So Hi there. Hello.

Right. Yes. But maybe to make it very short, I always thought since I was a child I would be a poet and apparently it's not not quite there yet. But actually if you want a little, secret, I was a young poet champion in France some time ago, but then that drove me to say, well, I need to be an artist if I can be a poet. So then I I thought I need to do study art, and then I've studied arts, at the art school in design and communication. And this is how I got into, you know, video editing and then slowly into documentary filmmaking, and this is basically where my head started, exploded on, you know, the amount of money people who want to provide information to others needs to pay to public archives or to private archives if you want to talk about anything about something that has been recorded or something historical like civil war, second war. You need to pay for any second of these archives you want to have in your documentary. And this is where I started thinking. So let's isn't there a solution to open up more, like, you know, think about the comments of knowledge? And then this is where I I basically learned about, you know, open licensing, and then met, like, crazy guys. By the time I was in Berlin, I pick I pick, I remember Florian Kramer. He was the first about talking about codes and poetry. So codes as poetry is basically where I, you know, I derived into code and civic tech, which is probably something we've been talking about. But, you know, I'm not a technology technology determinist from the start. I'm basically thinking that art based methodology are the best to create dialogue, even, like, deal with conflicts and create democracy. So this is basically where I come into civic tech, but, really, my training is, humanities. Right now, that would be something associated with data humanities and and deliberation, something like that. This is my dream was not really true, but, you know, I do I do, you know, political, poetry somehow sometimes to express myself to talk about our work. So for you know, forgive me if I if I speak in rhymes and all these bullshit, but, you know, let's make it fun.

Maybe. Maybe I get back to it because tomorrow, there's an eclipse, and where I'm standing in, in the Balearic Island now, this is the best spot to see it. So probably I will be blinded by, you know, the norm the the the black lights tomorrow and the eclipse and, like, change you know, tomorrow maybe we can speak again, and I'm I'm I'm back to poetry. Obscure poetry being the trying to be the emperor of democracy. I don't think it would work. Anyway, so, but but anyway, now now may maybe just to, you know, geographically, I mentioned I was really influenced by the scene in Berlin. But this is basically when I met Susanna, and we found it together, and she was into, occupation and alternative, economies in Barcelona. And this is because of love, this is the best excuse in the world to do, you know, to work on democracy. I just moved to Barcelona, and it's then six that was the second exploding moment for me, because of the light the quality of light, but also the fact that all our TV was happening on the streets and not in bunkers like in Berlin. So this is basically, you know, platonic at the end of the day is a bit of a mix of the two culture of Susanna and me together. And, at the beginning, actually, we wanted to be, an independent label because by the time we were doing Internet radio, which is really old already. And then we thought we need an Internet label. So we did lots of projects around, like, using, you know, music or digital labels, as a vehicle to talk about, how, you know, the the the effects of patterns, of patterns and, and and copyright on society and on dialogue. So this is basically where all these interest for us on developing technology, which basically was a kind of a, we call this burn station. It was basically a sound system that moved in the street with, like, computers where people could copy music. We had, like, free licensed music, and we had, like, lots of, live acts and then talking about, you know, patents on on health, you know, all that kind. So music and art in general is the best. For me, it's the best vehicle to to bring in or to deal with conflict, to deal with polarized positions. And this is how we came into work working also on on free software technology. So we always have been developing, our own tech and started as a way of learning because Susanna is a is a learner. She's a hacker and a harness learner. So this is basically the way we approach technology by by creating small open source tech with different communities and see if that would work. And at at some point, we created Goteo, which is an alternative funding platform, in Spain, and it it it took it took up. So this is basically where we started designing, like, next CIUs, let's say CIUs open source technology. And, this is basically how we came into into developing technology with with a meaning, let's say.

That's, actually a great question and and probably not the best name. We should maybe thought about being Socratic, you know. It would be more more even more fun. But, anyway, I can deal with the myth of the car. It's, we won't talk about that today. But, basically, platonic would, the foundation was at the intersection of, let's say, participation, civic technology, culture, social innovation, and democratic experimentation, I would say. And, basically, what what we're trying to do is creating more and more communities for citizens to participate, while people think that they have less and less political agencies. So we pay we we kind of have a bridge between, institution and grassroots movement. So we build platforms. We we love consultations, but, we love citizen assemblies, but we see the limits and the obstacles of them. So we're trying to redesign all this from a a more, you know, intersectional point of view. We could talk probably about that a little bit more. So, yes, we have increasingly sophisticated data on my technologies and our tools. So, yeah, that that's the issue. And we are basically a foundation. There's a reason for it because we shall be we're part of the social and solidarity economy. We shall be a cooperative, but in fact, we need it to be a foundation because of that Coteo platform we created, which is basically it's kind of a you know, we we call it the trojan crowdfunding as the trojan horse of the comments. So we use the standard of crowdfunding just to finance social impact projects and and project that we're we're building or retrieving or or protecting, an intangible tangible physical and digital comments. And by the time we were thinking and designing, the old statement statement or mission for it, we thought, yeah. Well, if now I know because I must say it could still happen in, in by the time that the, you know, 2008, we started to design it. And this is basically what what by the time we had, like, a a big crisis of, financing social and and political projects. Also, like, microcredit is at the at the bank that used to finance social projects where basically completely dry and ending. So we thought we needed tool to bid to and this is basically how we we started building Goodyear, but we thought if, you know, now we we basically 100%, pending on citizen supporting commerce project and the public, you know, the the public administration is not part of it. It's not really fair. So we thought, you know, at least whenever someone is financing or helping financing a project, if I take an end of it euros, if if I have this economic capacity and supporting a project in Barcelona, basically, we did a little hack, and this is why we are a foundation. You get 80% of the money back from from the, state, which is basically a little hack with the more you invest and the more you donate in GoToel, the more you get back from the state and then, you know, if you keep on doing that, I think it's a it's a nice, little hack. So I think, you know, I should also take care of what I'm saying publicly because, you know, it's a it's a very nice hack, but, you know, we also under lots of threats, from especially right wings, govern right wings parties and governments right now, and extreme right, just because of the the success of the tool, because we we we have, raised, almost 25 millions for political projects. Some of them are about, you know, you know, basically, you know, paying for, what, solidarity, cases. You know? So some some groups have been, as an example, have been, basically have to pay a lot of money because they were striking. So we just basically repay. And we also sometimes litigate against government for the project, so which is, you know, puts us in the position that we do institutional participation, but sometimes we're also conscious that, you know, there's still some obscurity that needs to be put in the light in the public administration. That's also why I'm an active member of the board of a Northern Foundation called CVO. They do, civic, let's say journalism, and they litigate against governments. So they they have a few cases that are really some case studies for, I would say, in Europe at least. So they won't they won a case against the government, that Spanish government that didn't release the code of, Costco, which is inactive, which is a which is a a basically a tool to determine if people on the vulnerable conditions can access, a bonus, you know, something like a cheaper, energy, and and the the code was not released and it's public code. So, that's an example of litigation from, civil society that creates precedence for others to to build that. So I think that's important that you you money is is some of the the main obstacle that civic society has to build more, you know, grassroots incidents or or or advocacies. This is basically what we call advocacy.

Yeah. For sure. I I would say the CDM is one of the other example, and, actually, it's, it's also important to mention both hotel and the city in Athens, in Barcelona, which is a city which has a long tradition of, you know, like free schools if you took, like, national school during the second civil war. And that's not something disconnected from the fact that an open source technology for participation such as Goteo or Desilim is built in that environment because the culture is basically also teaching lines of codes for us. You know? It's basic almost like automatic writing. The code should be responsible for, you know, empowerment of society and the people using it. So I think it's it's pretty interesting. So what I've seen, of course, by the adoption of this team by more than 500 instances, governments, cooperatives around the world makes it something to be considered by the commission as a tool to be reused and adapted. So it's also used for, all these, European cities and assemblies. So I think it's interesting to to mention that the civic tech is growing under, you know, the progressive governments, but now we are really we're facing a threat, on how this shall be involved involved. So we you know? And I think sustainability is a is an issue here. So if government stops, financing a tool like the CMO or public civic type, we'll have a great issue. Right? So, will the community be self sustainable? It's not quite sure. Yes. And then we need to enter in another debate which we will not have today. How what is the cost of such a technology? So by the time a government is feeding it, you know, you can allow, you know, working with a language that is on the market, very expensive. But it's not a problem if you're a public entity. It could be. But if you're a grassroots community, then that comes an issue. So are we talking about civic tech, open code, but to do is the code approach or the approach to the code democratic enough? So that would mean now it's much cheaper to develop Goetheo because it's mostly PHP, and it's much more expensive to develop any, you know, tricks, you know, any new modules on on on the city. So that's basically why we also do lots of very opening projects to to be able to provide some innovation and and feeding, the city back, you know, from a from from a more community approach, but through European funding because it's not easy to yeah. You know? That's something to consider. So for me, the debate is about, like, being open is not maybe the first thing we'd have to define, but it's like being democratic and then the we look at the open technology that is the most democratic to do that.

Yeah. Basically, what, I'm really interested in in these days, we have, we we run this project called democracy, which is about training, the youth facilities of, you know, citizen assemblies or grassroots assemblies in the future. It's based on art based methodology as I was mentioning in the in the beginning, like, theater. Something Something interesting that could interest you, and we need some support for this. We basically, we call it dramatization as democratic inquiry. So, we were using a lot of legislative theater and social drama, more than engagement techniques that are analogical. You know, there are methods of inquiry, and what we're trying to do is how would the digitalization of these methods would look like, which is really like really like physical space based and interaction. So how can we make this, you know, the scene, in digital theater or in sociodrama? The stage is something really important. So how can the civic tech platform can be a stage? So we're working on on adaptation of the. We're actually, we'll be releasing a distribution of which is that if we had a deciline. So we, like, clean the deciline that is cleaned up and adapted to this. If we had a participatory policy making in general. So, basically, my obsession is it is going from, what we call, like, affect to digital participation, I would say. So this basically, where we where we at. And if you look at civic tech precisely, I'm on, researching and designing what we call political user experience. So, you know, that's, so Pux. And this is basically something we've been reading reports on it, and it's basically very matching platforms like almost like a city. Like, you would navigate a city or you you like, citizen would basically meet up in a school or meet up wherever in a in a factory by the time of the secondary republic. You know? All that idea that the platform should allow people to navigate the space they feel comfortable with, safe, but also, like, feel like, you know, this is exactly the architecture I'm living in. So it's not a flat, interface with lots of, you know, box to fill with text because basically this is what policy making is, you know, providing text to to be dignified by policy makers to adopt that. And this is basically something we're trying to push back or avoid. So what about, like, nondiscursive participation? What about, you know, audio participation? What about you know, that this is a a lot of, there's there's a whole, universe to from our base methodology to bring onto, platform like. So, we we wrote about it, so I'm happy to share with whoever listened to this podcast more and more and more detailed, definition of what, you know, political user experience shall be.

Yes. And, yeah, actually, I was basically mentioning affect. You know? So what is the emotional connection of people or citizens to democracy? Is there any? So it's basically how can we recreate affect with democracy and then with you talking about citizen assemblies and, I'm a big defender sometimes in the, you know, in the facilitation world is not very welcome. I'm a big facilitator, defender of enclave deliberation. So basically starting with the most affected by the topic of an assembly. And, of course, this will bring you to, identifying which communities are already active dealing with certain topic that, you know, this typical topic that are sensible and a politician would not, take as a starter for a citizen assemblies like racism, gender violence, or even like the management of trash in a city. It's not it's almost none, institutional citizen assemblies that deal with it. Nevertheless, I think the agenda should be defined by the most affected. So, my question is how do we make people, let's say, feel that democracy has something to do with them again but not with them individually with them individually and collectively so what has democracy done actually to deserve people's trust that's the real question not much not only their trust, their attention and their emotional investment. You know? Because you have not you've seen lots of citizen assembly happening. Lots of recommendation being voted, prioritized, but not adopted or implemented yet. So, you know, that's that's a big, bottleneck there. So democratic can not only produce rational legitimacy, I would say. It also needs to reconstitute what we might call, like, effective legitimacy. So, my the question is, like, if I had a claim that start with the most affected always, depending on the topic, even climate change, look at who needs really climate refugees in the city like. Start creating a mandate for an assembly where you have the rest of the population coming in. But I think it's very important that, you know, avoiding that experts formulate the question. They should only help people affected formulate the questions a little bit better, or less activities to tone, let's say. So but we ask what skill, the project we ask, what if the people most affected entered before the question or the mandate has been decided? This is basically what I see. So in in here, you don't need much technology. I haven't talked about technology. I think that's I think the the the idea of migrant community discussing borders and the right to the city, people experiencing, housing insecurity discussing housing policy. This should happen first and then create the mandate for a more representative business to happen. This is something we we we're trying to to provide. So, of course, probably, this could be a tool, for community to self organize and and claim for such a a a an incidence, but this is also where we need to help and make sure that, you know, institutions are aware that, there's this red zone of topics that they will never treat, and they shall. Otherwise, there will no be no, legitimation or effective reconnection with democracy, I would say. So really, I'm I believe in enclave the enclave the deliberation to adjust us and agenda setting, and co designing the mandate. So this is basically what I think the mostly the the bottleneck of citizen assemblies are. And you talked also about self organization of citizens. I think that's a loss of a big opportunity in citizen assemblies. So, there has been many citizen assemblies. If in general, 100 citizens are selected, we might have a huge amount of citizens that already have felt, lived, understood what a citizen assembly is and could create and actually there's we're supporting also a federation of some of the citizen assembly members associations that the one in France in in has one in in Austria, has one in Spain from the climate assemblies. They come together and I think, you know, and and basically reclaim the role in expanding what happens in the citizen assemblies and going to school to explain what climate change might be and what, you know, participatory policymaking shall be. But in the world of professionals like the one I'm part of, they would be considered a new lobby so you can throw these ex members of city assemblies away. It's a bit exaggerated in what I'm saying, but I had these conversations with with professionals of my sector, which may which I entered in shock. Because I think digital citizen unions of ex members of city assemblies is the best to contaminate the rest of population. Because at the end of the day, there will be only 100 citizens selected. What about the rest? So there's be some kind of an emission. And then we can maybe have beyond technology and the technology we use, which are the physical space that are used in these citizen assemblies. You know? Usually, institution, the European Commission that I see in in Catalonia, I see in, you know, in in in in the French assemblies. You you know, it's always about bringing the citizens to the parliament. Thought that, citizens should choose their own space. You talk about climate change, go to the forest. You know? So I believe this is also a bottleneck of citizen assemblies. We the way we we're imagining that citizen should play the role of politicians for a certain amount of time and disappear. You know? So we should avoid that. I think they should contaminate all the especially the youth in schools. So what about like, you know, if you have had lots of national assemblies in France about climate change and in Spain, what about going in Spanish in a in a Catalan school and redimension the policy recommendation to a, you know, a word that kids know. So what about how this recommendation which is on the national level affects my river, the river that goes through the school, the the trash, the management of trash in my city. So there's lots of opportunity to bring, you know, that culture to to, you know, scaling deep as, people like scale them would say. It's about scaling deep, more than than than scaling abroad or or or reserve or, like, laterally. Yeah.

Yeah. But but once once they prioritize and and and adopted, you know, it should the mandate should be automatic, but that's the stage that usually I think for the French convention on on climate, we have lots of colleagues that wrote it written about it. It's quite documented, but it's not the case of all citizen assemblies in Europe. I think, basically, there's something that is not clear to most of the society is that these recommendations are dignified after the assembly. That means to be to to be you know, to to land on the, whoever administration technician in charge of developing it, they will ask for, you know, the dignified version of it. And in technification, again, there's a lose of the original meaning by the citizens. And it's not very well documented, so we should also take care that, you know, maybe AI is a nice way of saying, you know, if you have access to this technification moment and how the, proposals have been reformulated, then it's much more evident that you lose a lot of meaning and power in technification.

regarding A lot of them.

Yeah. I think the the the upper mass obsession of, basically neutralizing conflict and fine consensus. So there's lots of literature about how we can avoid that, you know, from Chantal Moore, for example. It's difficult also to bring that. But I think conflict is basically an activator of our creativity as citizens. That that basically allows us to go beyond the expert, knowledge that was presented to us as citizens. You know? So I I think finding the polarized views is something that should also be sometime discussed. And I saw these these these ideas of how can we rebalance the algorithm of sortition depending on discussion if it is an asset base. So there's not many cases about that, about documented about that. But, you know, you would imagine that at some point, instead of having if we're talking about vulnerable communities that are present around the room in the room, while the bat instead of having one of these community members in each of the table, take one table exclusively with these people together to leave it an enclave deliberation in the middle of a of a of a sortation process, deliberation kind of assembly. And I think that would also rebalance power, and interest. So I think that from there, probably, there would be more polarized views that if you consider our best methodology like digital theater, it would be easy to create empathy from the people who are on both sides. So, and and probably technology can also help you doing this, but that would not less be a a participatory methodology, but more a digital display where all like a broom. So we we have this project, using the city in Barcelona data, you know, on on climate, discussions in various processes where we see, identify, polarized issues, and then try to get them back in what we call an augmented deliberation space, where you basically talk to the most polarized, views or or presentence of these views, and they work together on seeing a series of materials from the other point of view and come to work again physically. And then, again, from this, process where we use nondiscursive, approach, people drawing together, people doing sociodorama to understand the position of the most effective. And then back, we take back this, discussion onto the the digital platform, and we're working on something like that. So extracting polarization from from data, make make it physical and see how much data visualization or experiment data visualization or or or non discussing methodology can help us building, like, you know, more more understanding, but not basically neutralize conflict by consensus. So it's something we that that should be worked out. So yeah.

One way Yeah. But there's there's only few few experiments that have been, and sometimes even with smaller groups, so not even an Android, that more on on mini publics. And and, I don't have the the the research in front of me, but, you know, it's pretty surprising that sometimes, you know, is these echo chambers, if they're physical, they are really different. If they make them diff physical in an assembly than online. You know, people looking at emotionally at at people's eyes, you know, it's all different conditions that civic tech would never bring. So I'm I believe that I believe is the best way to to work that out. So it's not like I you know, representativity should be coming back regularly, but we should move around these, these more, like and if you want to talk about affect, you need to realize, what you how what you're discussing is affecting people who are, you know, directly, involved. So probably maybe sometimes they're not in the room, but, you know, a good sortation algorithm would guarantee that probably there's a, you know, percentage that is reserved to, you know, the most affected in the assembly. That that would be enough to start with.

And, that's, yeah, that's a that's a good question, actually. But that's a text example. So do you you've seen the AgroMas machine. Again, I'm I'm I'm talking about probably partially a failed experiment just because of consensus, and we're trying to reproduce institutional deliberation. So now we we're building a a small, experiment called, grid. And it's basically we're trying to, create an an AI agent with different personalities, so a bit schizophrenic. And one of them is a joker with a facilitator from a society theater, was a kind of a provocative agent that would also stop you to use, him as an agent and saying you need to reflect on that, stopping the flow of, you know, your perfect companion for the deliberation that would be the machine. We don't want that. And then we have introduced a philosopher, and it's an agent we're feeding with scanned books from a collection of a colleague of mine who's a philosopher from forty years of collection. And this is basically how we're feeding, this this AI engine. And, of course, we have the deliberator, which looks a little bit much like the upper mass machine. So we're introducing the upper mass machine to see how it evolves in front of a legislative joker. But the idea of using this AI is to use it in physical space by the time we have people deliberating together. So it's a collective use of it. It's an individual one. And it basically helps you also to design, you know, mandates that have all these intersectional elements in consideration and of, you know, elements that we have been introducing, like design justice. So and and then all these literature about the, bottlenecks of AI that is also feeling the the agent to be self conscious about these limitations. And then we we as as a way of experimenting as part of Inspire project, so we have the radically dependent agent, which is on my one of our developer TV sets. So it's not even a computer. The AI agents runs on a very small, memory. And then we have the one that is more connected with the beast, like, OpenAI and see the different results. You know, it's very difficult so to close, your know the knowledge your knowledge base from OpenAI. You never know if it's completely independent. So but this is interesting. So each time we do, we have collective prompts running. We also have systematically an analysis that gets to us to see how much percentage of the, let's say, the corpus we fed the, AI agent with was used for the response and how much he had to identify what is type of knowledge that was missing from our own, corpus. And sometimes we allow then the agent to go to OpenAI and see this some some responses there. So we have the two experiments running at the same time, the one that is basically part of the beast and the one that is completely radically independent that is probably not sustainable because it takes more of time. So if you ask, like, what is democracy, then, you know, the TV set agent will last you know, we will will take more time, but it will be a 100% independent from any, previews, you know, bias that has actually been introduced by someone else. So this is how we we approach the the AI deliberation. It should be a collective use, not something that is used only to digest results. I I don't think that I mean, it's probably not the the most exciting news you can do. It's just facilitating, you know, institutional work, but it's you know? If yeah. I I would rather probably use AI to basically activate people's creativity, during a series of assembly. That could be something. That's the also the idea of our of our grid agent. Yeah. And and yeah.

or Exactly. It's just one more participant. Yeah. And so and sometimes we bring him onto, you know, as a more facilitated role. And people are also using it collectively to organize, to design a mandate. So that you know, it's it's something we we're still, discussing and, with our Inspire project colleagues, but shall be presented into the web when we're happy with the results. It but it may be only, you know, an an internal so we haven't released the agent yet, because it wouldn't make sense if we if we, you know, if we're not happy with with the result. It's more of an experiment of learning how these AI agents work. So what is the best way of learning is filling your own, which is basically a very simple hacker, principle that should be always applied. So this is basically what we do. So, it's about also, like, what's the opportunity for technological severity in AI work? Not not easy to to answer. And then how much of, you know, of of data would we need or how much? So right now, we're quite happy with a smaller amount of data, and then we have prepared, like, sets of data that are only activity depending on the topic of where we use it. So if it's about, like, you know, frontiers migration or if it's about trash management, we have presets. So we're avoiding working with too many data, because that that would then be something an an agenda would look like, I know everything. You know? So we're reducing sometimes the the the power level of the of the AI. But also the participants decide on how to, you know, expand the use of it. So, I guess, by by October, we we will be releasing some articles and papers and details about the experiment, and then we'll decide, if if it's worth releasing it or not. It will be open source, of course. But now it's so connected with corpus that, you know, it's it's really a a crucial element.

the only this is this is not a question you want you want to be asked. For for me, democracy has to ask a lot to do with, effect. So probably democracy is about solidarity in in a way. So, you know, from a privileged position such as ours, it's basically about, like, reversing it, flipping it, and saying who's affected by whatever, topic or ideas or decision that needs to be made. So it's it's really a simple exercise. Who should be in the room first? Who should we listen to first? So I don't think democracy can be described as a as a tool in itself. But I think it would basically imagine that we would forbid any institution to do any discursive production around democracy and only art based, art based expressions. Oh, that could be a good experiment during one year. So the policy makers would be freaking out, and I guess citizens less. So you could do that in schools, for example, as a as a as a small employer, you can build their own democracy, without the use of any discourse. Or or even you could also say preestablished knowledge. That could be something interesting. So designing a corpus of what we need to do to design a democratic process is something kids at school should be able to design themselves. It's more of the a new the new library for me, you know, where we basically when we were young, we were going, like, you know, illustrations are as important as the text. You can be driven by a poem which is a political poem more than any, political discourse or an essay. So, you know, we should all offer the opportunity of people to relate or create, you know, positive affection with democracy, choosing a language they feel more config configured. And maybe the AI can translate this for everybody. So, you know, all these different human agents at the end of the day that have different ways of expression, different, work. You know, I'm I'm I'm talking a lot about, social dynamics at the theater, but there's lots of people that wouldn't be comfortable in using their body to express themselves. We understand that too. We it's not that creating more justice doesn't really need to avoid creating more all this affection by certain, series of people or also, and save space because when you talk about oppressions, sometimes you have the oppressor in the room. So if you apply theater in citizen assemblies, for example, that would be a deal. So how can we create also, like, enclave theater with people that fit comfortable with, and then back to eventually, you know, the rest of the groups. Because if you we we do lots of experiments as part of the school of creating democracy in schools, and we talk about gender violence, we know that it's not it's a sensible theme. So you basically want to have maybe one to one dialogues, bring, have an have an individual inquiry and then build some, you know, mandate or questioning that you can be different people from the classroom together. So if you talk about trash management, you don't need that. But if you talk about sensible issues that you're maybe at the person in the room, that's that's a really issue. So yeah. So I don't know how I have been coming to that point, talking about simple idea of what democracy is, but, you know, I've been excelling. So not easy.

Yeah. Well, since since since we we're both part of the civic tech movement, so the one one simple question is what does the civic tech movement really need? Right? So, civic tech, I think, doesn't need more apps. Right? We already have an enormous graveyard. Most of, with beautiful design civic tech tools, most of them financed by commission through horizontal projects, and they have no community associate to that. So it's kind of a cemetery. So we need we we shall need to avoid that. So we have been, I think, I would say maintenance is a political work, and it needs community. So maintenance is never a question for of techies. Maintenance is a question of people who are really in need of certain tech, I would say. And then, you know, talking about AI, one of the question we have to ask is who govern civic tech. Right? Versus GAFAX. But, really, who govern civic tech and who who found civic tech? The founders, the developers, the institutions, or the communities using it. So I think developing new governance model, shall be something we shall start with. And I think, you know, there's a few example, that already happens. But I would say civics would need to recover something that the world takes sometimes make us forget. So people, relationships, conflict in a good sense of it, care, bodies, time, which is a crucial element, and imagination. So, let's say you know, what I'm saying, how can we build nondiscursive, deliberation? How can we be nondiscursive code? So code that somehow is community sensible. So that that's a that's a really issue. That's something we we should thought thought about. But and then as to depend upon what what we're obsessed with in the future with my colleague, Sonia Busu from Inspire Project. We're working on, the the conception of intercessional time. So who has time for democracy? Right? So who is who has actually time to participate? So because, you know, we know the time is not distributed equally. A student, someone working two jobs or three jobs, a person with disability. So they're not entering a delivery process with the same temporal resources. Right? So and and and, you know, I think that that's something we should also consider. So what if one of the most powerful form of democratic exclusion is simply the control of time? So I think and and and that's something we would definitely think about that. The time in democracy is not a natural resource. So it's basically you know? And also looking at citizen democratic time, especially when we talk about youth participation. You know, their notion of time is really different, but if you talk also about certain communities, the use of time and the perception of time is also something really different. The effect of your participation on time is sometimes perceived differently. So I think that's that's that's a crucial element, which we haven't take, enough, care of, when building technology or building, or designing, deliberation, maybe.

Of course. Yes. Because that's that's a few that's a few projects or pilots that have been developed, especially youth led. So there's this one called, you're fried about, employment of the youth, but also the mindset revolution project, which turned out to a a more international project called mental health, youth mental health beyond borders, where we have collaborated. And and so that's also a small piece of documentary that has that has I can share with you also about it. And I think that that's, these are crucial elements on defining and especially, mindset evolution participants that have grown, from participants to digital theater or digital deliberation designers, when at the start, they were basically participants in a in a process around youth mental health. And I'm seeing the they are, you know, professional facilitators that have grown up through this participation process. It also makes me think that, you know, people who have the opportunity to participate in any of these projects should be cared of, should be I don't know. We we should deep dive with them on their capacities. We should check with them what their democratic and logic capacities they have acquired and design from their their insights or inquiries design, you know, a better approach on on democratic capabilities, which is also something that, our colleague, Lucie Parry, Oliver, Escobar from Inspire are working on. So this democratic, capabilities framework. How is this connected, you know, to to the power that participants acquire? Then I would say which are the capabilities that institution can learn from working with, the most effective. So I think that that that has to be seen in in on both sides.

Yeah. And if citizens are conscious about, like, establishing their own path on which are the capabilities as part of this process that I want to acquire. So do I want to raise a political voice? It can be a capacity. Or do I want to raise more capacities on on on my solidarity capabilities with others? You know, you should be able to decide from the start. This is the path. So I'd like to grow, you know, from this perspective. So that would also determine the type of role you can have beyond being a participant in a in a process. So quickly come to participating, but sometimes I can also help, you know, maybe prioritizing as as part of a group, negotiating conflict when it appears in the citizen assembly. You know? But by the way, you can choose the path on which are the democratic companies you want to acquire as participant if it's stated in a very simple terms, not technical terms. I think that's that's very useful to make people understand they will learn through the process, and we will take you know, we will take in consideration the capacities to be active, you know, in in in a parallel process. I think that that's about, like, democratic and and, legacy in fact. It's really something we we trying to integrate as part of a a school for PDB democracy. Having having members or or cohorts of participants teaching, their peers in the next experiment.

Maybe we're taking it back to when we talked about AI and deliberation. I think we are we are what we are living now is AI and the acceleration of deliberation. So this everybody's convinced that, well, AI is great to digest. But I think the digestion is something that needs a specific time and nontext digestion. So I think we should also take care of that. This is just something like, you know, what if acceleration itself becomes a democratic bias? So how can we slow down AI in deliberation? And that's partly what we try to do with greed, especially with, with our Joker agent who's constantly about, like, provoking that, you know, rediscussing the prompt as it is, you know, to avoid psychofancy and all these, elements. So I just forgot about that.

field? No. I'd I'd love to invite people to read our journal. We have some, a journal called wider journal. You know, it's on the. It's not an academic journal. It's got every, you know, I think this is something we I'd like to recommend, and also we'd love to see contributions. And and, of course, I will I will share with you all the for the civic tech people, all the, you know, repository on GitHub and all our, modules for for this evening. There's lots of them, that go beyond this, you know, text into box kind of navigation.

For probably recycle recycling, you know, you know, so this symmetry is is worth visiting sometimes. Maybe not for the tech in in itself, but because because it's partly funded by European projects. Most of it have lots of reports and, you know, requirements, documents. So probably more even more interesting than the code that can be, you know, grow old. But, anyway, if you you know, is, starting 2001, '11. And we just we we did the the code from scratch last year. So let's you know, if you design well, you know, no importance that if the code is still something sexy, it is something stable. I think that that should be something also to consider. And, again, back to, you know, the silly question, why how we're using a certain language and other, you know, reflection on what is the language you will be using, and what's the price of it in the market to avoid the fact that you will have to pay a developer 10 times what something someone in your team that has, basically studied humanities paid. I think it's very unfair. So we should avoid that on civitex. So watch out the socioeconomic condition of the code itself and the dependency we require, by this you know, from a choice or another. Yeah. That that that's that's that's something that should be considered.

You're welcome, Alessandro.

Cheers.