My name's Greg Succliff. I work for Red Hat. I should not be here. This should be presented by my colleague Carol. Unfortunately, Carol can't be here. No fault of her own. So I'm here to take her place. Not that anyone can take Carol's place. She's awesome. But because it's not her fault, we also not going to give her any annoyance about the typo in the slide title, which I know she's already spotted and is mortified about. But I only have a PDF. OK, so I'm going to talk to you about Ansible Contributor Summits. I'm going to talk about what we've learned over the last couple of years of running them virtually and the ones before that that were not virtual and where we think that might be going. We're going to do a little bit of data, a little bit of feedback from our contributors, talk about what we've discovered along the way. And because I don't know everything that Carol wanted to talk about, I will probably have some free time at the end. So I might put a few of my own thoughts in about how I feel about how things have gone and what the world looks like now. So she has said that she doesn't have any answers. Neither do I, sorry. We have a lot of questions about how we think events are going to be. Not just big events like this one, small events, medium events. The world has changed, but collaboration really has not. We're still humans. So we have lots of questions. And if you want to chat about this stuff, please come and find. I will probably be heading off fairly soon. But you can come find me in the Ansible Community or on Twitter or wherever, and we can have a conversation. And it will be very, very nice to talk about other people's experiences of running meetups. So firstly, what does Ansible contribute to? So what is Ansible even? Ansible is a tool for orchestration, for managing service state, for doing infrastructure as code. This has a reasonable following at this point in time. Configuration management has been around for close on, at least a decade, I would say. If that is something that you're not aware of and you want to know more about, docs.ansible.com is the place. We have a pretty large community. At one point, when we were still in a single repo, we were in the top 10 projects on GitHub. So we have thousands of contributors from an internet perspective. And we try and translate that into some contributed summits around the world from time to time. And so we'll have a day of hacking and talking and figuring out what things look like and where we want to go, a usual kind of thing that you would do with your contribution community. So we've been doing this for quite a while. So this goes right back to 2018.  This is common model. How many co-located events are there here? It's huge, right? This is exactly what we would do with our contributed summits. And then, of course, 2020 happened. And we did have one planned for Gothenburg, but sadly, it had to be canceled. And then, of course, we went virtual from there on out. And only now are we looking at what to do next month when we're in Chicago for the next Ansible Fest. And there will be a contributor summit. It will be there on site, but of course, there will be a virtual component to that. So you could represent that like this. Because one of the things that we got out of being able to do things virtually, we could do it faster. We don't need a venue anymore, right? So that helped. And we could do things quicker. We could get people from around the world involved. So we tried to go a little faster. We were aiming for four a year. We wanted to do it quarterly, but the way the timing landed, it kept interfering with Christmas, which didn't work so well. People don't come, right? So as a result, we kind of scaled it back a bit. And we went for three a year, which we did. Successfully for both years of the pandemic. And then this year, we only had the one in the spring, various reasons the summit didn't work out, and now we're going to have October. And that's going to be this hybrid thing, right? Again, I don't think we're particularly unusual in having to do this. The world had to do this. But it was an interesting time. So just to give a picture, and we've all been here at the conference all week, so I don't think this is unusual. Carol loves taking these like fisheye shots with her fancy camera, and my brain cannot process them. Like these 360, I can't deal with it. So I'm just going to gloss over that slide entirely before I cry. But then we had to go to this, right? We went from in-person, sitting around desks, great, lots of chat. We had to move to this etherpad. BlueJeans was our original tech stack, because Red Hat used BlueJeans internally, so it was very easy for us to just be like, everybody's on BlueJeans, we'll do that. But it doesn't really matter what web RTC system you use, this was just what we were all doing, right? So this worked reasonably well, but we did evolve the tech stack. I'm going to show you some of the feedback from the community as we went through these two years. And so you can see that we kind of evolved things. We started with the BlueJeans back in, and we were chatting on IRC. We had to use prime time when Ansible Fest came around. And Fest inevitably brings a bigger audience, and so you get beyond the capability of what just a simple BlueJeans room can handle. We were getting, I think it was 200 people, at least, that were technically registered for the Contributor Summit when it was happening at the same time as Fest. So it needs something slightly bigger, but we could offer prime time for that. We went to Google Meet because that's what the company did, so we weren't using so much BlueJeans. Google Meet, fine. The community wasn't happy, right? Because these are not open source tools, and we're a strongly open source community. We didn't want to be using proprietary tooling for any part of it if we could possibly avoid it. So we got some feedback on that. And so for the later sessions, towards the end of last year, we started using a matrix approach. So matrix is another way of doing chat. And for some of you will know, I'm not going to go into that. I could do a whole talk on matrix. But one of the things it can do is one of the clients for matrix can do a nice job of embedding video. So we would do all the presenters in JIT. It's kind of your classic prime time or similar system where the speakers are separated from the attendees, right? So only the speakers are on video. That was being broadcast to YouTube. And then YouTube was being brought back into the chat room so that everyone could watch. And the chat was in matrix and IOC because they're bridged. So that worked really, really nicely. And we were very happy with that. We had some good feedback along the way. So you can see, I'm not going to read every single one of these out. We don't have time, and you'll get bored. But you can see a few here. Stop using IOC. That one really got me. I'm like, fair enough. The losing face-to-face conversation, very fair. That was something that I think we've all felt, doing virtual things, is that chat is good. And we do chat every day in a lot of our communities. Sometimes you want that face-to-face conversation. And it's hard to do, if you get to a certain scale where you can't have everybody on video. Then virtual reverts to chat. And what are we doing here? We do this every day anyway. Otherwise, there's a special, you could just call it a hack day and be done with it. So that was fair feedback. But there were other good things. So you can see the mention there of being on a false platform. That was in relation to blue jeans. That was an early one. Multiple chat. One of the things we didn't like about using blue jeans and later Google Meet was, and this is true of a lot of platforms, actually, is we didn't like the fact that chat is a secondary consideration on most platforms. It is part of the room. And it is lost when you finish the conference. It's gone forever. And that is not fun. And if you're not in the conference and you want to catch up later, you can't do that. And that was one of our motivations for trying to use Matrix, because we're using Matrix and IOC for the community day in, day out. So if we can get the conference into Matrix, then the chat is part of the record. And you can go back and you can play the YouTube video back and scroll back up in the timeline and sync them back up. And it does work. It's kind of weird, but you can do it. And you can follow along, as if you had been live, but you're two days later. So this was fine? Well, I mean, we don't have any tooling that would sync it, but you could work it through it right. You could see what people were commenting on as you were watching the video in YouTube. So sorry for the video there, the lady was saying, is it synced up? No, not manually only. But you could do it, right? You could do it. So we found that, yeah, we got some good feedback there. There's more. You can see two out of three. So someone was very excited when we said we weren't going to be using Google Meet anymore, which made me very happy. The disconnect is real. Try trying to keep all the tooling in sync, HackMD, or Etherpad, or video content, chat, et cetera. Difficult, but you can make it better. We did try. We tried embedding things in various ways. We tried to make it very easy to Q&A through reactions and chat and things like that. But then not everyone's happy, right? You can't please everybody. So you can see there's someone saying once we move to this jitsy plus matrix approach, now we've only the presenters on the video call. So where's everybody else? Like, I miss the faces. I want to talk to people, but they're not there, right? They're only in chat. So you can't please everybody. And that was something that I really struggled with for a while. I mean, I've been in the community a long time, but you genuinely can't please everybody. And this is very true in a situation like this, when it's just what it is. But yeah, it worked. It was OK. At some point, somebody really loved it. There were a lot of little teething issues, and there's a lot of evolution along the way. And we found that we didn't document things particularly well, like how to get into the chat. If you're not used to matrix, it's a slightly different system. So some people struggled with that. Somebody wanted a slight group. That was never going to happen. The community just flat out rejected things like Slack and Discord years ago. Rightly so, I think. My point showing all of this feedback is that you can't make everybody happy. We went through a bunch of different iterations. So we started with physical and online together back before the pandemic. Then we had just everybody in a video room. And then we tried like BlueJeans Prime Time, which is fine, but not open source. And then we had Matrix. And there's always going to be complaints. There's always going to be people who love what you've done anyway. You can't win. But you can try and find something that fits with what you're trying to do in your community. And that, I think, is important. It's like, what does the majority of people in the community feel comfortable with? It's going to be something that matters a lot to how you run your events. There are some big wins, though. I mean, look at the time zones thing. We tried to vary the time zone as we went through the year. And that was nice. It felt nice. It was inclusive. If you do an onsite thing, not everyone can travel. And even when you do virtual, I saw so many events that were always going to be in a North American time zone. And I'm like, stop doing that. Please stop doing that. I live in Europe. Even for me, I was missing half the day because I have young kids that I have to go and put to bed. And if you're in another time zone, you've got no chance. So being able to vary things, being able to include people that couldn't travel, these were positives that came out of it. Many positives to a global pandemic. But some inclusivity is definitely one of them. And it's something that's very much in my mind today as we start looking for how we do the hybrid thing and getting it right. We did learn a bit about marketing. We do a survey after every one of these contributed summits. That's my job. I'm the data scientist on the team. And we started trying to find out where people are finding out about us. And I started asking like, I tried to put this out to the wider community to find out so we could ask the people who didn't come. This is one of my friends who works in events. And it's his absolute biggest bug barrier is that when people come, they come once, and they never come again. And he can never find out why, because they didn't come back. And so I started trying to ask the community, if you didn't come, why not? Did you not know? Was it not the right time zone? Was the formatting not correct? Was it tooling you didn't like? What was the problem there? So not only do I want to hear from the people who did come, because obviously I want to know their experiences. But I also want to know why the people who didn't come didn't come. Mostly it was either it didn't fit with their work schedule or they just weren't aware of it, in which case we just need to do better marketing, wanting to get the word out more. So we started asking, where had you found out? So you can see that mostly, Reddit. Turns out we have a big strength on Reddit. We did some affiliate links. This is specific to the Ansible Fest events, because I don't know. I take it back. We did do Eventbrite for all of the contributed summits initially, because to get that blue jeans link out, we had some safeguarding to think about. We had, in the start of the pandemic, you may remember there was a lot of talk about people joining calls that were nothing to do with them and doing not-safe-for-work things on camera, and it was terrible. So we were careful about where we broadcast the links. And so you had to sign up for Eventbrite, and then you got the blue jeans link, and you could come and you could join the chat. When we moved to the Matrix and Jitzi approach, of course, only the presenters are on video, so you don't need to do that. You can just say, hey, anyone can turn up, can join the channel. So it's fine. But we did pretty well. Again, you can see Reddit regionally well represented. Twitter did apparently super well until you look at how many people actually got tickets from it. But yeah, I'm not going to talk about Twitter. I have a love-hate relationship with Twitter. So the point is here, we had to evolve. We had to figure out our marketing. We had to work out where we were going to advertise. Where is the community looking? For those of you who were here for the last talk in here, Nicole was talking about, where is your audience? We had to learn this lesson really hard. Where is your audience? Where are people looking? If you don't, otherwise, you get no attendance, which is not what you want. So I said I asked about how people found it. We do the survey, and I asked a whole bunch of questions. So I did do a sort of net promoter-type thing, where you ask people, would they say other people should come and do it? And most people say yes, which I was very happy about. The bottom one I'm super happy about, since I was doing the tech stack, I was like, how does this compare to that other, particularly virtual meetups that you're going to give them when we're all in a pandemic? People said it was great, nearly everybody. Nobody said it was worse than any other event they've been to, so that's pretty good. We asked, so that was in July, which was fine. We got, you know, reasons. So as you can see, I apologize to anyone who's not got great color sight, because I learned to do better colors as I get better at data. These are old graphs. But the big bar there is in the center of that bottom one is people who gave it a four out of five, right? So I'm very happy with that. But we got a much bigger bar on the right there a little bit later, so I was getting better at running that somebody hated me for doing it. But mostly it was getting better and better still. So we definitely evolved through how we were running these things, whether we were doing it well, was the tech stack working for people. These are all questions I asked that we're not showing here, but as a collective to people recommend it, yes, in general, apparently we've run quite good events. But I think this is important to ask, right? I think in a lot of cases we don't always go back and chat with people and say, hey, what can we do better, right? So definitely enjoyed learning that. Oh, there's another slide, my goodness. This is what you get for running somebody else's slide deck. Gets better still. And still going. There we go. I'm going to stop now, I'm going to stop now. But largely the point here, the consistency here, is that we've done a reasonably good job of trying to listen to the community and run a good event. So we learned, as I said, we learned a lot about marketing. We learned that we didn't do a great job of repeating the message. There's that old wisdom that when you say something for the 1,000th time, there's someone who's only hearing it for the first time. I feel like we kind of forgot that a little bit along the way. We tended to put it out once, twice, we're done, right? And that didn't work so well. So we learned we had to get on with it and really get it out there. We have to put it in different channels. I mean, it seems like obvious wisdom, right? But at the time, we were just so stuck in the trenches of trying to get things done that it's very easy to forget these things. And you need a call to action. This is something we struggle with at the moment for various reasons. Having a call to action, having a place to go, is worth doing. We have our mailing list right now. If you're an answerable person and you don't already know about the bullhorn, please do go and subscribe because it's super cool. And I can do a whole talk on how we generate the bullhorn because it's community sourced and done through a chat room and there's a bot and it's all good fun. So what do we learn from this? You can't make everybody happy. There is no perfect platform. There isn't something that's going to work for no one size fits all approach. This is all common sense, but it's worth saying. We found that the Matrix and Jitsie thing worked very nicely for us. It's a almost fully open source tag. The almost is because we broadcast it to YouTube. But there are ways to consume YouTube and preserve a certain amount of, at least, pseudonymity. So you can run it through a relay or whatever. If you really, really, really want to, you can deal with it. And being able to take it and put that in doubt with all of our hosting requirements, the recording is done and live the second we hit end stream. So it's fine. It's finished. And in the meantime, it can be brought back into the Matrix room if you're using the Element client or you can just have chat and a web browser open separately. And it works really nicely. That worked for us. It's not going to work for everybody. Accessibility is huge. The first few ones that we did, we didn't do a good job of advertising to people how to get into the Matrix room or where to find it. That was a mistake, and it cost us. And keeping it simple, keeping it straightforward works really well. Balancing contributors. This is where, again, Matrix gave us the win. Not everybody is used to YRC. That is an older technology. And it is fine. And it does its job. But newer people are not used to it. So keep an eye on that. If you're trying to attract new contributors to your hack days, you've got to meet them where they are. It's kind of straightforward. And then, yeah, do go and ask people how it was. I have been to quite a lot of meetups. And I have been surprised by how few of them have asked me my opinion afterwards. And I know we have a bit of a thing about not intruding on people with an open source. And I get that. People get survey fatigue. And they're like, why are you asking me all these questions? It feels very intrusive. I get it. But you can only ask. You'll get a certain percentage you fill it in. But at least you get some feedback on how well it went. And yeah, I'm genuinely surprised when I don't get that from an event. So it's fine. And then, where are we going? As I said, this wouldn't take me too long because I don't have all of Carol's notes. So I'm going to quickly write this off. Now I'm going to give you my view on this. This is what Carol wrote. She thinks that we've learned a lot and that we need to make sure we keep bringing people in, both in person and also the virtual side. And that's fair. That's absolutely fair. I would say, though, I am interested in the scale of the event. I think that's a relevant factor when we look at this. The thing that I have seen happen over the last few years is that virtual events have cannibalized themselves. You start out with, here's my local meet-up. I can't go to it in person now, so we'll go virtually. Fantastic. But then the minute you do that, you think, well, I could go to the one down the road, or I could go to the one in the big city at the other end of the country because it's virtual, and it doesn't make any difference. And so now this one has no attendees, and this one's got all the big speakers. But then that happens again. Now the one at the city at the end of the country is now going to be consumed by the one that's worldwide. And now I only want to go to this one because they've got all the best speakers. And there the road ends because as soon as you get to that scale, you can't have any meaningful conversations with anybody anymore because there's 2,000 attendees and chat is ridiculous. So I feel there's a place for the virtual stuff, and it's kind of in the middle. Lower than that, as we move back into a hybrid world, I think the meet-ups are going to come back, and they don't need to be virtual. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think that will work. If we try and make every single thing hybrid, sorry, I said virtually, I meant hybrid. There will be a place for virtual events, absolutely. But hybrid is an extra layer of effort on the part of the organizers. And if you're just running a little meet-up in a pub or in somebody's office, it's a big ask to get audiovisual people in to record it, to stream it. I don't know that's necessary for meet-ups, especially when the potential end consequences is just going to be someone's going to go to a different virtual hybrid event anyway. So I think meet-ups will be back. After that, yes, hybrid all the way. I do not want to lose that inclusivity. I do not want to lose that diversity that comes from having the voices in the room that couldn't have traveled. I think that's massively important. And I do like that when we have chat running, as I know we have for this talk, I hope it's going well, there are people who are going to have good questions that are not prepared to put their hand up and speak. And that's true in every meeting. And it's no different for our events. And I want to hear from those people because they often have really, really good points. So that's Carol's point about second-class citizens. We absolutely must make sure that if we are going to do hybrid, as I said, I don't necessarily think every event needs to be hybrid. But if we do, it has to be done right. And that's going to be interesting. I think the LF are doing a great job this time. I got to see a little bit more first-time what was happening in ChaosCon on Monday and how they were running all the chat in the back end. I think it's a good model. We're going to try and copy that next month for Ansible First and for the Contributor Summit there. I do think it's going to be very interesting to make that work in Matrix, but we'll give it a go. It's not something we have to worry too much about. But you know what? We might just do the straight-to-Youtube thing if everyone's comfortable with it in the room. But that's the thing, isn't it? You've gone from Jitsi where you can ask all the presenters, are they comfortable with this? And that's fine. Now you've got a whole room of people. So what are we streaming here and where is it streaming to? Got to check, right? So it's going to be interesting. And then, yeah, the bigger events are always going to be hybrid, right? That was even before the pandemic. Fostam's been doing audio-visual streams for, I want to say, like five years now, at least. They record everything. And so that's not changing. That's not going away. It's important. I feel like that's going to come down the scale a little bit. And then meet-ups are going to be their own thing again. That's kind of where I see it. So for us, it's definitely going to be a case of doing hybrid because we can and we should. We're a big enough project. And we absolutely need to make sure we're including all the people who could be part of it. But you know what? We've got 150 meet-ups, and that doesn't even come close to covering the globe in a nicely even way. And I don't want to put that burden on them. So that will be a separate thing entirely. OK, this has not taken me very long to go through, as I did not expect it to. So thank you very much. And I will happily have lots of discussions with people who want to have some. Thank you. Do you have a sense of that? So the question is, if people are feeling uncomfortable with raising their hand and asking a question in person in a meeting or an event, are they more likely to ask a question online? That's a really good question. It is hard to answer because we come back to the identity problem. Do I know who these people are and what I recognize when a meeting versus in chat? If I know their usernames, I can figure it out. My gut feeling is I would say it depends on the chat room. It's a piece of string question, because it's a question of whether you, I think inevitably, asking a question is a function of, do you feel safe? And that doesn't change whether you're in person or in a chat room. And so it's about the atmosphere. Well, OK, it does change, but it's still there.   So I do think there's also an element of size as well. Like, if you've got like 200 people and the chat is really noisy, some people may hold their fire. But it cuts both ways, because sometimes they're really quiet. You don't want to break the silence, right? So I've seen it go both ways. I really do think it's going to be, everyone's got a different safety level. And I hope we can reach a point where it's OK to ask questions and you feel safe to do so in our community. But I can't guarantee it, right? It's difficult. I have seen some platforms do the Q&A separately. So it's on a separate system. BlueJeans Prime Time does this. For example, you have a separate tab and you ask your questions. And the chat is separate. I don't like that model, because I think the questions themselves can spark a lot of conversation in the community. And you don't see them so much. So the model we went with was to just type away, to be part of the conversation. And if a moderator saw an interesting question, they would flag it. And we had a particular reaction that we could go on to that question. And then we had a bot that would collate all of the questions so far, and so that moderators could then read them back out or the presenters could see the list of questions. It worked quite well. You had a second question? OK, so the question is, if we only have a presenter only format where only presenters are in the video stream, can we then switch it to a more meet up everybody inclusive format? There's no reason why not. You obviously have to architect it correctly. The way we did it was specific to Matrix. So the element client can embed a group call, just like you would in some other chat platforms. But it's its own jitzy platform. So you'd have to get the presenters to leave that call and join the other one in order to do so. So we did it for like a lunch break and things. You had a lunch break. Right, exactly. Yeah, so yeah, we would have a lunch break. An element of meet up. Yes, yes. I agree. I completely agree. And this is the thing we've absolutely felt the pain over the last few years is the interpersonal thing. And we've definitely seen attendances drop over the course of two years. I glossed over the numbers. But yeah, we definitely saw things coming down. The first year was great. We had generally 50, 60 people at the contributed summits. We would have 200 people at the one that's attached to Ansible Fest because they're coming anyway. They're making time in their schedule. And then by this year, it was down to like 30 people in the contributed summit. So yeah, it was tricky. Yes, yes, absolutely. Time zones are critical, I think. And yeah, if you're going to do it physical, obviously you're bound by the time zone of having the meet up, right? So the thing that we are bound by when it comes to doing a virtual event is simply where our team is based, right? So we are roughly spread between sort of mid US to mid Europe. And we used to have some colleagues over in India. So that made it easier to spread things out. But that's currently not the case. Teams change. And so right now, we're stuck with that kind of time zone. But we have moved it around. We do do some in Europe, time zone, some in North American time zone. I would love to get back into that part of the world and do one further around the globe. I think that would be fair. But it's just difficult to orchestrate when our team is in some base there. It's a big ask of people if they're working day. So yeah, being able to do inclusivity in general. So time zones, travel problems, whether that's budget, whether that's company time, whether that's simply like disability, you can't travel. All of these things are reasons why people won't. Yeah, exactly. I mean, there's so many reasons why someone wouldn't travel. And yet they have a valid voice, right? So yeah, I don't want to lose that. But equally, we clearly can't stay virtual. It's dropping all the time. So we need to find that middle ground. And I'm just concerned that we try and make everything hybrid. And I don't know that that will work. I think so long as we have a space for everybody to participate, it's kind of the remote working problem. I've said this in so many places. The success of a remote working program in a company depends on the people still in the office. Because they have to remember that when they've had a conversation in the kitchen with someone, they've got to go and update the rest of the team. And that is true here as well. We are going to end up with different types of events in different spaces. And we have to remember to come back together. So I think there's going to be a bit more of a boost to asynchronous communication methods, whether that's your forums, your GitHub discussion boards, your mailing lists. I think that's the bit that's going to hold it all together. And that's got my attention at the moment. Because we've got to sync it back up. We're going to have different types of events. We've got to sync it back up. So the point was, what's the balance going to be between virtual attendees and in-person attendees at these hybrid events? And I think it's a really good point. And I think even if it's not the same people, just the numbers will be interesting. Right. Right. So it's interesting at an identity level. But I think it's just interesting at an aggregate numbers level as well, like which one dominates. For me, part of this is going to be about the barriers to entry that we talked about earlier. We have a problem right now that we've not made it super easy to register for the Contributor Summit next month in-person. The virtual bit's fine, because it's just a matrix room. But it's not super easy to register for it, because it's attached to a more corporate event. And so we're struggling to get the word out about that. And so I don't know what the in-person versus virtual is going to look like. And even if it's a fair representation, so what's it going to look like in the next one we do in March when it'll be just a contributor summit not attached to an event? Well, maybe attached to another event, we'll see. But it's going to be fascinating to see where it lies, and possibly is it event-sized dependent? Like, do we get a better result at a big event that we're attached to versus just doing a small thing ourselves? Yes. Yes, you certainly can. That's true. Isn't that true? So yeah, the point there was simply, sorry. Yeah, I have forgotten the point, because so. No, you're absolutely right, though. Thank you for reminding me to repeat everything. OK, so yeah. If they are harder or harder to do. Yes, thank you. So the point was that if we make it more difficult for people to register, you get an idea of how keen they are. You're not wrong, but I am not in favor of putting more barriers in front of people. I would much rather have the participants than to simply see how keen people are. The problem I have is that there is a lot of open source, even more than there has ever been. And if we make it hard, they will just go somewhere else. So yeah, I don't think that's a great strategy. You're not wrong, but it's not a great strategy, I would say. So the question is about onboarding and all the technologies, IRC, et cetera. I could do a whole talk on what I think about IRC. And indeed, I did a similar one, but in general. So the point is, is it hard to learn? Is it OK to use old things? I would say it's about the community again. And my concern with Ansible is that it's a very large project, and there should be a new wave of people coming in all the time.  Don't just young people, right? Anyone can teach themselves coding and then go get involved in the community. So there should be new people coming in. And yet, when I do my surveys, the demographics I get for the people coming to the event, they've all been using Ansible for at least four years. And so I'm like, where are the new people? And I've got to meet them where they are. As a personal user, I have no issue with anybody wanting to use any particular tool. I used to be a heavy IRC user. It is fine if you are a heavy IRC user. As a community lead, IRC, I would argue, I will go on record, is not fit for purpose for running a community. And there's a lot of reasons for that. And I wrote a lot of essays about it. And you could apply these sets of arguments to other tools. We don't have time. But the point is simply meet your community where they are, if you think. And it's a bit of a leap of faith. It's a marketing excerpt, right? Community work is the intersection of marketing and engineering, right? So it's a bit of a leap of faith to try and figure out where they are and to go try something and see if you're right, and that is where they are. Because honestly, the biggest one we have in open source is anonymity. I don't know who my users are. I have no idea how many Ansible users there are. It's some who they are, where they are, what they do, what age they are, what they're interested in. I have no idea, right? You don't have to tell us anything in order to go and download an open source package. And so unlike most commercial things, where they will have subscription data or interesting sign-up data or marketing data, we have none of that. So we do have to take a bit of a leap of faith and say, we think this is where people are today, and that's where we should be. And if that's what you're hearing from your group, I'm like, it's fine to have it on a personal level. But if you're running a community, you have to listen. OK. Well, thanks very much, folks. I should just shut this thing down. Thanks, Rick. No, thanks for coming on. I will meet you up with you somewhere later on in the room. Yeah, at some point, at some point, some got to go home. To meet some of the guys. It's good to see you, man. No, office. You take care. See you again. See you around. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. Hang on, what's that?