►
From YouTube: Weekly e-NABLE Town Hall Meeting - June 18, 2021
Description
This is the weekly e-NABLE Town Hall meeting for Friday, June 18, 2021.
The notes/agenda document can be found here: https://bit.ly/e-nable-town-hall-notes
If you want to join into the meeting itself, you are welcome to do so:
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/738892697?pwd=a3hvQVBVOW10R25xM3diaDA5eHJDdz09
Meeting ID: 738 892 697
Passcode: 885810
A
Okay,
there
we
go
all
right,
we
should
be
live
now.
Welcome
everyone
to
another.
Oh
good
timing,
john
thanks
for
joining
us,
so
welcome
to
another
weekly
town
hall
meeting.
Let's
see,
I'm
going
to
arrange
my
setup
here
a
little
bit
now
I
never!
I
I
wonder
if
I
can
see
what
others
are
seeing
if
I
go
to
the
actual
live
stream.
A
A
So
I
do
have
the
comments
panel
up
over
here
in
the
lower
right.
If
you
guys
can
kind
of
help
me
keep
an
eye
on
that
alexander
yeah,
it's
usually
about
20
seconds
of
delay,
but
that's
just
typical.
I
have
it
set
on
a
normal
latency
setting.
You
can
set
it
on
low
latency,
but
I
I
didn't
see
any
need
for
that
who's.
Doing
notes.
Today,
john
ben,
both
of
you.
A
A
A
At
this
point,
I
I
hope
to
be
working
with
bob
to
just
finish
up
the
sizing
badge,
even
though
I
have
not
yet
put
out
an
updated
virtual
fitting
tutorial
for
fusion,
because
we're
still
sorting
out
a
couple
of
possible
different
ways
of
doing
that,
but
I
see
no
reason
not
to
get
this
badge
going.
I
just
didn't
have
time
for
it
this
past
week.
So
as
soon
as
we
can
we'll
get,
this
badge
finished
up.
It's
something
that
we
we
will
have
in
the
not
too
far
off
future
john.
A
You
are
looking
at
how
to
embed
a
loomio
summary
page
into
the
hub.
I
don't
remember
where
we
left
that
off.
A
A
Your
choice
and
then
the
last
one
is
for
well
initially
for
me
to
post
a
note
about
customized
notifications
and
then
for
ben
to
update
it
and
improve
it,
which
he
did.
I
don't
have
the
link
handy,
but
that
is
done.
A
I'm
just
gonna
mark
that
one
off
okay,
so
today
we'll
hear
from
seif
about
some
of
the
research
work
she's
been
doing.
I
will
turn
it
over
to
her
shortly.
I
actually
didn't
have
time
to
update
the
metrics,
so
actually
it's
a
good
opportunity
to
go
ahead
and
turn
it
over
to
safe
now
as
a
way
of
distracting
from
that
so
safe.
If
you're
ready.
D
Thank
you,
I'm
actually
going
to
start
talking.
I
had
prepared
before
slides,
but
then
I
realized
that
I
started.
I
would
just
ramble
on,
and
so
I
think
to
be
more
practical.
If
I'm
I'm
going
to
mainly
speak-
and
I
would
like
you
to
have
some
takeaways
from
this
brief
talk
that
I'm
gonna
give.
Would
this
work.
A
A
D
Thanks,
if
you
guys
could
share
the
the
link
to
the
youtube
well,
I
think
I
have
it
in
the
email.
I'll
also
keep
an
eye
out
on
that.
A
D
D
Awesome
great
okay:
I
see
it
okay
great!
So
if
it's
okay
with
you
guys,
also
I'll
begin
and
I'll
especially
want
to
share,
thank
you
so
much
jeremy
for
sharing
those
comments.
There
are
some
takeaways
and
action
items
that
I
think
that
we
can
discuss
from
the
research
that
we've
been
doing
and
I
would
love
to
engage
with
the
community
so
that
we
can
see
how
we
can
work
together
on
these
points.
D
So
some
of
the
things
that
we
have
been
working
on,
we
interviewed
35
participants
from
across
the
globe
that
were
working
on
enabled
devices
and
our
goals
was
to
understand
the
different
ways
in
which
these
different
participants
and
stakeholders,
because
this
included
makers,
clinicians
and
users,
we
wanted
to
understand
what
type
of
challenges
are
they
facing
in
working
together?
What
type
of
setups
are
what
helps
them
to
be
able
to
deliver
better
care?
What
does
better
care?
D
Actually
even
look
like,
and
so
we
were
able
to
connect
over
a
course
of
two
years
with
different
these
different
stakeholders
and
we
included
people
from
in
different
countries.
D
The
countries
were
costa
rica,
mexico,
brazil,
the
united
states,
france,
india
and
oh,
and
colombia
there
was,
I
think
it
was
the
last
one
I
believe
was
was
colombia,
and
so
we
had
people
from
these
seven
different
countries
and
they
started
sharing
their
different
experiences
about
how
they
were
collaborating
with
each
other
in
their
own
ecosystem,
to
build
3d
printed
devices,
deliver
them
to
recipients
how
recipients
were
using
the
devices
and
then
some
of
the
challenges
that
they
faced.
D
One
of
the
things
and
said
so
I
one
of
the
biggest
things
that
I
want
to
share
with.
You
is
what
was
especially
helpful
when,
for
for
the
individuals
that
were
able
to
provide
care,
were
the
teams
that
were
able
to
provide
follow-up.
What
is
follow-up?
Follow-Up
is
basically
care
that
is
provided
to
the
recipient
after
the
recipient
receives
their
device.
Now
this
was
key.
D
In
terms
of
having
recipients
use
their
device
longer
term,
so
the
recipients
who
are
able
to
receive
follow
up
were
able
to
use
their
device
for
longer
and
also
had
overall,
better
satisfaction
with
their
nice.
Now.
The
problem
is
that
we've
also
found
that
at
having
follow-up
x,
there
were
echo
systems
that
did
not
implement
at
all
follow-up,
that
is,
they
gave
the
recipient
the
device,
and
then
the
maker
was
gone.
D
There
wasn't
a
communication
between
the
makers
and
the
and
the
recipients
between
the
recipient
and
the
clinicians
about
how
they
should
use
the
device,
and
so
when
that
happened,
the
recipient
many
times
will
actually
usually
we
found
that
they
didn't
even
use
their
device.
Their
device
would
get
stuck
in
a
box,
and
so
they,
the
recipients,
was
lost.
In
terms
of
how
do
I
use
this
device?
The
device
is,
maybe
not
fitting
me.
D
D
E
B
D
Found
that
and
here
that
what
teams
the
ecosystems
that
were
able
that
the
oh
hello,
hello,.
A
Yeah,
can
you
hear
me
now
we've
got,
I
think,
some
problems
with
you,
hello,.
D
Do
you
hear
me,
should
I
try
with
my
laptop,
should
I
go
from.
A
B
C
B
A
B
Right
and
we
see
that
with
our
and
obviously
our
most
most
mature
chapters
do
seem
to
have
organized
follow-up,
but
it's
obviously
it's
a
difficult
process.
C
D
D
Hey
okay,
so
I'm
going
to
start
sorry
I'll
then
continue.
Is
it
okay
to
continue,
then,
where.
A
D
D
Okay,
I
do
do
you
guys
prefer.
Does
this
work?
Maybe
when
you
tell
me
I'll,
remove
I'll
start,
removing
my
video.
D
Okay,
great
okay,
so
what
we
were
discussing
is
we
discovered
that
when
follow-up
was
implemented,
the
communities
were
able
to
provide
better
support
for
recipients,
and
this
involved
having
recipients
use
their
device
longer
term
and
recipients,
also
stating
that
they
were
more
satisfied
with
their
devices?
Now
the
question
is
okay,
so
how
exactly
did
they
implement
follow-up?
What
exactly
did
they
do?
D
Some
of
the
things
that
we
found
was
that
the
ecosystems
that
were
able
to
implement
follow-up
had
two
main
strategies,
one
they
established
formal
collaborations
between
the
different
stakeholders,
so,
for
instance,
in
brazil
they
discussed
that
they
actually
had
agreements
that
were
signed
by
the
different
entities
where
the
entity,
for
instance
a
clinician,
would
say
I
will
be
working
with
you
and
I
will
be
providing
two
recipients
to
the
makers.
D
This
type
of
support,
for
instance,
the
the
clinician
might
be,
maybe
providing
therapy
to
the
recipients
about
how
they're
going
to
be
using
their
devices.
D
They
might
also
be
working
with
makers
to
tell
them
how
they
should
adjust
their
devices
so
that
they
are
better
adapted
to
the
needs
of
recipients,
but
the
different
entities
would
sign
a
legal
document
where
they
would
state
what
exactly
each
entity
was
going
to
be
doing.
They
would
have
these
types
of
formal
agreements
in
the
u.s.
D
We
found
that
in
cases
where
they
had
follow-up,
this
appeared
in
the
form
of,
for
instance,
a
type
of
insurance
policy
where
the
recipient,
for
instance,
would
have
their
type
of
insurance
policy,
a
legal
document
where
they
could
bring
in
their
device.
In
case
anything
happened,
and
the
insurance
policy
helped
them
to
be
able
to
receive
fixes
follow-up
to
their
device
after
they
had
received
it.
But
so
the
first
strategy
that
we
found
from
ecosystems
that
were
able
to
provide
follow-up
was
that
they
had
these
types
of
formal
agreements
in
place.
D
Now
it's
important
to
realize
that
implementing
formal
agreements
within
the
maker
culture
that
is
also
very
deeply
embedded
in
the
3d
printing
assistive
technology
space
is
actually
very
hard.
Why
is
it
hard
because
formal
agreements,
if
you
think
about
it,
go
a
little
bit
against
this
whole
philosophy
around
that
you're
doing
things
the
maker
culture
expects
you
to
be
building
constructing
things
in
a
in
an
informal
environment
where
you're
tinkering
away
and
exploring?
D
And
if
you
say
suddenly,
we're
gonna
have
a
formal
agreement
where
I'm
gonna
be
doing
this
you're
gonna
be
doing
that.
This
type
of
exploration
that
is
embedded
within
the
maker
culture
is
is
a
little
bit
lost,
because
now
it's
it's
also
no
longer
this
voluntary
activity
that
is
done
for
fun,
the
the
fun
part
gets,
gets
removed
a
little
bit
and
now
what
matters
is
the
formal
agree,
the
formal
legal
agreement
that
we
have
in
place?
D
D
I
say
this
because
there
were
ecosystems
who
were
never
able
to
implement
follow-up,
and
I
think
that
in
part
of
it
is
because
they
didn't
adopt
these
strategies
and
they
likely
didn't
adopt
these
strategies,
because
these
strategies
are
also
counter-intuitive
to
the
maker
culture.
Now,
I'm
going
to
share
now
next,
the
second
strategy
that
we
found.
D
Now
these
payments
that
were
made
to
those
different
participants
were
especially
helpful
in
those
settings
where,
for
instance,
the
recipients
might
come
from
low-income
families
where,
if
they're
not
receiving
funding,
for
instance,
to
travel
to
another
city
to
fix
their
device,
etc.
They're
just
not
going
to
do
it
because
they
can't
afford,
for
instance,
to
miss
work.
D
They
can't
afford
to
not
be
making
money
under
a
certain
time
window,
and
so
having
payments
in
place
was
important
for
engaging
the
recipients
to
participate
in
the
follow-up,
and
it
was
also
helpful
to
have
paid
workers
who
were
dedicated
to
the
follow-up.
So
this
they
also
did
in
brazil
and
in
mexico,
where
they
had,
for
instance,
health
care
workers
and
makers
who
were
just
dedicated
to
providing
that
follow-up
in
the
case
of,
for
instance,
brazil,
mexico,
india.
D
What
they
had
in
place
was,
for
instance,
a
maker
that
was
just
dedicated
to
providing
updates
to
the
device.
Now
there
were
different
ways
in
which
these
types
of
payments
took
place,
for
instance
in
latin
america.
An
approach
that
we
saw
was
that
they
had
micro
payments
where
the
recipient
would
pay
the
maker
to
come
for,
for
they
would
make
small
payments
to
the
maker
so
that
the
maker
could
come
visit
them
and
help
them
fix
their
device.
D
In
those
cases,
the
maker
expressed
that
he
felt
that
this
was
a
setting
that
allowed
the
recipient
to
ask
for
more
help
more
easily
because
they
weren't
intimidated
by
the
fact
that
oh,
I
really
want
to
fix
my
device.
But
I've
been
asking
favors
for
the
from
this
maker
too
much,
and
so
I
felt
that
by
implementing
the
small
payments
they
were
able
to
have
recipients
participate
more
in
the
follow-up
and
also
for
the
makers.
D
It
was
more
doable
for
them
to
be
continuously
participating
and
helping
and
finding
time
to
help
the
different
recipients
of,
and
so,
for
instance,
in
the
case
of
brazil,
they
also
had
they
had
dedicated
workers
who
were
just.
D
They
were
they
that
were
just
dedicated
to
these
endeavors
of
follow-up,
and
this
involved,
for
instance,
also
clinicians,
who
would
be
dedicated,
who
would
get
paid
to
provide
therapy
to
recipients
on
how
recipients
should
use
their
device,
because
they
they
expressed,
that
that
was
extremely
important
for
ensuring
that
the
the
recipient
did
adopt
their
device.
D
Another
thing
that
we
found
was
that
having
those
formal
agreements
and
payments
especially
helped
to
involve
the
clinicians,
and
what
we
found
was
that
the
ecosystems
that
had
follow-up
in
place,
it
was
in
part
because
it
was
the
clinicians
who
were
driving
the
interactions.
Why
was
it
important
for
clinicians
in
this
case,
to
be
involved?
Clinicians
are
from
what
we
learned
from
the
interviews
is
that
clinicians
are
actually
the
ones
who
usually
drive
follow-up
so
for
clinicians,
all
of
the
logistics
behind
the
follow-up
were
intuitive
for
them.
D
Well,
not
not
intuitive,
but
they
had
training,
formal
training
about
how
they
could
implement
follow-up,
and
so
for
them.
It
was
easier
to
instantiate
what
the
follow-up
should
look
like
in
ecosystems,
where
they
had
less
interactions
with
makers.
Many
times,
sorry
with
clinicians,
where,
where
the
interactions
with
clinicians
were
less
frequent,
it
was
also
hard
for
them
to
implement
the
follow-up,
especially
because
many
times
the
maker
was
not
even
aware
about
that,
they
should
be
thinking
about
follow-up,
and
so
having
clinicians
involved
is
also
extremely
helpful.
D
D
The
maker
culture
also
assumes
that
people
are
participating
in
the
effort
because
they
are
intrinsically
motivated
to
be
there,
and
so
people
are
participating
because
it's
a
fun
activity
for
them
to
do
this
aspect
of
fun
can
become
complicated
when
implemented
in
the
real
world.
Why
does
it
become
complicated?
D
Similarly,
in
latin
america,
we
found
that
there
were
makers
who
wanted
to
help,
but
they
also
did
need
resources
in
order
to
be
able
to
participate
and
be
able
to
help
recipients,
and
so
having
payments
in
place
was
a
way
in
which
they
could
be
included
in
the
ecosystem,
and
so
I
think
that
it's
important
to
realize
that
payments,
these
formal
collaborations,
can
be
in
direct
conflict
with
the
maker
culture,
but
I
do
think
that
having
those
two
elements
can
also
bring
value
into
the
ecosystem,
and
so
those
were
my
main
findings
that
I
wanted
to.
D
C
It's
really
interesting,
stuff,
safe.
You
know
just
as
a
a
quick
add-on
to
what
you're
saying
it's
interesting
to
think
about
paying
the
recipients
there's
the
opposite
of
that
and
paraguay.
I
was
mentioning
in
the
intermission
where
they
have
set
up
a
system.
C
It's
a
subsidized
system
with
having
some
investment
from
the
recipient
for
devices
with
sort
of
fixing
and
follow-up
as
as
included
in
that,
but
just
like
what
you're
saying,
though,
what
it
turns
into
with
the
culture
is
that
they
set
up
sort
of
a
community
event
for
fundraising,
so
a
family
will
set
up.
You
know
maybe
they'll
cook
some
food
and
and
have
kind
of
a
drive
to
collect
funds,
and
then
the
whole
community
comes
together
to
support
this
device,
but
heads
or
tails.
It's
it's.
C
This
system
of
creating
some
investment
and
in
the
whole
process,
really
interesting
stuff.
B
You
know,
even
in
that
case,
where
it's
sort
of
the
reverse.
It
still
has
money
in
the
process
and
implicit,
if
not
explicit
agreements.
So
that's
really
interesting
stuff
and
you're
right
safe.
Not
only
is
it
counter
to
the
maker
culture,
but
it's
frankly
it's
sort
of
counter
to
the
way
I
at
least
have
been
focusing
on.
B
What's
interesting
and
unique
about
enable
we're,
you
know,
we've
gone
as
far
as
we
know
how
to
go,
eliminating
the
trappings
of
conventional
enterprises,
the
trappings
of
conventional
enterprises
would
be
contracts
and
money,
and
I
think
the
result
is
that
we're
now
getting
clear
about
either
what
we
haven't
figured
out,
how
to
do
without
contracts
or
money
or
that
this
is
why
contracts
and
money
have
taken
over
the
world
just
because
there
are
things
you
can't
do
without
it.
It's
really
worth
thinking
about.
A
And-
and
it's
such
a
complex
issue
because
of
the
international
nature
of
what
we
do,
it's
hard
to
overstate,
the
you
know
the
differences
that
we
run
into
because
of
of
all
the
different
kinds
of
cultures
and
social
implications
that
are
involved
here.
You
know,
I
think,
there's
there's
very
different
kinds
of
sensitivities
and
different
kinds
of
motivators
in
different
parts
of
the
world.
A
A
Not
surprisingly,
is
that
having
medical
professionals
involved
is
is
certainly
helpful
as
part
of
the
process
we've
known
that
for
a
long
time,
but
we
struggle
with
that
here
in
the
us,
and
I
we've
sort
of
assumed
that
at
least
a
part
of
that
reason
is
because
doctors
in
in
this
country
tend
to
be,
I
think,
fairly
risk
averse
because
of
how
many
lawsuits,
they've
probably
already
been
involved
in.
Unfortunately,
and
do
you
have
any
thoughts
about
in
that
particular
climate,
how
we
might
be
able
to
overcome
that
barrier.
D
D
So
where
we
found
clinicians
in
the
us
working
closely
with
makers
and
recipients
was
especially
in
the
private
sector,
and
they
had
to
have
basically
that
insurance
policy
in
place,
and
so
they
had
they
had
those
kind
of
formal
agreements
which
I
think
maybe
helped
the
the
the
clinician
perhaps
feel
safer.
I
think
you're.
A
Absolutely
I'm
sorry
interrupt,
but
I
wanted
to
make
sure
I
understood
that
too,
because
you
mentioned
that
insurance
policy.
During
your
summary-
and
I
didn't,
I
wasn't
sure
if
I
fully
understood
that
when
you
mention
this
insurance
policy
you're
talking
about
this
written
agreement
between
the
maker
and
the
clinician
is
that
the
policy
you're
referring
to.
D
So
what
I
understand
that
they're
doing
is
you
have
a
private
company
that
is
making
3d
printed
assistive
technology,
and
this
private
company
gives
the
the
device
to
the
recipient
and
the
recipient
receives
an
insurance
policy
that
that
tells
them
that
they
will
have
access
to
be
able
to
fix
their
device
and
also
they
have
access
to
a
clinic.
Oh,
and
it's
also
the
clinician.
What
we
also
found
was.
D
It
was
the
recipients
clinician
in
the
us
who
connected
them
with
the
with
with
the
private
company,
and
so
the
the
medical
insurance
of
the
cl
of
the
recipient
covered
the
cost
of
that
private
company.
This
was
how
the
the
three
of
them
were
collaborating
so
usually
in
the
this
one
was
especially
in
the
u.s
in
the
u.s.
What
would
happen
is
that
the
recipient
would
go
to
their
clinician.
D
Their
clinician
would
make
the
recommendation
of
having
them
work
with
a
particular
private
company,
and
the
private
company
would
be
the
and
and
and
the
private
company
would
get
paid
through
the
insurance
of
the
clinician.
Sorry.
B
D
The
insurance
of
the
recipient,
and
so
the
all
the
the
three
of
them
had
a
formal
relationship
with
each
other.
E
E
A
I
see
that
alexander
has
his
hand
up
there
and
zoom.
We
don't
always
see
those
symbols.
Alexander
should
just
jump
in
whenever
somebody's.
F
Yeah,
that's
fine.
I
wanted
to
say
that
paying
the
recipients
to
show
up
for
follow-up
is
technically
the
right
approach.
I
know
my
vision
is
limited
to
mostly
me,
but
we
are
technically
doing
medical
research,
although
we
don't
like
to
call
it
like
that
and
enable
is
not
centralized
enough
to
do
proper
research,
but
we
would
have
the
number
of
recipients
and
the
number
of
designs
to
do
proper
medical
research
for
various
very
good
reasons
we
don't,
but
in
medical
reason,
research,
you
pay
your
clients,
not
the
other
way
around.
E
E
But
you
know,
I
think
each
party
has
to
have
some
skin
in
the
game
and
to
me
the
recipient,
who
is
receiving
the
device
who,
by
theory
at
least
needs
the
device,
should
have
some
basic
level
of
motivation
to
want
to
make
the
device
successful.
You
would
think
it's.
C
A
Well,
there's
a
lot
of
possibilities.
Right
I
mean
what
I'm
hearing
is
is:
is
that
the
having
more
of
an
engagement
with
the
recipient
than
simply
handing
over
a
device?
That's
the
key.
What
I'm
not
sure
we
really
know
yet
is
the
nature
of
that
you
know
deeper
engagement.
Does
it
have
to
be
money?
I
mean
we've
heard
that
having
a
formal
agreement
can
help
of
understanding
what
each
party's
responsibilities
are.
Is
there?
A
So
you
know
some
of
the
things
we've
talked
about,
for
example,
is
making
sure
that
the
recipe
just
to
use
the
word
recipient,
making
sure
that
they're
involved
in
providing
feedback
to
help
improve
the
designs
what's
working,
what's
not
working,
etc.
A
If,
if
there
was
that
kind
of
an
agreement
up
front
that
look,
we're
going
to
work
with
you,
we're
going
to
make
this
custom
device
free
of
charge,
we're
going
to
cover
all
the
costs,
but
in
return
you
need
to
agree
to
give
us
this
feedback.
You
need
to
agree
to
speak
to
us
about,
so
maybe
if
it
was
that
kind
of
agreement,
would
that
have
the
same
kind
of
result?
Would
that
bring
the
same
kind
of
I
don't
know
further
engagement
of
the
recipient?
I
I
don't
know.
B
I
agree,
we
don't
know
I
I
you
know
a
new
point
that
I
thought
was
really
interesting
was
safe's
observation
that,
because
the
makers
were
being
paid,
the
recipients
were
less
hesitant
about
asking
for
help.
A
A
C
Pope
paraguay
also
mentioned
that
that
giving
the
devices
away
for
free
there
sort
of
was
some
resistance,
because
it
seemed
like
kind
of
a
favor
or
some
kind
of
a
charity
for
the
poor,
or
something
like
that
when
they
set
it
up
sort
of
with
some
kind
of
interaction
with
the
with
funds.
C
It
changed
the
dynamics,
but
I
do
think
what
safe
is
talking
about
is
she's
recognizing
this
model
exists
in
different
ways,
and
I
think
that's
really
the
useful
thing.
It's
less
about,
there's
a
right
way
and
a
wrong
way
and
more
about
this
is
happening
in
different
ways
in
different
places,
and
it's
it's
adapting
with
this
sort
of
financial
support,
the
micro
payments
that
she
mentioned.
It's
similar
with
what
they're
doing
again
with
this
in
paraguay
with
a
subsidized
model.
They
look
at
all
these
different
variables.
C
You
know
the
income
number
of
dependents
in
the
household
I
mean
they
boil
it
down
again
sort
of
the
research
side
of
things,
but
they
figure
out
what
is
a
relative
investment
all
interesting
stuff.
I
want
to
ask
a
couple
quick
questions
to
save
just
to
make
sure
I
understood
for
the
notes:
seven
countries,
I've
got
a
missing
one:
costa
rica,
india,
brazil,
mexico,
colombia,
france
and
us.
D
One
second,
let
me
let
me
let
me
tell
you
yeah,
because
I
brazil,
chile,
costa
rica,
france,
india,
mexico
and
the
u.s,
and
actually
it
was
in
chile,
where
they
were
implementing
those
types
of
micro
payments.
I
also
really
want
to
quickly
mention
I
I
really
like
what
jeremy
mentioned
about
thinking
about
different
types
of
setups
that,
where
it's
not
necessarily
just
payments-
and
this
also
relates
a
little
bit
to
I
think
what
john
and
ben
were
discussing
in
mexico.
D
One
of
the
things
that
we
found
was
that
they
in
in
some
cases,
but
they
they
did,
engage
the
whole
community,
and
I
think
this
was
also
happening
in
costa
rica.
D
So,
basically,
the
whole
community
would
get
involved
in
participat,
basically
helping
with
the
design
of
the
device
putting
in,
for
instance,
resources
for
the
printing
of
the
device,
and
everybody
would
get
involved,
and
the
fact
that
everyone
was
involved
motivated
the
recipient
to
want
to
be
using
the
device
longer
term
because
it
was
they,
and
that
was
why
they
were
doing
it.
So
because
the
whole
community
got
involved
in
making
the
device,
the
recipient
felt
that
they
had
a
strong
that
they
they
needed
to
use
their
device.
D
I
mean
because
the
whole
community
was
was
invested
in
in
it,
and
so
I
think
that
there
that
could
relate
to
what
jeremy
was
discussing
about.
Maybe
it's
not
just
monetary
compensation,
but
rather
getting
people's
skin
in
the
game,
and,
and
that
can
be
another
way
in
which
you
can
ensure
that
there's
com
that
that
people
will
be
participating
longer
term.
F
F
My
I
don't
know
what
the
what
the
experience
of
various
chapters
is,
but,
in
my
experience,
the
users
or
the
single
user
that
I've
been
working
with
doesn't
doesn't
even
know
what
feedback
to
give
me
and
it
took
her
two
months
to
figure
out.
This
is
actually
really
hurting
my
fingers
and
that's
because
of
various
cognitive
biases,
but
the
the
psychology
researchers
have
a
solution
for
this,
which
is
presenting
certain
forms
before
presenting
the
the
machine
itself,
presenting
certain
forms
about
the
expectations
of
the
user
before
it
actually
sees
the
the
device.
F
How
how
much
do
you?
How
how
well
do
you
want
this
to
fit
with
how
much
pain
are
you
going
to
cope
with
in
order
to
wear
this
and
all
kinds
of
relatively
questions
honestly,
but
they
do
make
the
user
much
more
likely
to
give
feedback
and
give
very
valuable
feedback
in
due
time,
not
in
two
or
three
months.
A
I
I
know
this:
wasn't
your
maybe
your
main
focus
in
that
alexander,
but
it
really
strikes
me
that
it
would
be
a
really
good
idea
for
us
to
have
some
kind
of
standard
formalized
guidance.
I
mean
we're
delivering
these
devices
and
you
know
we
don't
give
any
kind
of
an
instruction
manual.
You
know
how
do
you
make
sure
it
fits
properly?
How
do
you
make
adjustments?
When
should
you
clean
it?
What
do
you
use
to
clean
it?
A
B
A
Yeah,
so
that's,
I
think,
that's
worth
following
up
on
now.
I
don't
know
how
much
I
mean
it
might
be
a
little
bit
design
specific,
certainly
it'll,
be
different
guidance
for
you
know:
hands
versus
arms
or
whatever,
but
I'm
sure
we
can
generalize
john.
B
B
Right
right,
so,
that's,
I
think,
a
really
a
really
good
hit.
The
comment
I
wanted
to
make
is
that.
B
Safe
identified
two
big
principles,
the
first
one
I
I
think
is
just
clearly
correct
that
follow-up
and
an
ongoing
relationship
is
critical
to
getting
these
things
workable
enough
that
they
so
that
there's
an
extended
relationship
between
the
user
and
the
device
because
of
an
extended
relationship
between
the
user
and
the
rest
of
the
ecosystem.
B
In
some
ways,
I
think,
then
we
have
a
whole
bunch
of
hypotheses.
One
really
strong
hypothesis
is
that
money
and
contracts
are
a
way
or
the
way
to
do
that.
But
we've
been
exploring
this
conversation,
the
possibility
that
there
are
other
ways
of
doing
that
and
then,
as
the
conversation
continued,
it
seems
to
me
that
there
are
there
are.
There
are
situations
that
are
working.
We
know
about
a
few
of
them.
B
We
know
about
pope
paraguay
very
clearly,
because
ben
just
did
an
interview,
some
of
the
ones
that
safe
spoke
to
we
know
about,
and
each
of
those
is
probably
working
because
they
happen
to
have
found
their
way
to
a
sweet
spot
where
the
local
personalities,
the
local
motivations,
the
local
regulations,
the
local
culture
and
the
local
processes
all
converge,
and
I
suspect
that
there
may
be
several
different,
really
successful
patterns
and
some
of
them,
but
not
all
of
them,
can
be
disembedded
from
their
particular
context.
A
C
A
I
was
thinking
the
same
thing
before
when
I
was
when
I
was
talking
about
that
that
I
I'm
kind
of
looking
at
for
the
for
the
common
denominators
in
these
things,
and
I
wonder
if
it
might
not
be
this
idea
of
a
formal
agreement
now
the
the
mechanisms
of
that
agreement
might
vary
from
one
context
to
another,
maybe
the
you
know,
and
maybe
it's
not,
but
I'm
just
going
with
it.
For
now.
Let's
say
the
agreement
is
that
common
denominator?
So
then
we
can
focus
on
okay.
A
What
is
the
mechanism
that
works
in
this
or
that
context?
In
one
area
it
might
be
a
monetary
you
know
component
in
another
area,
it
might
be,
you
know,
committing
to
certain
types
of
feedback
or
after
you
know,
you
know
you
know
follow-up
things
like
that.
I
I
don't
know,
but
that's
kind
of
to
your
point.
If
we
can
find
the
common
denominator
and
then
vary
the
mechanism
you
know
used
with
that
by
region.
That
might
be
a
way
of.
A
C
This
is
a
little
bit
of
a
preamble
to
what
I
wanted
to
say.
I'm
looking
at
your
shared
screen.
I
can
see
my
notes,
but
on
the
page
of
notes,
they
all
just
disappeared
instantaneously.
So
did
you
move
them
somewhere
because
I
was
mid-sentence
and
it
was
just
like.
A
Oh
yeah,
sorry,
you
were
putting
them
under
the
the
guest
speaker
topic.
I
just
moved
them
down
under
the
discussion
topics
under
safe,
savage
summary
of
research
findings.
E
C
You
know
one
of
the
things
that
I
know
safe
has
done.
A
lot
of
work
in
in
in
other
research
is
related
to
the
different
model,
with
health
care,
and
I
think,
in
terms
of
a
variable
we
we
are
talking
about.
You
know
we
can
give
money,
we
can
ask
for
money,
you
know
makers
and
recipients,
but
also
that
the
health
care
model
is
an
important
variable
to
help
maybe
negotiate
some
of
that.
C
So
in
the
u.s,
we've
got
a
very
specific
healthcare
system
very
different
than
what
they
have
in
india
and
mexico
and-
and
I
do
wonder,
I
was
curious
to
ask
safe
what
do
you
see
that
the
adjustment
to
find
that
the
magic
recipe
for
each
location?
How
does
healthcare
fit
into
that.
D
That
was
originally
one
of
the
things
that
I
was
doing
was
aiming
to
understand
the
different
healthcare
systems
that
existed
in
each
region
to
identify
how
the
how
that
affected
the
workflow
one
of
the
things
that
we
were,
I
think
it's
very
complex
to
understand
in
detail
the
different
health
care
that
that
exists,
and
so
what
we
argued
was
that
let's
study
this
throughout
these
different
countries,
so
that
the
health
care
issue
might
not
might
might
might
not
be
a
determining
factor.
D
So
that
will
find
the
challenges
that
exist
across
independent
of
the
health
care
system
that
they
have.
I
do
think
that
you're
absolutely
right
that
in
the
u.s,
the
the
liability
issues
that
clinicians
face
is
limiting
their
their
interactions
and
in
other
parts
of
the
world.
That
might
be
why
they're
more
open
to
collaboration,
but
maybe
then
some
things
that
could
happen
is
a
little
bit
to
what
bob
was
discussing.
D
Thinking
about
having
maybe
international
collaborations,
where
you
could
be
working,
for
instance,
with
clinicians,
maybe
makers
in
the
us
could
be
collaborating
with
clinicians
in,
for
instance,
japan,
who
could
be
providing
feedback
about
how
the
designs
should
be
created.
I'm,
for
instance,
in
brazil.
The
clinicians
are
the
ones
who
guide
everything
they're.
D
So
the
clinician
is
the
one
who
defines
what
type
of
device
the
maker
is
going
to
build,
and
the
clinician
is
the
is
the
one
that
is
the
director
of
of
the
whole
process,
so
it
might
be
worth
to
consider
collaborations
with
in
international
settings.
One
last
thing
I
want
to
mention
before
I
forget:
I
also
really
liked
what
jeremy
mentioned
about
the
instructions
for
the
the
the
end
user,
the
recipient
about
how
they
could
use
the
device
here
I
want
to
mention.
D
I
think
that
there
would
be
opportunity
as
well
to
within
the
the
instructions
to
start
to
help
recipients
learn
slowly
about
making,
because
we
also
found
that
the
recipients
who
also
use
their
device
longer
term
were
the
ones
that
had
become
makers
in
the
process
that
was
helpful
for
recipients
because
they
were
able
to.
Then
fix
their
own
devices,
make
their
own
adjustments,
and,
and
so
I
think
it
could
be
worth
to
consider
manuals
for
using
the
device
and
slowly
learn
teaching
recipients
about
how
they
too
can
become
makers.
A
And
and
safe,
I
agree
100,
but
I
also
think
that's
a
good
opportunity
and
I
like
the
idea
of
a
video
even
more
than
a
document,
because
in
a
video
that
gives
us
an
opportunity
not
only
to
teach
them
how
to
use
the
device.
But
in
that
same
video
we
could
sort
of
inform
them
about
the
importance
of
getting
their
feedback
about
how
we
operate
as
a
volunteer
community
and
how
we
need
your
help
and
sort
of
start
to
encourage
that
kind
of
behavior
and
hopefully
reduce
the
hesitancy
of
them
to
follow
up
with
us.
A
So
I
think
it
could
serve
two
purposes,
and
I
was
also
thinking
that,
in
terms
of
both
the
documentation,
some
kind
of
an
instruction
guide,
as
well
as
a
video
I'll
bet
you
more
than
one
of
our
chapters,
have
already
built
something
like
this
ben.
Do
you
think
you
might
be
able
to
see
what
you
can
find
out
there
that
we
might
be
able
to
leverage.
C
You
know
it
does
remind
me
of
isabella's
work,
talking
about
the
sort
of
reciprocal
relationship
between
makers
and
and
users,
but
basically
having
it
be
they're
sort
of
they
rely
on
each
other
in
this
relationship.
Also,
what
alexander
was
saying
about
sort
of
the
psychology
research?
You
know
the
mindset
going
into
this
if
it's
to
get
a
thing,
here's
this
thing
that
you've
got
and
now
here's
this
thing
that
you
can
use.
If
you
want,
is
very
different
than
saying
you
know.
C
Basically,
you
know
you're
piloting
this,
this
test
that
we're
learning
about
you're,
the
expert
and
and
you're
invested
in
this,
and
having
that
be,
I
think
there
are
chapters
that
are
modeling
that
well
and
we
can
learn
from
them.
B
B
What
we
care
about,
what
we're
seeking
are
ways
to
have
these
devices
be
genuinely
useful
for
extended
periods
of
time
there
may
not!
I'm
not
going
to
just
take
an
extreme
position.
There
might
not
be
any
common
denominators
beyond
that.
That's
a
really
reasonable
hypothesis,
cultures,
people
motivation,
circumstances,
laws.
B
A
A
I
struggle
because
it
starts
to
get
a
little
abstract,
which
is,
I
think,
what
we
want
to
avoid.
We
need
to
give
something
very
concrete
and
easy
to
follow
and
I'm
I'm
struggling
to
follow
a
little
bit.
I
mean
I,
I
agree
with
what
you're
saying
there's
a
lot
of
variables
at
all
the
levels
that
you
mentioned.
When
I
talk
about
common
denominators,
I'm
thinking
at
the
level
of
just
basic
human
nature.
I
think
there
is
some
commonality
in
the
just
that
we're
all
people
we
all
tend
to.
I
don't
know.
B
C
Sure,
maybe
to
add
to
what
john's
saying
and
maybe
pitch
this
back
to
safe,
I'm
curious
about
you
know:
we've
got
these
seven
countries.
Actually
I
wrote
down
eight.
I
clearly
made
a
mistake:
I'll
put
it
in
the
chat,
but
I'm
curious
about
the
stakeholders,
and
that
says
a
lot.
So
in
the
u.s
you
mentioned
that
there's
sort
of
this:
it's
it's
not
a
three-way.
So
much
as
a
four-way
dialogue
between
clinicians
recipients
or
users.
C
You've
got
the
insurance
companies
and
then
you've
got
these
private
companies.
I'd
be
interested
to
find
out
what
are
the
ingredients
for
these
other
countries
and
and
it
is
different
in
different
places,
and
maybe
that
would
be
sort
of
what
john's
saying
is
sort
of
mapping
out
these
different
recipes
in
these
different
places
could
be
really
useful
and
I
think
sometimes
we
don't
include
their
asylum
partners
like
insurance.
A
Well,
I
definitely
agree
would
be
helpful
to
understand
that,
and
this
is
a
perfect
example.
I
guess
I'm
not
even
sure
that
there's
a
clear
agreement
on
kind
of
what
the
situation
is
in
the
u.s,
because
I
would
not
have
put
clinicians
and
insurance
companies
in
there
only
because
I
they
don't
seem
to
be
involved
in
the
vast
majority
of
our
cases
in
the
u.s.
It
seems
like
usually
in
the
us
there's
only
two
parties,
the
maker
and
the
recipient.
A
You
know,
maybe
occasionally
a
clinician
gets
involved.
I
can't
remember
ever
hearing
about
a
case
where
an
insurance
company
is
involved.
You
know
because
they
tend
not
they're,
not
gonna.
You
know,
there's
no
costs
involved
right.
B
A
B
B
I'd
like
a
chance,
it's
we're
coming
on
noon,
but
I
think
we
might
be
able
to
interrogate
safe
about
this.
The
specific
systems
she
she
can
identify
as
well
functioning,
for
example,
was
there
one
a
question
I
wanted
to
ask
is:
was
there
one
that
does
most
of
its
work
through
remote
interaction
to
to
speak
to
bob's
point,
or
did
you
find
none
that
actually
have
got
good
systems
that
are
that
are
internet
based.
E
D
You
so
what
you're
saying
is
to,
on
one
hand,
better
understand
the
different
roles
that
the
that
the
the
stakeholders
had
within
their
ecosystem
right
about
how
they
were
collaborating
and
identify
if
they,
if
any
of
these
were
working
remotely,
so
I
didn't
actually
find
any
who
were
working
remotely
the
ones
in
mexico
had
the
issue
where
well.
D
Actually,
this
was
also
present
in
india,
where
they
had
recipients
who
lived
in,
for
instance,
rural
areas,
and
they
had
to
the
the
makers
had
to
travel
to
these
regions
for
the
the
fitting
they
didn't
have
good
workarounds
about
how
to
address
that
problem.
D
What,
for
instance,
in
india,
what
they
had
in
place
was
they
had
to
do
the
whole
payment
thing
to
end
their?
They
brought
in
buses
for
recipients
they
paid
for
their
food
to
bring
them
in
to
deal
with
so
so
that
they
would
receive
follow-up
in
the
case
of
mexico
they
would
also
get
funding,
but
they
would
do
it.
The
other
way
around
the
makers
would
travel
to
the
recipients,
but
but
in
both
cases
it
was.
D
This
was
a
problem
I
didn't
find
examples
of,
and
maybe
there
I
think
that
it
could
be
working
with
ben,
for
instance,
interrogating.
Maybe
there
is
a
chapter
that
has
been
able
to
figure
this
out.
I
think
that
would
be
interesting.
E
E
I
would
say
that
straightforward,
we
could
have
all
kinds
of
videos
and
manuals
and
I
think,
that's
great
and
needed,
but
I
would
also
submit
without
any
data
that
our
largest
problem
is
our
global
remote
feature
of
matching
a
recipient
with
a
with
a
maker,
and
we
have
tools
that
do
that
and
I
I
I
don't
see
an
easy
way
to
do
follow-up.
You
can
have
written
agreements
written
whatever,
but
when
you're
not
physically
there
to
help
fit
and
to
have
the
person
come
back,
that's
a
real
challenge
and
that's
what
I
struggle
with.
C
You
know,
maybe
just
as
a
quick
story
to
add
on
to
this.
You
know
we're
running
out
of
time,
but
we
had
a
meeting
recently
with
the
folks
in
humanos
3d
in
colombia,
and
they
have
something
set
up
with
clinicians,
so
they
have
a
relationship
with
clinicians
in
remote
areas.
The
clinician
will
collect
a
certain
number.
I
think
12
cases
and
they'll
wait
until
and
again,
this
is
through
the
relationships
that
the
clinician
has
locally.
C
Interesting
model
and
they've
done
this
for
a
couple
years,
but
you
know,
I
think,
john's
right
that
there's
a
lot
of
different
ways
to
do
it
and
finding
a
good
balance
of
those
things
is
probably
going
to
be
something
that
comes
from
local
examples.
E
Jeremy
dillon
put
something
is
asking
a
question.
A
I
was
just
responding
that
the
we
have
a
new
member
meetup
session
coming
up.
That's
in
an
hour
right
ben.
C
I'm
at
1pm,
oh
I'm,.
A
C
A
A
A
Okay,
so
let's
do
that
that'll
be
a
good
opportunity
to
meet
some
other
new
members
and
talk
about
it.
Maybe
we
can
talk
a
little
bit
about
starting
a
chapter,
then,
is
that
okay
ben?
That
sounds
great,
okay,
great
yeah,
so
I
think
this
would
be
a
good
time
to
wrap.
This
is
obviously
a
discussion
that
we
need
more
than
one
session.
E
A
Great
presentation,
I
agree.
I
hope
you
can
come
back
if
not
next
week,
sometime
soon
to
join
us
for
some
further
discussion
about
this,
we'll
keep
it
on
our
discussion
topics
and
continue
to
dive
into
these
but
you've.
Given
us
a
lot
to
talk
about,
so
thank
you.
D
Yeah,
thank
you
guys
also
also
for
the
the
research
as
well.
The
ideas
right
now
that
emerged,
I
think,
were
also
extremely
helpful,
especially
thinking
that
it's
not
just
fun
money,
but
by
having
it's
not
just
money.
It's
thinking
about
it's
maybe
establishing
formal
collaborations,
but
this
can
look
differently
in
different
ways.
So
so
thank
you
guys
also
really
good
discussion.
C
Okay,
well,
keep
us
posted
and
let
us
know
if
there's
anything
we
can
do
to
help,
but
it's
really
great
work.
A
Okay,
well
thanks
everyone
for
joining
and
we'll
regroup
same
time
next
week,
but
again
reminder
in
one
hour
join
us
for
that
new
members
meet
up
for
any
of
the
folks
out
there,
watching
which
I
will.