and HP Discover in Las Vegas is where all the action is happening, this is theCUBE, SiliconANGLE's flagship program, we go out to the events, I strike the signal from the noise. I'm John Furrier, the founder of SiliconANGLE, I'm joined by my co-host. I'm Dave Vellante at wikibond.org, Scott Weller is here. He's the vice president general manager of HP's technology services support group, and I have a little news for you, Scott. We're in Vegas, lucky seven, this is your seventh time on theCUBE. So I think you've given Pat Gelsinger a run for his money. That's great. Donatelli's showing up too, he's like clockwork too. Now we've got George Kedifa hooked on theCUBE. I had to count it, it's so high. Well, one of our guys just passed me the remote, Matt Mark Hopkins said, hey, guess what? Seven times, so that's great, awesome. We had one of our senior executives, one of your senior executives at theCUBE say to us, I love theCUBE, not only is it fun, and it's good content, but I have to meet all the other executives here. Absolutely. It's like a watering hole. We're all traveling around so much, but you're right, great. So how are you? Doing well, and another exciting week out here in Las Vegas. This just seems to get bigger every year, a lot more energy, so yeah, it's a great venue. So what's being discussed here, honestly, the customers are all here, getting all your customers and your partners in one spot, it's a good spot. Are you guys announcing anything specific?  Yeah, so it's, we always make announcements in this forum, and this discover, unlike the others, through the year, is a very technical one. So if you look around, there's lots of technical displays, a lot of technical people from HP are here, and our customers bring their technical folks in to have those deep discussions. So I think what you see from us overall is a response to a reality in the market, which says that just two years ago, customers would say to us, I get clouds, some would say it's just not for me. But now, cost pressures being what they are, governments, banks, literally everybody is either contemplating moving workloads onto a cloud of both private and public, or they're already down that path. And so what you saw from us in technology services was a very holistic response to that with a life cycle set of services, everything from advisory to design, and then the operate as well. So in my group, we announced Converge Cloud Support, which is all about what is the experience that you get, how do you get confidence to move workloads out into the public cloud in an orchestrated fashion and have a known response to that, a known service level. So I see we talked to Sargill, I talked about his objective, we always ask, what's your key metric? He had one of his key metrics is obviously, get all HP customers onto the cloud. That's obviously a key goal for him. And that's a path, it's a journey. I'm not a big fan of the journey where it's a little bit overused right now, but I call it path, because you have to paving a road. And I think a lot of the life cycle discussions are interesting because it's not just a one-trick, pony kind of tool, it's an ongoing series of education, reference architectures, technologists, there's even Tom Choice, he's got a whole division now dedicated to basically packaging Converge infrastructure for the cloud. So he's doing it, your customers are doing it. So what have you learned since our last Q and G that you share the audience around? Some of those dynamics we've seen certainly on OpenStack Morantis has got great traction. Let's just, here's OpenStack in a box for POCs or whatever. So what's changed in your world? So I'd say two things. One is that we've recognized that customers are at every place on that journey or path and we need to meet them where they are. And that's why you see our response and the kind of services that we announce this week. And then on OpenStack, we're all in. I mean, this is a big deal for the industry, it's a big deal for us. It's the basis of our HP Cloud OS. And what we're basically saying is, look, this thing is built on open standards. There's no lock in here. If you build to HP's Cloud OS, you've got workload portability. That is the holy grail, frankly, to make all of this stuff a reality for customers and drive all the benefits. So I got to ask you about the OPEX question. I mean, obviously one of the things that's attractive about cloud is economics. Right. Like, cat-backed was OPEX and that's kind of, everyone knows that trick. It's, you know, leasing and whatnot. So, but now with bringing cloud on premise, private cloud, I've heard some conversations here about making that OPEX and that there's actually services. What have you heard? What's going on in that, Eric? That's what we hear from customers. Dave and I were hearing that from some customers. Is that an option? It is, indeed. So we have a service of four walls, data center focused service called data center care. And one of the options our customers have within that is to essentially procure using an OPEX model, right? And the service itself is called flexible capacity service as part of data center care. And what that does is it's a completely bundled services plus gear, plus an embedded lease arrangement that starts with a threshold and it's really geared to customers who know they're going to grow going forward. And frankly, that's almost every customer. So yeah, there's a lot of excitement around this. And right now we're in talks with some very large companies who basically want to shift entirely to that model so they can better match their cash flows. Scott, you said a couple of years ago so the theme was the discussion was cloud, it's not for me and that really has changed dramatically because I think a couple of years ago it was like, well, somebody down the hall in the business line said, well, it's for me, I'm going to go do it. So presumably you're seeing that shift. Where are we? Is it still really mixed? Are there some guys still resisting? Or is it, do you feel like IT is under such pressure? The CIO actually wants to be that cloud broker. The people in the organization want to get those skills that it's just a momentum. Is it going to be more like distributed computing or is a big fight for a decade? Or is IT going to embrace this? You know, I think that at the basis of all this is management of change, frankly. A lot of customers I talk to are saying, you know, we understand the technology implications. We really know how to do this. We've got vendors who are willing to help us like HP. But, you know, when you talk about traditional IT, you're not just talking about technology. You're talking about the silos, the islands, the hierarchies, the organizational, you know, fiefdoms that kind of grew up around this in some of our customers. And frankly, you know, you've got to shift away from that to this notion that you can go all in on pooled resources that no one group controls. That doesn't mean, you know, one of the questions that I get asked a lot is, you know, what does this mean to the IT profession? And what kind of roles will there be in the future? Questions.  But, you know, you're going to have more focus on service management. You're going to have more focus on being a broker and dealing with your ecosystem of partners to enable that. So it's really, it's really a huge management of change and challenge. And I think that that's really the biggest sort of inhibitor right now. It's not the technology, it's not the architectures and that sort of thing. Okay, but so you say storage specialists won't go away, and I agree, it's not going to happen overnight, but if you're advising your kid, you're not going to say, hey, you should become a network admin. You know, you wouldn't, right? You'd talk about, hey, you should get involved in data. Or, you know, might get involved in some kind of service provision or something like that. I mean, that's the kind of skill set that I think people are embracing within IT. I think, you know, a couple of years ago, maybe even four or five years ago, they were holding on. Well, what do you mean? We're going to cut cost or we're going to reduce labor. You know, they don't want to have that conversation. Your salespeople didn't want to have that conversation because they got friction from the buyers. And I think that mindset has changed. People are seeing, hey, there's real opportunities to create value at job satisfaction, make more money. Well, Kedifu is talking about the modern business, the new business, and that's one of growth, right? So people are in growth mode. And I think, you know, we've always talked about something like this is why I love theCUBE is that people really need a path and they need the playbook. And the playbook, it's that simple. I got to go from point A to point B. Point A was the old way. Rack and stack, loading Linux boxes. People don't want to load Linux boxes anymore. They don't want to install boxes that load Linux and a new software patch. They want to satisfy. They want to run it over the network. They want dynamic provisioning. They want dynamic policies. They want to fabric, right? So that's pretty obvious. But then you think about the reality is they're pulling that off and you just kind of get your arms around that. It's just like, okay, where do you start?  What do you call first? Who's your first phone call? Right, well, that's what we're all about now. You know, I completely agree with you but the complexity is all still there. But there's a lot less interest in focusing on that. There's more interest in focusing on, okay, what can I do to drive a lot of agility into the business? Who am I going to call to sort of manage out some of this complexity for me? And, you know, there's still a huge desire for kind of best of breed in the stack. So you've got to be able to deal with that. And at the same time, take the complexity away from the customer. We've talked about that. It's interesting, you know, one of the things that's highlighting for me is discovered, it's been obvious, I mean, Dave has been talking about it a lot more than I have been following it. But this show at HB Discover, security is just, it's just huge. If it was a tag cloud of like concepts that are taking front and center, it wouldn't be big data. It would be security, in terms of relevant, most influential conversations, cloud, then big data. So cloud is obviously on everyone's agenda. So, you know, here you can do security, do the cloud. So it's, okay, move from A to B, while you're going to move there, just fix the security. You've seen that same thing with the, are there's a far along in the conversations? What's your feedback from the field? So, you know, security's always been important, right? It's not like the industry woke up last week and said, wow, we want to care about this. I think what's happened though is when you get serious about hybrid and you get serious about having distributed workloads that might be orchestrated and enabling, you know, through a federated fashion, enabling business processes, what happens is you can bring in new vulnerabilities as a result of having that kind of architecture. So I think that's what's changed, is hybrid means, you got to think about security even differently, you've got to think about networking differently. And again, these are the kinds of services you saw us bring out this week to address those very problems, yeah. My final question is, we got to get our wrap up for the day here, is what's on your to-do list now between now and the end of the show? From a customer standpoint, because you have an opportunity right now to talk to a lot of the big customers. So, what's your objective here at the show in terms of conversation type, conversation agenda? And then just in general, next six months to a year, you're going to be at the Barcelona, all the shows, what's on the plan? So obviously cloud is a huge trend and topic and I guess what I would say to customers out there is that look, we're a known entity when it comes to the kind of support experiences that you get from HP. And what we want to say is that we're here for you in the same way, same phone number to call, if you're actually moving workloads out now, right? We're going to give you a defined experience to let us help you do that. And the other thing is, in the industry and the support of industry, there's a huge, a massive shift away from remediation which is the old style break fix to prevention, proactive services. And then the next leap, thinking forward to answer your future question is about preemption. So we are now able to look at a lot of data centers, a lot of different data centers that different customers have. And without disclosing any proprietary information at all, we're able to sense when there are brewing issues and we're using autonomy software and other kinds of big data analytics to do that. So customers, the whole prevention thing is, I don't want to wait for it to break. Preemption's about, we ought to be able to sense things and come in and prevent the very first issue and that's what we're working on. And that's the dynamic world of preventive, using predictive analytics and taking the manual labor or the manual piece out of it somewhat, but you can't take the manual piece out completely. You still need domain experts, right? We'll always have service engineers eventually something might break. We're not going to go out of that business, but the idea is how we can prevent that and even preempt it. Dave and I always talk about services angle, a section we have, and it doesn't get the fanfare of the Google stories and the Apple stories, but right now we're just seeing so much demand for services, web services, cloud services, actual consulting services. Help me. Yeah, I mean, people are in, I need shovels and picks and I need people, I need to design, I need some blueprints. So the build outs are happening and it's really exciting and it looks like an area that you don't want to pay attention to, but literally channels are being recasted so channel providers are changing what they deliver, how they deliver it, that's going to change the economics. So a lot of cool things happening in the services. Absolutely. Well, Scott, thanks for coming on. We're going to continue to always cover your area. Obviously we're watching that services angle. This is Silicon angle. Go to services angle.com. Soon that's going to fold into Silicon angle.com slash services angle. We cover that and you know what? It's important because you know what? A lot of profit has been made in services. We sell us make a ton of dough on services. And a lot of value created. A lot of value. So value, where there's value, there's money. So we're going to be watching this. So this is the queue. We'll be right back with day two wrap up after this short break.


The study found that a higher plant-based diet index, PDI, was significantly associated with lower total mortality, while an unhelpful PDI UPDI was positively associated with total mortality in a large population of veterans. The findings support recommending plant-rich dietary patterns for the prevention of major chronic diseases. This article was authored by Dong Di Wang, Yamping Li, Shen Maitei Nian, and others.


All righty, let's play this in full. Oh Nice like your gloves wall All right You are saying here that you are well into spliting now and you got the gloves rigged up We saw that here, which is awesome You turn on the arms and change some of the timing then other times you watch it and you feel like it's gotten worse. I Know that feeling. Let me see. I Subjectively as always all the critiques are you know subjective here I feel like these guys Swinging forward here are a bit too twin and it feels a bit too deliberate It's like, okay. I gotta swing my arms and stop here. It doesn't quite feel like I'm just taking a stroll going whoa so that's that's Missing to me the feeling of I'm just doing whatever because he seems like he's whistling Can I yeah, yeah, and then Getting a bit more of a snap out of this You can almost see also the twinning and supposed to pose With you know slight offsets on the sand. It's not completely, but it has just that slight feeling And I think you can do if you do this and you look up I would probably push this and do again a bit more of a casual swing I least to me that on his arms and then huh and then I would hold Where it's almost to a stop he goes here. I was like what's that whoa and then the jump versus now It's kind of a it's a bit soft and it's holds and then he has that long expression like oh What's coming and then this I would personally take some frames out and really make this hmm And then and then that expression quickly and then the jump But again, that's up to you Just kind of this it to me It's overall feeling that it just feels it feels soft and spliny like for instance this room here And that means nothing when I say won't hear Those arms so these guys when those arms come down again a bit similar in their posing And then as they stop it just feels It feels almost Presentation like I got a swing those and make a nice arc versus Like to me this is an opportunity to go a bit more chaotic and dirty was whoa You know where you can really snap into this and then quick landing and then he can go whoa Who's that but then if I look at this here? This feels a bit weird So you have this big jump and I'm looking as I can general the the flow and them the momentum Whoa, and then you get to this and when you do this Root and stop it feels like this is a very quick stop on the root and Upper body root is like he has to hit that pose one Where this almost feels Like that arm is swinging, but just for a moment It feels like it's holding on to the hips It also almost becomes a bit too casual imagine that arm would be would be dangling there like on what happened here And it feels like it needs to have a bit more out of breath and panic and just Going from panic into whoa was that the other thing that strikes me as a bit too much is that weight shift there?  What was that? Not I would see this blind now it feels almost slow, like I said slow and casual and soft versus Whoa, and then maybe some darts like head darts going Imagine is looking here and then here and like whoa. Whoa. That was close and then you can relax going Huh, that was kind of crazy, and then you can have that slow look here And then wait what and then the second one that's kind of how we'll play it where you have panic in it I guess so wait second one. Whoa, and then this Which I think is cool The only thing here is that this Feels like the chest and head Are parented together as one unit going down. I like that move But yeah that moment feels whoa just a bit I Think I will probably also take some frames out and then on something have the head drag more where it's really just like the quick Getting out of there But if you do what I said with the head be careful, then you have Then you might you have something like this Feels a bit too broken. So you might just have this and then like two frames later maybe stay in this Shoulders up head, you know big face like a stretch in the face not deforming the skull But just a stretch for whoa and then into this Just a bit Snap your verses this whole mass moving over there for the anticipation to go over And then same thing here when you land Sounds like a plane you have an airport by the way those play Petaluma airport So this here again has a slight feeling of these guys traveling a bit two together and Then and then he goes back into being slightly too spliny casual And then oh You know with With this shoulder up and in that leg going, huh, huh? Or I will keep it here meaning that you do this whoa and then same thing again worry Maybe maybe it's the smaller faster steps. It's like whoa. Whoa And you can have a bit of maybe maybe What I just tried to pin to my meter silently there or not not with visuals where it's a bit more breathing up and down like oh Whoa, and then a big exhale Okay, you know and then you can maybe play it up to where you have a little bit of a pause of that big exhale and then Then that step Okay, ha ha funny funny funny And then that way you have that contrast again of fast fast fast slow trick in the audience everything is okay and then that fast pop there This I'll be careful the up and down on the shoulders feel very separate. I feel like you want to have that Ha ha ha like that ha ha ha comes out of his chest. I don't see anything in the chest there It's mostly in the shoulder So the couple things a shoulders are very separate in there up and down. Maybe I should Be fancy and change colors since the red on right here and then so Shoulders up and down but the chest has nothing except just a rotation forward But through all of this there's nothing really here I would try to do this where it's more become the laughter comes out of the chest from the breathing Which is also affecting the shoulders, but they're both kind of doing a lot But because of that the roof goes up and down and even in your Move forward and that into this If you track the nose it would still have a little bit of this because it's influenced by this Right, so this to me is the center the epicenter. I think and then very radiating out and then watch out It's a fast move back bam into a stop. So it's like he waits now for this So what he could do is probably just maybe hold inhale for his last laugh back mouth open and Imagine like on this frame. It would shoot up meaning that When this shoots up or when this comes up here, right?  He's still laughing and then bam Then you can have the compression. However, you know pose compresses and into this Hope that makes sense I like the leg at the end there. It's extremely picky, but I wanted to after this You want nothing for three more frames and this is so picky, but I feel like we just need to smidge in more Nothing and then That's that last little button at the end again You almost want to trick the audience again that it's done and then it might just be three three four frames Might not be, you know, the most elegant pose there, but for some reason. I like I like that outward stretch there Maybe oh, maybe you do both and it's just this Full on twinning but we're just both legs Just a bit more, but yeah, that's it the gloves are great Maybe that last one again picky That last move here up that deformation up and down feels like now There are fingers in there doing something versus the bounce and squishiness of an object again super picky But you are saying please feel free to tear this apart. So I'm just giving you my incredibly picky Silly notes here. That's it though. It's really cool. So just like yeah little things here and there just the general note feels It is things got softened out a bit And I think the character of freaking out and everything could come back a bit more But that's it. Thank you Alright, there's an email you can sign up you can start whenever you want you can submit whatever you want You get 16 submissions either way like and subscribe would be awesome. All right. Thank you


What's going on, everyone? Sam here with Layton's Sports Cards, ripping 23 tops, Cosmic, Chrome, Baseball, Hobby, 6-Box, half case break, number 30, Pick Your Team Style, Rigophilus for Names and Our Teams, got Adam K, Diamond Max, Brian R with the Phillies and Nationals, Kato H, Blue J's, Colby C, Athletics and Rays, Edge H, Angels, Hudson P, Rangers, James D, White Sox, Jason O, Cubs, Jeff M, Metz, Cardinals, Jeremy J, Astros, Jimmy G, Marlins, Joe T with the Mariners, Joe H, Pirates, Jordan N, Padres, Justin E, Red Sox, Kevin L, Twins, Paul T, Rockies, Robert S, Brewers, Robert B with the Reds, Roger S, Dodgers, Starbuck B, Giants, Taylor B with the Guardian, yes, Guardians, Timothy M, Royals, Tom C, Orioles, Braves, Yanks, and Way C with the Tigers. Good luck, everybody. Taylor with the Random Spot, Joe S with the Random Spot, Patrick with two Random Spots, Daniel with the Pirates sold out on 31, and Eric with the Cubs in 32. We're down to four to go in 32, everybody. Let me drop you a link to 32 real quick. Guardian, down to three, actually. Guardians, Pirates, Rangers. Three to go in 32. That means four to go in, five to go in Finest. Finest teams are marked down. I did put Finest teams on sale, everybody. So if you'd like a team in Finest, go right ahead.  Get him out of here. God, man. Michael Harris Rookie, Will Smith. Come on. Pretty cold envelopes I could reuse. There's Corbin Carroll and Ryan Nelson. They are kind of fire, to be honest, Shane. They are pretty fire. Christopher Morell, Trout and Otsani, Vinny Pats-Cantino. Delanova, Riley Green for the Tigers. Congrats on that, Detroit. Very nice. Let's go, man. Case hits, Delanova for the Tigers, Josh Young-Rookie. Wander, Stars of the Night. Someone's got to get ahold of Sprinkles here. Thomas Carroll and Moreno. Got to find that's true, Shane. It'll turn around, Shane. It will. Logan Webb, Refractor. Gunnar Henderson, Rookie. I have not been very kind to you, unfortunately. Byron Buxton. I've been trying, Shane. Been trying. I haven't been super kind, though. There's Pania Whitjera going to do a quick dice roll on these. Star clusters again. One, two, left, three, four, middle, five, six, right. We'll go ahead and, unless it's like a, if it's a gold or lower, we'll do a separate random for it. Add is going to be a five. Going to be going to the right. Got to go with J-Rod and whatever team's on the right. Again, unless it's gold or lower, we'll do a it's own random, if that's the case, because I've seen like reds and supers of that stuff. So, Logan O'Hopy. Come on, what are we doing here? Jimenez, Stomach Fletcher. You can mag, though, Riley, when you get to it, too. There's Volpe. We got a Jeter Downs to 190 or 199. Aqua Equinox for the Nats. Base and Refractor Dalton Varshow. Not fun opening them. Yeah, fair, fair, fair. James Outman, Seager and Young and Freddie Freeman, Mike Trout, Altuve Alvarez and Bregman, Grayrod Rookie. Ooh, we got The Sun of Aaron Judge. Nice one, Yankees. The Sun of Aaron Judge. Aaron Judge needs some shirts to cheer me up. They're CJ Crone and Oscar Colas. Oh my god, Forrest is saying something to the fort gang. Get him out of here. That's a ball, Lopie. Whoever joins that. Launch and Orbit, Jordan Walker, Corey Seager. He did get a Trashless, Shane. Bryce Harper, Guerrero Bichette and Base. Riley Green. That's to 199, Max Freed. I'll never forget. There was one night Donnie was doing sorting and shipping, and he was like right out there. There's Brian Reynolds to 9 and 9 during like a international, like, so he was like shipping big ball. Yeah, just me and Sean are just looking at each other and Sean goes, get him out of here. So fun. There's Paul Goldschmidt. The tape guns are loud. The tape guns are hella loud, dude. Sam made me, Sam made him do it that way. Notebook paper folded and taped around the penny sleeve card with an address scribbled on. Riley, hey, we gotta save money while we can, Chris. There's a Bobby Witt Jr. and Base. Whoa. Edward Julian. Harper Judge Betts and Trey Mancini. Trey Mancini. Merv, the swerve on the back there and all of Base. It's a Trishon Kossus, Space Auto. Nice one there for the Red Sox. Gretz Boston. Sweet, dude. Very nice. Drew Waters. All right, we got some orders here. Gail with the Yanks and Finest. Ryan with the Pirates in number 32. Thank you, Ryan. Andrew with a random spot.  Eric R with a random spot. And Johnny with the Rangers, Mets, and Dodgers all in Finest. You and Kyle at the folding table is just asking for trouble in the video. It is me, Kyle, Sean, and Joe. It'll go tonight. It'll go tonight. Kodaisenga. So the cosmic pristine mixer is... Maybe not tonight.  That's awesome. Bogar Statsis, Base, Base, Base. Langston, I think it's probably tonight. Tonight or tomorrow night, one or the other. Mike Trout, the cosmic pristine mixer. I think I have one tomorrow night. Nucleus Walker-Bueller, Refractor of Logan Webb, Tommy Henry, Trishon Kossus, Corbin Carroll-Rookie. I think it's tomorrow night. The Cosmically Pristine mixer. Yeah, I got maybe not done. Green Space Dust is Glibert Torres to 75 for the Yanks, Corey Seeger, and Will Benson. Yeah, 640 Eastern. 640 Eastern tomorrow night, Langston. There's Judge Refractor and Carlos Rodan. Resting, besides mowing grass. Oh man. Bad day to be some grass with Shane on the move. Johnny with the A's in 87. I think Finest is sold out, actually. That's kind of not to Finest is sold out. It is. Thank you. Johnny, I think, took the last four spots and Gale took the Yanks. Yeah, we're sold out on Finest, everybody. That's awesome. Trey Turner, Extra-Terrestrial Talent for 80. So really, just Mosaic's what we've got to work on today. Bogar Statsis, Soto Max Meyer. That is going to be Mosaic, PYTs. PYTs, Ronald Acunha, Mookie Bettspace. Trishon, no, Riley Greene. That's what it was. Riley Greene stars the night. Bogar, Zach Gallin. Come on. Dude's picking his nose again. Wow, Mark Vienzos, 4 of 10. Black Eclipse, Rookie Auto. Congrats, Mets. Very nice. Very nice. Let's go, Mets. JD Martinez. Got Mosaic is what we're looking to fill up next, everybody. Two breaks of Mosaic. Pick your team-style basketball, 12 and 13 to go. There's Logan Webb, Nucleus Poguero, Blede Refractor, Dylan Cease. Yeah, that was pretty sweet. I like the Black Eclipses. Jeremy Pena, Guerrero Bichette, Hunter Brown, Rookie. Trishon Kossis, Tatsis, DJ LeMahue. We got an Orange. Corbin Carroll, Garrett Mitchell. Bryce Harper, Extra-Terrestrial Talent. Orange, 17 of 25. Gratz Fils. Nice one. I love the color on Extra-Terrestrial Talent. Looks great, man. Looks super clean. Harris, Riley Acunia, Jordan Walker, Rookie. That is a Luis Arias to 199. Gratz on that one there. Marlins, Aqua Equinox. Volpi Rookie, Launch and Orbit. Vladdy Jr., Brandon Marsh. Launch and Orbit, Shohei, Aaron Nola. James Outman, Rookie. Harper Judge, Betz, and Jordon. I'm selling my trash list on eBay. Miguel Amaya. You know, and retire. Again, here's Mosaic. 12 to go on Mosaic. Well over halfway sold out. 12 to go on good old Panini Mosaic basketball. There's to 199, Garrett Mitchell. Rookie, nice one there. And Michael Harris. Gorman Rookie. Ruchman and Henderson, Brandon Nimmo, Finding Nimmo. Frank Thomas, Launch and Orbit. That's Alex Thomas as well. Francisco Alvarez, Rookie. Riley Green, Rookie Poguero. On the base. That's blue. Sean Murphy to 99. Nice one for the Braves. On the blue pulsar. Launch and Orbit. Rafi Devers, Adley Ruchman, Rookie. Gunner Henderson, Extra-Terrestrial Talent. Mr. Paraza for the Yanks. Nucleus, Max Scherzer. The Metz, Alonzo, Beatty, and Alvarez, Jeter Downs, Rookie. I'll never be without a dream. Kyle Schwarber. Edward Hullian, Rafi Devers. I believe Sean's never been on the trash list. He deserves to be on for sure. Bobby Witt, Jr. Jose Altuve. Matt McLean. Zach Granke. Hitalonzo, Ruchman Witt, Green, Jazz Chisholm. Green Space Dust is Nestor Cortez to 75. Kyle? K-Riz. K-Riz. Michael Harris, Refractor Rookie, Josh Bell. I'm fraying this French toast out there.  There is too bad. You better hope there's none, to be honest. Kodai Senga, Jazz Chisholm, and Cedric Mullins. Shohei, Hoskins Turner-Schwerber, and O'Neill Cruz. Next, Buxleroni. O'Neill Cruz, Extra-Terrestrial Talent, Shane McClanahan. Kodai Senga, Joey Vado, Tim Anderson. Devers Casas, Edwin Diaz, Nolan Gorman, Rookie, Beyo, Vladimir Guerrero, Jr., Giancarlo Stanton, Christopher Morel, Tyler Freeman, and Wilson Contrerez. Orange, come on. Orange, Rookie, Nolan Jones. 16 of 25, 15 of 25 on the auto. Let's go into the Rockies. Congrats Rockies. Very nice. That is pretty sweet. Very nice. Congrats Rocks, and base. Some orange action there. Matt McLean, Rookie, Refractor of Varshow, Logan O'Hoppe, Darvish and Bobby, Witt, Jr., Jordan Walker, Rookie. Yeah, dude, he hits. He's like the most slept on Rookie, I would say, in this entire class. Rushman, Witt and Green. Whatcha buying? Two Langston. Let's go Langston.  Welcome. Welcome to the fun, Charlie Blackman. The orange of Andrew McCutcheon. Nice one there. Congrats on that. There you go, Pirates. Nice cutch, cutch nose, baby. Cosmic random later tonight. Let's go Langston. Nice, dude. That's gonna be fun, man. That is gonna be a lot of fun. Those are good time. Those are a really good time. There's Supernova. You're Don Alvarez. Going to the Astros. Grats Houston. Solid, dude. We'll take that. Just toss that in a recap. There's the son of Jayrod. Nice one there. Congrats Mariners. The son of Julio Rodriguez. Travis for Heisman. I can see it. Rushman Henderson, Yoshida Rookie. There's Pete Alonso. Because everyone's like, oh, Travis Hunter and Shredor Sanders. All they have to do is lose once. They gotta get blown out by somebody and then no one's gonna care anymore. There's John-Carlo Stanton. Tavi Baez, Nucleus Beatty, Alvarez Alonso and Bass. Jones, Corey Lee and Ezekiel Duran. Yeah, Noles look great, dude. Noles look killer last night, Kyle. I watched that entire game. I'm gonna watch the entire Clemson Duke game tonight. Pretty pumped for that while we're playing golf. Golf and Clemson Duke on my computer. Dude, you are trash at golf. It's a 199, Mike Trout. Nice one there. You legitimately stink it. You just got bailed out by Moe the entire time. We got another son. That's Aaron Judge. The son of Planetary Pursuit. Second Aaron Judge son. Wow. Seager and Young and Masataka Yoshida. Sprinks was sticking it last night. I'll be honest with you. He was throwing darts. Kyle Schwerber. Absolutely darts, dude. Last time I played, we out so bad. There's Lawson Warwick Pools. All it took was our warm-up game. Yeah. That warm-up game. That's what I sangaricky. We stunk on that warm-up game. I was shooting like, I shot like 21 over on 15 holes, dude. There's Christopher Morrell Nucleus. Yeah, dude, we stunk on that one. There's Nolan Gorman. Pena with Jayrod. Who's your dad usually used for golfers? I'm sticking with MJ, dude. There's Masataka Yoshida. It won't matter. He should use his own. We need to get all of our custom golfers better. Steph, Alvarez. We need to get our custom golfers like good. So we can all use ours, though. You know what I mean? Oh, you're good, Zoom. I think if you order now, it won't go out until next month, unfortunately. Trout and Otani. I think everything's been sorted and pulled for international. And I think they're starting all the international stuff. Hoskins and Bobby Ware have started it. There's Volpe, Refractor Rookie, and Vase. Rell Rookie. Thomas Carroll Moreno. George Springer. Loan me your ticket to the Inter-Miami game. Nucleus DJ LaMahue, Refractor of Gunner, Marcus Simeon. Joy Manassas, Refractor of the Grom, Kyle Tucker. Logan O'Hoppe. Julio Rodriguez, Kyle Schwerber. I swear that game says it's in Miami. I know. Bobby Witt. Tsuve Alvarez and Bregman. We were talking about that. Yeah, and that men's force was like, he can't tell me no, but it says on the rules. Let's do a quick recap here, everybody. We had the Supernova of Jordaan, the Sun, J-Rod, two judges. To 199, Garrett Mitchell, Mike Trout, Louisa Reyes, Jeter Downs, Max Freed, to 99, Brian Reynolds, Sean Murphy, to 75, Cortez, and Glaber. To 25, we had Bryce Harper, Andrew McCutcheon, Trishon Costesotto, Nolan Jones, Orange Otto to 25. That is Mark Vientos to 10, and Riley Green. Nice one there. That'll do it for the break, everybody. Thanks again for the film. Coming up next is number 31.


Hello everyone and welcome to the fire safety verification method webinar for fire safety practitioners. We appreciate your tuning into this afternoon's webinar and I am Alexander Armstrong from the Australian Building Codes Board. Today we're going to run through three different presentations plus a Q&A session at the end, the first of course an introduction by myself then we're going to move on to an introduction to the fire safety verification method from Paul England who is a fire engineer representing the Australian Building Codes Board. Next we're on to the fire safety practitioners perspective from FPA Australia and then we'll be going for a fire authorities perspective from AFAC and finally we will have some Q&A. We would appreciate for the Q&A session if you have any questions if you could log them throughout the presentation that will allow us to review them and respond to common trends and give us time to work through that process. Learning outcomes for today look we're looking for people attending to develop a greater understanding of the fire safety verification method and how it involves your profession. We're also looking to increase the technical understanding of how you will work with the fire safety verification method and finally we're looking to increase confidence for yourself for working on your projects for fire safety verification method as it becomes a valid verification method under the NCC on 1 May. Now I'd like to pass to Paul England for his introduction to the fire safety verification method. Thank you. I'll briefly run through some of the general principles and then go through a little bit more detail that's relevant to fire safety fire protection practitioners a little bit later in the presentation. So I'm moving on. The fire safety verification method is provided in schedule two of sorry schedule seven of the fire safety verification method in the NCC 2019. It becomes active on the 1st of May 2020 and it provides a process for verifying compliance of fire safety performance solutions with the NCC. Other options can still be used but it does provide a robust approach to carrying out performance based solutions and demonstrating compliance with the NCC. So what is the purpose of the fire safety verification method? It's to ensure the minimum level of safety required by the NCC is met using the concept of equivalence. A similar reference building complying with the DTS provisions is defined. A check of the level of safety of the proposed building solution needs to be greater than the reference building or equal to the reference building and then it's assumed that you'll satisfy the relevant performance requirements. It's a practical approach that provides a quasi-quantification pending the full quantification of the performance requirements. It is a tried and tested approach. It's referred to in the NCC so you can still use equivalence and not through the fire safety verification method. It's referred to in the IFEG, the International Fire Engineering Guidelines, Early Codes of Practice put out by the Society of Fire Safety in the early 2000s. We're referencing strongly equivalence approaches and these pin use for major changes to the NCC such as we performed by Bourne back in the early 2000s and 140 Williams Street was a major project with significant changes to FRLs that was also undertaken using equivalence. So I used to not use. Moving on. One of the questions that sometimes gets asked is are the NCC DTS provisions an appropriate benchmark? The deemed to satisfy provisions have a rigorously tested rationale behind them. The BCA was originally derived from state and territory regulations which were reviewed and consolidated into the first BCA in 88 and the first generally adopted version of it which was the BCA 1990. Those requirements then went through a detailed review undertaken by the Fire Code Reform Center which culminated in a performance-based BCA 96. Since then the NCC has been regularly reviewed and updated based on detailed analysis and public comment. It's open to suggestions for improvement on a three-year cycle and again any changes go through a rigorous system including cost-benefit analysis and impact on safety levels. So the deemed to satisfy are relatively well tested and suitable for a broad range of applications. Okay. Moving on to some of the resources that support the verification method. There is a handbook which provides detailed guidance on applying the fire safety verification methods. It's got information to assist all stakeholders involved in the performance-based design process which could include fire safety and fire protection practitioners. It identifies other relevant technical documents such as IFEG national and international standards etc etc where appropriate and it also references data sheets. This is much more detailed information regarding efficacy, reliability and the efficacy of fire protection systems which may be of interest to practitioners and relevance to practitioners. It looks at occupant response and evacuation and also things like design fires and it's in a form that can be regularly updated so if you want to get into the technical aspects of it have a look at the data sheets as well. So now going through some of the highlights of the fire safety verification method. One of the key issues when you're looking at equivalents is defining a deemed to satisfy reference building and this can enter into shall we say excessive wrangling and detailed discussion with difference of opinions about what an appropriate reference building is. The handbook goes into a fair degree of detail about principles for selection of the reference building to really ensure that it's a relevant benchmark to the particular performance solution that's being examined. So some of the principles include that the NCCDTS provisions should be fully applied and include relevant state and territory variations. There are state and territory variations that can apply so obviously it has to be for the relevant state. The building should have the same footprint, floor area and volume as the proposal. It should have the same occupant numbers and characteristics as the proposal. If you start varying those things it becomes very subjective and questions can be asked about the relevance to the proposed performance solution. It should have the same fiber gate response and arrival time after notification as the proposal for a proposed fire safety solution. Where there are options for fire protection measures and there are on the deemed to satisfy solutions you can have a choice of options. Under those circumstances adopt a combination of measures based on sound engineering principles that would be expected to provide an acceptable level of safety. So don't automatically go with the lowest look at what would be reasonable for the type of building it is. If appropriate also include additional features that may not be addressed fully by the NCCDTS provisions. It seems like provisions for evacuation for people for disability disabilities and also looking at the use of lifts. Those sorts of details should be reasonable for the DTS solution as well as the proposed performance solution. Another key feature of the fire safety verification method is that it gives a list of a minimum range of scenarios that should be considered. Other scenarios can be considered if they're relevant to a particular performance solution. But this is a check and ensures that most of the requirements are properly addressed. Some of the key issues here are fire blocks and evacuation route. This is sometimes overlooked and very critical. You've got fire starts in a concealed space. Another one of those that isn't always picked up. Fire brigade intervention is a critical aspect and safety of fire brigade personnel. That's addressed in a later presentation so I don't need to cover it off into this detail here. You've got what's normally addressed the worst credible scenario but you've got items such as a robustness check which looks at the reliability of systems. So all these things are quite important. So it provides a good checklist but you can always add extra scenarios if appropriate. Also in the handbook and the fire safety verification method provides procedural requirements. A key thing is that a performance based design brief is mandatory. You should go through, you have to go through the process and some participants are mandated.  But various specialist consultants can be involved in the early stages based on a derived stakeholder analysis and that could include a range of fire protection practitioners. A holistic approach is adopted so an entire building or reference building is compared with a proposed performance solution which is an entire building rather than looking at individual variations. This makes sure that all the fire safety strategy interacts in a reasonable manner. Tenability criteria are specified and a key issue is that individual and societal risks need to be considered. So now looking at the application of the fire safety verification method. The first thing is the design process. Typically a design process does need to address drivers and constraints in relation to the national construction code and these include safety, health and amenity, accessibility, sustainability, protection of other property. But there can be a whole range of other additional drivers and constraints that relate to a project such as usability, aesthetics, costs, speed of construction, building flexibility, operational continuity, corporate image, environmental protection, heritage protection, workplace health and safety, other legislation, etc. So these things need to be addressed now. Fire safety practitioners can end up being involved in this design process. For example, coatings used to modify group numbers require a performance solution. So a supplier of those materials could be involved to provide advice in relation to what the key issues are, durability of the product, evidence and suitability, etc. You could be looking at enhancements to sprinkler systems or assume design features are required as part of the performance solution. Again, you should really be talking a bit to the designer of those systems and installers to make sure that what's proposed is practical. And looking further down the track, emergency management organization could be a critical part of a performance solution facilitating prompt evacuation. Sometimes these people are not involved at the early stage, but they should be brought on as quickly as possible into the process. Out of looking at these drivers and constraints, a proposed building design is identified, and then you need to check with compliance with the NCC, which is the role of fire safety verification that is appropriate, and also to be checking the additional drivers which lies outside the scope of this presentation. So moving on to the next slide, assuming it is a performance solution or it's looking at the NCC compliance, the first thing is does it comply with the DTS provisions? If it does, you don't need a performance solution. In a large proportion of cases, a performance solution is required, and then you look at whether the fire safety verification method is applicable, and if it is, you proceed on to that. If not, you look at some other approaches. And potentially fire safety practitioners could be involved in this stage of the process. Moving on, assuming that the fire safety verification method is applied, you have the performance-based design brief process to run through, and the core stakeholders there, fire safety engineers, building surveyors, emergency services, i.e. fire brigade, clients and owner, or a delegate, and architect building designer. But then we look at the optional stakeholders, and I put fire safety practitioners at the top of this list, and basically they would be part of the stakeholder analysis to determine what is needed. And as I said before, depending on the scope, there could be several fire safety practitioners that are involved. You have other specialist consultants as well, including access consultants. I group material suppliers here separately because some of those material suppliers could be fire safety practitioners, others maybe just be supplying materials, but some requirements, which is non-combustibility, can still apply. Could be a peer reviewer, tenants representatives, building operations teams, builders, and insurers. So it could be a very broad list. And the fire safety verification method process you run through involves describing the proposed building solution and implementation plans. Again, fire safety practitioners need to be heavily involved in that process if they can be. Define reference building, identify variations. This is routine process for fire safety. Identify variations from the NCCDTS provisions. Identify relevant performance requirements. Identify relevant scenarios. And identify analysis methods, inputs, and criteria of comparison. Those aren't specified. So providing design flexibility for the fire safety engineer and the rest of the design team. Okay, moving on. So looking at the fire safety practitioners role, it varies depending on the type of practitioner. It may be that the fire safety practitioner is the only source of detailed understanding of the performance and evidence of suitability available for a specific product or material forming part of a performance solution. And you'd be looking at talking to a product designer or the technical department if they're available. If a system's a keeper part of a performance solution, the relevant designer contractor could be involved to provide input with respect to cost implications, practicality, and proposed solutions. Things like sprinkler designers, detection designers, alarm systems, et cetera, et cetera. And as I mentioned earlier, proposed members of the emergency management organization or a relevant consultant may be needed to provide advice input as to appropriate evacuation management strategies. There's no point designing a fire safety system and then having to rely on and it not being compatible with the emergency management strategies. So very important. Those things are sorted out at an early stage. Finally, at the end of the process, there will be a detailed report put together with the analysis and that should be reviewed by a building surveyor, peer reviewer, the pointed and fire brigades, and they'll have the greatest interest in the whole report. But fire safety practitioners should be reviewing if they're involved or subsequently involved to make sure the final design documentation, implementation maintenance plans to determine if they're relevant matters have been adequately addressed. As I said before, that could involve practicality as well. There may be several fire safety practitioners involved, depending on matters under consideration. The reviewer of the documentation should check if there is adequate information, facilitate compliance at the end of the construction, check specifications, responsibilities for design implementations needs to be clearly defined, considering extension of the performance-based design brief team into verification, because that's really when some of the fire safety practitioners will become involved. This is a rather complex flowchart just to indicate, really indicates, the complexity of the system. But if you start at the top with the blue boxes, you come up with a building design, including implementation plans and selection of verification. That's assessed for compliance as part of the performance-based design brief process. And if the building surveyor certifies happy and peer reviews are happy, the building surveyor will issue a building approvals to the builder, and it moves into the implementation stage. Product supply chains become critical then, and the product designers and manufacturers will have to produce information relating to product labeling, data sheets, declaration of performance, installation instructions, and evidence of usability. So that then flows back through the building surveyor to the performance-based design brief, if it's being carried through to the final implementation stage. If not, somebody must have been delegated to tie all that process together in the age of the builder. Then you go through installation, and again, the product installer needs to be looking at declaration of compliance, installation schedule of install products, etc., etc. When you start looking at the building use in occupation, your emergency management organization and related fire safety practitioners become involved. You've also got maintenance inspection contractors and consultants. So again, that comes in. So even after you've gone through the commission inspection and verification process, and the building surveyors issue the building documentation to the owners, which will be a occupancy permit, but also should have details of maintenance and repair, etc., etc., that's required. That's managed by that process, and basically the maintenance is normally required as part of the occupancy permit and appropriate state legislation. So you can see that fire safety practitioners are involved throughout the whole process, and particularly the implementation and ongoing use. So they form a critical part of a, or should form a critical part of a performance-based design brief team. So thank you. Thank you, Paul. I'd like to now pass along to Jeff Flou, who's from FPA Australia, and he'll be providing a perspective from the practitioner point of view on the fire safety verification method. Yeah, thanks, Alex. Yeah, to jump straight into the first slide, I guess this is when asked to present about the topic, what's the impact of the fire safety verification methods on fire protection practitioners? You think, well, isn't this a fire safety engineering matter? What's the big deal for our practitioners? For those that might have tuned in to the presentation last year where Matthew Wright presented, he articulated that there's, amongst our members, and particularly the various fire protection practitioners that are involved, there's probably over the years been a bit of a mistrust of some fire safety engineering outcomes or the solutions that are provided, and sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for not. But I guess a big part of it's about communication, because often the fire practitioners aren't always involved in the development of those solutions or in, and as Paul alluded to earlier, responsible for implementation, certification, ongoing maintenance and inspection and testing of those solutions, and the communication isn't quite there to, for them to understand what's required to successfully do that. So I guess one of the key outcomes from our point of view, in terms of the fire safety verification method, is that it's a process and it's a collaborative process. So now we've gone on to the next slide. I suppose the first thing to do from our point of view is look at what the fire protection practitioners' roles are in building design and generally, and throughout the building's life cycle, and the first one clearly is in design. So, and that's where the fire protection practitioner needs to document the outcomes of the performance-based design report, and I guess the requirement there clearly is to make sure that all those required outcomes are implemented, is part of the design of the building, and then if we go on to the next part of the slide, then the practitioner or practitioners that are responsible for installing it can implement that successfully. So once again, it's got to be clearly articulated in that design, for the people installing it as to what is required, and maybe not so much detail as why it's required, but at least understanding that that's part of the performance-based solution, and that's a new form of compliance, not the traditional codes and standards that the installs are used to. And then similarly, once the system is installed, someone has to certify it. Different jurisdictions are different, but in many jurisdictions, in addition to, I guess, general building certification, often there is individual fire safety system certification, and once again, unless those outcomes are clearly articulated, we can get problems occurring where those persons certifying it aren't fully aware of the particular requirements, and either things are certified in error, where the performance-based outcomes aren't included, or conversely, an installation is rejected, even though the performance-based solution includes some of the variations from the normal deemed to comply codes. And then finally, as alluded to, we've got the inspection of maintenance. So, and this is where things often do go awry, and it's, I guess, a larger industry issue about ongoing documentation and management of baseline data throughout the building's life cycle. You know, probably in the first year after the building's built and the person who installed it's maintaining it, things might be okay, but, you know, give it two, three, five, 10 years down the track, and documentation seems to have a habit in buildings of going missing, and a person coming in to maintain that building in that later period of life may have no idea that the building is subject to a performance-based design. I guess the thing these days is, as I think Paul alluded to in his presentation, there are very few buildings now that aren't subject to some performance-based design or another, and I guess that fits back in with the requirement for baseline data, and one of the key elements of that baseline data would be the performance-based design report. So, before we move on, oh, sorry, just quickly go back one slide, sorry, if possible. I suppose just what I want to sort of finish with on that slide is that we talk about the fire protection practitioner, and as you can see, there are four main roles that the practitioner plays, and the thing is in that, in our part of that industry or the fire safety industry is quite often, more often than not, those four roles are for separate parties, so there's a lot of talk about the fire safety engineer being involved either during installation at that building certification and even potentially through into building operation, but that will be the same fire engineer throughout that process, but we've got four different parties typically in terms of the fire protection practitioner's role, so there's clearly a need for good communication and passing documentation down through those various roles. So, if we get to the next slide and focusing on, I guess, each of those individual roles, we've got the designer, so one of the key requirements out of the fire safety verification method, and Paul did mention this before, is there is certainly a opportunity, if not requirement, for them to play an active role in the performance-based design process, particularly once again, where fire safety systems are being varied from the team to satisfy, and that can be both, I guess, what might be called a reduction or a dispensation from the normal requirements, but also where often additional measures are implemented as part of performance-based design to enhance a fire safety system to justify some other aspect in the building. The other thing, for all practitioners, not just fire safety practitioners, but for all design practitioners, is to critically review the trial concept designs. I guess we hear a lot of talk in our industry, I'm just a fire protection designer who might have questioned the fire engineer I've heard before from mechanical engineers, I'm just the mechanical engineer, the fire engineer or the building surveyor has asked me to do this, and how am I to do it. What I would say is we're all professionals, we're professional designers, and the time during that design process and through that performance-based design brief period is to speak up, and we're appropriate, push back and question the trial concept design if you think there are good reasons why it's not appropriate, or that it's going to result in an outcome that is sub-standard either for installation, hard to install or commission, or hard to maintain for the long term. We can help clearly identify the differences from the deemed dissatisfied, from the performance-based design, particularly when it gets down into not so much the deemed dissatisfied provisions or the NCC, but the particular provisions that are contained within the various caveman standards.  So we've got the responsibility of clearly identifying where there are gaps in those specific requirements. And also the other, as I said, for the designer is critically in this role in terms of passing, documenting the requirements of the performance-based design to pass on to the future stages. So clearly identifying specific commissioning requirements, and what I would call evidence of compliance, so as opposed to evidence of suitability in the design, that's the evidence of compliance that you have actually complied with the outcome required to prove that the fire engineering outcomes have been implemented. So, if a fire engineer requires, say, additional control valves or isolation valves in a sprinkler system, part of that will be documenting that those valves have been installed, and I guess a commissioning record for each valve that can be passed back to the relevant, the buildings today, a building certifier, to verify that the performance-based outcomes have been included. I just want to pick up on a couple of other things that Paul mentioned we talked before about the fire design scenarios. And once again, I've highlighted there that the robustness check, that's probably the key area where the fire safety engineer, fire protection engineer can certainly have input into the process, particularly where often to assist that robustness process is a set of requirement for additional measures that may not be normally required in a deemed-to-satisfied solution. So whether it's additional control valves, sometimes the setup of the fire detection system may need to have some redundancy with multiple detection circuits or loops to provide some redundancy there. And once again, the experts in the field can certainly provide that input to the fire safety engineer to give some indication of, well, one, what's feasible to do, as well as what actually provides value in giving that level of robustness, because sometimes things get specified in a throwaway line to say that that adds robustness when, in reality, we don't get a lot of extra value out of it. So, certainly in that part. And then the other point, if we go to the next slide, is to, in helping define that equivalent, so just sort of paraphrasing some of the points that Paul put up before, but he said that where there are options in the deemed-to-satisfied for the reference building, we can't pick the bare minimum option. We've got to pick the option that, based on sound engineering principles, would provide an acceptable level of safety. So once again, the fire engineer, safety engineer can certainly do some of that, but the fire protection designer or engineer should certainly have some input into that, particularly where it can get a bit contentious. And then, as I said before, going on to what additional features may be required to address other matters. And once again, that's what fire protection engineers do. We solve fire protection problems, and certainly across the details of our system and what we can do to provide a good level of safety economically. So I think that pretty much all of those cover the fire protection design engineers. If we move on to the next slide, so then we have the installer. So once again, the installers are typically removed from the design, or sometimes these days we're seeing a lot more design and construct processes, although typically before it gets that there's been some level of design. But the first thing the installer needs to do is clarify the performance design requirements, because once again, it's not always evident in the design documentation. And sometimes it's not always evident that a performance-based design has been applied. So the installer, and particularly this day and age, as I said, there's very few buildings now that aren't have some level of performance design. So we should clarify what those requirements are and clarify them earlier and the key requirements and incorporate them into a project quality plan to ensure that they're implemented. And then ultimately a commissioning management plan so that they're commissioned and commissioned to achieve compliance that's required for the outcome. And then finally, the handover documentation is paramount. Once again, that's that communication and passing the information on to the next party. So particularly one for compliance, but two really for the installers and that handover documentation, the operation and maintenance manuals that clearly identified that there are performance solutions, what those performance solutions are, and what the specific ongoing maintenance requirements are. And it's not many of these kind of manuals just referred to the Australian standard for maintenance, which is Australian standard 1851. The problem with that of course is that standard is written around deemed to satisfy compliant systems. And so where there is a performance-based, a system to meet a performance-based outcome, we need some specific requirements about what the specific maintenance measures are. So then finally, I've skipped over certify because it's essentially that communication to understand what it's about. But then we get onto the inspection, testing and maintenance of the fire safety outcomes for those practitioners. Unfortunately, it requires a greater level of sophistication. So I guess this is a prompt for the fire safety engineers and the fire protection practitioner designers is that it does require the maintenance personnel to understand that A, there is a performance-based solution and B, that it is different than what they might normally expect. The maintenance practitioners need to review the design and installation documentation. In other words, the baseline data. So I understand what the compliance requirement of that system is. If necessary, they should request to the person, if it's not clear, they should request to the person they're contracted to do the work for, i.e. ultimately the building owner or the system owner that they might need to get the fire engineer to provide some further input, if necessary. And particularly if there are any aspects which may be difficult to maintain, often particularly in operating buildings, it might be difficult to carry out invasive testing such as emergency warning testing or significant flow testing where lots of water will be dumped. So that may require further fire engineers input into how those things can be tested throughout the life of the building without disrupting normal building operation too greatly. And then finally, ensuring that maintenance logs are adequate for the civic outcome. So once again, standard logbooks by their definition standard and they relate to tasks and frequencies that are for normal deemed dissatisfied systems. But I've seen it more often than not that sometimes a performance solution might rely on increased maintenance frequencies or it might rely on checking of things that wouldn't normally be checked under a normal deemed dissatisfied maintenance ranging. So once again, it's pretty important to make sure that the maintenance logs reflect the requirements of the performance-based design outcomes. So if we summarise, essentially that's the key outcomes. I suppose the key points that I want to leave everyone with today from the fire protection practitioners particularly, but for all participants is that the fire safety verification method is essentially a process and it's a process which includes all stakeholders, including fire protection practitioners, but other building designers and other people that need to maintain the building. So that's the first point. The second point is communication. Hopefully I've said it once, said it twice and said it now a third time. It's paramount. Two-way communication is critical. Fire protection practitioners need to play an active role. We can't sit back and be passive. We've got to be active in this process and make sure that we have our say and that we come up with outcomes that are practical to implement and to maintain. Thirdly, documentation. So that's part of I guess that's the written communication and that's even more vital to make sure that that information is passed down through all stages. So right through from design, installation commissioning, certification, inspection, testing and maintenance. And then finally is that cost-effective solutions is the primary objective, not a cheap building. So performance-based design is about coming up with safe cost-effective solutions, not just what's the cheapest thing we can build and get away with, I guess is the attitude that sometimes pervades what we do, not always, but ultimately keeping that in the back of mind that community safety is the utmost importance in all of this. So with that said, that's my talk. Thanks, Jeff.  Great. Thank you, Alex. And thank you to the Australian Building Codes Board for giving me the opportunity to add a fire services perspective on the FSVM. For those of you who don't know me, I'm Assistant Commissioner at Community Safety for Fire and Rescue in New South Wales, as well as being the chair of the AFAC Build Environment Technical Group, which tries to get fire services together and national consistency to our approach to fire safety issues. As we've heard today, the National Construction Code will now have a requirement that the solution provided by the FSVM must now be comparable to the same building or a similar building with the DTS provisions. Fire services do like DTS provisions because it's a degree of certainty. That said, performance has been in the Australian construction industry since 1996, I think Paul mentioned. So we're in 25 years. And performance is something that fire services have seen the best and possibly the worst of. The FSVM must be equal to or safer than the DTS result. And that's an important thing. We do appreciate that this will require additional work and reviewing and competence in the practitioners that will be providing these solutions. But it will enable a more informed holistic safety comparison and therefore a better result for the occupants of the building and responding fire crews. And that's an important point because the fire crews are turning up at a building that an emergency has occurred in and they want to know that they're safe in their place of work, which is what the building becomes in an incident. Any design using the FSVM will still have to go through the same approvals process, but you like the fire service. And that exists now for any performance solution. It's not an automatic acceptance. And it does not have the same acceptance as code mark, for example. It is a requirement for the FSVM to use all relevant sections of the methodology. And that if any stakeholder has a contrary view or does not approve of the design or the process, then this must be documented and attached to the proposal when submitted for approval. At the same time as the FSVM is being implemented, AFAC is also undertaking another project looking at the review of the International Fire Engineering Guidelines. That's a welcome step from AFAC's perspective. And we will be collaborating closely with ABCB in that particular review. Also, in preparation for the enactment of the verification method on the 1st of May, AFAC is currently reviewing the Fire Brigades Intervention Model, FSVM, and that's scheduled to be released to be ready for the implementation in May. The FSVM is supported by all AFAC agencies. We understand that it may require us to do more work. And certainly, when I mentioned before about competence of the practitioners who will be doing in this space, that includes fire services. Hopefully, we will all lift our level of performance, no pun intended, and that we'll be able to collaborate to get the right result for the occupants, the community, and the industry. And that is safer buildings. Although AFAC supported the FSVM, there were some discussions around some of the aspects of it, including data. But AFAC believes that if we all act with good faith, then any varying opinions can be sorted out in the fire engineering brief process. The fire services are a key stakeholder, as we've heard, and expect to be involved in the process as per the NCC provisions. But the extent of the fire services involvement will be decided once a proposal is reviewed. It may be that it's something that we want to have a deep dive into and collaborate closely with the design team, or it may be something that we're quite satisfied with the approach being taken by the practitioners. Fire services understand that the use of the FSVM is not mandatory, and there are other methodologies and pathways to achieve a safe building, as per the NCC performance provision. Regardless of the methodology used, though, fire services are expecting to be consulted as a key stakeholder, and we certainly look forward to working with you, as I said, to make safer buildings. Finally, currently the fire services around Australia and New Zealand are reviewing their approach to their regulatory role. What is the future role of fire services in Australia? That's come about partly because of the FSVM, but also in respect of fulfilling some of the objectives of the Shergoll-Weir Report building conference that was prepared for the Building Ministers Forum. Certainly from an AFAC perspective, this will include focusing on service delivery, national consistency, but I'm sure the industry understands that each of the fire services operate under slightly different legislative requirements, and therefore there may be some distance differences between the way states and territories handle it. The last thing I'd like to put in a plug for is the Warren Centre project on professionalising fire safety engineering. I talked before about the need for all practitioners in the industry to be properly qualified, experienced, skilled and accredited. Certainly the work of the Warren Centre is helping guiding some of that conversation in your industry. So thank you for the opportunity again and I'll hand back to Alex. Thank you, Mark. We appreciate AFAC being present for these webinars and your input into them. We're on to the question portion of today's webinar. At this point, we haven't had any questions logged with us. I'll give it an extra minute to see if any come in. In that space, I'd just like to run everyone through some additional resources on the fire safety verification method we have available. Paul mentioned two of the main ones in his presentation, which is the handbook and their associated data sheets. These are currently out in preview versions, but they will be moved to finalised versions as we move to the awards one May transition date and the fire safety verification method becoming a valid pathway within the NCC. Apart from them, we also have a webinar on our YouTube channel, which was from middle of last year as an awareness webinar. Please feel free to go have a look at that. That'll provide you some more detail. We also have a frequently asked questions document on our website, which provides some input on some of the common questions we've received about the fire safety verification method across our consultation over the past 12 to 18 months. Now we're moving into the closing part of today. No questions have come through yet. We appreciate everyone tuning in and hope this has been a very informative presentation. We would very much appreciate your feedback and on closing of this webinar, a link for a survey will appear. We would appreciate everyone could fill that in and help us gather some information on how useful this is and also other support materials that may assist with the adoption of the fire safety verification method. Thank you again for tuning in and look forward to producing some more material for you in the future.


We bring together teams of specialists to build end-to-end workflow patterns. But even then, once a pattern is created, tested, promoted to production, it's still not repeatable. Each organization must start the process over. There's no consistency from one architecture to the next, and the patterns are not shared. So what we really need is a simplified, repeatable, tested way to create and deploy distributed architectures while maintaining the life cycle of the deployment. Red Hat is leading an initiative to do just that. Validated patterns are being created based on data engineering patterns that Red Hat's portfolio architecture team and others have been developing for customer use cases over the years. Best practices and a deep understanding of how organizations are actually running patterns in their environments are the basis for validated patterns. Then, by using CI CD tools, Red Hat's able to operationalize these distributed architectures. Blueprints are built into code, so parts of the solution are built together, deployed together, and maintained together. This also allows us to create a framework that makes it easier to create new patterns. And since the pattern is now reproducible, it can be scaled as required, both within a core data center or public cloud, and out to multiple edge locations. It can be repeated for other organizations modified for differentiation and extended for different workloads and use cases. And since these architectures are based on actual workflows, operationalizing the code allows us to accelerate a project from proof of concept to an actual production-ready deployment.


I know we have some time, but since you are here, I think it's okay if you can listen to me. So just to show off, how many of you are already coding with React or going to evaluate it right away? One, two, that's it. What are the frameworks to use? I know we are in a jQuery conflict. That's okay, but how many of you use backbone here? Angular? Ember? Only two? Any other frameworks? Just shout it out if. Ah, okay. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, true. How many of you are coding other than JavaScript here? Java, I suppose? Or which other language? Ruby, Python. Python, okay. How many of you are in Ruby? One, oh, two, okay. Closure, anybody? Wow, okay, there's only one. Okay, we've got to fix this. Cool, I'm just filling time. You can ask me anything. By the way, do you know some crazy fun facts about JavaScript? Do you know undefined is not a keyword in JavaScript? You can actually do var undefined is 20. How many of you know that? You knew that already? Cool, okay. Yeah, I know, but that's no fun, actually. And you know, there's another thing where, actually, NaN is never equal to anything. I mean, NaN is not even equal to NaN. That's weird, actually. Yeah, but then you have a value. NaN is like a value, and you expect some value to be equal to some other value. Or at least to itself. What is type of undefined in JavaScript? Type of undefined is undefined? Yes. Type of undefined, type of null is object. See, I can't even keep up. But what would you have if null instance of object? What would that evaluate? Null instance of object?


Like look at, for example, a Carl icon, right? Like the Carl icon trend. Usually it wouldn't be a stock that I would look at. If you guys remember, Hindenburg did a research piece that obviously a hit job and the stock got crushed, put it in his bottom, it's kind of grinding here in between the five and the 10 day. I'm not saying this is something that I'm gonna trade, depending on how slow or aggressive the date tomorrow is, because again, at the end of the day, I trade technology, you know, mega cap technology names, but keep an eye on this thing. It's been rejected now twice off the 10 day moving average. You know, I'll watch it tomorrow just in case, who knows, maybe there'll be some option flow. But if this thing can get above the 10 day moving average, who knows, maybe this thing could give a dead cap balance. You know, something, again, when the rest of the market is a little bit asleep or potentially going to be asleep, I try to always find alternative ways to kind of put stakes into the freezer.