and onboarding if it brings in new ppl Map out a better definition of the course - along the lines of Joe’s for Tufts pilot Update Rheingoldian meeting roles to have “primary” ones that should be filled first and “nice to have” Update the Peeragogical Action Review to account for use during an activity itself or after its completed

Pull together the great people I know around a theme of common interest Make a new partnership to explore business possibilities Learn what it takes to set up a viable business (or indeed a big company!) Ray: we have been talking about business stuff for a while. Look more critically at our thoughts and see if there is a practical plan in there somewhere. Joe: wanted to get the ideas clarified and realised if possible Simon Sinek: “What’s the purpose of the business we’re creating?”

- - Got a lot of great advice from Deyan, and Charlie, Steve, Zoe, and others who know about business stuff Either Oushesh & Joe didn’t look like credible people, or they just thought “this is never going to work”, because we always got low scores.

• As business people they want to hear something that you’re super convinced

about!

• If they say no, you say “We’re sure!”

• Zans: So I can see it going a few ways. Exploring could be done in various ways.

EF/prototypes/academic/?

• We’re still at the exploration space and haven’t found “the one thing”

• This is similar to what happened last year. They want a specific thing that

will make money.

• Joe: I’m likely not to be the best “CEO” for this company even though I was the

person who brought this group together. Compare Eric Daimler relative to Connexus, who made the thing take off. Daimler is still quite academic but he knows how to do the business stuff. We could find someone on the intersection.

• But as a counter to that, maybe we’re not at that point... maybe we’re at the point

where squeezing an idea out may be premature. Last year the ideas were a bit boring. But if we had

- - - - Brainstorming meeting with 4 people in Authorea (Marketers, CEO, Deyan). “Why are we doing what we’re doing, why did we start this thing!”... 45 minutes in had a great list of community serving things, then reminded that one of the purposes was to ​ make a lot of money . ​ We come here often with an ​ academic mindset ​ ? Vitor + Deyan: Business model canvas...? ; ​ Lean startup ; Start-up Own Manual Ray: What is the market ready for. In academia you do research at the edge of what’s possible. In the practical world “yes this is good cutting edge research but it’s not ready for production...” 2- - - - - - Vitor: we have a lot of hackathons where people present ideas that the market does not yet want. Joe: this is a complex thing, not ‘rapidly’ commercialisable (and I didn’t have the startup mindset). Vitor: “A lot of startups need to be scalable, fast growing, pain that serves a lot of people.” — That’s how you say “where your margin comes from.” If you don’t have to add many people or costs per margin, then you have a great margin. Adding teachers per margin. Deyan: you’re either inside academia or business! Ray: There are multiple kinds of businesses, not funded by VC Cameron: If you’re not building something that’s sustainable in the long term you’re not doing it right. Sustainable org ideas. — JC: B-Corp book. If you really have an idea you can execute, do you want to offer equity at that price? They would get to diversify their portfolio and invest early on... but from the perspective of someone trying to find a price on the open market... it may not really benefit the idea of learning from scratch. So think much more strategically about whether the thing you’re selling them by reentering is actually useful to our. (What’s the standard raise?) HDtP organised summer school: One of the theme was “testing things”. As PL people, you come up with an idea, it’s a type system, you publish it. In HCI you evaluate by putting things together with people. If we connect our prototypes to people using things — hyping things on Twitter, getting feedback on what’s going on. EF: looking at exporting US businesses to elsewhere. Gumtree: that was invented by a German company called Rocket who just has under-paid junior developers & hack things together and they are billionaires.

JC: I learned a lot of business stuff but also what else there is to learn.

• Got a business model and business plan. They might not be the right ones but I

know what they look like. Vitor, Analua talking about other models. Make an NGO? Partnerships? We did get $10K+ from cloud providers “Whitepaper” is pretty crappy but we could maybe turn it into a survey paper, for those interested (write or find) AI Review paper: “Advances in Natural Language Processing in Sentiment Analysis” “Advances in tutoring systems for programming” (or just production systems for tutor systems for programming) 3- - “Advances in knowledge mining from technical documents” — these exist (but are they starting to become applicable)? It was awkward to have a mismatch between the startup incubator and people that know each other. What even would be the vision that we would present? With the possibility to reset? It’s hard to activate the seed funding without an idea that is worth the effort. “Get successful but not successful enough to get noticed.” (E.g., ​ Etherpad​ .)

What is actually ready for ​ commercialization​ ? E.g. “Shopping on Mars” was back in the day of early PC’s before public internet access. E.g., no non-disclosure agreements; EF has the ability to invest Joe: wants to explore other business models Other program synthesis methods. But “mining stack exchange” would be noisy so this might be away to prune it Try out some educational models, just to get some experience with this. Who would be interested? E.g., take HDtP, how would our way of teaching compare with the way people are learning. All previous deadlines are dissolved, now with open conversations... Joe to get back about small print about T&C. Possible option to re-apply with Zans... but is there a business model that’s actually viable on that time frame??

• Noting that September 6 months (2X FT)

The other option: work half time, slowly grow it, maybe teach a course with 50 people... Meetups are a great place to find customers Alumni network may be a good place to get investors, maybe by cultivating relationship with investors... but emailing them isn’t a totally secure. You don’t pitch a product, you pitch a vision. You can get a seed round from anyone: glass of wine​ , 1 hour conversation, then $300K in the bank. All that was pitched was the vision. There was a slide deck not a product. If you have credentials that is important. “Keeping Joe fed” — is a different problem form “Having a business”. So, businesses usually aren’t started by people who are trying to feed themselves (case of Ian). It’s kind of an introduction: 1st, I have invisible shackles, which means I can’t participate in any side ventures. I am someone who shares experience and interested in open source. What I’ve been interested in the last couple years, to illustrate that I have a focus 4that hasn’t been discussed in these meetings but is very adjacent. What we’re currently working on this year is a fresh effort for the MathML standard. In FF, Chrome, making it accessible for text-to-speech standard. Have a working academic product, it ties into e-learning with ​ math​ texts. The data mining is attached to this level of representation. Very excited about anything to do with mathematics and e-learning. ○ “Let’s build a few ​ showcases​ and see what works.” ■ Compatible w/ “I’m scratching my own itch” or “I’m using it with 10 students” ■ Still, how many people can you get excited for it...! (Many of Deyan’s ideas got shut down until they hired a designer.) — With Emacs it’s not going to be a company, though some could be reimplemented. Emacs is like a breadboard. But we could use it to teach someone to do something. Put this out, advertise on Reddit or whatever, does anyone learn from it? — This is exactly the learn startup way. ■ Once we have excited users, the business side can fall into place, including both business & operations. ​ We have to be a bit skeptical, but until we reach that point it’s a distraction to get too focused on the business side. They can’t answer the questions until you’ve achieved. ○ No shame in getting a postdoc to clear up the concepts. Find a nice topic & investigate it, then you can make a company out of that later. Academia gives you the comfort to investigate at leisure. In startup there’s no leisure. Important to get through a bunch of ideas, rather than having a formal process. We can formalise it later once we know the ideas that are being thought of at the individual level. E.g. “the unifying idea is model construction” — start with a bit of abstraction or how to raise funding will not be determinable. “What’s the vision” Academic tends to be theor

We expected to continue making progress on our paper for the special issue of the Futures Journal.

We added some ideas throughout the paper, especially the conclusion where we focused on trying out Schwarz's "Steps to Developing Scenarios" with the future of English language learning as an example

I was excited at to see the paper improve!

We learned there are some exciting new directions for the paper to go!

I think we should try to find a time soon when all the authors of the paper can join.

We wished to make Handbook v4, improving on v3 following feedback.

As a stratagem, we worked on a conference presentation for Anticipation and a follow-up journal paper for Futures (which is now reaching maturity). We've also gotten feedback that a "dashboard" could be more useful than a Handbook for some readers!

We now have a developing plan for v4, and supporting materials, so one question is what we're going to do with it.

For one thing, we have to decide whether we actually do want to write v4 of the Handbook (and if so, what a practical direction for that work would be).

Apart from the Futures paper we've got these other things going on:

• Charlotte Pierce is heading up a new Peeragogy podcast, with ≈27 episodes planned, to build new collaborations, and to discuss and develop draft material.

• Joe Corneli submitted a course on “Transdisciplinary Design” for online presentation at the Tufts Experimental College: it is currently under review.

• Howard Rheingold and Sam Rose are rebuilding the Social Media Classroom which hosted our work on PHv1: we can use this and help shape its further development.

• Stephan Kreutzer is building custom hypertext interfaces that we intend to use to gather and assemble the components of PHv4 (and other inputs to the project, like PARs).

• We are experimenting with various other media for coauthoring and engagement with the material (possibly related to discussions at MetaCAugs and CICOlab, but this is TBD)

Joe: I asked a friend of mine to review the latest draft of my NYPL fellowship proposal outlining a v4 proposal. Here are some of his comments:

• "It could be just my own limitations, but I can't really understand what the Handbook actually is or what it does."

• "I think if you start a little more philosophically, a little more abstractly, even, you get them on your side right away."

• "I don't think you can assume everyone is as conversant in tech and pedagogy as you, at least not in the advanced and avant garde way that you are."

• "Section 3 'Section Outline' can go ... Just focus on explaining the Handbook to someone who has never heard of such a thing."

• "Say more about how exactly the archives and resources at the NYPL will do this to make the Handbook even better."

In short, I think it's really not yet clear to a smart person (from what I wrote) who is not affiliated with the project why we do what we do. ... Maybe we don't even have that clear in our own heads yet... yikes!

However, here's something we surfaced recently that seemed like the "why" of the Futures paper:

« Under the right circumstances, participants in a collaborative process can develop an articulate understanding of the constraints they face, and unlock heretofore unthought of solutions. For example, Ariyaratne (1977) tells the story of a rural group who, after 15 years of bureaucratic deadlock, was able to quickly complete an important construction project without outside investment. We are interested in understanding how this kind of breakthrough happens. To explore this theme, we will consider several different settings in which people develop informal future-oriented languages. As dialogue gives participants new ways to articulate and develop their thinking together, problems become easier to understand and resolve. »

To put it simply, at least part of what we're doing is building informal languages for thinking constructively about problems together.

That's already a bit long winded but I want to bring in another concern:

• Maybe we want to spin off another project distinct from v4.

• Maybe we actually want to wind down work on the Handbook and switch to a different project. Personally I'd rather keep the Handbook going but the idea of winding it down was raised at a recent meeting, partly on the basis that it's been four years since we made the last version... so at least we should check the feasibility of making a good v4.

• The other factor is that our Futures paper uses ideas from Peeragogy but doesn't mention that term, so maybe this is a sign that we would be well positioned to spin off into something else.

I'm sure there are some other perspectives on what's going on too, hence the heading here! Possibly some updates on all of the associated projects would bring clarity?

> Reply here with perspectives if you have 'em!

In this phase of work — we've gotten quite a few possible interrelated projects "spun up" (podcast, course, platform, hypertext, ongoing discussions, the Futures paper, among others). That's quite a lot of activity, which maybe is leading to some clarity.

Working on the NYPL proposal and broader job search activities have been clarifying for me personally. Yesterday I talked with my sister about why I have been doing what I've been doing for the last 20 years or so. I made a comparison (maybe this seems overblown) to the civil rights movement. Many people do not have the same educational privilege that I have had: I've had access to great teachers, great learning materials, and a few second chances. Some people don't have computers, books, language exposure, family support... actually, put this way, wouldn't you say that access to learning opportunities is a civil rights issue?

This is why working for a company that isn't moving some aspect of content, theory, or practice forward seems like something I would probably have a hard time doing.

Anyway, I was glad to articulate things at least a little better for myself.

Perhaps we can keep struggling productively with the "six honest serving-men" (Kipling). If anyone wants to weigh in with a PAR on any of the other efforts I mentioned above that would significantly help to round out my understanding of what's going on here. Personally I will try to revise my v4 proposal along the lines of my pal's critique, since that's likely to be useful. It's due on Friday and will be somewhat directly useful for me (as input for other proposals). What I'd like to know more about is the extent to which it is useful for us.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/08/07/arts/design/hokusai-fuji.html We hope to make the peeragogy forum into a "practice space". That is to say: our primary method for advancing peeragogy is to "do" peeragogy, and our work is basically "practice-theoretic", in philosophy lingo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_theory).

Different people have different ideas of practice and what peeragogy "is". The case of "peeragogy for kids" brings this to the fore. There are also severla rather different sets of practices in place in various online forums.

That is, presumably, exactly how things should be, since we are trying to do peer learning, not Borg-like assimilation. However, given that there's widespread confusion and some ruffled feathers on the topic of "advertising" and broader relationships between Peeragogy and other groups and activities, we might want to make something explicit about these topics in the Peeragogy Community Guidelines, which presently exist only in draft form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bpFGRmtWVe8GoBKKH4wiuoM3uEBBDNfLzaYVzn20Ags/edit#heading=h.z8s7p3mq1dw0

My asking Charles to write a PAR made him feel "put on the spot." That wasn't my intention: I genuinely wanted to recommend a practice that I enjoy. On reflection probably the links that Charles & Roland shared to CICOLab and MetaCAugs events are in the same basic genre of "sharing practices that I like." We could potentially approach all generically-labeled "sharing" through a more articulated language of "consent", keeping in mind these failure modes:

• If somebody serves non-consensually they’re being a martyr or rescuer.

• If somebody takes non-consensually they’re being a perpetrator or groper.

• If somebody allows non-consensually they’re being a doormat or pushover.

• If somebody accepts non-consensually they’re being entitled and freeloading.

— https://www.rewriting-the-rules.com/sex/wheel-consent-im-fan/ How might that look here? Well, at present I'm trying to "share" a (partially?) filled-in PAR rather than a "blank canvas". This invites participation but doesn't require it. I think Charlotte's suggestion, above, "How about a periodic short posting recapping the topics of interest to Peeragogy (which is almost all your content, TBH), and add a subscription link so people can opt-in?" runs on the same lines. We've all "consented" to share some of our attention with others, but not necessarily to engage in others' preferred practices. So, sharing thought-through and reasonably well-digested reflections rather than just invitations could help prevent people feeling "put on the spot." We should also think about how we work together with more preliminary non-digested content...which in my experience is often one of the most fun parts of the peeragogy project! But a topic for another day.

Circumstantially: I want to move the Peeragogy forum to OSU Open Source Lab hosting soon. The initial purpose of my OSU OSL lab request was to be a one-for-one replacement for the Google Forum that makes it accessible to people who do not have a Google login, so I don't want to confuse matters by making it into something else in midstream. However, we might also want to think about making an "opt-in" moment sometime soon, so that we know that everyone who is on the forum actually wants to be there, and so that we get some of the other points of un-clarity cleared up. This could go along with introducing the "new" community guidelines. To my mind, such opt-in moments have been a good part of our work in the past, and in light of the above comments about "consent" I think we should give these matters some attention!

For the tl/dr version of six months, peep this PAR, or Project Action Review[1]. Special thanks to Vitor for his assistance with this one.

To produce some meaningful learning products (article, course, software, etc).

We’ve been reading, reviewing the texts, doing side projects, developing educational techniques.

It has not been a linear path of progress over the last six months, but we have definitely progressed!

We've learned to manage expectations, lean on the friends we never met face to face, and to survive during the COVID-19 crisis.

Think in a sustainable way to make the group self-sufficient by creating sellable products (book, article, courses) so that the group can have more than one website and raise our visibility.

https://groups.google.com/g/peeragogy/c/NStX-vt1l1M/m/Wr-N8VzlAwAJ

• Produce meaningful learning products.

• We’ve been reading, reviewing texts, doing side projects, meeting in smaller groups, and developing educational techniques. We continue to learn how face-to-face interaction (online video conferencing in this case) goes a long way towards building understanding, open mindsets, and empathy.

• It has not been a linear path over the last six months, but we feel there has been constructive progress. We are extending our reach through media like podcasting that makes our work more accessible to people in all walks of life and allows us to explore our concepts over time. Arguments have emerged that have largely been resolved through acceptance of good intentions. We have found peeragogy can tolerate disagreement, conflict, and/or value dif- ferences.

• We learned the value of managing expectations, being clear about poli- cies and values, leaning on friends we never met in physical space, all the while continuing to be productive during the COVID-19 pandemic. We learned that simply sending someone over to our website or discussion group to explain peeragogy does not result in immediate understanding about the project. A more welcoming interface is needed. We also learned that our initial, emotional reactions to others’ expressed values or changes in process seldom reflect reality of others’ intentions. • Continue to evolve, listen, and pursue opportunities • Think in a sustainable way to make the group self-sufficient possibly by cre- ating sellable products (books, articles, courses, etc.) so that the group can have more than one website and raise our visibility. • Create an accessible “dashboard” or graphical interface that will engage non- technical people who can benefit from the patterns and best practices. • Take participants’ well considered proposals at face value and imagine them being successful before rejecting or opposing them.

N/A

We propose using design patterns to engage with anticipatory learning and future studies. Clean up references and remove long quote - Charlie will do in play pattern Add patterns per subsection of the Results section, esp., in scenario planning section Revise the Abstract as an ongoing task and at the end — everyone

We identify a clearly defined meaning of ‘design patterns’ among the various senses which have been used in the literature. We explore how these patterns can be used to design learning experiences to think about and prepare for the future. Finally we argue that patterns can improve existing collaborative future-oriented workflows. Add more anticipatory learning stuff (Inayatullah 2006, Tschakert & Dietrich 2010 Poli 2019)

This work developed based on a presentation at the Anticipation 2019 conference but takes it in a different and to us unexpected direction, including by bringing in new collaborators.

How to be resilient for future scenarios whether it is a catastrophe or something better. Sum up the conclusion section (once it is written)

Before submission: Break down and add required separate submission documents (cover letter, etc.)

• To review the Roadmap pattern in our Futures paper, and try to use it to organize our work on PHv4.

• To learn if the Roadmap was practical/useful for others/audience.

• After some review we jumped into the roadmap doc… and created a few new micro-patterns.

• Got into a discussion about marketing which yielded to some concrete suggestions (e.g., making & marketing mini-handbooks, posting snippets on Twitter)

• Should we have a spin off group working on marketing? The “funnel” factor. -> Look at the central page and if it’s working as a destination. This could influence the way we build a central website (or other “landing pages” or “dashboards.”)

• Can’t please everyone, but have these different stuff out there, different groups can hook in.

• “Content marketing is a good thing (and current hot topic in the white noise of info).” Give value before asking/receiving.

• Learned about perspectives on marketing

• We changed our understanding of the roadmap based on the fact we are now trying to do one

• Recalling that we’re abiding by specific requirements in the Futures paper to work w/ their readership’s expectations.

• We identified our “outlets” - print, ebook, twitter/social media, email, one-on-one.

• Create spin off groups: marketing, technical, with frequent shared wraps (& monthly larger meetup?).

• Pick brain of “predictable revenue” author who Vitor knows — we could bring her in on the podcast for a mini-tutorial

• Be mindful of the value of diverse voices (us as individuals with different skills/outlooks within peeragogy) leading to a common mission (peeragogy).

Work on our last review of the paper

Same as before we are making progress on the paper Met a new person in Giuliana who had awesome ideas & questions Realized we need to answer More questions from the intro

Went great getting new perspectives with Giuliana Becoming even more fluid, our discussion and onboarding of new people Her presence gave us fresh perspective, rich example of how newcomer can come & enrich the discussion Example of how we can try to make peeragogy more accessible to new people

Best learning mode for peeragogy might be experience (peeragogy in action) Learned more about newcomers

Promote our hive editing videos more as examples of collective mind In action seconds of hire editing in action so person can see what its about Can we use this PAR method to write the conclusion, make sure we answer questions in introduction

Refine & coordinate the points we make in the article Figure out whether we’re doing an example Put the action review in the paper

Dialogue between Ray, Hermano, Charlie, Charlotte, and Joe “Hive editing” of the EXAMPLE box A lot about all the topic in our paper as we keep discussing them, e.g., the Delphi method

Discussed putting the action review in the paper Hermano is a recent addition to our group but has become fully involved & has an intuitive understanding what we’re trying to achieve & fresh, valuable, input This is more fun than a normal co-authoring event Regular meetings w/ a time limit

Lots of ideas and talking over one another but there is an intuitive sense of when we need to step back and let someone speak - safe place to share your ideas versus other places where trolls will criticize some people’s ideas Chaotic ideas w/ intuitive sense of when someone needs to express themselves The environment fosters sharing of opinions, developed (and emerging) positions Trolls don’t jump on you!

Do a PAR at the end about the whole article Review and refine all Pars Delphi + Englebart action item for Charlie Film one of the hive editing sessions and point out this is what

Wanted to make a podcast w/ Howard & Bryan

Open a pool of questions in advance, "Here's a place to post questions."

To leave a way to reach the speakers

Encourage people to follow guests on social media

Have guests say how they can follow them

To know more about Howard's work follow up...

We used Streamyard... using a livestreaming platform

Vitor: also if we do in google meet or some other and host that in StreamYard we can do subtitles

We went over 5 minutes

Lisa: Getting used to Zulip w/o it being overwhelming

Charlie: I had / could have a role of responding to comments natively in each channel (e.g., FB, other channels)

Charlotte: Yes it's great to have someone doing these native platform comments.

"Who would you like to see next?" — we might have some ideas (even in advance of the podcast)

E.g., "Obama" — Hey Mr Obama, a list of the best questions, make a video, we post it to continue the experience.

Lisa: It worked out OK

Comments: Trolling being collab posted up to all simulcasting places (vs every place)

Do it on a specific channel - YouTube, LinkedIn, or

Good to gather the ideas (subject to carrying capacity) — And how — "Hands-on" or "Hands-off"

We are getting this format down pretty well.

This is the "Calm Horse" not the "Feisty Horse"...

If we can get materials in hand one week before... — They did provide head shots... this was much easier than chasing people

It's like inviting guests — if they want to bring a side dish, that's OK! — ASKING them what their handles are, what they want us to use... it would be more organic to use whatever channels they want to use.

Need to show them an example (scaffolding) of what can happen on that basis

Howard retweeted announcement

Maybe a roundtable would work better

We should have referenced Marty McFly back to the future!

It's a lot of work to get the 2 speakers in

We have the set questions; do we want to be open to a "round-table" at the end?

We tried to keep it to 30 mins; we could certainly do a separate round table. (want to be careful not to roll too many things into one episode)

Make sure expectations match what happens

Process of setting this, looking around for things we can do on their behalfs

Have small, medium or large editions

Large - if they have an hour do a roundtable with Editor

Extensive verbal questions not a good idea, let comments come in through the form

Add how to follow to show notes

Revisit the checklist to update

For some people it could be good to have a Google Meet plugin. quicc.io does something like this — uploads live video & creates them automatically. (Useful esp. for international audience.)

Joe: get an idea and take it and do something separate, e.g., Howard could have taken idea of paragogy and do something, but he also could have done it without us involved

Get down our current approach for a while

How to be cautious with people who e.g. don't know each other yet, who haven't done lots of these things...

Maybe a pre-planning meeting useful for people who haven't done this before (but not everyone wants to do this)

Vitor has a podcast plan

Mashup Vitor's with checklist— we can compare @Charlie Danoff will add an AOB for December

Joe Noorah and Leo wanted to convene a meeting with interested parties in Emacs+Research Address longstanding worry about "wait until next year" Part of a greater sense of trying to do something with EmacsConf to federate the community

Met for an initial 70 minute meeting (via Zoom) Everyone shared a brief intro and ideas so we got to know each other Joe took notes via screenshare... we all took notes (as academics)

Cameron: We are meeting for the first time so there’s a lot of intro information We generally agreed that we want to make something that exposes intrinsic value of using these tools Vaguely agreed on follow-up directions, this seems to be a general consensus, often with full agreement (e.g. on testing and making a collaborative Org Roam work, to further cement as tool for collective thinking in combination w/ individual) David: there are ways I could help out with extra elisp, helping figure out a package, intro elisp workshop Joe: Leo did an amazing job facilitating the meeting Ray: I was impressed by the diversity of the group in background & levels of use

We can do this! We feel empowered Wonderful outcome from attending EmacsConf 2020! Public Policy conference: (How to get a grant?)

Ongoing dialogue Maybe with breakout groups Need for governance for this; getting public, taking time we need going forward Many actions need to be taken forward but we have too many right now: maybe this should be the next objective to pick a good viable project to go after now Can set up a shared Org Roam + Firn instance: do we want to use this? Can work have something similar w/in Org Roam Someone to schedule the next meeting... accomodate UTC+8, maybe use BBB; Leo will publish scheduler

Solidify our group Have more time to talk Prune some of the good ideas

Discussed, came with notes from last week

Having a better way to have a garden of notes LV: Thinking I was speaking a lot JC: Leo had a bit of crackle LV: wants to try to give voice Telephone interface perspective — others may want to join by phone Jitsi could be an opportunity BBB has some extra features? FSF controls. You need to be a sponsor of FSF to use their Jitsi, but not sure if they support phone calls David: thanks for being patient w/ me as non-researcher answering my questions about Org Roam!

"Emacs Research Group" "How to support transdisciplinary research?" 1-to-1 tutorials as way to go forward Learning about Org Roam AUS-ERG to coord w/ as we go forward

Could switch moderator role from time to time? Can also have Leo be ongoing moderator if he’s up for that! David’s tutorial material will be ready to look at NA: Will want some help to set up + use the tech Many can look into the Logseq/OR/Firn ecosystem Meeting w/ Jethro can be challenging (but worth it) Leo, please follow up w/ JC about paper! Meta-review of PARs later? DOT+LV, looking at Peeragogy book Allow up to 2 hours to discuss? — But we will put all the key things in 1st hour Use David’s 1-to-1 as a template Schedule further 1-to-1s for January? Meeting 19th — followed by break