Of course. Thank you so much.

I just started using it. I was just poking with the settings. I wanted to have this conversation before I bring in others.

I did, yeah.

We’ll do some side-by-side comparisons of the experience. That’s what we’ll do over the next two months.

Maybe we can send some of them invitations and see how it’s like from their perspective to enter into a policy discussion on Workplace instead of on the Join platform or instead of on the Discourse platform, which we currently use.

We are also designing an experience of setting up a discussion forum-like thing for one of the national policies, and we’d have an external stakeholder group.

It’s good if we want to bring people from the Institute for Information Industries, for example.

I think what’s the value in Sandstorm is mostly this shared notification thing, and that’s not the easiest thing, as a bot, to do. If you have any beta integrations...

As you can see, all this is open source, and we depend very heavily, at the moment in the team, for the task and the chat, which, of course, you have a counterpart. And spreadsheet and document, of course I understand you have Google Docs integration and Dropbox-ish fast storage ...

There are things like the Trello clone, the WeKan here, that we depend on.

If we’re migrating from this, we would really need to have some way to either keep those apps running, but in a different container, in a different shell, or we can redo the integrations in a way that enables easy deployment of all the people who actually use it.

This is Sandstorm.io. The idea, of course, is that as you did, to solve SSO authentication, compliance, whatever. People just focus on writing whatever apps, without getting proper security training, because the platform actually takes care of the sandboxing and everything. This is, literally, our workspace.

This is what we are working at, at the moment. This is our Intranet, literally.

The other thing is whether this is actually useful as a solidarity-building organizational tool, rather than the public Facebook, where it often devolves into flame wars and things like that.

The board previously expressed quite a few concerns. All the privacy and end-to-end issues, I already brought up.

For the Internal Join case, the board is actually independent. We have one seat in it, but it’s one of 17 people, nine of which are from a public drawing from the entire civil service. We’ll have to, of course, run this over the board and see if the board ...

More seriously, the service that you provide the launch preparation for the specific departments. How does that work?

Once everybody has Oculus Go, it makes very little sense not to have it part of the business.

I assume the VR Spaces thing will be part of the Workplace?

I know, yes.

There’s no personal wall.

Yeah, sure.

Awesome. That’s great.

That’s great.

Appreciate it.

Bye-bye.

You too.

Thank you so much.

The video and the transcript, once it’s done, of course.

It’s true. OK. I’ll publish the video and also make a transcript if that’s OK with you. We can just edit it over the next 10 days or so. All right. Best luck on your gathering.

Time really flies. Are you comfortable with me just publishing the video?

All right. That’s all I have. Wow. It’s an hour.

It’s really nice to have this conversation. I miss Paris a lot. That’s the only thing I’d like [laughs] to say, and I look forward to visit either in flesh or as a robot to the new place.

The fact that they are now willing to vote this kind of cases means also that they feel more confident in this kind of methods, so that’s how it’s working here.

So we’re being handed more challenging cases in the past few months. That also means the career public servants trust this method more because previously they were more inclined to just suggest cases that involved only digital issues or things that they know there’s less to lose.

Again, this is a classical environmentalist versus local livelihood debate that many people think is an either-or, but we still think there is room for creative solutions.

Next month, we will also go to the only public national park for marine species in Taiwan and where people, again, argues for putting a ban on fishing in an area in exchange for more diversity and better diving and other tourism inputs.

We believe there is still room for ideation and for creative solutions. We’ll find out whether it actually works or not end of this month.

That was the classic case. I remember when I had an interview with Amaëlle Guiton, she said that that’s one of the classic cases that there’s just no room for compromises, it’s an either-or thing.

We’re now being handed more and more challenging cases. At the end of this month, we will finally meet 工鬥, the Worker’s Solidarity Struggle Union, who argue for seven more national holidays.

We resolve many regional cases this way also. We’re actually going to the most rural areas and even offshore islands and try to get people into this kind of deliberative meetings without learning any digital tools, because it’s the meeting itself being digitized using what we call ambient computing rather ...

Using this strategy, we see a lot of public servants now proposing creative ideas that may be have only 20 percent chance of succeeding. Then PDIS collaboratively make it a higher chance of succeeding, but the motivation is there because they know that if it works, it’s their credit. If ...

It goes well, then the attribution, the credit is actually to not just the ministry, but actually to the career public civil servant themself. Because through radically transparent records, everybody can see who is the one that actually proposed this wonderful idea.

Meaning that if a public servant decide to run this process, it’s an experimental process. They can always justify saying, "It’s the Digital Minister doing experiment." PDIS just absorbs the risk. If it goes wrong, it’s all Audrey’s fault basically.

Because of the mainstreaming, now the people can say, "The Digital Ministry just does it every Friday." There’s much less uncertainty, and the fear over risk-taking is also much lowered because instead of blame-avoiding and credit-seeking, I adopted the reverse strategy. I’m blame-seeking and credit-avoiding.

What mainstreaming does, I think, is it lowers the fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Because the uncertainty about the process was the main reason why people don’t adopt this kind of process in the first place, or doesn’t adopt digital tools in the first process, because they were not certain that ...

Generally, people can trust the government to talk about things seriously if they bring people to the platform. That happens very predictably.

There’s more than 20 different collaboration strategies we’ve run now, every single one involved more than 5,000 people. The whole society is aware of it. Taiwan is 23 million people, I think 4 million people are now on the Join.gov.tw platform, the participant platform, which is a really good penetration ...

This is what we call mainstreaming of participation, because previously they see it as something they have to do extra work for. Now, it’s just something that happens every Friday. It just takes them an afternoon’s time to prepare, because people have so much experience.

I think one of the focus at the moment is to make this kind of deliberative or participative process even less expensive than before. During 2015, when we did the Uber case, it was a one-shot case. It’s really expensive, we put lots of hours into it. What we’re doing ...