Hi, this is Brett with Summit Automotive in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. Your new and used Jeep headquarters. Today we are checking out this brand new 2020 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited X. This is one of the first 2020 Grand Cherokees that we've had on the lot and probably the best looking one that we got right now. It is a Limited X package. We like to do the videos on all the brand new stuff that comes in so if people are wondering what it looks like, some of the features on it, some of the trim levels, we like to do the videos so that they can see that. And then I get up close on this particular Jeep and go through some of the options. This is like I said a Limited X package. As you can see it has the LED running lights, the LED fog lamps, and the projector lamp headlamps. It has the granite crystal grille inserts as well as the painted Jeep logo. Has the granite crystal painted 20 inch rims. This one has Pirelli Scorpion Verde 26550R20 tires with kind of like a highway terrain on it. Diamond Black is the color on this Jeep. We shoot all of our videos in 1080p so if you have HD capabilities on your computer tablet or a smartphone device, I highly recommend turning them on right now because it is like you're right here looking at the vehicle with me and definitely your best way to check out the vehicle before seeing it in person. LED tail lamps. Has a lot of metal flake in that Diamond Black. I really like it. It's grown on me. Limited X is granite crystal out. Has the backup parking sensors. It does have the dual rear exhaust and those are a dark painted as well. I'm not sure if they're granite crystal but they're painted dark. It has the power lift gate on it. This particular one has the nine amplified speakers with the subwoofer. You do get a power point back here. Those seats do fold down for extra storage and this one does have a spare tire with the jack tools. To get this gate down, just press that button. It'll beep at you three times and then come on down. You also get the granite crystal four by four lettering on the gate there. Of course four wheel disc brakes. Has the enter and go system. So right now it's all locked up. I just have the key in my hand or in my pocket. You put your hand in there. It'll unlock those doors. This one has blind spot monitoring built in directional signals and heated mirrors. One thing about the limited X package that a lot of people like is that Coal induction hood. It's actually an SRT hood and we'll get to check that out in just a second here. Inside the limited X package gives you the bolstered seats here. Has the lumbar power driver seat, factory floor mats, auto headlamps, tilt telescopic steering wheel. Dark wood grain trim throughout power windows, power locks, power mirrors, and this is also a memory driver seat on here. This one has the 7 inch LCD display. Digital spinometer. You get the outside temperature, the compass, and of course your odometer on here. This one has a heated leather wrapped steering wheel. Not much has changed on these Grand Cherokees for 2020, but we still like doing the videos. Has the Bluetooth audio controls, information center controls. You get the paddle shifters on the back of the steering wheel. You do have your cruise controls on the right and audio controls on the back of the steering wheel as well. This one has the 8.4C radio, so it has AM, FM, Sirius XM radio capabilities. This one also has the factory navigation built into it. This one also has Android Auto and Apple CarPlay capabilities. You can do your climate control from here. You can also do your heated seats and heated steering wheel button here. You can also do your backup camera here. You can do all the apps that come with it, so it does have a Wi-Fi hotspot, travel link, sending go SOS system, and the projection manager, which is for your Android Auto and Apple CarPlay capabilities. And you can also do all your settings and everything in there.  You can turn those backup parking sensors off or on. That's your start, stop feature, eco mode, sport mode.  You have snow sand, auto mud, and rock terrain settings, and it also has a neutral feature for flat towing. That's kind of the big kicker with the Quadra Track 2 system. 8-speed automatic transmission. Once again, you get that bullstring on these seats. And then this one does have the power vista off, so we push the button once, and it will open up halfway. And then you push it again, and it will open up for the second roof. That's fixed glass on the second one. This front one is actually a power sunroof. You can see that it actually darkens the back window when you open it. And then that's the wind visor there. So you have those sunroof and vista roof controls up there, as well as your home link buttons for your garage doors, security systems, and lighting systems. You can program those to control all that. You get your rear gate button, and then your map lights, of course, right here. And then there's a sunglass holder. You also get an SOS and a sys button in the rearview mirror. We will take a quick look at the back seats, and then we'll check out under the hood for that SRT hood. It's pretty cool. Whoops. Got to unlock it here. Also did want to show you that it does have... They started doing this, I think, in 2013 with the capitalist fuel fill, which is a really nice feature. So I do have the original window sticker right here. Feel free to pause the video at any point in time to see the options on this particular vehicle. This one has an MSRP of $50,540. We do have a couple of these particular vehicles on the lot right now, and you can see it does have the bi-Xenon HID headlamps and that 9-amplified speakers with the subwoofer, 506-watt amplifier on there, and the sport hood, of course, as well. So the back seats, they have that design of the seats. It's a lot like the 25th anniversary seats from a couple of years ago, and the carpeting get-format back here. Finally, there's two USBs, and then a 115-volt, 150-watt plug-in back here. These seats do fall down, almost completely flat, like so. They go up like that, headrests go up, and finally, there is the child safety lock for the back doors here, and we'll take a quick look under the hood at that SRT hood. I would personally like to thank you for checking out the video today. Hopefully, from this HD video, you'll have been able to tell just how clean or check out some of the features on this limited X, and learn a little bit more about the 2020 Grand Cherokee. Under the hood, we have the 3.6-liter Pentastar V6 motor. Really a good engine. It's won a lot of awards. It's been awards top 10 engine lists several times, but that SRT hood actually says SRT on the heat shield there, which is really cool, and you can see that that's a true couple hood, so it's got holes in it, and actually is sucking air in from the outside. But really cool stuff. Really cool vehicle. It's been a very, very popular vehicle for us, and for good reason. They drive great.  Hope you enjoyed it, and if you want to check out more HD videos like this one, you can go to youtube.com slash summit auto. Remember to like, subscribe, and share on this video and all the videos that you see there. In fact, in a second, you will see a link to subscribe to our YouTube channel on your left. A link to more new video demos and walk-arounds on your right if you have not been to our website on the bottom. A link to this vehicle on our website, click those, check us out, and we're really excited to offer the 2020 Jeep Grand Cherokee, especially the limited Xs and the limited packages. We're going to be doing some more videos on some more of these 2020s coming up here shortly. Thanks for checking out the video, and we look forward to seeing you around.


The next item of business is a statement by Nicola Sturgeon on historical adoption practices. The First Minister will take questions at the end of her statement, and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. The issue of a formal apology is an action reserved by Governments as a response to the worst injustices in our history. Without doubt, the adoption practices that prevailed in this country for decades during the 20th century fit that description. For the people affected by those practices, I appreciate that an apology has been a very long time coming. One of the most ardent campaigners for it has been Marion McMillan. In the mid-1960s, Marion was a teenager living in Strunrar. When she became pregnant, she was sent to a mother-in-baby home in the north of England. Marion has described the horror of having her son taken away from her. I remember crying and telling them, but I'm his mummy and begging them not to take my son. I was told not to be silly, I'd get over it and I could always have other babies when I was married. Elspeth Ross faced her own ordeal. In 1962, she gave birth to her son in a mother-in-baby home in Glasgow. After I had my son, I was in the nursery for six weeks looking after him, but nobody told me they were taking him away. I was upstairs the very last day and told to pack my bags and go, not knowing that I was never seeing my son again. In 1979, Janelle Farmer gave birth at the age of 22. She had recounted the moment in the hospital when she was told that her baby was being adopted. I was treated in quite humiliating ways from the outset. I didn't understand at that time that I had lost the decision that the decision had been made for me. I didn't understand that until the social worker appeared after the birth. The horror of what happened to these women is almost impossible to comprehend. It is the stuff of nightmares, yet those were not isolated cases far from it. Until the late 1970s, forced adoption was a relatively common practice in Scotland. Many thousands of children were subject to it. In most cases, their mothers were young or unmarried. They were stigmatised as a result. They were forced or coerced into the adoption process by charities, churches, health professionals and social services. Some mothers suffered physical mistreatment or abuse. Some were denied appropriate healthcare. Up until the early 1970s, mothers in some cases were given stil bistro, a drug that dried up their breast milk, which is potentially carcinogenic. Virtually all of the mothers were made to feel worthless. Among many falsehoods, they were told that they had nothing to offer their child except state benefits. They were told that, without adoption, their child would grow up a delinquent and that they were selfish for wanting to keep their baby because they would be denying them a so-called better life. Consistently, mothers were lied to about the adoption process. They were given no information about what was happening when they did object they were bullied or ignored. Some women were never even allowed to hold their babies. Most never got the chance to say a proper goodbye. Many were threatened with terrible consequences if they ever tried to make contact with their child. For these mothers, it was a living nightmare, a nightmare from which they have never truly been able to wake. The grief, heartbreak and shame of what happened has been a constant throughout their lives. Many have had to bear this trauma in silence for fear of other people's judgment or pity. It has affected their relationships with subsequent children, partners and family and friends. For many, it has created serious mental health impacts that persist to this very day. For the sons and daughters who were taken, the impacts have also been profound. It is important to say and to say very clearly that many of them went to loving homes. Acknowledging these injustices should never be seen as a rejection of the deep bonds that people share with their adopted families. Nothing can ever invalidate the love that these families have for one another. It is also clear that many of those affected far too many had a very different experience. We know that some will always have lacked a sense of belonging. Some may even have suffered mistreatment or abuse, and all of them will have grown up believing that their mothers chose to put them up for adoption of their own free will. Understandably that has affected them, and yet it was never true. As adults, the practical difficulties of accessing adoption records have been a further torment. Even when families have been able to reconnect, that in itself has brought huge emotional challenges. Sometimes the search has ended in further heartache when the person being looked for is already deceased. For the fathers affected, there has also been great suffering. They too lost a child, they too had their rights denied by a system that ignored and dehumanised them. There is good reason to believe that some mothers were not even allowed to put the fathers names on the birth certificate, a permanent obstacle to reuniting with their son or daughter. Of course, the impact of what happened has been felt more widely by the loved ones of everyone involved. The legacy of these practices continues to affect generations of families in this country and beyond. It is a level of injustice that is hard now for us to comprehend. Today, how do we even begin to explain how such appalling acts could take place? Obviously, they were the product of a society where women were regarded as second-class citizens, where unmarried mothers were stigmatised and where people in authority had too much power. We also know that similar practices happened in other countries, but that does not, for a moment, excuse the appalling mistreatment that people suffered, nor does it absolve the individuals and institutions involved. After all, it is not just in hindsight that these practices are wrong. Mistreating women and forcing them to part with their babies was never right. It was always cruel, unjust and profoundly wrong. There is a line of argument that says that, because the Government of the Time did not support those practices, there is nothing to apologise for. Anyway, those events took place long ago before this Parliament reconvened and anyone in this chamber held public office, but those are not reasons to stay silent. Ultimately, it is the state that is morally responsible for setting standards and protecting people. As modern representatives of the state, I believe that we, among others, have a special responsibility to the people affected. First, we have a responsibility to do whatever we can to support them in dealing with the legacy of what happened. That is why, last year, the Scottish Government established specialist support and counselling services for those affected by historical adoption practices. At the same time, we launched a consultation asking people affected to share their experiences. I want to take this opportunity today to thank everyone who responded. We have since commissioned a study that will report later this summer on how we can improve the support that people can access from psychological support to help in reuniting with family members. We will continue to explore with those affected the key challenges that they face with regard to adoption records and the lasting health impacts faced by mothers who were given still-be-straw. On that final point, I want to emphasise again today the importance of women attending routine breast and cervical screening appointments. Another responsibility that we have to them, of course, is to provide an assurance that the lessons of this period have been learned. There is no doubt that adoption practices and our society in general have come a long way in the decades since, but we can never ever allow ourselves to be complacent. At all times, we must ensure that the services that are meant to protect families fulfil that role as effectively and compassionately as possible. That is why this Government is so focused on delivering the conclusions of the independent care review, the promise that emphasises the importance where possible of keeping families together.  That has always been a central mission of this Government, and it is how we ensure that such injustices never happen again. The final way in which we can keep faith with those affected is more symbolic, but no less meaningful for that. It is something that has been campaigned for tirelessly over many years by many of the people seated in our gallery today, and it is a cause that I know has been championed by members across this chamber. As a Government and a Parliament, we can set the record straight. We can acknowledge the terrible wrongs that were done, and we can say with one voice that we are sorry. Today, as First Minister, on behalf of the Scottish Government, I say directly to the mothers who had their babies taken away from them, to the sons and daughters who were separated from their parents, to the fathers who were denied their rights, and to the families who have lived with the legacy. For the decades of pain that you have suffered, I offer today a sincere, heartfelt and unreserved apology. We are sorry. No words can ever make up for what has happened to you, but I hope that this apology will bring you some measure of solace. It is the very least that you deserve, and it is long overdue. Thank you. The First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we will move on. I will be grateful if all members who wish to ask a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons now. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to thank the First Minister for advance sight of her statement. I begin by associating the Scottish Conservatives with the statement made by Nicola Sturgeon. We are joined in the chamber by the courageous campaigners of historic force adoption. Today would not have been possible without them and their determination to seek a sincere national apology after 60,000 women were forced to give up their babies for adoption simply because they were young or unmarried. Although a national apology cannot right the wrongs of the past, but for those suffering lifelong trauma, it will be the start of a healing process. My only regret is that many campaigners have sadly died before this apology was made. We need to make sure that this part of history will never repeat itself and that we protect the rights of women and children in Scotland. In relation to the commission's study, can I ask the First Minister if this will be trauma-informed and that the support being offered is meaningful and needs-based? I thank Megan Gallacher for her question and for associating her party with the apology that has been offered today. Let me give an assurance that, although I recognise and understand completely the importance of offering an apology today, it is in many respects not the end of this process. There is much work still to do to understand the impact of these horrendous practices but also to ensure that we offer as much appropriate support as we can in the months and years to come for those who are still dealing with the impact of that trauma. I give a commitment today that any work done by the Scottish Government will always be trauma-informed and that we will work to ensure and do that together with those in the gallery, campaigners and everyone across our country that has been affected by those practices to ensure that the support that they need now and in the future is provided. I know that this is something that the person who succeeds me as First Minister will give as much importance to as I and my Government have done. Jackie Baillie Can I too thank the First Minister for her formal apology and on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party echo her remarks? We believe that there are an estimated 60,000 Scottish mothers who were compelled to give up a baby for adoption simply because they were unmarried in the 50s, 60s and even into the 70s. Those cruelties are among the most appalling of injustices that our society has inflicted on women and their children. Marion McMillan from Paisley is one of those mothers. She is now in her 70s and terminally ill. Her wish is that the victims in Scotland receive the apology that they deserve and I welcome her and all the other women who have bravely campaigned for so long to the public gallery. Marion has of course worked with other victims of forced adoption from around the world. She has reunited mothers with children and has given evidence that helped to secure the world's first Government apology for forced adoption, which was in Australia in 2013. We commend the brave and tireless work of Marion and all the other campaigners, but let me also pay tribute to Marion Scott at the Sunday Post for her very tenacious support for those women. MSPs from across parties have lobbied the Scottish Government. It was, of course, Neil Bibby that first raised this way back in 2015, and the issue has been taken up since by my colleague Monica Lennon and indeed others. It is right and beyond time that there is a formal apology in Scotland for the injustice of forced adoption and to confront this shameful chapter in Scotland's history. For some, the apology will bring closure for others. It is the start, not the end. Will the First Minister therefore commit her Government to a firm type table beyond the study that will give those women and their children access to appropriate health services, including trauma-informed counselling, and easier access to adoption records? I thank Jackie Baillie for her question and I thank the Scottish Labour Party for associating themselves with today's apology. Members across the chamber have campaigned for the apology that has been offered today. I, too, would make particular mention of Monica Lennon, who has done a great deal to advance that cause. One of the many tragedies of the situation is that we do not know for certain how many were affected by forced adoption practices. According to the national record of Scotland statistics, from 1930 until 1979, approximately 73,000 adoptions were recorded in Scotland. However, there is no data available for this period to tell us how many of those adoptions occurred without the birth mother's informed consent. Not knowing the precise data is, as I say, one of the many tragedies of this. We also know that there are many mothers who were forced to give up their babies in Scotland who now live in other countries. I know, for example, that we have at least one person from Australia with us in the public gallery today. The impact of this, the depth of this and the suffering from this is impossible for any of us to properly quantify. That is what makes it so important that we do, firstly, issue this apology, but secondly, make sure that we continue to work with those affected. I again pay tribute to the women with us in the gallery today and to the many others, some of whom will no longer be with us, who, out of their own trauma and suffering, have campaigned for justice and to stop this ever-happening to others. It is absolutely essential that we work to identify the appropriate support, and that part of the process is really important. Then, as Government, implement that support across all the different areas that are necessary as quickly as possible. As everyone knows, this time next week there will be a new First Minister here. Whoever that is, I have no doubt that they will give this the same commitment as my Government has. I am sure that all of us across this chamber will be doing everything that we can to hold the Government to account on that. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is a momentous day for at least 60,000 mothers who were forced to give up their child, not least of all Marion Macmillan and the other brave campaigners who have spent their lives fighting this heartbreaking injustice. Does the First Minister agree with me that this dark period in our history should never be forgotten and should inspire progressive policies to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again? Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with this. This is a historic practice, but we must never be complacent. We must make sure that every single day that we are guarding against any injustice like this ever, ever happening again. That is why some of the wider work that the Scottish Government is doing is so important. I referenced in my statement the independent care review and the promise that came from that. The Government is committed to keeping the promise. We must also continue our work to lift children out of poverty. Sadly, we know that children growing up in poverty are more likely to be removed from their families, which is why our package of support, not least the Scottish child payment, is important in that respect, too. We must never be complacent. We must ensure that we do all we can to tackle gender inequality, inequality, to protect the human rights of everyone, because only if we do all that can we build the better society that all of us want. Miles Briggs to be followed by Emma Roddick Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today is important. I would like to pay tribute to all the campaigners in cross-party working, especially with Neil Bibby, Monica Lennon and Marion Scott, who has also been mentioned to make today happen. Mothers, fathers and adult adoptees have lived with this lifelong trauma, not often being able to develop and maintain relationships with the total feeling of rejection. So today is just the start of a healing process, but also a wider exposure of the medical practices that took place in our country during these times. The use of still bestural DES, as the First Minister has stated, has had lasting negative health impacts, which need to be addressed and awareness raised around the impact that the use of these drugs has had on mothers and children. Can I ask the First Minister what role the chief medical officer in Scotland will now have to investigate and take forward work on the medical practices used during this time, and additional advice that will now be given to mothers and adult adoptees? All of us have the almost sympathy for any woman who had their child forcibly taken away, but that is added to the sympathy that we have for the women who were prescribed still bestural. It is, of course, important that they have access to the support and the advice that they need. The chief medical officer, of course, will offer such advice always on an independent clinical basis. I am sure that the chief medical officer would be happy to correspond further with members about any advice that he considers appropriate. Of course, the most recent guidance that was produced by the UK health security agency is that routine cervical screening is appropriate for those who believe that they were exposed to this drug, and that applies in Scotland. In terms of lasting health impacts, I want to emphasise again today, as I did in my statement, the importance of women attending both routine breast and routine cervical screening appointments. There is no doubt whatsoever that the medical practices compounded the injustice that women face, and that is one of the reasons why today's apology is so important and so long overdue. I also thank the First Minister for her very powerful words, which are crucially backed up by a range of actions from the Scottish Government to support those who have been affected. I ask her for an assurance that the Scottish Government will continue to place lived experience at the heart of its approach to helping those who have been impacted by historic adoption practices. I will give that assurance, and I think that I can give that assurance with confidence on behalf of whoever succeeds me as First Minister. Over my years as First Minister, I have become ever more convinced about the indispensability of lived experience in all of our policymaking, but there are probably few areas where lived experience matters more than on this one. I do not think that any of us in this chamber, although our hearts are filled with sympathy on behalf of the women who suffered this injustice, none of us can comprehend what that was like. Therefore, making sure that we hear directly from those who are still with us and who feel able to contribute that lived experience is absolutely essential. I give that commitment, and I know that whoever comes after me will honour that commitment, because it is so important. A veil of silence has been lifted today, so I add my voice to thanking the First Minister for making a apology on behalf of the Scottish Government and, indeed, on behalf of Scotland. This is a day of mixed emotions. Some people have been name-checked already, but I look around the gallery and I see that Marion is here and Janna is here. Evelyn Robinson has, indeed, travelled from Australia with her son, who was born in this city in 1970 and was taken from his mother. It is a difficult day for other adult adoptees. I know that Esther is here, that Fiona is here and Marjorie is here and so many more. There will be people today not even realising that they too have been affected by this. There are so many survivors. There have been so many good questions already, but I want to ask the First Minister, as she agrees, that, after today, not just as a Government but as a Parliament, we continue to work together on this issue to educate ourselves, because it was a lack of compassion and it was prejudice and it was complacency that made this happen. This week is a week when we are celebrating single parent families in Scotland and when I was speaking to some media today, I said, this happened because women did not have a wedding ring on their finger. We cannot be complacent and there are people today who will say, well, why are we not talking about the 1980s and later dates, because, as we heard from Lisa today about her experience, that happened in 1982, the year after I was born. What can we do to continue to educate the people of Scotland about this? There has been a call to record some of this history in the Glasgow Women's Library. What else can we do, First Minister, to make sure that there is no complacency and that never again can something like this happen in Scotland? I thank Monica Lennon for that question and for all she has done to bring us to where we are today. Miles Briggs and Neil Bibby have been referenced too. I quoted very deliberately some women in my statement because their words can give an understanding to the horror of this much, much more than any words of mine can, but I am conscious in quoting some women that there are many, many more who were not quoted and I want to pay tribute to every woman, not just here in the gallery today, but every woman who suffered this injustice. It is important that we recognise that Monica Lennon talks about 1982. We know that this was a routine practice up until the late 1970s. That does not mean that it did not happen at all after that. It is also important to recognise that, as we describe this as historical, that we recognise that it is recent history that we are talking about. Monica Lennon was referencing the man who I know is with us from Australia, but born here, born in 1970. I was born in 1970 to a young mother. This is not history that is way, way past. This is in our lifetimes and that should also remind us and underline the importance of not being complacent. Unfortunately, we frequently discover across a whole range of issues that injustices that we thought were long gone can reoccur if we are not vigilant and if we don't guard against that. We must continue to learn. We must, on issues like this, I hope, continue to stand together. We must find ways, while trying to bring some closure for those who suffered, also finding ways to remember. I have heard suggestions of a memorial in the Glasgow Women's Library. I cannot speak for the library, it is an institution that I have huge affection and respect for, but I think that we should be open to all of these suggestions to make sure that we deliver as much justice as we possibly can but that we never forget and we allow these horrendous experiences to stand as reminders of what happens if we don't remember the value of our common humanity and if we don't protect what matters most in our society. I again give a commitment today knowing that it will be somebody else that takes it forward but in confidence that this chamber will stay united in making sure that we do learn those lessons and that we find the most appropriate ways of delivering support and always remembering. First Minister, my constituent Fiona Henderson has been in regular contact with my office and I have been working with her. I believe that she is in the chamber today for some months now. I should point out that I have asked her and she is happy for me to use her name in this question. Her name pre-adoption was Samantha Jane Penfold and her adoption has caused her severe trauma and anguish, so I am asking this question on behalf of her and all those other adoptees who are suffering likewise. The First Minister addressed the difficulties about access to adoption records and while I recognise the sensitivities that exist in relation to this matter, the adult adoptees have been waiting a very long time for help. What assurance can the First Minister give that the Scottish Government and its agencies are continuing to work with parents and adoptees to understand and hopefully overcome the barriers to accessing those adoption records? My statement today is very deliberate and I think rightly directed an apology to mothers who had their children taken away to fathers who lost their children to but also to the children who were adopted as a result of those practices. It is important that as we move forward from today, we give support to everyone whose lives were affected. That, of course, does mean that we continue to support those who want and have had difficulties accessing adoption records. Unfortunately, as we all know, some complexities are involved in all of this, but it is important, nevertheless, that we overcome those complexities. I want to give an assurance today that we will continue to do that. In the meantime, National Records of Scotland will continue to provide access and assistance in line with current legislation. Any changes here will need to be carefully considered, but I want to give an assurance today that we are listening and will continue to listen to the very important and valid calls that are being made for improvements in this area. Beatrice Wishart, to be followed by Evelyn Tweet. I thank the First Minister for advance sight of her statement on behalf of Scottish Liberal Democrats echo its sentiments. Tens of thousands of Scottish women had their child forcibly taken from them and adopted and I express my sympathy to all those who had to live with this wrong. The First Minister's formal apology acknowledges that the state was wrong and it won't change what's happened, the pain or the hurt or the injustice, but I do hope that it brings some comfort. Does the First Minister agree with me that it's incumbent on all of us to uphold women's and girls' human rights, ensuring that practices like this never happen again? Can I thank Beatrice Wishart for her question and for associating the Scottish Liberal Democrats with the apology offered today? I think that her question goes to the heart of this issue. Those practices were able to happen because of the inequality of women in our society, and therefore part of making sure that injustices like this never happen again is to continue to progress and advance and secure women's equality. That is a responsibility for all of us, but it is a fundamental part of what we must do to recognise what happened in the past and to ensure that it can never happen again in the future. I thank the First Minister for her statement and apology today. It is very welcome to ask the First Minister what support will be provided for those who have been impacted by forced adoption and to allow some closure? I have a special responsibility to those affected to do whatever we can to support them in dealing with the legacy of what happened. We are, for example, already funding the charity Health and Mind to establish specialist peer support groups to provide support services that will be person-centred, trauma-informed and crucially run by those with lived experience. We have commissioned a scoping study, as has been referenced already today, to explore further the support that those affected need to assist them in the recovery process. All of that will help us to understand where we need to improve, introduce or enhance the services that are available to better meet the needs and expectations of those affected. I give an assurance again today that the Government is committed to that wider work. I thank the First Minister for her statement and apology and for giving voice to some of the women affected by this abhorrent practice. I associate myself and the Scottish Greens with the Scottish Government's fulsome apology. The First Minister has indicated that some of those affected have already left Scotland. Some will have made a positive choice to go. Some will have felt that they had no option but to leave the place that caused them so much shame and guilt. Can the First Minister confirm that the study currently underway includes how best to work internationally across state boundaries to support reuniting families, and that it will include learning from how this has been done successfully elsewhere and that we can share experiences so others can learn from us too? Again, I thank Maggie Chapman for her question and for associating the Scottish Green Party with today's statement. She raises an important issue. Many people who are subject to these historical practices will no longer be here in Scotland, and therefore it is important that we ensure that the work that we are doing is where possible brought to their attention. For example, further to delivery of the statement, we will be distributing copies to the networks of campaigners who we have engaged with throughout the work, including those who live abroad, so that they can issue to their members. I would like to thank all of them again for their engagement today. However, it is also important that we continue to learn from other countries where that is appropriate. It has already been referenced today that an apology was issued in Australia some years ago. There will be examples of best practice elsewhere that it is important that we identify and learn from, as well as, as I hope, here in Scotland, offering some best practice for others to learn from too. I align myself with comments of adoration for campaigners. The First Minister will be aware that I am as passionate as anyone about these issues as an adoptive parent. I cannot imagine going through this process to find out that the adoption was forced. Having spoken to adult adoptees, they are looking for a comprehensive collection of relevant data and a commitment to develop specific funding mechanisms for bespoke developmental trauma-informed therapies. Assurances have been given, but I will ask again, as one back venture to a soon-to-be back venture, will the First Minister support and work with me to push for these fundamental changes so that all those voices are finally heard through Parliament? I certainly give a commitment that this is an issue that I will continue to seek to advocate from the back benches of this chamber. It is not possible—I know that many members across the chamber have been involved in this issue for longer than I have—but it is not possible to do the work that is required, leading up to the statement today, without finding a place very deep in your heart and developing a determination to continue to do everything possible to deliver as much justice as possible for those affected. As I said earlier on, because adult adoptees were referenced in that question, the apology delivered today is directed to all those who suffered as a result of these abhorrent adoption practices, from mothers and fathers to the sons and daughters who grew up without their parents. There is a range of support that those affected need now and will need in the future. It is important that we go through a proper process of identifying what support is most appropriate and then making sure that we act to deliver it. I have been privileged to be part of this as First Minister and I am absolutely determined that I will continue to play my part from the back benches of this chamber. This is a historic day for those impacted by the inhumane practice of forced adoption. The First Minister really did speak for the people of Scotland with a statement that was just and made with compassion. My constituent, Jan Oe Farmer, welcomes this apology and she raises the point that many impacted now live out with Scotland. Obviously, the First Minister has outlined the steps, but can you maybe expand on that? It is important to recognise that many will no longer live in Scotland and therefore we do have a responsibility to make efforts. Firstly, to ensure that today's apology reaches all those to whom the apology is directed, wherever in the world they may now be living. I give an assurance that the Scottish Government will take all reasonable practical steps to make sure that that is the case. Secondly, to make sure that, as we are developing further the support services that are necessary, access to those support services and knowledge of them is also extended to people in other parts of the world. We will continue to do everything that we reasonably can to ensure that that is the case. The last thing that I would say in response to that question is that I am under no illusion that an apology, however heartfelt it is, is very heartfelt. I speak on behalf of all of us in this chamber when I say so. It can undo the harm, the damage, the trauma, the heartbreak that has been suffered, so there is still much work to do to try to address that in whatever ways we can. I know that the Government will continue to be very, very committed to doing exactly that. The First Minister will be aware that Marion and other campaigners have called for a permanent memorial to be erected here in Scotland. Had the Scottish Government thought of erecting such a permanent monument to remember this dark moment of Scottish history, is there something that can be taken forward on a cross-party basis? Thank you to Jeremy Baill for his question. I reference his briefly in response to Monica Lennon. Your today is first and foremost about an apology, and I think it is important that in this chamber today that is what we focus on. This apology has been a long time coming, and it is vital that we allow the space for that apology to be received and understood. However, it is also right that we consider further important steps that we can take. We have talked a lot this afternoon, and I have spoken a lot about the further support that we must now develop and make available. However, part of that is considering proposals for an exhibition or a memorial. I think that it would be wrong for me to pre-empt a proper process of consideration by stating anything definitively today, but I am very happy to say that the mind of the Government is open to this, and it is one of the issues that we will seek to further discussions on with those impacted by those practices. Thank you. That concludes the First Minister's statement on historical adoption practices, and we will move on to the next item of business in a moment or two.


Hey everybody! I'm Pastor Joey Zamora from World Life Christian Center. It is a privilege for me to be a part of Hungry Generations Internship here. They're doing a wonderful awesome job here in Pasco, Washington. Pastor Vladimir is doing a wonderful job here raising up leaders from all over the world. And listen, if you're one that is thinking of coming to this internship, man, don't think again. Man, come, sign up, get be plugged in to get part of what Pastor Vladimir and Hungry Generation is doing here in Pasco, Washington. It's a group like this, listen, that are going to be our future leaders, our future pastors, our future apostles and prophets, evangelist pastors and teachers, and also our future business people. Listen, if you're thinking about getting equipped and getting impartation here, come from all over the world. I charge you. The reason why I say this, I just got done teaching with these guys and I'm telling you that in the process of understanding the prophetic ministry, I told them that we are all better together. See you guys here, man.


I have to say, before that I registered a lot of talks and I was most afraid before this talk because I have no real proofs that I'm competent to talk. So I just had some ideas and think it is good to talk about ideas and I hope we can improve this in this both to something more than I can present here on the slides. Well, I just thought about what to lead. If I'm speaking about leading a free software project, then I thought about who to lead and lastly, but not least, how to lead. So what to lead? What is in general the motivation to work in free software? I think the first motivation is getting something to work for yourself. So normally, you'll see I want to do a certain task. There is no ready solution. I just want to have a solution for myself, but just start coding. And people who are entering the different comments have probably understand if you release your codes, free software, you get some code because there are, at least chances are good that there are people out there who have the same or similar task. And if they know about your project, they think, hey, perhaps I can join this effort and you can split the amount of work between those people. So releasing the code is free software is a clever thing. And finally, it's something to get working for your own task. And perhaps releasing code is also something to get friends, even if people are not able to do some coding and so on. Just using your third project, they will probably just love your tutorials. OK, so example, and why I was motivated to do this talk is that I was more or less the leader of Debian Reads. I do not really like the term leader. I just would call myself initiator of the project. But if you issue an announcement of a project, this is probably the first mistake if you want to avoid becoming a leader. Because those people who are thinking, well, this is a nice idea, often tend to regard those, the person who just made the first announcement as somebody who is competent and has thought, known about it, which is not really wrong, but sometimes it is more than just an announcement. If you, after this careful introduction to the first structure, some, like, weird subject pages or ask for mailing lists on the Debian web server, you most probably make the next mistake if you want to avoid becoming a leader. Or at least people respect you as such a leader because you are the man who did some work for a common project. And I learned that those people just asked me for some advice and positioned where I was not able to give any advice. And so I said, well, we just try this. And if we are lucky, it works. And so finally, if you try to do some reasonable stuff that brings the project forward, people tend to bore you in your leading position. So what if you are in this position? You can either accept it or think, well, I'm not really fit. But I think if there is nobody else who does it, you have to accept it. And this is kind of, well, doocracy. So if there is somebody who does something who becomes the person who is giving the direction of the project forward, and the thing is that you should try to make it more or less in a way that people won't accept you as a leader. And so you make sure that other people will join this effort. If you try to do some things other people will not accept or will not like, then you will lose your basis for your work. And so you have to just continuously check whether things go well. Whether people are happy with this project and to come back with the big and big stuff. I started this in 2001. And I was basically alone and started a mailing list. And this mailing list, the members of the mailing list, a number of the mailing numbers has grown. And I just learned that I can more or less ignore certain parts of the project because people are keen on working alone on this. And this is the best thing you can do if our people working on a goal you more or less defined and you can leave them alone. There's no need for any intervention. And so I can put my concentration on different things. So now I want to say something about who to lead. I think the first thing is if we speak about free software there where I was, that they are normally in individuals. So these people, I try to say, just behave different from normal. If we look at the user, computer user, I think we are not the usual computer users. We are something different because we want to dive deeper into the project. We want to get some more and do not accept what others present us. We just are thinking for different ways to do some things. If not, we would have this tiny, great, green grass background with a blue color of sky and white clouds, which is, by the way, a really bad image if you ask me, in a few points of the program. These people with the free software develops also in real life refuse to accept leadership if you look at the t-shirts of these people. And deep in us, you can learn that they just won't do something against it. Sometimes stronger, sometimes not so strong. When I was on Linux talks this year, I was a little bit impressed because the people had the face of the German Indian minister, Schäuble, on their t-shirt, and then wrote Stasi 2.0. And the Germans will understand it. I do not really like this sharp, it's a little bit harsh. But what I want to say is those people are not keen on being needed by anyone. They just accept leadership of somebody they can respect and they can agree with normal. Also, we are mostly technical-focused people and can be needed by good technical arguments. If you have no good technical background, you will not be accepted as a leader of this stuff. I think that's really sure. It has not been a strong background, but a technical leader of the free software. So a little bit of feeling is necessary. And finally, you have no handle to force those free software developers. If you try to force anybody, he will go away. I'm really sure because there is no other motivation than working on your own project. And if somebody is forced to do something he does not want to do, he will leave us. So we have some differentiation between an employee versus a free software developer. For instance, the employer-employee relation is they have a common interest. They want to make some profit. And both of them try to gain this goal and step back with personal feelings because they just want to gain money. They just want to gain money, both of them. And there are some rules they have to accept to get this working. And an employee can be fired. This is different between a free software project leader and a developer because they are just not interested in making money. They want to make their project running. It might be that at some point, anywhere, can somebody earn some money with this project. But this is not the main focus. And it's also interesting that sometimes something they are working on is different. And so they have to find some compromise and try to make things working to get some common interest. And that's the project is approaching in more or less the same direction.  And it is really hard for a project if a developer loses interest. And some projects will die if some poor developers go, or they will be forked, which is in most cases not a really good solution. But in some cases, it can work. But it has mostly something to do with differences in between developers and leaders. And some developer tries to lead his own project, which might be more successful, but this is not the one I'm talking about. So I'm going back to your previous slide, the one before that even, where you said. By the way, you can never entirely interrupt me. Please do so. That's where you cannot tell a developer what to do as a leader. The other way around is also true. I've had developers tell me, please test this now, because I would like to integrate it. And you cannot tell the lead to do that, because he's also spending his free time on it. So sometimes you will just have to wait until the leader or the release manager or whatever gets around to looking at your changes. And especially if they're invasive, keeping patience. And if you are looking as a leader, only one developer, he is a developer as anybody else. He's just in a different position, but he's also free software developer. You can't know if you're forced to do anything. This is absolutely correct. Actually, I think you can maybe not force people to do something, but maybe lead them into doing it or sometimes move them, I don't know. As long as you have something they don't have, then you can lead them. Just as you can have your employees do something they don't want to do, because you can give them money, you can get people in the project to do something, because you can give them, I don't know, add the feature they are wanting to add or say, I will apply your patch if you make it better or you add this feature or you make it more generic and documentation and so on. There are ways to do it. I don't think that will work. If you try to do a tick for cat sort of thingy, I integrate your patch if you develop it so it has to be related. So I don't think it will work one time. I think if you try to do that, people will start feeling coerced. They're not going to be, I'm writing this because I want to write it, but they're starting to feel like it's sort of, I'm writing this because I have to do it because otherwise, I don't know. This other thing doesn't happen. What you have to try to do is you have to try to make them want to do this. Which is not the trick, it's not that explicitly, but to do it kind of implicitly. I'm not talking about the training of features. No, it's not about giving this for granted, it's about making what they contribute, making it better. It's not the case by cat's basis anyway, because all the developers are different, but you can definitely say, I would implement your patch if you're not using, I don't know, a specific instruction from this library or something like that, maybe more generic and so on. People will eventually know to write better code. Yeah, but it's a different, it's sort of different. Sure, sure, different. You can never make someone do something that he doesn't want to do. If it has no relation with what he's actually doing. But sometimes you can just push a little bit and get big things done. The thing is, if you do listen to what a project leader or release manager has to say, and try to implement his wishes, then he will be much more inclined to look at your code in depth and to integrate it, because you have shown that you are willing to work with him. Well, if you just say, OK, here's the patch and please accept it. And I'm not willing to discuss problems or whatever he's going to say. I think as a free software leader, you have to be much more clever to get people in the direction you want them to go. Because you have no handle to force them. If you are really clever, you will find ways to be happy to do what you want. I don't think that you have no handle on developers. Excuse me? I don't think that you have no handle on developers. I think there's one handle that you have. And the handle is love for the code and love for the project. You can't overplay this. And you have to be very careful in how you do it. But I think this is the only handle that as a free software leader you really have. Yeah, but if it's difficult to have different opinions about the code, you... You have to convince him that... Yeah, you have to convince him that this is not a handle. This is some kind of... OK. It's not like an employer. Yeah, of course you can't force him from there. Yeah, which is the problem. The lines also get very blurred, because there are some people who are employees who are employed to work with free software projects. And so you might be a free software leader and you might have some volunteers. You know, you might also have some employees or some sponsored people or something like that who are working with somebody. So it's not one of them. But they're a report to you, though. They're a report to me else. Well, in some cases they may well report to the... Yeah, depending on what the arrangement is. In my opinion, for instance, one side effect is, by the way, that very often the documentation is not so good. Because writing this documentation is not real fun. So nobody can force a developer to write good documentation. So their approach was perfect for the documentation. But if you look inside... But it's a different set of skills to write code and to write documentation. Yeah, but you have to convince somebody to write this documentation.  They may be great coders. You don't want to really force the programmers to force themselves to write documentation. You want to add new people who maybe want to become programmers so they will learn the code. And then, by the way, document it. Or if you don't need... Not all documentation is API. Some documentation is actually for users. Not everyone thinks it's obvious to click and cancel if you want to cancel. So documentation is a cold, different beast. It takes a different kind of people. I think 100 of you would cook with 100 of these programs. That's just the quality and what is good for the project. Saying, especially as a leader, this is good for the behind the scenes of this project. Might give you something which is not very sexy, but it's a short time of time. We have to fix this both, for instance. Yeah, but if you look at release management, it would be good if you all would fix your disk as regards. It would be really good. But, yeah, it's not good. It's like mission statements are a good thing. Someone else talked about that. If you set the general scope, there are no major disagreements about what needs to be done. Maybe you have people lagging and... Slamming off. You know, I don't want to do this right now, but they all know that it has to be done eventually. And then you can get into the time base, release the stuff there. But if you have a clean-emission statement, then at least everybody knows that it has to be done.  Yeah. One handle that you can sometimes use is guilt. Yeah. Sometimes we'll make promises, like, okay, I will look into that, and then maybe you can say, have you had time yet to look into that? Really, really careful. But still, it's a reminder that, well, they're supposed to be involved in the project, and maybe they're spending time on other things. And so it's kind of a way to try to softly drag them in. And I found sometimes that guilt can be very effective. So, using some technical tools to generate that. Okay. So, well, the next topic is, the next slide is about being verbose. I think, by all means, communication channels, like email, I don't see even blogs, or even videos for certain things are very important. I think that also people are becoming informed, what you are wanted to do, and which is also an important thing, in case of trouble, use some other things like phone or real-life communication. I think if we would have some more real-life communication with hands-off of the keyboard, it could help in some cases. I'm really sure. And I'm sure that, you know. Yeah. So, for instance, to Francis here, in the case, I really like him, but he's a friendly person in real-life. But if I read all these emails, I'm so sad because it's really sad. And so, if we would meet more person, or we had more interpersonal communication, it might be better. I'm just, I can't be unsure about, I think this is a real important matter. I think the problem with Sven is that there is not enough communication. No, this is a wrong communication channel. Yeah, that's what he's saying. No, the problem is that the communication is bad, and both sides don't notice that they're miscommunicated. I don't think he can solve that with more communication. Yeah, but that's the exception. Different exceptions. Let's not reuse everything to solve that. No, I don't think that he's an exception. I think that he's just one of many cases of communication going wrong, and he's maybe a very spectacular case, but in the end, you have a lot of those cases all over the place, they're called different, and they pop up on different mailing lists, but the general leadership sense, you don't always have such problems as when we're escalating everything. Oh yeah, the little nuances help the project much more. If you can handle a little communication problems and rather than concentrating on how do I fix if somebody gets hit by a bus, or let's not go to extremes, keep it generic, you know. I mean, sometimes, if you learn people to know by email, and see them later on on the network, you start behaving different.  You just react different, and this is, well, it works to a certain point with this electronic communication, but above this point, we should use some, some other communication channels. Yeah, one more thing. In the slide, say, use communication channels and then, in case of trouble, I don't think you should really mean in case of trouble with communication, but in case of trouble with something else, because, you know, for example, I do mirror stuff in there, if, say, the Spanish mirror goes offline, as it has five or six times in the last few years. If someone's telling you a mess, a mess about it, that will automatically increase guilt, increase my interest in general, increase the feeling of somebody cares that you do, that you fix your stuff. You know, maybe this is an orthogonal example to software development, you know, if there's a security problem, communicate it more efficiently to someone and then they really realize that, you know, there's no room for, well, maybe it's not so important, maybe nobody really cares, why should I really bother? In some cases, generic methods to mailing lists will get lost while a personal reminder will get jumped up. On the other hand, too many personal reminders will definitely not work. Also, it's really important to pay all the reports. So people are working in their day-to-day life and they just like it if they know how we've made some progress, or even if there is not so much progress, you can say, well, we tried and had this and this problem also. So the period of the report depends on the project. But I think it is quite important to keep people informed. This is in several instances in England, not well done, and this is the main point of critics of mine. I would like to do this better. I have to admit, I'm doing it also not so regularly in the video main project, so I'm not bothered in this aspect, but I think it's an important point. So ask others about problems. If you have no response from others, well, you don't know if they are stick to some problem and just keep people informed and be informed about the problems, say, possibly, yeah. Just one more point. Service tracker, bug request tracker, the school for tracking things is a good thing for communication, you know, in the context of asking other about a lot of problems and everybody is saying that to you. Mail is not getting lost. Guilt to being distributed nicely and all that. Yeah, should be mentioned. Yeah, this is one of the reasons of veracity. I think I have to rework the video tape and make some more tour systems. Maybe. So a very, more important point is to be nice to your people. Yeah, it is, sometimes people are sitting in a high position, tend to become harsh to others. This absolutely has to be avoided. And I think one thing I'm doing very consequently if somebody has done a good job in the video main project, I just announce this on the mailing list and say, well, done job and keep on the good work and this, I think people like it and I had a very good response about this. If somebody, someone provided unexpected things, so things you do not really want or do not really think are good, try to elaborate whether we can change it for a better direction. It is a little bit, this interesting thing in free software is that it is not really predictable what happens. And so if something new is growing up, just observe it and try what will come out of it. More or more try to serve as an example for the people in your group. I see people's Einstein who said the best thing in education is what you can do. Be an example and if not possible, try at least a bad example. So I try to be a good example and try to follow these items but be open to your co-workers and just be nice to them. So we'll talk, not to talk, but these slides talk more about kind of reading more than a strong leadership because it just not works in free software. You have to try to move the project in certain boundaries but these boundaries should not be so strong that people will drift away. And finally in the point, be nice, try to avoid the kind of hard. Well, just in the talk before we heard the famous word, kawal, but it is hard to decide whether that is kawal or that is not kawal. People like to talk about the kawal but even if people start talking about the kawal then something is in the air what is not so nice as it should be. So while living at all, yeah, fun. I think there's almost always kawal. The question is if it's really a bad thing or not, it's a bad thing if the kawal is closed but in general that will just be people that are doing so much more work and are so much more involved in the heart of the project that by reason of doing the work they get to make the decisions. And to people that are outside that can look like kawal but basically it's just to make free soccer works. Yeah, I think that this is one of the kawal of course if there are people who are doing very much work and the people who are not providing so much work do not really understand what happens because they are not so deeply involved and they think those people are kawal. So if it is this way that people just could try to gather more information to get inside kawal, then it's okay, then it's not really kawal. It is about openness. It's more about decision making and power. So it's obvious that the people who do the most work get the more power and control but it's about the information that doesn't work. It's about process. You process the legal term but there should be a process for doing everything. There should be a process for not doing something. Make it possible for people to get rejected on their view. Legitimately rejected. We think this is a bad idea and you should go away. It's about being able to discuss decisions before they are made basically. Procedures that establish certain set of rules and then... Just to enter the kawal by just doing more work for the project. This is an easy way to move forward. If it is possible to grow up into the region of the kawal, then it's fine. It's my responsibility to get people to do things they don't want to do. Yeah, you're right. You have a very clever job. I would also add that a kawal is a... In the decision group, if the group is open, is defined, is official, it's not a kawal, it's a karmicine. So maybe it's better to have a karmicine then. This is what I meant with avoid the kawal. If people are just talking about the kawal because it's just fun to talk about the kawal, then it's okay. They talk about it if they don't have anything else to talk about. Yeah, that's the thing. Give them something to talk about, and then they'll talk, and then they'll stop. Eventually, you have to stop talking about something tangible, something, you know, if there's a feeling or something, then of course they will talk about it endlessly. If there's so much time, they can talk about endlessly. There will always be so much time. But you can also equate kawal a little bit with insiders. And that's something that will always happen together. You can reduce it. If a kawal uses a basically open IRC channel to do their discussions, you could say, okay, by definition, that's not a kawal. I'm not sure it happens that much at the technical level, but more at the political or legal decisions, like the license changes. We've seen for X11 Apache or... This was not really quite a kawal, but we have this general resolution about it. And then people feel their right to be involved in the decision processing, sometimes it's taken away from them. But you also see what happens in the case of XOR. There's a fork, and the people who proposed it were punished very badly, because basically they've become completely irrelevant. So there's a very large self-correcting mechanism in the Obusofero. Is this more about factionalism, or is this more about... Kawal, obviously, is pejorative. It has negative nuances. If you spell out a clear meritocracy, then you know what it takes to get to the inner circle, and it's very clear for everyone. But then I think what you're talking about here is more of a factionalism, which happens in all sorts of companies. You sort of back one set, another group backs another set, and this set wins, and these people are a lot of favor. I think those are different unless I'm misunderstanding. But I think as long as you... Once again, being open, being transparent, letting people know that if you do this, this set, you too can be part of the... You'd never use the word Kawal, but you can be part of the... Your influence grows as the amount of work and the quality of work that you turn in. It is just a coordinated project. You need some clear paths to go, and you have also to define certain tasks which are to do, to get this task done which you want to do. It is also necessary to mediate between the members if there are different opinions. So we have seen several escalations between members, but in most times it was fixable. I said it before, real-life communication is the best way to mediate, and sometimes you fail, but this is normal. But as a dealer you have to be clear that you have to do some work which you do not really want to work, or make some free software that you don't want to nurse other people to stay together, but it's kind of necessary. And finally, you are more or less a connection to the outer world. So... Since the E-mail project, for instance, has a website that says the address of the mailing list, and anywhere on this page, I think I removed my email address, that was my email address, and people want to talk to a person, not to list. This is incredibly stupid, because I'm reading the list and the rest is much more sane than me, but people try to talk to me, especially these kind of people, these medical people, need some character to speak to. So we have to be kind of a connection to the outer world. And if this connection is just forward, the problem to the mailing list is also fine. In most cases, this is fine, because people want to become informed, and you know who are the company and people who can perform those people answer questions, or you do it yourself. And another way is if you... This was one of the few people come to you and want to know something, and on the other hand, sometimes you have to make connections to similar projects, who might be targets for co-working or do something in common, so you are on the task, is to go to these people and talk to them about what can be enhanced? I'm missing one item there on that page, that is make decisions. It's not always relevant. In some projects it's more important than other projects, but in the end, when there is no clear consensus on a list or when certain individuals are trying to push something that for them privately is very important, but that, for example, would risk a release or the stability of a release. As a leader, you cannot be too afraid to make decisions about... And just say very firmly, okay, we are not going to do that, but we'll include it in the list. We'll look at it again then. If you do not make decisions as a leader, it will often kind of put the... The project has been in a certain state and will lead to stasis rather than progress. You can have two situations when that happens. There are no decisions being made in two kinds of project groups. One group has a clear set of procedures that has a documented setting for this and that, bug reports, main list archives, all members who fill in their own energy, and you have a group which doesn't have anything documented. And I mean documented in the widest possible sense. The poor man's documentation of just the proceedings, not like a mailing list archive or something. They don't have nothing documented, and in the first group, there will be a stagnation. But in the same group, there will be a kebab. The people will think nothing is going on because the kebab is obstructing us. That will happen. Just because of lack of transparency, lack of process. Establishing this process will help you when you can't make a decision. At least you can stall it. People will see why it's hard and they will see there will be a problem, but the problem won't be so escalating. And finally, does this idea scale? In the beginning I told you I was a little bit scared about working in the store but I think it was good that I started it and maybe collected some ideas. I forgot, obviously. I'm not sure whether all these ideas really scale for the area as a whole. I wish you good luck. Stay nice. All I said is probably valid for not elected leaders which are one of these two ocrusive principles. If you are an elected leader, people have some other expectations and perhaps you might have in mind that. I don't know. You have some policy and other means so it might be a little bit different. All this I said is more or less restricted to personal experience so we just talked about your experiences. If you have some more input, I hope you're really happy and make a motion to all of these slides. Come back down. Isn't replacement the handle against somebody? If you say you are maintaining your package not good enough, here Mr. X wanted to do it and you are being replaced. This is a decision by a leader. This is what I mean. What I said does not really scale for the area because you have an elected leader with delegation rights. This is a little bit stronger than what I presented here. This is possibly an option to... But it's only one handle. It's a very strong handle. You're not always going to use it. The problem is, if I would be in the shoes of a deviant leader and would go to some person and say I would like to replace you, would you be strong enough to say this to somebody? I think I wouldn't. This is a problem. This is a discussion of strong leadership and the same decision. It's different between strong leadership and a strong person and also if you are a strong person you most probably have not the courage to go to somebody and say go away and somehow make a decision. I think that even if you are an elected leader with such a decision, such an action, you would need really strong backing before you would be able to do that. That's actually the idea of the state. That's actually the idea of the social committee. My idea was if there would be a social committee, you have some people who are also responsible for such a decision and it's not that the person who is replaced says why you don't like the color of my hair and that's the reason but really people think there should be some change. This is different. Another advantage of having a social committee would be that the process of reaching that decision would become better documented because it would have been discussed over a longer period of time in the social committee and they would probably do some kind of investigation into mailing this history and interview people about what they think about the situation. I agree the social committee would be probably improve our handling of social issues. If we combine the issues of leadership and the social issue, the social committee is supposed to be just an advisory body. But the leadership stuff. In Evian we have this weird binary situation. Some of you mentioned it and I of course read it correct but we have one leader whose responsibility is everything executive in Evian and everyone else is beaten here We can just leave it to the leader to decide. That's a really silly approach. We need to layer it down. Like the responsibility for individual packages is rest on the person in the maintainer and the uploader's field there should be a layer down version of both decisions because that makes them documentable because there's overhead. But we can probably work on something acceptable. Sometimes I resented the leaders before Sam. You get frustrated. Many people did. I saw this in discussions. Why didn't people decide on this? Why wasn't there something done? Because you can't really expect one person to bear the burden of 1,000 desires 1,000 frustrations 1,000 everything. Basically that is the reason that DPL has the ability to call a GR basically just by himself while regular developers don't use that. Is that a problem of the system? Or is that a problem of DPL? I wouldn't be inclined to say it's a problem of the system. It was unrealistic to expect that DPL would really bother 1,000 people but he's elected by the majority. So he has the power in my opinion. When he's the majority he's elected by the majority. That's very important because you can have maybe one-fourth of the whole developer community who agrees with what the leader says and whether he won the election or not doesn't say anything about what GR would say. And the GR doesn't still winning the election. And the GR doesn't have to be connected maybe you voted for a platform but you voted for a person but a GR may be in your... Where does the leader take the legitimacy for all his decisions? What you're talking is basically representative democracy. You vote for a party, a platform and not every decision that in the end you get out of the system is the one that you voted for and that's the deal with representative democracy. In this case if you have a problematic decision to take you can get GR and all the people would say Just saying you can get the GR makes it sound so easy but we don't do it so easily. If you don't feel comfortable having... if you don't feel comfortable because you're just being a 50% or whatever you don't get people to decide. We don't have precedent for that kind of thinking. We don't have leaders we have 8 people at DPL they are all different. Some were strong some were weak some were mediocre some were good but none of them actually utilize these options that makes me one area of these options they're not really theoretically sound. For example if an issue was in the DPL and he's running into a block of some kind in that case I think calling GR on the issue saying well this issue was apparently important to people because it was one of the main points of my platform so I expected it's part of why I was elected but I'm running into this block I propose that the project shows its support for this issue so that I can move forward and I propose to do the following I think that would be an excellent use of a general resolution I have an example of that I think it's more important to think about big, hard issues like suppose we decided we're going to scrap all of the debt we decided they're going to scrap all of their very version control systems and switch to a mercury or something obviously that is a decision before a lot of people involved want to do a GR to get Debbie in as a whole stamp on it and then therefore cause everybody to go look I lost but we decided to focus for it so we're going to go for that anyway so I think GR is good for big data Yes, that's okay Maybe it was something you were pointing out yes nobody in so far nobody of the DPL so far used that I wasn't part of the project yet when the current governance model was decided when the constitution was drafted and all that but as far as I understand well this is a unique group that came up with a legal system basically out of nowhere so yes there's also something I have talked with some people we have some documents we consider where they should not be they should be amended every now and then and it's very hard to do it You need to know that the constitution was specifically drafted to prevent the project from going insane and having too many powers Those bears it didn't really come from now it was because at that time in Daniel there were issues with the project leader and they didn't want them to appear Yes, so this history is placing a burden on all of us you know, today because yes, we are all influenced by this thinking okay, it has to be a very free everyone has to remain free to be a volunteer that's the point I need to take on a leadership role and discuss and vote on a GR that will change something something substantial in the bubble procedure well So should we use GR more often? No, actually So we see the majority wants this and then we use it more often for problems The problem here is that you're asking the question you're not giving the answer We're talking about leadership I think it's supposed to see I mean, using GRs within Debian turns it in we're a very authoritarian leadership model which is a total amount of the way free software works free software doesn't like having general resolutions and well 52% said this is going to happen so this is what's going to happen So it's almost pulling it a little bit back on to your slide, Andreas about what the Debian project as a whole can do I think there are a whole bunch of things that the Debian project can do and probably let's get away from this GR authoritarian leadership because it's not going to work but I think the Debian project and you talk about communication and regular updates and things like that in one of your earlier slides and I think that's one of the great things that Debian can do we've got dozens of IRC channels and dozens of mailing lists and all that sort of stuff so to what extent we're totally swamped with communication but on the other extent it puts out on Debian announced or whatever a status or a sit-rep or something like that and if the project leader tied it into well these are release goals for Lenny and this is how we're tracking against it and this is what people can do to get Lenny in shape or this is what the QA team are doing or this is what the various projects are doing it's that communication and I think if Debian is a project and the DPL as a body uses the leadership in that way and say well this is what's happening if people wish to channel their efforts this is the way Debian as a whole the release team are driving this the QA team are driving this the FGP Masters are driving this then at least people are getting a regular update from the top from the lead saying well if you wish to be part of Debian this is how the project's going as a whole rather than saying well we're going to raise a GR and say that these are the release goals for Lenny it's the wrong tool whereas if the release team come up with some considered release goals for Lenny which is what they're doing and then the project leader then pumps that for the next 12 months and every month says well these are the release goals this is what you as an individual developer could be doing to forward your part of Debian towards the release goals I think that could be quite useful and quite a non-authoritarian quite a good free software leadership of the type forward I totally disagree that GRs are about being authoritarian I think GRs are about reaching consensus if you look at GR on the GRDL where basically the group of people most involved with the GRDL Debian legal were had a lot stricter standpoint than probably the majority of the developers the GR actually was a very good and effective way to break that discrepancy between kind of the most focal the standpoint of the most focal people and the general view point of Debian developers by just asking the Debian developers who are not involved in this discussion on Debian legal because it basically never goes anywhere whatever it should be noted that Debian both main English participants did a good job on that resolution the GR itself was just a consequence of having three options each of these three options was supported by like a dozen people and these dozens of people did a good job then a legal group at that point these guys stayed there and then we got a relatively easy vote and I agree that there have also been GRs where the options were very bad and really real alternatives to what was being handled but if that happens on Debian vote it's basically a joint responsibility of all developers and any developer who is not on Debian vote kind of sucks one other line point we don't actually have a procedure to raise good DPL the only procedure when we have people messaging 1,000 people we have a large main English like to develop Debian vote because I don't know how many 1,200 people but it's a bizarre but if you scream at it nobody actually hears you you can't scream at it but if you yell on Debian vote announce that's a completely different picture so we don't have a system of reading I don't know if I spelled it right pronounce it right we don't have this kind of leadership so I don't really expect the leaders these bits from the DPL idea was a good thing it was a major step ahead the other leaders didn't have this goal to just go out there and say something maybe what they said was not authoritative but when you send it to a list like that it sounds like it even if you mean it completely consensus-driven way it sounds like it has weight so there's a responsibility there but the problem is we don't have a system that produces people who can do that that's the problem I think I don't have a solution but at least it's a general idea it's somewhat self-select that's the problem itself you have to have self-loving people that's the problem yeah the problem is that problem right sir is this we call it? yes now I'm famous by the way there is one option to yell on TVNW just writes a welcome voodoo at the time everybody will notice increasingly people willing to worry I hope so but you are right it is really hard to get a focus on the people this general meeting general solutions also something people normally tend to they want to do some programming, some hacking and this organizing and so on I don't know I don't know I'm not we have about 400 not everybody but also maybe one-third of the development I know I know but but taking on what's being said also another thing I think is problematic but there's no way to consume around it is that GR yes it's a very dangerous tool if not used right I know we have some examples we can refer to but it's such a long process that it discourages people from introducing GRs also what I wanted to mention is that if you look how many people voted for the new year about do you really like to vote over and over taking into account that the people who you know the people who are here in DevConf are the developers that are most interested in the project many people are interested in making a linear solution better for their users and it happens to be that way we have this huge number of MIA I guess more than part more figures and metrics about how many MIA is really active in the project I think if you would correlate with that data about uploads and voting for DPL it will turn out quite strong yeah I'm not really convinced probably also those kind of developers who upload in regularity but do not care about anyone there's a fair few people who actually maintain one or two packages in a very specific field basically don't care about DevInner's project at all just care about as a vehicle to get the software and that's fine, that's absolutely fine I'd rather that those people do not vote because they probably are not informed yeah that's something we really spent yeah although it's taking all the stuff the issues that probably don't have to work I'm saying it's fine if they don't vote if they are not informed if they don't care about the project at that level please don't vote leave the decision to the people who have some kind of self control just a little bit of statistics David was kind of asking let me check we have 500 people on Debian Village 2000 on Debian Development and 5600 on Debian Development that's really like this so you don't know who of them are Debian Development well, only 3000 I'm scared, it's intimidating but Debian Development is replying a lot of users of Debian Development because basically the regular announcement list is dysfunctional yes if you're wondering anything about Debian and what's going on and what may affect your installation you're much better off reading Debian Development basically because it has on average very good and useful announcement and not trivial stuff pressing by so it's not time for burden for you there's 28,000 people on Debian Announce not getting any mail probably very happy about that well, it's a stable it means to me, what do you want the bounce handler on the list system, I know this much so I don't know this kind of thing the bounce handle goes wild there's a post on the announce because they keep piling up piling up and then the first post gets like 1000 bounces or 5000 bounces it's completely insane so how many people are there 600 which is quite large I'll take advantage of this period of silence we are out of time so thank you very much


Welcome, folks.  Bottom line, folks, sideways market. That's all you have out here. Bulls, bears, they're all just laying there, waiting, it looks like, for these financials coming out tomorrow morning. If we do look at the spy, you're going to see we're basically the same place we were eight trading days ago, 288.23. You're down 6 cents. And the X100, we take a look at the 3Qs, same type of setup inside the 3Qs. You're down 44 cents, down 18 million shares. Got over the highs of yesterday. Yeah, you're right at them. That's the real bottom line. Small caps. We take a look at the small caps out here, IWM. Now, IWM is a failure. IWM, this is a little tricky for the IWM. Yesterday, the IWM went higher, it did 18 million shares, and had some volume behind the move, and he had the price. Bottom line, what do you do today? You get over that high, you do 11 million, and you fail on price. And the IWM is still the only major indices that hasn't tested the highs that have been generated out here since the beginning of the year. That high is February 5th, which is 159.50. Gold contract, what do we have at the gold contract? Gold contract, they hit gold on price, they hit it on volume. That being said, the volume is light compared to what we're going into. We've done 308,000 contracts. You're going into 427,000 contracts. It didn't hold price, and the not holding price then does put in play tomorrow a test of 1284. 1284 is the swing low that was generated out here on April 4th. GDX, we take a look at the GDX, which is the gold equities. That came down with 56 million shares. That's going into 49 million shares, as well as 78 million shares. So they hit it with some volume, no doubt. That is also saying the GDX can get down to this 21.79. Right now you're 22.25, 58 million, 56. Yeah, they put the volume into it, right at the close again. In fact, I'll show you. You'll see that big trade at the end. There it is, 11.4 million coming at the end. In fact, let me go to the IWM. The IWM and the GDX, they let put big volume at the end, folks. IWM today was only 282,000. That's interesting. Stay right there, folks. Going to come back with some numbers after the close. Recap out here. Down Nasdaq S&Ps, down slightly. Really a sideways market out here today. Come right back.


U.S. Navy Seabees on board Navy Support Facility Diego Garcia assisted comms round two in a roll-on, roll-off, lift-on, lift-off evolution. So what we're doing this morning is we are bringing U.S. NS Pomeroy Peerside and conducting an offload of seven vehicles that are interferences with an engine change-out. And to change that out, we have to bring the ship Peerside, roll seven large Army trucks off of it, then the ship will go back and load the engine on, then the ship will go back to anchor, load our, change out the engine. It's got the technicians on board. Then once that's done, we'll bring it back to our side and put the vehicles back on so that it can continue on with its mission. So today we came out to the U.S.S. Pomeroy to offload equipment off. The Seabees here maintain the base and maintain all the BOSC operations as well as do these little jobs like this, operate equipment. Our skill sets set us up to do jobs like this. When they come and ask us, we can do it. Can do. Reporting from Diego Garcia, I'm Petty Officer Katrin Croker.