You probably want to contact him.

You’ll want to contact Whisky Chang, of course.

You’re probably already in touch with the Open Culture Foundation.

We do that here too. (開源 instead of 開放原始碼)

It doesn’t dilute. It’s open, including API and source code.

What about "open processes?"

Basically, instead of saying "process as commons", do we say "common processes"...

Yes. What would you call it?

It’s like intellectual "property."

Yeah, it’s a shift in the human condition.

Sure, it’s network effect taken to extreme on any particular field.

Yeah, plus you get scalable surveillance for free.

That’s right.

It’s about we stop playing zero‑sum games with a competing mindset.

The only thing new is the portable GPS device.

It’s a non‑discriminating marketplace.

On top of it, it removes non‑artificial scarcity, because it’s an enabler of many other sectors.

Because it removes artificial scarcity.

Yeah, I agree.

That’s exactly right.

Then there’s at least a foundation on which the other side is built.

That’s right. I think we need about five generations to get there.

It’s more of culture and education.

That’s fine.

Yeah, it satisfied one pillar of an a working open government, transparency.

Oh, OK. Just a second. OK, right. "Open data is necessary, but not sufficient."

Which one?

This one?

Yeah, sure.

No, it’s fine. I’ve got it. [laughs]

Just to finish this one sentence. Then we get incentive for governments to fund infrastructure work, because now it’s part of democracy infrastructure, not just IT infrastructure. That’s my main thought.

This process needs to be trusted by people. Otherwise, we have another voting machine crisis. Technology is part of democratic process.

With the Pol.is system. Then we can go back to the Process as Commons idea, saying, "You know, the reason we get this to work is because we have this democracy‑enabling infrastructure in the commons. So we need to invest to bring Pol.is on Sandstorm, and you can call it ...

[laughs] What I’m saying is that doing this work, for example for Uber, we used this open‑source platform...

This consultative process gives legitimacy to the government‑initiated policies for things like Uber, which is basically a PR, or what I like to say, a memetic issue. If we don’t get this kind of transparent and accountable process, Uber will automatically seem more legitimate, just because they have better marketing. ...

Yes, but I trust citizens more, which is why we’re doing this consultative process.

It’s true... [laughs]

But what I’m saying is that, they get the same kind of legitimacy as even the UN has, because they conduct all their business in a transparent way.

Sure, sure, sure. I understand. IETF is not an open government organization, either.

One of the ways to fix that is to adopt the ICANN, IETF kind of a multistakeholder model, an open governance based on discourse...

I don’t have time to get into details, but the whole idea is that the government does have an incentive in establishing legitimacy, which is getting the policy‑making process as transparent as possible, so that people won’t see the government itself as a black box and go to the streets; ...

Which is the incentive alignment problem, because then it’s not seen as crucial to government’s core promise to their people. What we’re trying to do here is to, is the idea that I am trying to introduce, what we call "Process as Commons."

That’s right.

Of course.

Well, governments are monopolists of violence...

But for government, the incentive is not the same. For Google and Apple, supporting commons like this is a net cost‑saver for them, and actually a huge one.

...is clearly in Apple’s interest. Otherwise, they’d have to develop the same stack themselves, which is not a very interesting kind of work.

For Apple to open‑source Swift, for Apple to donate to OpenSSL or WebKit or whatever, there’s a clear incentive alignment, because then Apple don’t have to maintain this whole thing anymore. Then subsidizing one or two core members to maintain interoperability...

As I see it, this is an incentive non‑alignment here, especially for the public sector. People made similar pitches to Apple, and I used to work with Apple ‑‑ until just four months ago ‑‑ for six years as an independent contractor.

Yes, sure. I agree 100 percent. I’m a long‑time donor to the Software Freedom Conservancy. I was at your position [laughs] arguing for the same things.