First Weekly Meeting, 8th of November 2017


On today’s call was Frode Hegland, Adam Cheyer, Bruce Horn, Sam Hahn, Mark Anderson, Marc Webber, Houria Iderkou, Stanley Gould.



  • How are we going to work to decide what we should build?
  • What should we build?
  • We need to agree on basic protocols for our interaction.


Agreements & To Do

  • We agreed that the meetings should continue to be held weekly.
  • Meetings will be recorded and shared publicly when text, not recorded and publicised audio.
  • We further agreed that we shall support Jonathan with the Augment project.
  • We agree we will probably show many demos on the day.
  • We agree to try to make one new demo collaboratively as well.
  • We agree to use Google Docs for collaborative writing during meetings.
  • We agree that we should all write a top list of Doug features to implement, using and other pages for sources.



Our Trello Board:

Notes from Call

Bruce: How can this be done if it’s not for money 🙁 also mentions Computing in the Middle Ages

Adam: Refers to research back in the early days but they were expected to become business.

Frode: ‘Sapiens‘ also points out how research has always had a commercial, political or religious agenda. Can we demonstrate an idea that’s big enough to deserve investment?

Mark: Small changes could change the way people contribute or organise information.

Chris: Products don’t play well together Facebook etc.

Sam: SO I also agree with a lot of these dynamics… BUT… are we going to discuss what we are to DEMO on 2018/120/9/ or … ?? Sorry to be curmudgeonly…

Chris: A demonstration not a defenestration.

Stan and Marc: Agrees we can make what to do on the day the urgent complex problem. Build to this.

Sam: Can we put something together like an issue-based netowrk for 2018

Chris: I have a working demonstration for discovering data from organisations using the network with no authority other than DNS… although it’s very early days. It’s not quite 2 way communication, but enables some of the dreams of the early web.

Mark A: yes what would it be?

Marc W: Adam and Gruber talk about AI and Doug’s work

Adam: My brother Jonathan worked for a few years to get an original version of Augment running, along with chord set, etc. He used an image from Doug’s computer and worked with Doug to filter out all personal content, leaving everything else. The intent was to put it in the public domain (working with the CHM I believe). I’m sure it doesn’t work any more, but with a year to prepare, perhaps we can persuade him to get it working again and then find a person familiar with the commands to run a live demo of Augment… He was almost all the way through the process of getting the releases necessary to launch in public domain, I wonder if we could pick up that from a legal perspective, and actually allow a download of Augment for future generations to explore.

Chris: My areas of expertise are open access research + open data services (separately, but they should be combined!):

Stans thoughts: MOAD50 – Past > Present > Future:

Sam: we need a system that by Dec 2018 shows several months of usage that threads together claims, platforms, lies, alternate facts, reporting, etc… so that there is actual usaful content in it for review by 2018 Dec.

Chris: Yup. Shoulders of giants etc.

Chris: Are these calls recorded? Can we have a policy on the text conversation? (– I think it should be published but people can request things expunged) Frode: No.

Chris: The most important goal is to inspire the next Doug Engelbart

Sam: I would want a few hundred 20-25 yo’s realize they can TOGETHER create the next BIG DEMO… not as a solo work… To be Engelbartian

Mark A: Also interesting (if showing old system) to reflect briefly on things not yet implemented from original idea.

Chris: Might not work in the PR sense. (designed and implemented (open access repo for university research)

Stan points to document above. Build personal information environments.

Adam: Do you think we should define a single thing to build together, or rather have a series of short demos by people who have built things that have been inspired by Doug’s work? Frode could present Liquid, Chris, I could show Collaborama or Viv, etc?

Sam: I think we don’t have time or will to organize a SINGLE EFFORT… becauseu we each have worthy ones…
I suggest we create a confederation of demos, and find opportunities to draw them into a larger context / tapestry opportunistically…

Adam: not enough time most likely and too many different ideas

Chris: I would like to be able to easy pull data from multiple sources, and visualise and analyse it in a way that understands the risks and errors that could involve and gives me both a result and an understanding of how to interpret it, so that anybody can answer new questions well without years of training, or risk of using incompatible or flawed data. 🙂 Tools that allow humans to use technology to discover and recognise truth.

Frode: Points to and asks about what can we do on wordpress?

Chris: Could we just all build tools that help people like us build shared tools !? (joking, but maybe that’s a real problem right there)

Marc W: Problems with linking

Timur: Confederation of demos is OK. What we will do with corresponding projects or doubles

Houria: WordPress too limited.

Chris: Is it really quality and quantity of links that are our problem? Or is it filtering them!?

Sam: What is the new paradigm? What are the new ‘primitives’?

Frode: WordPress? Chris, Marc – generally yes but hmm…

Houria: What would you yourself want?

Chris: You are now responsible for solving the immediate difficult problems of the world. Given unlimited budget; what tools would you ask to be created to support this task?

Sam: During meeting: is better than gDocs (for real time note taking shared) (Group says no)

Chris: Hmmm. Deeply addressable wordpress… (starts thinking…)






  1. A couple of suggestions: First, in addition to Jonathan’s effort in reviving NLS or Augment, I would also ask Ken Harrenstein to participate. I understand Ken is one of those most familiar with that code, having tried to resuscitate it some years ago. Christine probably knows as much as anyone about that.

    Second is how to bring some focus into what are bound to be long and continuing discussions. This is just a suggestion and no more, but also a way to think of the celebration itself. I think it is useful and lucid to think of three areas to guide our discussions, planning, and perhaps division of effort: 1) What did Doug and his team demonstrate either at the MOAD or perhaps beyond, aiming to bring to life as much of that as possible, 2) What of Doug’s vision was never realized, either in his mind or in a more absolute sense, and can that shortfall be demonstrated today, and 3) What of the future, striving to meet his original expectations or natural extensions of them or even something more bold? Shorthand would be repeating HISTORY, pondering COMPLETION, and forecasting a PROJECTION. Do these adequately span the expectations before us?

  2. I love these categories Don, I’ll repost and link to this. I think we should have different groups working on the different level is my comment at this point.

    Are you able to invite Ken Harrenstein into this conversation BTW?

  3. Don, I am particularly focused upon your category #3, and you ask the crucial question: “Do these adequately span the expectations before us?”
    We are coming back together because of Frode’s tremendous and tireless work. Frode had proposed that the 2018 event be both a MOAD celebration of Doug’s inspiration and works, while also tapping our collective capabilities to collaboratively define and specify a major MOAD-scale contribution to humanity (to be built in 2019+) as a legacy tribute to his memory and an inspiration to today’s next-generation MOAD developers.
    Don has raised the crucial question, which I interpret as elucidating our diverse interests, then asking each group member, how would you personally like to interact with the group throughout 2018. From that crucial feedback we can begin meaningful discussions about how to structure group factions to optimize our personal ROIs from participation.
    Who is interested in participating in “something” next year?

Leave a Comment