hey @mix and @dominic, thanks for listening to my burst of feelings and reaffirming our shared values!

i have a stream of thoughts that came from this, hopefully moving beyond any interpersonal tensions into systematic tensions, and all of this is me rambling half-baked thoughts aloud not expecting anything to make sense or anyone to respond. even i question what i'm saying most of the time.

the question keeps coming up in my mind: are we choosing which grants to support based on people or task?

i still have some concerns about the implications of choosing grants based on tasks.

i'm concerned that this will lean towards only supporting the union of all our opinions, which are the "safe projects".

said another way, if a requirement of a grant proposal is that the value of the idea must be obvious to everyone, then it's required that a grant proposal be for something that we all understand.

i think this goes directly against the culture of mad science, where we support each other with our radical ideas, even when we don't understand them.

Dominic, i'm glad you still made patchbay even though i gave you negative feedback!

different to unpaid mad science, in the grant process our feedback controls money for whether or not our project-that-our-intuitions-tell-us-is-important is funded. for some of us, we're in a situation where we need to earn income with the majority of our available time, so whether or not a project is funded by the grant will directly impact whether or not we have capacity to follow our intuitions.

by only supporting the "safe projects", i think we might be missing out on the "radical projects" that lead to radical innovation.

i'm not expecting everyone to understand why i think making a simple game that is clear to understand and embeds our culture is valuable, it's an understanding that is subjective!

i do want to play Telephone Pictionary with you all though, so we can together explore subjective meaning, interpersonal communication, and abundant fun!