Okay, so, can I go on, yeah? Okay. I quickly say what might be wrong, then some small statistics about devian-develop. Then I did some research on what other projects and or distributions are doing with regards to their development list. Also about what possible codes of conducts are around in the free software communities. And then, in the end, maybe a couple of points, that kind of stuff, I think is a bit more of a problem for me personally. And also, like, what I consider a bit off topic and bike shedding. Like, we had a pretty long discussion about how long descriptions should be formatted, and that's something that, I mean, we didn't warrant the amount of messages, I think, that it had in the end, which were several hundred or so. I think the major problem, generally, is that lots of devian-developers, at least in my opinion, and when I talk to them, are not subscribed anymore because they say, well, it's just too much volume, or the signal-to-noise ratio is just not high enough for me to bother. And that's a bit of a fragmentation of community. So I think that was an example a couple of days ago when somebody was very surprised suddenly that Bash is going to be replaced by Dash as a shell, and then he said, well, nobody told me, and then they said, well, there was lots of threads on devian-developer, and he said, well, I'm only on hash-devian, I don't read devian-developer, so how should I know? And that's sort of like, and then started a big discussion on hash-devian about it, which, again, resulted in a thread on devian-developer. So there's some fragmentation of community going on as well due to people not following devian-developer and thus getting different ideas or starting threads all over again. That's what I gathered. Is there already some people think, is there some different problems already that I didn't mention that people think there are? Not for now, okay. So this is the post per month of devian-developer, as I gathered since 1998. Can you see that? I just made it a bit bigger, and until today. So what you can see is that, well, of course it's quite scattered, but I mean, it was pretty high at 2,500 until Ubuntu started, I don't know, I mean, 2004. And since then it's getting down. So now, like, there's leap here to 2,000, well, below 2,000, and now we're around 1,200, 1,000, maybe even, there was quite a lot of posts in March. I think that, sorry. Well, I don't think it's about using Ubuntu because it's a developmental list, maybe it's just that people started discussing development stuff on the Ubuntu list. I don't know, I mean, actually I didn't think about it until now, just 2004, I think was when Ubuntu started. I don't wanna be, yeah, I'm sorry. Rafael, yeah, that it goes down or sort of like, yeah. That's what I think, it's getting better in some sense. Rafael, yeah, is it not on? Yeah, okay. I can repeat, oh, there's another one coming. Yes? Okay. Well, I know the possibility is that, well, around that time we started alias and with that comes the possibility to create mailing list easier for small teams and maybe most of the discussion went in other projects, other teams more focused. I think it's a tendency, I've heard that several times that they don't discuss stuff on DevL but prefer to use other lists because they find DevL too noisy or too bad. Which is perfectly valid in my opinion, no? Well, it's still cool to have some reports on generically because, well, you can't follow everything and we are all interested in new stuff that goes over. Okay, maybe we can just discuss that later on. Steve, did you want to say something? You raised your hand or is it? Okay. Well, anyway, the trend is that it's going down and it's keeping around 1,000. So it's not as high traffic as it used to be. People can reasonably read it, maybe at least in a news gateway. Yeah, as I said, there was a lot of March. I think that was when we were discussing whether Debian copyright should have all the authors listed or not. There was a huge discussion and a couple of others. So March was a bit bad in terms of, yeah, March. But, okay, not like in days before. So, and I got another statistic of the last six months or the first half year of 2009, which is the blue is, I don't know whether you can, yeah. Steve, please. You're always looking at the graph actually, thinking is the tail-off due to maybe more of us pushing people to Debian project for project-related stuff instead of Devel? I didn't grasp that, but that's actually also something we could look at. Okay, so this is the post of the last six months. The blue one is, as I said, March was pretty high as all the traffics. And what I find interesting is that 20%, roughly 20% of the males on Debian Devel these days are ITPs or reply to ITPs. So always around 200, that's a red one. So quite, I think surprisingly large amount, I didn't think it was so much, like 20%. And the white one is, I might consider off-topic, which, yeah, well, I'll talk about that later, what I think might be on-topic or off-topic. Just, and it's not so much actually, and it's very hard to measure. I didn't really check, I mean, what I certainly think is that there's a lot of off-topic in the sense that they shouldn't be on Devel as in replies to threats. So I didn't check that, I didn't check every message, but certainly in this Debian change log long description, yeah, Debian long description threat, there were a lot of messages which could have just been skipped, I guess, stuff like that, but this is just complete threats that I think are off-topic, but it's not so much. So what are other projects doing? I mean, I only knew about Ubuntu a bit. So I was thinking about what other distributions or projects are doing. So Gen2, and it's also about their moderation guidelines and stuff, can you say a problem? Or can, okay. So Ubuntu has a, sorry, Gen2 first. A Gen2 at DEF is the general proposed mailing list. It's surprisingly low traffic, only around 500 mails a month, but quite volatile in terms that usually it's like, yeah, well it's 500 on average, but there's 250 to 800, so also quite volatile as maybe Devin Deval is as well, depending on the flame war du jour. There is a moderation team. I emailed Donnie Burkholdt, which is the only Gen2 person I sort of know who is interested in their community, and he told me that they have a moderation team, but it's really rarely used. So it's almost not being moderated at all and certainly not, the messages are let through and maybe if somebody is really totally disruptive, they might get expulsed or moderated off the list. So it's a bit the same as we do in Debian, I guess. And yeah, then there's Ubuntu, and I'm not a specialist, but so please correct me if I'm wrong. There's a Ubuntu Deval mailing list, which has like 200 to 300 mails a month, so also rather low traffic compared to Debian Deval. And as far as I understand, non-developers, as in people not associated on Launchpad with either Ubuntu Core or Ubuntu Moto, as far as I understand, will get moderated. So there's people looking at it and if it's a genuinely interesting or relevant post, they will get it through, but otherwise not, as I understand it. And general users or non-core or like other developers are supposed to use Ubuntu Deval Discuss mailing list, which is several times bigger, mostly like three times bigger maybe a month, which of course also changes. So there's quite chatty and I never really looked at it, so I don't know what the signal to noise ratio is there, but as I understand it, it's not moderated in so far that people can post there and only if they really are disruptive or breaking the Ubuntu Core of contact, they might get moderated. Okay, so next up, Fedora. 2,500 mails per month, I was really surprised. So the Fedora Deval List apparently is several times bigger than Debian Deval, 2,000 and consistently over 2,000 mails per month and it was a recent block post by Mr. Jay Keating saying, fixing the fail that is Fedora Deval List. So they were also unhappy about it and they recently started doing something in the terms of started having a mailing list code of conduct and actively enforcing it by a set of moderators. And it's as far as I understand, it's not moderated per se, but if somebody is off topic or too chatty or whatever, or not, I think that I'm coming to that in a second, but their code of conduct is basically be excellent to another or to each other. So if somebody is not there, they get a one day timeout and then if it's after that, they start acting up again then the Fedora Board decides in what's going to happen next whether they get a month timeout or they get banned from the list forever or they get expelled from the project. So yeah, and that was a very recent thing. So I think it was in May or June or something like only a couple of months ago that they actually started doing something about it. And so it's not really visible on the Fedora Deval List mails per month yet. So I don't know whether it's going to be get down or what's going to happen with it, but it's really high traffic. Oh yeah, by the way, somebody on the kernel mailing list can tell me how much it's about roughly per month or something because I'm not there and I didn't really have the time to check. But it's probably much more than 2,500 a month. Maybe 2,000 a day, I don't know. Quite insane. 300? Per day, okay. So about 10,000 a month or something. Or even more, no. Yeah, okay. Okay, so GNOME, it's not a distribution, but I've been subscribed to the Desktop Deval List for a couple of years, and I know it, so I wanted to bring it up because I think it's working really well in terms of a signal to noise ratio. But it has to be said that GNOME had to, had went through several iterations.  And in 2001 or something, they finally started doing the Desktop Deval List. And I didn't really find any announcement about it, but as I understand it, it was solely for cross desktop purposes. That is, if there's anything wrong with one particular module, file a bug in bugzilla, don't bother posting it to Desktop Deval. It's only if there's something which pertains to the whole project and a couple of announcements, like I have branched off this, which is a bit annoying because after every GNOME release, there's like 20 messages saying, I branched off this module, which I don't know why, but maybe now that they moved to Git, it will happen, it will not happen anymore. But yeah, so there's about 100 to 450 mails per month, so rather low traffic and quite volatile. And as I said, it's mostly desktop-wide and specific announcement. And it's interestingly pretty much self-maintained. That is that it's very rare that developers themselves have long discussions among themselves. And also, it's quite often that if somebody from the outsides tries to start a discussion about something and people think that it's not appropriate on a list, they immediately get told, sorry, this is off topic, please file a bug, or well, if it's related to GNOME development, they might get an answer or told, please go there or there, or otherwise they just say it's off topic, or elsewhere, please. And I talked to Olaf Witters, well, I sent a mail, because there was a recent, quite recent extraordinary flame war and it's still ongoing about whether GNOME should support other kernels in Linux and it's always a source of fun. And there was one guy bashing, okay. There was a big flame war about Solaris and whether it's relevant or whether GNOME should care about Solaris. And people obviously thought it was a bit inappropriate because Sun was doing a lot for GNOME. But there was one guy who was pushing this and he's also a developer. So this was the right extraordinary. And then one of the Swiss admins and or this moderators, Olaf Witters said, well, this thread is moderated, please don't post to it anymore. But I asked him and he said, well, they're not really moderating things. It's usually working, it's very rare and what they're doing, they just add a rule in the mail man setup to kill off that thread. So if people start posting with a different subject, it goes on again, which I think is the case, but anyway. And as I said, it's mostly self-maintained and people are doing quite well. Okay, and OpenSuzu, last example, I'm trying to be a bit more quicker now. It's not very clear where the development list is because they don't have a developed list. So I was thinking, is it maybe hidden? And I don't have very good connections. So OpenSuzu, I asked one guy, I know. And he was saying that, well, there's OpenSuzu packaging, which has about 180 mails in June. I didn't check the whole year. Interestingly, OpenSuzu Cade has 170 and OpenSuzu Marketing has 320. So about quite some more than the packaging list. Also quite some more than most of the others. But there's OpenSuzu Factory, which has 450 mails. And that seems to be sort of like the general proposed mating list. As in it's not, it's for stuff which is not packaging related. So I'd like to package this or have a question about RPM or whatever. It's about general development. So they're keeping that apart as far as I understand. So the packaging is split off to another list. Yeah, so at this point, does anybody have any other good or bad examples about development, mating lists of other projects I missed which are maybe interesting to the discussion? Okay. Then the last part is code of conduct. So that has a list code of conduct. I looked it up again. I personally think it's difficult because it's really big, it's like 15 points. And it's very unclear. I mean, there's like, please don't, I don't know. I mean, I configure your mailer appropriately or don't top post or something like that. And then there's the stuff about don't do flame wars because it's impolite or something. And then there's this CC thing, which no, there's a CC thing. And then there's no cussing because it's a problem with packet radio. And no flame wars because, yeah. And if you look at that, I mean, I have to admit that if you say it's somebody who's new in the community looks at that and it's like, wait, packet radio? I mean, this can't be, this can't be the code of conduct because I don't know. I mean, there are one or two persons maybe still getting it on packet radio. And it looks really like it's like, either it's an excuse for, well, we have to do this flame wars stuff. We like flame wars, but well, there's packet radio. So we don't accept it or the other way around. Well, we try to find a reason. So if you think that packet radio is relevant then please don't flame. Otherwise, it's your own problem or something like that. So I think it sounds like a mixed message. And it's also very, very verbose. So, okay. So as I said, Fedora has a pretty small code of conduct which is be excellent to each other. And then there's one paragraph of explanation what excellent means. And there's code of conduct for some others like Knome who originally I think used the Ubuntu code of conduct but they slimmed it down rather drastically. So it's just focusing on positive behavior. Do you have a question? Okay, sorry. It was just seems. So it says like, be respectful and considerate. Be patient and generous. Assume people mean well. Try to be concise. That's the four things. And then there is one paragraph each for explaining what they mean with that. And they explicitly say that this code of conduct does not explain how it's going to be enforced. This is up to the community or the people running the community.  And also the Fedora stuff I have to say this I think it's not really set in stone yet because it's very new. So there is no URL really to that. Then there's the Gen2 code of conduct which is also in draft. It's only a proposal. And it also focuses on negative stuff as well which I found interesting. So it says roughly the same like Knome on the positive stuff but it also says like flaming and trolling is bad. Posting, participating only to inside drama or negatively is bad. Being judgmental, mean spurt or insulting is not welcome and constantly pervading misinformation as well. So they go some length to also say what they don't like and not just what they want. And then there's the Ubuntu code of conduct. As I said it's rather similar to Knome which is expected as I think Knome sort of ripped it off for Ubuntu. Dropping the Ubuntu stuff out of it. And it's also a bit more user oriented and so far as like when you are unsure ask for help stuff and what's interesting which I didn't know until yesterday is that Ubuntu also has a team leader code of conduct which so they hold their team leaders through a higher standard. I didn't know that that's quite interesting and so team leaders should be even better to the community than the general people. So that's a review of the code of conduct. So the last slide and then let's move on to some discussions. What could we do? Like that's what my stuff is what I like. So first of all we think we could, if anybody, okay let's do it this way. Who thinks there is a problem with Debian Devel or let's see other way around who thinks that Debian Devel is running quite well right now as this and doesn't need any change. Okay so who thinks it's, sorry? Yeah please be there. I have to say I honestly don't know how Debian Devel is running because it was so verbose and so irrelevant to me that about three years ago I unsubscribed so I must tell you that based on the plot you showed I'm encouraged that maybe it's gotten better and I'm certainly willing to go take a look at it again but I'd have to leave it to other people to say whether the current state is good or bad. Well that's actually good, so okay. So who in the room is subscribed to Debian Devel and reads it at least partly or skims over the threads? Okay and who expressly unsubscribed from Debian Devel a couple of years or months ago? Okay Martin Mission Maya never read Debian Devel already. Okay you read it, I didn't see it, yeah. I did the contrary, a few years ago there was a lot much post and I cannot subscribe to Debian Devel and I only look at the archives. Okay so I think at least most of the people seem to be subscribed if I got that right. So who thinks that there is a problem with it and it might be fixed in one way or another or it could be improved at least? Okay a couple people more or less, okay. So Steve. While I would agree there's always room for improvement and we could be more efficient and happier and fun whatever criteria you use for improving the mailing list. I think today it's serving its purpose rather well and I don't find myself getting mad very often at what I read on the mailing list which maybe that just means I'm old now but maybe it means the list has gotten better, I don't know. Okay so now okay I put up some points. The first is like should we redefine or should we even define what is on topic on Debian Devel to make it even more useful and I understand that's quite debatable. So my one thing is I think a general development list should be about things which are not about specific stuff but rather important to the sort of whole distribution like packaging issues which pertain to more than one package. So okay so we're changing Apache 2 packaging in that way and all the dependent modules have to be changed, what do you guys think, something like that. And not like I'm going to do this leaf package, this game we're moving to this and that packaging thing or something like that. So having stuff which is relevant to at least more than a couple of developers because I guess otherwise you could just use a bug reports or stuff like that or more focused mailing lists as also Rafael already said. And the other thing which might be on topic I think is non-packaging development of Debian which should always be on topic on Debian Devel, like I don't know stuff in BTS link or things like that which is not packaging related. So that's the first thing. Then we might consider rewriting the list code of conduct because as I said it's sort of like old fashioned, it's very non-directed at anything. So also we could at that point think about making it useful for non-list communication because I mean there's a lot of stuff which is only useful or mailing lists but maybe we will also have a code of conduct for IRC or well we don't have web forms that much. I don't know and we could model it after one of these simpler Floss code of conducts like I think that no one is rather okay, it's really short and it's not pointing out so much. I mean there's room for general consideration or something like that. And then there is the stuff about the CCs. I mean I'd like to also discuss that a bit because there was a pretty long thread a while ago and I think a lot of people are getting annoyed at that problem as in that they, I mean it has to be said that apparently I think that Debian is one of the few distributions where having direct CCs is really unfriendly and people get mad about it because another upstream project and stuff people constantly get CCed on replies. So maybe we can also do a small straw poll like who, hey, sorry. Okay so in the Debian list code of conduct it says don't CC people if they're on the list. So if you reply to the list, configure the mail reader appropriately so that mail follow up to or reply to is acknowledged and then the problem is that we always, like every couple of months we get a rather big discussion about whether this is still appropriate or not. So, and I was just wondering who is totally annoyed by getting CCed? First do the straw poll and then. Yeah, okay please. Actually because of this very issue the code of conduct now has a statement that says you must or you should not complain about being CCed on list and send it privately if you need to. So I mean this is something that it comes up no matter what even though it says in the code of conduct not to complain people still do it on list. So. Was that actually changed recently? Yes I did. Okay right. Yes it's changed. Yeah right so I think that's also very important at least I mean if there's a problem with non on topic stuff it should always be sent maybe privately. Yeah please Steve. So I'm not sure how helpful this observation is. I prefer not to get CCs but I'm not nearly as annoyed by people CCing me as I am by the people defending their refusal to honor the mail follow up to that I've set that says I want to not be CCed and like justifying it in terms of oh well MFT will never work correctly anyway therefore there's no reason I should do what you asked me to. It's like. Okay yeah. Yes. Lately I don't have a lot of time to really develop so I would like the CC relation to be all together because sometimes there is a topic in which somebody thinks you could be interested and I think the people who CC me because I receive all the mines but that's not necessarily mean that I read all of it so I would be in favor of dropping the CC regulations. Right I mean there's two different issues I guess there is the issue of people replying to your posting CCing you and you don't like that or people replying to any posting and thinking well San Jaguar might be interested in that I'll put him on CC otherwise he might not notice that I mean the last thing is certainly all right I think the former is the one which is discussed by some people Steve. Yeah exactly I would much prefer to always get CCs the way I read most of the W mailing list is through a local mail to news gateway so if I don't get the explicit CC the chances I might see the response but it will be buried in the middle of that mail in the middle of the news group. If people if I've responded to something I would much rather get direct CC so I get it in my mail client as well. Eric. I can't be bothered about CCs if I get an extra CC pressing these extremely quickly. I'm extremely bothered when I try to follow at least discussion and males begin with three or four lining square brackets like no I would like to see no I wouldn't. I've set my MFT and I wouldn't or I would or anyway please and you need to scroll down to see what the hell is going on. I mean it's even in other in the open Moco mailing list it's even worse we got like three or four different mailing list created for no reason whatsoever whatsoever and you have males that like don't you see me and this message should be in that list so I CC that please don't reply in this list. Sorry which community is that? The open Moco one. Open Moco. Yeah. Because they created they were very ambitious. Very technical people. They created hundreds of mailing list where no one writes and they still try to enforce it which is funny. I was just gonna say that if we look back in history at when that clause was added to our current code of conduct for the list there were two things going on one is that a lot of mail client software wasn't nearly as good as the mail client software we have today and most reasonable mail clients today make it possible for you to configure it so that you only see messages with a given message ID once and if you're using mail client that doesn't do that I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for you and the second thing is that that was created at a time when many more people were having to go to much more complex measures to actually participate in mailing list than they are today. The internet has become much more pervasive on a worldwide basis and the cost of participation in the internet has gone down. So I also have very little patience for people who want to modify my behavior to save themselves 1% on their mail traffic each month or something it's just, yeah. Okay, so I guess like most people are not too bothered by getting CC here. Yeah, I just wanted to say I'm also part of the people who are not bothered with CC and quite like them and we recently changed code of conduct to say well if you really don't want CC and you are bothered by someone doing it just reply privately explained in that and not on the list. As is already the case in the code of conduct because they... Yeah, otherwise it sparks a new substrate about stuff we don't care about. Yeah, even to further underline this, I mean the right place to complain and if you see threads like this, the right place to complain is to file a bug against list master or list.debian.org on the BTS. Those are the only people who can change the code of conduct or alter this behavior. So discussions on Debian.Devil about it are off topic. Okay, so then there's two other points which might be reconsidered as I said before like OpenZooZoo has a packaging mailing list. So for example, well what I think is that we have the Debian mentors mailing list for new people in the community. So they can ask questions about packaging. But on the other hand, we have like old time developers popping up again and asking sort of like things you would expect a new developer to ask on mentors on Debian.Devil because mentors doesn't really apply to them. So they're asking, I don't know. I've been a Debian developer for 15 years, never did a shared library. How is this supposed to work or something like that? Or I don't know, stuff like that. I mean, it could be considered to have a special mailing list where packaging things are discussed or questions are explicitly asked there and only have like, as I said, stuff which pertains to more than one package or non-packaging development of Debian to it. Steve. Shouldn't that be the Debian mentors mailing list to a certain extent? Which one? Debian mentors. Yeah, right. So just because somebody's been a Debian developer for 15 years doesn't mean that mentors isn't the appropriate venue if they have questions that are about things that are areas that they're not familiar with. We could also do that. I mean, on the other hand, mentors sort of like, it's also, I think it's also for non-packaging stuff for new maintainers probably, like how to get into the community and things like that. So it might be, in its sense, it's also very much for new maintainers. So there might be a lack of focus if you have it for new maintainers and for packaging question, but we could always also do it. I mean, it's something worth discussing. And Riko. One thing that I didn't use Debian developer in the past and I started to use it now is it's a sort of peer review place. In the past, you post your bit of code because you don't understand how it works or you wanna get help. It was kinda likely that a couple of person would get inflamed and maybe because they thought it was a nice time to humiliate someone. Or there was this perception that it could happen. So I wouldn't suggest it to people whereas now, even if I maybe don't do it often myself, but sometimes I do it and it's quite helpful. People did get back to me and help. And I do suggest it to NM when I do AM work. It's like, if you have a bug that your tag help, do also ask for help in Debian develop because it's likely some people will be interested in the little technical problem and get help. I wouldn't have done it in the past because I would send someone to be flame grill potentially and I didn't know if their shoulders were large enough to skip the first two or three crappy things and get the useful bit. I think now it gets useful for that. And I feel quite lucky because it's really good to have a sort of general place for peer review if needed. Obviously, low kind of, I just started packaging these package peer reviews on mentors, but I know this problem is not trivial or it doesn't look trivial to me. This sounds like the bell. Okay. Use case that I think is quite good too. So that's sort of like a different opinion. Yeah, I mean, so just gathering opinions now. The last thing which like comes from my statistic stuff is maybe thinking about splitting off like to cut down a bit more on the traffic and make it more focused. We could split off the WNPP or the IT traffic list. I mean, hash dash WNPP exists, but it's a bit of a different thing because you get like one year old replies to bug reports about how do you still want to package this or what's the status or you get all these process stuff when people fix it eventually. So what people are probably interested in is like getting ITPs and being able to review them and discussing the ITP itself and not necessarily the package. So that could maybe be split off to another list where people who are, because personally, I don't really, I mean, I just skim through the ITPs. I don't read them all. I mean, sometimes if something seems really interesting, I'll look at it, but I don't, I see it as a bit more like a noise thing on Debbie Newell, but certainly that's different to people. And, but on the other hand, people who are really interested in that would probably be able to subscribe to some more focused list, Raphael. Yeah, I am in the same, I feel quite the same like you. I mean, I don't read much of them on the other end. I also think, well, Debbie Newell is really the central mailing list where we decide what Debbie Newell is and Debbie Newell is about packages. So we must some more keep something there. I don't think putting up on another list is a good idea and not list all of them. Maybe we could drop part of them. I don't, it's like, well, sheet loads of Perl modules. It's not a, it's a library. It's not really something that user will use. It's not something that matters much. And maybe all those ITP could go to the Debian Perl list and similarly for the quite high volume stuff. But in general, I think it's worthwhile to keep it just to be able to say, well, do we really need that software? We have already this one and this one. Because we still have to have the discussion of the usefulness for the user. I mean. Right, so maybe we could just, I mean, people should condense like 20 new Perl packages which had to be packaged for this new thing into one list mailing or something and then file bugs without seeing Debbie Newell. That could be a thing. Stefan? I think it's useful if a lot of people are skimming through the ITPs because sometimes a package already was in Debian and was thrown out for some reason and the person posting the ITP doesn't know or a very similar package is already in Debian and then the people can comment and I think it's completely appropriate if you just skim the subjects and then comment if something interesting comes up. Somebody else? Was it? And I think that if you could try to move the ITPs to a, well, to move some of the ITPs to a different list and you have the question of which one should be moved and should be really hard to define which one should be moved. Maybe we should have some rules that for example for Perl modules, there's no need to send them to Debian developers because it's true that most of them are, well, and we know that Debian Perl does a great job, so. Okay. But, in general, I think it should continue to be in Debian. During one of the Perl team meeting there was an idea brought up that ITPs for Perl-related packages might, instead of going to Debian Devils to the Perl mailing list and maybe game-related packages to Debian Devils games. That's certainly interesting. I mean, if there's a really good functioning team for that kind of stuff, it's probably much better to have that reviewed on the particular list. That's also something to keep in mind. Well, I think the focus should be between something, well, I think we need to review stuff which is concerned, finally, use it directly, and maybe stuff like libraries really are, well, if there is the library that someone needed, so it's probably useful to see someone packages, but not all software for users are needed. Okay. Well, okay, so let's cut it here a bit. I mean, is there other things people would like to bring up which I think are problems or which I think is working well or have issues with some of the stuff that, I mean, certainly I'd like to have some feedback. I'm not going to start a GR tomorrow about enforcing stuff. I just wanted to bring it on the table and have it discuss a bit. So there's like 10 minutes left. Is there stuff you would like to discuss? Yeah, Gaudens. Yes. One thing I would like to know what other people think about this, I quickly skimmed through the threads that were on Debian Devils the last days or so. And what I noticed, I think the problem is not that we need to redefine Debian Devils, but what to do about threads that are going long and are off topic. So there's this dash test. It's very long. I didn't read it. I don't know if it's off topic now or not. But then was, for example, this GPG key signing threads spelled over from the depth conflicts to Debian Devils and things like that. If it should be more enforced, that this doesn't happen. These things don't happen. I mean, I tried to, for example, there was also a thread about Debian Universal Operating System, which I thought was non-technical pertaining to the project. So I asked the author privately that I consider it not off topic on Debian Devils and Debian Project to be the battle list and the author said, yeah, you're right. So, I mean, it's, but on the other hand, if you do it publicly, then other people might consider that it's off topic and not respond. It's a bit of a hard question, much are tell people off. But yeah, personally, I think that we should use Project more. People should probably also be subscribed to Project if they're interested in Debian as a whole or if they're really only interested in technical stuff, then they should just refrain on commenting on non-technical stuff on Devil. And maybe, I don't know how they're actually, this is implement, maybe Don can say a word about it. If it seems to be that a lot of threads also swap over or come from Debian Devil and Nouns, say, where Debian Devils is just a standard default reply to. So if people send something to Debian Devil and Nouns, which is obviously non-technical, I think we should tell them to set the reply to appropriately. Is that honored by the list or is it forced to Debian Devil? So yeah, if there's no reply to set, it sets it to Debian Devil, but if there is one, it keeps it present. Okay. So that's a decision to whoever posts to Debian Devil and Nouns to set properly. Problem, but it could be considered to maybe like moderating replies to a project or something like that. I don't know whether that makes sense or whether it would cut a lot of stuff. Well, okay, so is there other things people would bring up? Yeah. I would just like to underline what you already mentioned. The idea of telling people who are off topic privately that you think that they're off topic and please use this list instead is really important. The best way in my mind for this sort of moderation to occur is for people to get an idea of when they're being off topic, when they're being non-useful on the list. And the best way to do that is in a private message that comes from multiple people. So you think it's a private message, okay. It's extremely powerful when somebody who is being rude or whatever on the mailing list gets 50 messages from developers who are respected saying, excuse me, but you need to be more careful about what you say to the list or please communicate to the project in this manner instead. It's way more personal. It's less threatening because there's no record of it and it's more likely to cause change. And so those are the things that would be better. I mean, I try to do it, but I'm only one person and I can only send so many private emails. Okay, you already made that point in the thread. So as a private thing, it's not necessary to bring it up again. People who are interested should read the whole thread also before replying. And even two private follow-ups to say, this was a really excellent message that summarized this thread. Thank you for contributing it. I mean, stuff like that. That way people know too that messages that in a single message, obviate the rest of the thread. I mean, so you can read a message and okay, yes, now I understand the entire thread are really useful. Subscribed, people who are unsubscribed from Devin Devel should maybe give it a second chance. These days there's less traffic. It's certainly also less flame wars. It's just still a bit of a chatty or so. And if we sort of tell people, yes, Micah? A problem on Devin Devel that I found, particularly annoying, is the fact that a lot of discussions are unbounded. Unbounded, there's no end to them and there's no clear decision-making process or facilitation or this is a discussion period and then the discussion period ends and we're going to have a proposal to move on. The discussions tend to be this amorphous blob that continue on forever until I hit the thread-delete button and I'm just sick of it. And that's one of the major reasons that I unsubscribed from Devel is because there was really no process for dealing with these discussions that had no end. We needed to actually come to a decision. There's a lot of great points here but if we just float off, how are we going to make a decision about some of these things? Trying to make it a better list by suggesting to people privately that they're being off topic or by making sure that, I mean, the thing is, if the threads are smaller, they're doing the same thing. So everybody can make Devin Devel a better place, I guess, and we just need to work on it and give it a second chance. Roughly. One thing is what he's really unknowing is when someone really takes over the thread because he replies everywhere. And I think it would be nice if we could some more enforce that the one who has the right to respond more is the one who initiates the thread because he wants an answer, he wants to guide the discussion somewhere useful and he just simply can't do it if someone else is replying everywhere and diverting the discussion. So, well, at least we could formalize it to someone with a kind of conduct that, well, you should not take over a thread. I don't know how we can formulate that. We can find some words better than mine, but it should not take over the thread. He should leave some time to others to comment because, well, I just say that because it's not what I did for the depth stuff and it works quite well. The discussion takes longer, but it's more informative and, well, everybody can do that. Okay, well, we have to stop here. Thanks everybody for participating and let's hope it's getting a better place eventually. All right.


Live from Boston, Massachusetts, it's theCUBE, covering IFS World Conference 2019, brought to you by IFS. Welcome back to Boston, everybody. You're watching theCUBE, the leader in live tech coverage. This is day one coverage of the IFS World Conference. Darren Rousses here is the CEO of IFS. Darren, thanks for coming back in theCUBE. Great to be here again. So last year was your first year. You kind of laid out your vision at the World Conference. How's progress? Yeah, look, it's going incredibly well. We were really focused on how we go from being a pretty fragmented global business to being an integrated business where we were able to operate at scale globally in a very homogenous way where the customer experience was the same irrespective of where they engage with us. And we've made a tremendous amount of progress with that. So the business is growing really strongly. Net revenue is up 22% year on year. Our license revenue is up 40% year on year. Our cloud's up in the triple digits. So it's tough to be critical of how it's going so far. Well, that's great. You're growing faster than your peers. I think the stat was you gave us three X faster than the industry, which is awesome. Is that your primary benchmark? Do you want to gain share? You want to go faster than the big whales, I presume. I think two things. One is customer satisfaction, we believe is the key indicator of long-term success. So we're the number one ranked ERP and FSM on Glartner peer insights. That is and always will be my number one metric. Can we be, are we the number one from a customer satisfaction perspective? And then I believe the revenue stats will follow and that's where we are. So certainly if you look at our core peers, the big ERP vendors, all of them are flat and we're growing 22%. One of the things you mentioned in your CUBE interview last year was one of the things that you wanted to focus on was I'll call it regional alignment. Paul and I, we used to work for IDG. I worked for IDC. You were editor in chief of computer world and we worked for a company who had more offices overseas than IBM. And it was really hard to herd the cats and that was one of the things that you cited. Have you been able to get people generally pulling the ore at the same time and how has that affected your business? Yeah, look, I think the big challenge before I arrived was that there wasn't really a strategy or global strategy for the business. IFS had a way of working and there was a strong culture but there wasn't really a strategy and obviously it's difficult to be critical of people when they're not following the strategy when there isn't one. So, step one was really making sure that we had a strategy and that was really about being focused on the five industries that we focused on, focused on three solutions and focused on the segments of customer which was half a billion to five billion. So now globally, irrespective of the office that you go to, anywhere in the world, they're focused on those five industries. They're focused on those three solutions and they're focused on that customer segment. So, it helps when there's a clear message. That's a good start. I said during our preview video this morning that I've been around this industry as long as IFS has and until last year I'd never even heard of you. Is that just me being clueless or is there something there that needs to be addressed? We were just saying before we started that we're definitely the biggest software business you've never heard of. And that's common, I think. There are a couple of factors. One is that the business was very European centric and it didn't really engage in a tremendous amount of marketing and media presence. So, those are elements that I think we're doing a better job of now, but we have a long way to go. The challenge that we have is that where we compete, we win. When we get in and we're able to tell our story and we're able to show the value we win, we just don't get into as many deals as we need to and that's the challenge we have. There was a lot of talk this morning about the importance of those five pillars of those five industries. If you're going to become the next SAP, you're going to have to branch out beyond that. What is your thinking about diversifying? Yeah, so becoming the next SAP is definitely not my ambition. I think we remain focused on customer satisfaction and I think there's a different, whatever it is, leading them. It's not customer satisfaction. And you worked there for four years. And I worked there for four years, so I know. I think the big thing for me is, is that we've got to stay focused on that customer voice. Stay focused on what delivers value for our customers beyond just the rhetoric and hyperbole. I think when you listen to a lot of the complexity that our customers are facing today, any customers are facing companies are facing increasingly disruptive times and the tech industry is making life more difficult for them. The more best of breed solutions get built, the more fragmented that potential IT landscape is, the more complex it becomes for customers if they have to try and figure out how do we integrate these things and derive value from this highly fragmented landscape. So we're trying to solve that problem. How do we make it easier for customers to challenge in their industry and that's where this whole for the challenges hashtag comes from, how do we help them to be disruptive in their industry, have competitive advantage? There seems to be a sort of a fundamentally different thing about your approach, though, is this focus on those vertical industries. Most ERP companies did not do that. Is that something that is core to your values? Look, I think what we recognize is that as you move to the cloud, you have to drive fit to standard. That's just the reality of going to the cloud. And what's happening for the horizontal ERP vendors, so the likes of SAP and Oracle, is that they have one ERP solution that fits every industry. So if it's good for health insurance and it's good for a bank, then it's difficult to really get your head around the fact that it could be good for a defense manufacturer. The functional requirements is simply vastly different. And that means that you have to customize them. If you have to customize that they can't go to the cloud. So what we believe is that you have to have this vertical specialization. The five industries that we service all have a lot of commonality in the processes that they use. And that's why that vertical strategy is so key to our success. So you won't see us going into financial services or healthcare or retail with that core application. We may, in time, in many years to come branch out, but it will be a different solution, say. So you'll tailor that app or that module for that industry. You'll go deep, deep functionality, you're known for that.  So square that circle for me there. Yeah. So I think when we talk about choice, and I think tailoring is the wrong word, when we talk about choice, we're talking about choice of deployment on-prem or in the cloud, choice of customer, choice of partner rather, who they're going to deploy with. And then the solution is really an industry solution that comes with that functional depth and we don't advocate that customers customize that at all. We really don't want them to customize it. What we explain to them in some detail is that the real value comes from adopting the solution fit to standard and staying on a vanilla application because that vanilla application, you're going to be able to withstand future upgrades, the total cost of ownership gets lower, the processes that are embedded in that application are best to breed out the box. That's what they're intended to do. And that works when you have a vertical application. When you have a horizontal application and you're trying to have it do things that it shouldn't naturally be doing, that becomes complex. Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't that essentially the message SAP had when it went through its hyper growth in the late 90s? I mean, there was a Y2K thing there too, but a lot of the message was around do it our way and then you don't have to get stuck in a rut. Yeah, so I think that when SAP came out with that generation of application that certainly was what they had hoped would happen. But what happened in practice is that the system integrators came in and the whole business process re-engineering explosion happened. And that's not how it manifested itself. So what you see is you see these very large, monolithic SAP applications that were customized over, in some cases, decades. Not, you know, if a customer is deploying fit to standard then they should be able to deploy in a period measured in weeks. You know, we spoke about our deployment with Racing Point, the F1 team, and going live in 12 weeks. You know, we're a 700 million global business we deployed in IFS in 24 weeks. You know, if a customer's deploying fit to standard it's measured in weeks. As soon as they start to talk about two years or three years or five years or seven years they're customizing the solution significantly. Yeah, I mean it became just sort of a perpetual upgrade, maintenance. And now for the time it had a business impact, but boy, you think of cloud today, agility, you know, getting rid of waterfall approaches. I mean it's just antithetical to today's environment. I think, look, I don't point fingers here. I think that there's just maturity come with experience. The line of business applications, your CRMs and your HR solutions have taught people that you can, if you think about it, let's just look at CRM as an example. You had Siebel before and people would implement Siebel. They would customize Siebel. It would take long implementations. They were highly bespoke applications and then Salesforce came along and just destroyed them. And they destroyed them because what people learned very quickly was that there was a really easy to consume, really easy to use application that functionally might be inferior, but the compromises that you'd make from a functionality perspective were way outweighed by that time to value and ease of use. And the learnings from CRM and HR and procurement, those line of business applications have now been backed into in the ERP world. So in terms of capital allocation, you're owned by private equity, which is actually a public company, I'm interested in how you're allocating capital, R and D, where your emphasis is, you don't have to do stock buybacks, but describe that PE relationship. So look, one of my learnings as CEO of IFVS is that not all private equity firms are equal. They have different strategies. I'm very fortunate to be with EQT, who are a growth investor. They're known as a growth investor and they buy companies that are strong growth tech firms. And they've been hugely supportive of us investing because they understand that the investment in technology is important. So just looking at some detail, today we invest twice as much in R and D as we did three years ago, just to give you one data point. So there's a big focus on technology. And the thing is that we have to invest in technology to drive those attributes that I discussed earlier. How do we enable customers to adopt the solution, fit the standards so they can go live quicker? How do we enable customers to be able to sit down in front of the application like we do with a mobile phone and intuitively know how to use it? How do we reduce the total cost of ownership through automation? Those are capabilities that they don't come for free. We have to invest in them. So big investments in technology. Well, I think the private equity guys, at least the modern ones, have realized that why should the VCs have all the fun? They realize, hey, we can actually put some money into R and D, transform it, we can have a bigger exit and actually make much better returns than suck in the company dry. Yeah. Well, look, I think the other thing is is that in public companies, you have the downside of, there's this quarterly metric and there's quarterly cadence. And you see very compromising decisions being made because people can't afford to miss one quarter. There's no long-term planning that's done. And that's fundamentally not the case. In the private equity world, not unusual now for PE firms to hold companies for five, six, seven, eight years. And that allows you to take a very long-term strategic view. If a shift from perpetual to subscription is the right thing to happen, they can do that without worrying because of the dipping earnings or revenue that you're going to get gained by the market next quarter. And I think that that leads to, I think, better decision-making for the long-term. Well, a lot of companies are struggling with that. If you have the right PE firm, right? Absolutely. If you have the right PE firm, 100%. A lot of companies that are bought by PE firms eventually want to go public again. You're 100%. But you said something this morning that 50% of your customers each year are net new. How are you pulling that off? That's a pretty remarkable number. Yeah, so 50% of our license revenue. So we went about 300-odd new customers a year. Obviously that's growing, as I said, 40-odd per cent. But I think having done this for 25 years, there are companies that are good at extracting revenue from their install base. One of the analysts here has a hashtag wallet fracking is what he refers to it as, which I think is such a great term. So they're good at wallet fracking and I think the customers that are customers of those vendors know exactly who they are. And I think that for us to, the fact that we're able to go out and win 50% of our license revenue from net new name customers, I think is a really strong indicator of the health of the business. It's much harder to do than just extracting revenue out of the install base. We don't have a compliance practice. We've never charged a customer for indirect access. And these are principles that we stand by.  But we put our money where our mouth is and that's not how we do it. Are these net new customers, are they migrating from QuickBooks or are they migrating from a competitor? No, because of the segment that we're in, there's half a billion to five billion, I would say the majority of them are what I would call first generation ERP solutions. So you're talking about the original generation of Microsoft acquisitions and the visions and the Xaptors and the Solomons and so on. And then SAP R2 and R3 customers, you're talking about customers sitting on the solutions that N4 hoovered up, the MAPIX, BIPIX type customers, AS400 customers. So they're first generation ERP solutions that simply don't have the flexibility to deal with the complexity and demands of a modern business world. From 2009 to about 2017, IFS was pretty acquisitive. And then just, actually I was going to ask you, what about in your tenure, you stopped it, right? But then today you announced an acquisition, small acquisition, but how should we think about M&A? So look, the first year for me was really about trying to build a functional business. We spoke about how fragmented this really heterogeneous business, and it just occurred to me, if we go out and we start to buy things, how do we integrate them into a business that's completely fragmented? That had no identity or culture. So the last year has been focused on how do we build that common understanding of what it is that we're doing. We now have a very clear strategy, five industries, three solutions, one segment. And when you have that clarity of vision, then it's really easy to guard and do M&A because you know what fits and what doesn't fit. You can understand exactly how you're going to build value for customers. And that's why the SDR deal is so good for us because we're now the undisputed leader in field service management. You know, 8,000 odd customers globally, which is way more than anybody else's got. And you know, you should absolutely expect more from us, but it will be in the five industries, three technology segments, and one customer-sized segment. Well, on the API enablement should obviously facilitate that. Yes, absolutely. I mean, I was just with a partner of ours now, and they have this amazing augmented reality solution. And you know, it'll be a combination of going out there to build market share, as well as finding really innovative solutions that can help us advance the technology that we provide customers. You have a new slogan this year for the challengers, which seems to be aimed at companies that imagine themselves as challenging the giants, which is great. But if you're not a company that sees themselves that way, are they still, they still have a home with IFS? Look, I think I was with a group of CEOs from one of the big analyst firms. And they had the portfolio companies, and they have a private equity firm and analyst firm. The CEOs of their companies are having a conversation with them about digital transformation. And I made a rather provocative statement, which you know, got unanimous agreement, which is that all of the CEOs there were either in an industry that was being disrupted and were trying to figure out how their response to that disruption, or they would soon not have a job. And they all acknowledged that they absolutely fit into that category. In other words, all of them were being disrupted. All of them were facing a challenge. It was kind of like, it is happening to all of us at a more rapid pace than we've ever had before. So my view is that if you're in the room and you're going, IFS might not be for us because we're not a challenger, yeah, the lights may not be on for long. So double click on that. What role does IFS play in terms of digital transformation specifically? So if I could just build on that question. Because the thing is there are leaders. In my mind, there are challengers and there are leaders. The leaders typically are going to go with the safe solution. They're going to go with one of the legacy ERPs. So I'm not suggesting that everybody necessarily is a challenger. There are leaders, you know. Nokia was a leader until they weren't because they were complacent. And I think they, you know, well they didn't run on IFS. So, you know, I think there are two segments. There are leaders and there are challengers and we're there for the ones that are ready to disrupt. Sorry, if I could just clarify that. No, no, good. So again, back to sort of digital transformation and disruption, what do you see as the role of ERP generally, but specifically IFS? Look, I think we, digital transformation is a lot of discussion about it on the stage this morning. I've just touched on it now. I think that it takes very different forms. What most industries are finding is that they're facing a lot of non-traditional competition and they're having to innovate around their business models. They can't go to market in the same way as they did before they're having to innovate because of this non-traditional competition and understanding your customers. Understanding your staff, understanding your supply chain, understanding your financials are all critical parts of being able to respond to whatever that changes and that's where an ERP solution comes into it. I think there's an interesting challenge now which is that as those applications have become more fragmented and you've got more best-of-breed cloud applications, a lot of the value of an ERP was that you had this integrated set of applications, that you had this one source of the truth and unfortunately for many customers today they don't have that because they've gone and bought all of these best-of-breed applications and they don't have one source of the truth. They have multiple invoices, made it multiple versions of their customer and their databases and we still stand for a single integrated ERP. So I think understanding those elements of your business is key. I was with a customer of ours in Nebraska a short while ago and they were talking about, existing IFS customer, they were talking about the steel import duties that were imposed through the trade wars with China and they were saying, look, they had been able to respond to that in a way that they had good visibility of their supply chain who was imposing the tariffs, how they were gonna impact them and when they were gonna impact them and because they had this integrated ERP they were able to pass those pricing changes onto their customers and they survived this what could have been a cataclysmic event for their business. Had they not had an integrated ERP if they had not been able to have this visibility into the supply chain and the customer base they may well have gone out of business just because of that one change. To me, Darren, it all comes back to the data. They're putting data at the core of their business that integrated data pipeline is essentially what they get out of that integrated ERP. Last question, so thinking about the next 18 to 24 months what are the milestones that observers should look for? What are the barometers that we should be watching? So look, in the next two years it's really about us building incremental scale. We have a four year plan which I built when I came in we're halfway through that plan. We've hit all of the metrics and exceeded most of the metrics that we had on that plan. It's really continue to focus on the strategy as I said. We focus on those five industries, continue to build market share, continue to focus on those three solution types and build market share and market dominance on those three solutions and in that segment that I defined before. So no change from a strategy perspective I think there's real value in the consistency that we bring on that talk track. And along the way we passed the billion dollar mark which we will do I think in 2021. Organically if we accelerate some of the M&A we'll pass the billion before. But you know the business, the margins continue to expand. We focus on customer satisfaction and it's a pretty straight traditional playbook that we have to execute on now. Well congratulations, it's a great playbook and you're growing very nicely. So love that. We really in honor to the last couple of years learn a little bit about your company and your industry so appreciate it. It's a pleasure to be with you guys. Thank you. All right and thank you for watching. Right back with our next guest. Right after this short break Dave Vellante with Paul Gillan, you're watching The Cube from IFS World Conference from Boston 2019. Right back.


What's up guys take down here with another video for you. It's been a long day. I've been doing a recording of different stuff And today is parts This is the third video of me opening my 2017 2018 upper deck series one blaster box As I've stated and as I've done as long as I stick to what I've set up is going to do I'm splitting it up in between the blaster box for Opiechki So one video of this one video of Opiechki, and I'll go back and forth But today I got four more packs the last four packs on my blaster box And as you guys know I like doing four packs per video Kind of spaces it up a little bit better better than the long video long videos don't get the views on my channel So I split it up and Anyways, I hope to get a jersey card in here hope to get a young guns in here I got one young guns one portrait one shining stars And one canvas card in the last one, so I got one of each Hopefully there's a jersey card and one of these last four. Well, let's just get right into it. Oh dear Andre Palette I want to say it's Andre palette. That's how you pronounce his first name Give you a look on the back here. Is that Andre palette? I think it's Andre Andre like oh Jason Demir's Same first name. How can I screw that up? I got seven Bronski I think I Think I Have something of one of his cars. Oh, I got the retro card for Opiechki. I think that might be it One of his retro cards for Opiechki Yes Ryan Kessler this is Doesn't really say what the picture is there number three Maybe his third hat trick or his first hat trick because he's holding three pucks up But what I was saying? Yes, too is Kerry price goalie for Montreal Canadians First opening of Kerry price that I have even though it's a base card. It is going in my top base card section of my collection Because to me that's a really good one to have and I haven't opened too many. I did get some of his But not in his pack, so Open up pack number two. I know the Kerry price isn't gonna be of much value. Maybe a buck buck fifty something around those lines, but It's not like I'm gonna sell it anyway, so I don't care really what the value is Getting into the next one here. That's a cool card. I like that one I'm gonna go Rick Nash Honestly, I haven't heard too much of him lately. I got J. Beagle bagel beagle beagle definitely beagle not bagel Sorry, Cory Crawford goalie Pretty decent goalie in my opinion Not one of my top goalies favorite goalies but he would be on the top 10 list if I had to make a video which are going in the future unless I've already done the top 10 video for goalies, but Leave that there Sebastian all or whole Sorry, I can't pronounce some of these and Adam Larson I may have Adam Larson's already I do not know you not remember Getting some good ones to put into my collection Don't see a jersey card yet, please some more be a jersey card that would be really helpful Alex Galonski May have pronounced that one wrong Taylor Hall I Think I haven't had this one.  I like I like I like the I Like the picture they took that one's a cool car like the unique ones too and Gustav Yanquist is a Yanquist. I'm not sure Please be a jersey card or a young guns Please be something of value If not, that means the last four packs which to me normally have something really good That means to say that it wouldn't I couldn't just pop it open so really happy with this pack I got Michael frolic Adding to my Ottawa Senators collection Clark MacArthur He's had a rough rough Year, I don't know. I don't remember if he's back yet. I haven't been up to Dave and those senators on my team I've been up to date something tells me he's not back yet. He's had a lot of injuries He's had a lot of maybe a year. Maybe a year and a half. You might have had a year off I can't honestly remember But he's out of it. He has had a rough rough time lately Josh morsely Adam Henrik and I've already said in the last Two videos of this blaster box me opening this this blaster box Especially the first video when I found the first young guns I had I said I already have this one and this one Was my favorite one, but I just have this one again. This is my second young guns of this player taste in just So that is the second one of his that I have it is one of my favorite ones card 2 46 and The reason I like him as a player so much is he won the captain's C One whoa Back that up for a second. He wore the captain's C for team Canada in the 2016 under 18 world championship Piled up 15 points and seven games the most by any The most ever by a Canadian at the event. He also suited up for the country at the 2017 junior championship so to me he's representing Canada and that's why I love him so much Great player Great card second young guns of his that I have can't remember the value Maybe I'll link it in the description or a comment down below what the value is But that would be the top one and those these last ones that I found other than of course carry price Maybe Crawford then but nothing else compares to them Anyways, this is what I have this may be the last blaster box. I get for the year Depends I might get some more packs in between or if the store gets some more if the dollar store gets some more of the Dollar packs in I might do some more of them because you guys seem to love them because that's a really unknown of what you can get I could get a really good card.  Honestly, I didn't get the greatest in any of the ones I had But you guys enjoy the mystery as do I and only a dollar 25. So I mean You get what you pay for them To me, I think it's worth it, but anyways that is if they get stocked up I will see you guys in the future Maybe in a couple weeks early spring Sorry middle mid to end spring is what I'm pushing for for this video Maybe early spring depending on if I continue on the rage of getting hockey cards that I've been getting But I will get a top. Maybe not a top 10 video Unless you guys ask for a top 10 video of me doing my hockey cards But I will share the best Hockey cards that I've gotten this year across OPHK series one. I don't have any MVP worth sharing in my opinion I might not share much base cards or maybe I'll do a base video sharing my the best base cards I got this year But there's something I'm gonna share the best of my cards sometime this year I've already recorded my Tim's cards that I got the best of those But I guess I'll see you guys in the next video Hope you guys did enjoy and if you did as always Please give it a thumbs up because that will make me want to do more videos like this in the future for you guys Because you guys really enjoy them as do I and I will see you guys in the next video. Peace