Good to go. Are you recording? Okay. Thank you for coming to the session about the stewardship working group. How many of you went to the cross-project session earlier today? Okay. Those of you who didn't go to the cross-project session, what are you expecting to get out of this session? Shout. Yeah, shout it out because we don't have microphones for all of you. Okay. Someone just said they wanted a summary of what happened in the earlier cross-project session and maybe some extra stuff if we have time. Anyone else? The TLDR, as it were. Okay. So you guys are here to hear these four folks talk. So in general, I like to do as little as possible.  Works? Okay. So with that as a starting point, what I am going to do is kick off a couple of questions and then let you engage with the panel. The first one is for Colette. Would you tell us what the stewardship stuff is all about? Sure. So I started having conversations about the sticky people problems of OpenStack with a bunch of people in the leadership positions, various ones, two or three years ago. And when I started doing research around external models of leadership that we might be able to sort of look at and learn from within the community, one of the first things that stuck out to me was servant leadership. And so a quick recap of servant leadership for anyone who doesn't know what servant leadership is. I'm going to do like a YMCA thing here. So there's a triangle with the pointy thing at the top. It's a traditional corporate model of leadership structures that starts with the CEO at the very top. And then below the CEO is like an executive layer. And they sort of serve at the pleasure of the CEO. And then below them are kind of managers of frontline workers. They serve those executive groups that are in theory detailing strategy and all of these things for them. And then the frontline workers and then the customers are at the bottom of the pyramid, I guess is how you look at it. In servant leadership, the servant leadership model flips that triangle on its head. And it says that the sort of top layer, the people who are in charge, as it were, are the customers and the frontline folks. And the managers are in place to serve the frontline folks who are talking to customers and serving them every day. And below the managers are executives who are there to serve managers, frontline customers. And then finally, the CEO serves everyone. And they're at the bottom. So when I saw that, it struck me that that corresponded really interestingly to some of the leadership models that I had seen at OpenStack, largely because we come from a ton of different companies. And why on earth would somebody from a different company listen to a PTL from another company? Well, it turns out that's because they're sort of serving their project in this role. So that's a quick explanation of servant leadership. The stewardship working group came out of a kind of leadership training that revolved around that model of leadership. And we thought, well, if we want to start tackling some of these people problems in OpenStack, we should probably start learning the language and understanding what models we have internally and sort of propose governance repository changes that reflect our principles and things like that. So some of the work we've done recently kind of proves what we're about. Musical chairs with a microphone, which you talked about leadership models in OpenStack. So Terry, would you tell us something about how this relates to the TC? Because three of you relate to the TC. The training was most related to the TC. How does this relate to the leadership model of the TC? And what's the connection there? So in OpenStack, we end up growing organically a governance model that has that is pretty close to what Collette just described, which is we can't really rely on traditional carrot and stick strategy to actually get things done. And that's what was powerful in those things we learned when we went to that training. Because I mean, I'm usually very skeptical of leadership training because it doesn't apply at all in open source projects and having kind of a framework where they thought out what it means to invert that pyramid was really interesting because we are basically fumbling in the dark. We're trying to do get things done and trying to push people to walk in the right directions but without any kind of traction. And I think operating under a more defined framework helps us really look into the things with new eyes. We realize that we are missing some vocabulary. We realized we were missing some tools. And that drove some of the TC members that attended that training to reconsider the way we've been trying traditionally to get things done in OpenStack. I'll ask the question without the microphone. I can repeat the question when he asks it. What are some of these problems that you've seen? How do you think? So, Monty, you've been around OpenStack for a while. You're going to say, you have? Great. So, I got my cue. Calle talked about some of the problems which the people problems. Terry is talking about the leadership structure. What are some of these problems and how do you think this whole model may be appropriate and how does it fit in? Where do the pieces come together, especially with the TC?  And most specifically, we are a collection of people who work for a bunch of different companies that may be in competition with each other, may be partners with each other, may be partners with each other and in competition with each other. There's a great combination of those things. And we also have a different set of, even outside of sort of company relationships, either inside of companies or just across the different use cases that they're doing. We have people trying to run public clouds. We have people trying to run enterprise, you know, private clouds. We've got people doing NFV. We've got people who think that the only thing that you should ever do on clouds are cloud native apps. We have people who think that clouds are really good at doing traditional things on bare metal. Like we have a bunch of different viewpoints of the world. And in our world, because we've sort of decided on this inclusive and collaborative way to do things, we kind of need to synthesize a lot of those different things into a whole. We're not just saying, yes, we in fact do believe that cloud native apps are the only way to do things. Clearly, if you look at OpenStack, we do not believe that. We have not written software that believes that. It can do that, but it can also do other things. We have humans, because we are a collection of humans. We have humans who have different goals and priorities, because we have a lot of them. We have, you know, the cycle 2,500 humans that are involved that have different primary objectives. Some people are working on this just because they were told to by their boss and have no primary objective other than doing a good job. Some people are in this to liberate humanity from the shackles of tyrannical single company products. That would be me. We have people who explicitly want to take OpenStack and make billions of dollars with it selling their product. And that's just a mechanism to them. We have people who are just concerned with what's an interesting technical solution to a problem. You know, the sort of JFDI folks. And all of the, and many more.  And we, all of those voices wind up being useful, but in a lot of cases they're in conflict with each other. They have different motivations for doing things. Different motivations often times result in different outcomes. And, or no outcome, as Gleit says. So these are all just the inputs into this crazy pie that we've got going on. When you combine that with, as Thierry says, we don't have some of the traditional tools. Like we don't, if you were just working at a company, oftentimes you vet the people you hire. That's a normal practice. We don't do that. We don't get to do that. You can fire people. We haven't figured out how to do that. These are sort of normal. So we have to take the humanity that we've got. And something has to come out of that. And at the end of the day we need to produce software that people can make a billion dollars with that also liberates humans and is operationally good. And also, like all of these things. So it can't just be about one answer. It's never about one answer in almost every single circumstance. We have to solve five conflicting things at once. So let's maybe look at an example where we actually could do this. Because it seems very good on paper. It always does, doesn't it? Triangle, upside down, right way up, whatever. It looks very great. But how do you actually make this work? Okay. Where am I going to? How do we, how do we, how do we just solve that problem? Which by the way is a people, like we can build, write all the code that we want. But if people are avoiding each other and running into their own corners and not working together towards a thing, it's going to get messy when it does get messy. And part of the group creation is the realization that we have a lot more people problem than we have technical problems. And we have a lot of people trying to solve people problems with technical solutions. So I would, and I want to reiterate that I don't think, I don't think that that's because we're like incapable of solving the people problems. I feel very strongly that, that a lot of times people get, for example, elected to PTL and are like told, cool, have fun with that. And given no resources to help them figure out what that job means. And how to do it well and how to not kill themselves doing it. Right, so two practical things that came out of that, that training and the discussions that we had over the summer were the new goals process for cross-project collaboration and the set of principles that the TC has started writing down. And both of those really came out of the need to better communicate. And I think communication is really the fundamental solution to the people problems. So the goals process is organized to communicate the desires of the end users and operators and the community as a whole for things that we want all OpenStack projects to do. And there's a process that it goes through for selecting things and then we'll pick one or two items to focus on each cycle, work on those things, talk about, you know, how we did, how the work went, whether it's complete or not, whether we need to keep going and do more work. And then we'll be able to celebrate at the end of each cycle that we did a big thing in that cycle. So the first one this time around to bootstrap the process is focused on cleaning up some technical debt, removing some old incubated Oslo code and using the newer libraries. And that was selected just because it seemed like it would be an easy one to agree to and an easy one to implement. It would give us some practice with the whole process. And then the other thing that we did this summer was to take the list of principles that we've had sort of internalized the folks that have been doing leadership roles within OpenStack for a while, kind of understand each other and work based on the same set of assumptions. And my mantra has always been to write it down. One of the things that, you know, really came out of the communication was the need to write stuff like this down. And so Monty and Thierry started working on writing that stuff down and putting together a list. We all had input into it. There was a lot of refinement and everything. And now that's landed in as part of the governance site and part of the documentation that the technical committee has produced. And that's an evolving list of principles, but it's things like we are one project and we want things to work in a similar way. The stuff about like elections and how one person gets one vote. It doesn't matter how big your contributions are. You don't get more votes and things like that. So if I heard that correctly, you mentioned, Colette started mentioning communication. You picked up on communication. So it seems like a big part of this is communication. So maybe all of you will start with Thierry and then go around. Where do you think this communication thing is today? Where would you like it to go? And how does all of these changes which you have, how are they going to relate to the project? It's one thing for the TC to lead. It's another thing for them to be able to get the projects to follow. So what changes are you making in the area of communication which might facilitate this? I'm sorry, we did lots of preparation for this thing and we said, what are we going to ask? But this one wasn't one of those questions. And I'm the lucky one that has to answer it first. So first of all, it's a good question. I'm right. And communication is hard, because it's not as if we weren't doing it before. We publish a lot of things, whether it be blog posts or explanations of what we're trying to do, meaning these threads. And we put a lot of resources out there, but people don't necessarily read or read past the subject line or in however amount of communication you put out there is not enough. You kind of need to put a bit of structure around those communications. So for example, the goals stuff, it's not as if it's not issues we already recognized as being critical to fix in our community. We all know that Python 3, I mean, Python 2 is going away and we need to migrate to Python 3. The problem is, unless you expose it as something that we should have a common effort to make progress on, nobody is actually like on a deadline to fix it. So it's always priority two and in open stack things that are priority two tend not to get done at all, because there are so many things that are priority one. And so you had progress. Some projects did really, really well, like Victor Stiner has been pushing patches crazy in so many projects to make progress on that. But we're at a point where unless you kind of herald that goal as a common thing that as a community, as the open stack community want to achieve together, we will not make further progress to all that goal. And so that's what I mean by putting some structure on it. Totally, but then like what I would sort of point out about not to not summarize today's session, but we'll sort of maybe get to that. But to talk about the goal session and how it went yesterday, right, like what people were bringing up. You know, the communication in the room largely centered around a lot of people saying, well, you can't make me plus two stuff in my project. How are you going to make me plus two a thing? So I was wondering how you got like there is this moment of I saw a real lack of trust in that communication, right, and a real lack of like, like everyone's like really worried people are going to make them do stuff. And then there's also people being like, well, how are you going to make someone else do stuff for me? Because man, I'm so frustrated. And and sometimes those are the same people and they don't always realize it. So what do you guys think about sort of that that space? What is your two sizes? Just just a short comment. I think there's a question of timing. There is a lot of negativity around the developer community right now due to various external factors. And there is also a more traditional resistance to any kind of a top down mandate. So there are like two two things. It's also bad timing. It's also we probably did not get the communication completely right. And and so we're like imperfect beings, obviously. There's a there's a thing that came out in the in the earlier session that that resonated with me partially, I think, because I said it, so I'm just going to that that must make it be an accurate thing. But but if we if we think about that inverted pyramid and what we're what we're theoretically doing here, I think part of the problem, like here, you just said there's traditional pushback against sort of the top down top down edicts, except that these aren't actually supposed to be that. Because we are the especially the way that our sort of governance works. We're we're a we should be a representative like a funnel point of the of the things that that already exist in the in the community. And rather than saying, hey, everybody in a dark room, we decided that Python three is important. What actually we haven't figured out how to frame this well for people. And I think this is one of the one of the failures. But I think that that hopefully if we identify it, we can we can move forward is is that that actually in what we should be saying is that we're we sit we happen to sit in a position where where we've got visibility into across across the open stack community and ecosystem. And we would like to reflect back to everybody that that this is an important thing, not not that we would like to make it an important thing. But we would we would like to surface for people that there there are there are some important things to do that need to be named and pointed out. And and as rep as your representatives, like as as the people that you've you've elected to kind of watch over things, we've we've noticed something.  So rather than saying, hey, you all need to do this. And then people like, well, how are you going to make me do that? So actually, we're sort of pointing out a thing that we should, you know, but let's hear quickly from Doug and Colette, because I have a question for the audience, which I think is going to relate to this. So let's talk about the communication thing very quickly. And then I'll push the question to the audience. I think my impression of that session yesterday was a little more positive. There were a few very vocal people, but it was a big room. And there were a lot of quiet people who seemed just sort of to be nodding. And I don't mean to say like, it wasn't positive. I actually think it was a deeply awesome session. But I also think the fact that we proposed that Python three goal and that failed to be approved is the process working correctly, because it triggered the communication about how we thought we were in a certain state and we're not in that state. And there's some other things that have to happen before we can actually take that to the next step. And so I count that as a success. I mean, it's frustrating. I wish we had actually been in the state. I thought we were in. But there's more work to be done. And that works going to have to be done. And we're working on that. And to you know, I started off the cross-project session this afternoon this morning. Morning. I don't know. It's pain.  And instead of sitting down with them and trying to move through it and go through it with them, again on the same page with them you just sort of quietly walked away and avoided them. Show of hands. Right. So one of the things that I think is really important is to start talking with one another about and create a space where we can talk about how we can move past this stuff together instead of be avoidant. Because you know, there's a lot of avoidance in this community culturally. And I don't think it helps us. It points to a lack of trust. And we need to rebuild that trust. And part of the like rationale for splitting the design summit events is also to recreate a venue for less people to be present so that you can actually bond with your fellow developers across multiple groups. Because that's something we had in the beginning and we lost along the way. And I think it's very difficult to build trust relationship in the middle of 6,000 venue where like it's first time I see a few people in a room that I haven't seen yet. It's like the third day we're here. And so it's really, really difficult to get that kind of a bonding experience and trust and we lost that trust. And the other sign we saw in that go room is like now you won't make me plus to your patch is well you should be agreeing when you should trust us or me to like if I think it's important and you should at least try to understand why I think it's important or like natural distrust when in a natural trust. Exactly. And it's one of the you know one of the pluses to our extremely distributed model is that we get to have people from all over the world which means we have you know all sorts of interesting perspectives. And it means I get to sit outside by my pool and hack which is great. But it also makes some forms of communication like things can come out of you know seeing Brian in the front row and a year ago we were all arguing about glance image uploads right. And in the spec and in the online discussions about it it felt very tense. And then we got in the room in Tokyo and are able to all look each other in the face and realize that everybody is actually trying to solve the same goal. And it winds up being very easy to sort of come to a place to go. And that's a specific example of a thing. But like having that space to be able to make some bonding things then makes further subsequent conversations on the topic easier. So I agree with Thierry like the theory of what we're trying to do with the PTG is amongst the toolbox that hopefully we can use to start to rebuild the connections because yeah I've barely seen the infra team. There are people on the infra team that I have not seen yet by Wednesday. Much less random people from other teams right. So the opportunity for me to arbitrarily make connections with people that I didn't already have connections with is diminished. I'm optimistic that with some more ability for interaction with our fellow people we can build some better trust relationships which can then feed into a culture of trust rather than the natural distrust. It's more about PTG but let's stick this to it. How will this group help that? So I actually want to throw that out to the audience. How can we help you? Because like one of the things that we didn't quite get to in the cross-project session because I think a lot of it was a little bit about like we're not some you know this is a group for everyone. It's specifically not just for the TC. We will make recommendations to the TC and talk with them about things but it's not it's A question is how is this corrupt different from the TC? The question is how yeah we're devoted to leadership in all its forms and open stack and the TC is a leadership group right? I mean I view the TC as like in my mind one of the first customers we have to deal with in terms of helping them get through some of this but there's leadership exists in all places in open stack and it's not even just elected leadership as you all know showing up is like 75 percent of the battle. If you can manage to write an email to the mailing list and get some people to agree with you that's that's a thing. So there every single person who participates in this community is is a leader. That's how it's different. There's a well there's a thing that that you said earlier in the in the earlier session about that that I think you've alluded to but to say it slightly differently the the the the stewardship working group exists to be a resource for other people not to not necessarily to be a another set of people over tossing out edicts and like that but actually to be a set of people who are interested in reading and learning and thinking and and and doing that and and responding. So if there's a if there's a person with a leadership challenge and they want to come and be like hey can you help me figure out how to how to do this. That's a thing. It's also it's a it's extremely important to point out that it's a it is a group comprised of the people who are interested in in working on this. So it is not a subset of of of the T.C. There are T.C. members who are participating in it because that's a thing that they've they've decided to spend some some energy on. There's also people who are not on the on the T.C. or in any particular elected role who are in it. It's a it's a it's a willing coalition. So a coalition of the willing right like it's people who want to come and and and examine some of these things and and surface potential tools or approaches to people as as they as they find the need for them. So as we come up with things that we think are broadly applicable will come to the T.C. and say hey we think this is maybe some useful language that that could be used and the T.C. may go neat or the T.C. may go nope that is not interesting to us and those are both those are both fine. It's almost like a research or or here's a framework for understanding a problem that came up in your meeting last week right that you might not know about or but it could help you think about it differently. I don't know I mean like something that simple right and some of the things that we've already started doing we've sort of done ourselves because we're in both groups. So the goals thing and the principles things but that that's coincident because half the people at the leadership training were not T.C. members. So yeah. So what are some other things which people here in the audience. I had to anyone else have any ideas. I had to come here so the microphones didn't blow up on me but are there other things which you would like this group or you would like help with from the perspective of leadership in OpenStack in general realizing that this is not specific to the T.C. Yeah. I have one question look for my management how how how can we communicate with like my personal manager that to make sure this issue that is understood at their level right because they're going to I think it's not just me but other management will look in at this and see what's going on down there from the outside and how do we communicate that correctly to people that have one of the suggestions or the asks from the cross project session was that we put the servant leadership triangle up on like the stack.org website which I don't think is wrong right like I think there is generally a lack of understanding of how open source works when it's working in a governance model like this and a leadership model like that. So I mean do you think that would be helpful. I think so I'm just going to have a published resource online that you could give some of the summary of I think so I think so because others have to be done carefully so it doesn't like because people may already be like what's going on with an OpenStack and why are they trying to resolve these things. And why are we trying to solve problems? Well, why not just let them pester? Yeah, or others or other type of requests like why aren't you pushing more leadership like more hard decisions on top of their those damn developers that don't want it or the opposite. Why are you pushing so many decisions? I mean we've been blamed for both. I think if we are in the situation where we have to make a choice between like too much leadership or not enough leadership it's that we are asking the wrong question. And I think we're in a mode where we are facilitators to make the like the common basically what Monty said earlier like we're in a good place to identify actually things that the majority or the consensual group of people think it's the direction should be doing. And then once we make that truth emerge it kind of it's so much easier to just push in that direction. But if you're there's a thing that a similar topic came up in the board TC meeting Monday I guess that was two days ago. Weird that was that was that it was sort of a request that came out of that of of asking how we can do a better job at the at the at the foundation level the the board of the constituent companies to to communicate to the companies better. What does it so we've got a lot of documentation on how do you become how does an individual become a OpenStack contributor like how how does what's the mechanics of that. But what we don't have a lot of documentation on is things that are aimed at the management structure in the company. What does it mean to what does it mean to employ people who are working on OpenStack. How do you if you're if you're crazy C-suite person has decided that all of a sudden your company is all in an OpenStack and you're like I don't even know what that is. Like what is what does your life mean. How does how do you manage your your employees who are involved in this and and how can you how can you like so resources for for them. So so honestly I think that that from like from your question and that like it's I'm not sure that anybody has an actual full answer for what that exactly looks like but that might be something that the that the stewardship group could work on some ideas to bring back to the T.C. to bring to the board of hey so we we spent some time thinking about this and here's some ways in which we can help you because as the T.C. we should be serving you right we should be making your life better. How can we help you by by by helping facilitate communication up the chain in your in your respective orgs right. I think it's not quite understanding like yeah sir. So I think thanks I think it'd be helped me and other people that are managers that aren't quite understanding what's happening down in the OpenStack land for this kind of stuff and helping them figure out where it's going and what the thoughts are. I just wanted to second that because one thing I've heard from my managers is that right there's there's this model of a benevolent dictator and so there's this thought if we had a benevolent dictator here we could really get stuff done. Yeah which I don't think and what I really like to shoot down is I so so there's so be helped. Yeah there's this perception that OpenStack's weakness is that it doesn't have a benevolent dictator right and I like to flip that on its head which is that its strength is actually that it does not. Yeah but we need to make explicit why that is. Yeah because it. Exactly. Yeah exactly. Yeah and but yeah I think communicating that and and also because because yeah like I mean for the love of all the toly that the in theory people had the impression that the that the TC collectively came to the decision that that that we should support Python 3 which is not particularly all that I mean and like the world exploded and and people are like why are you telling me what to do man. So so for anybody that any of the constituent companies that things would be more effective. I think what all of them actually think is if there's a benevolent dictator we know who to go squeeze to get our fancy feature that was really important to us in and what they forget about is that also means a person who's going to be much more empowered to say no to their crazy feature that all of us think is about idea in the first place. And also that that will end of killing the diversity of con contributors and contributions. We've got two people here. Let me just I just want to say with the I'm glad you're doing the session because I read your first patch for the goals and was just horrified because but but I thought well you know it's it's the role of the TC to show leadership so understood that but it's like this is going to be a really hard sell. But can I ask you what were you feeling when you were horrified like what are the things well because it was like we're going to tell us what to do and I'm thinking yeah good luck with that. And we're going to get this done by the you know by the certain deadline. It was like yeah good luck with that too. There was no. So I put the comments and we needed some to build up some stuff. And then on the patch you explain no no the ideas that these are organic goals that are going to rise up and then we'll help. There's I guess they're all so far the backlog is there's maybe 10 things maybe somewhere around a dozen things on the backlog. There are all things that we've been talking about for years. I think the difference literally for years. Right. And that came out on the patch but I think the you all had the context of being at the leadership seminar. Right. And yeah. And trust. And that's her serious point earlier about failing to communicate fully about where that was coming and after you know after I went back and read it it's like oh yeah I get. And what's. Here are a few tweaks and now this is fine but then you can see some people still don't know what it's also. Well what's funny is that there was a change process that was introduced to us in that training as well that was like sort of like here's how you manage change in a servant leadership model and we didn't follow that. So I you know I mean I think there's a lot of like we're still figuring out how to do this right and figuring out because because I think Terry said this also earlier in the session.  There's also stuff that wasn't applicable in the in the stuff and so sort of sorting through because it's a it's a set of words and tools and whatever and you can look at and be like oh God it's a mismatch of like so trying a couple of things and it turns out a couple of things really resonate. A couple of things were like maybe like I could see but maybe it's not that important and it's like I think as we stumble through this we discover OK well this bit did apply this bit didn't apply and like that's part of and we'll figure out how to make it the communities. So to follow up on Monti's comment about the possibility of providing infrastructure or instructions for a company contributing to OpenStack as opposed to an individual. Are there any areas of the culture and policy and politics in general superstructure of OpenStack that are specifically excluded from the stewardship working group remit for research and recommendation. I don't I don't think so. I think that I think that the stewardship working groups goal in life is to be helpful to people. So in the areas where people need help then those are the areas because this isn't this isn't a binding kind of you know like it's not a thing over off the inside restructuring things it's somebody says hey not really sure what to do about this particular thing. So some people will go and talk about it and think about it and that there may be productive results out of that. There may not be but I think that in any of these cases as long as it's related to our you know our technical community even even broadly like because talking to talking to managers at companies is clearly not actually I don't think the stewardship working group should talk to managers at companies like that's outside of but but brainstorming and researching some ways in which that might be done that can be bubbled up to the people who that is their job I think would be and then those people can take that take that information or not as they as they as they see fit but but at least because a lot of these things are things we're like it would be really great if somebody thought of a way to do that and then like crickets you know like like nobody is like nobody so it's more of a forum to to to bolster and support people that want to think about some of those harder problems. But the issue there was also that we need not have a venue for those kinds of discussions before and to Brian's point earlier I think if we had more shared context and he had a better idea of what what are the things we're trying to to achieve he would have had trusted us more by default rather than and so I'm happy to I hope that we will we set up tools that we will be able to use to share more context about all those initiatives so that they they are not like taken first of all as as potential attempts to do something wrong but whether to do something right and I hope we'll rebuild that trust that's been broken and I and I mean if I could pick a tagline for our t-shirt it would be like you know we're here to have the conversations you're afraid of having right no I'm serious like there is like the the thing is is like if we can't create a supportive space where everyone feels like they can come and talk about the really hard stuff then then I would be upset if if if we still existed in a year so well actually you guys kind of and I'm feeding back you guys hit part of the the issue just recently they're like three questions that feed into this whole issue of you guys are exercising the process but you managed to do it improperly with the Python 3 and there are other times where I've seen not quite enough how follow-through and so maybe perhaps as an organization you come up with a checklist of what we need to do to make sure we've we're actually proactively not only walking the walk but advancing it so have you scheduled a post will you schedule a postmortem of how you can do it better in the future there are things along the lines of when there are TC decisions especially hard ones that have lots of inks built around them if there's a process that says we do this we do this and this is our follow-through lead by example so whether a decision is a yes or no what are the next steps to maybe turn it into something positive or continue the positive and so I don't I was personally frustrated with the outcome of the decision but only by timing so I don't feel like the Python goal discussion was actually a failure the the initial discussion around the goal process itself was also a bit tense but resulted in a successful outcome and so we do have conversations you know retroactively about what went on and how we can do better next time all the time that's how all of the people involved in the group started and we did an event to which a working group meeting following the email reaction we actually did so did and I want to bring there's a there's a thing that there's a sort of set of potential you know tools that we we didn't poke at to this time that the club mentioned in terms of of of prepping for rolling out change and one of the things about that involves sort of some some clear clear descriptions of of the thing but also what the outcomes like how how the outcomes can be can can be measured later on so that's why I think that's so so yes like that has that happened and also I think there's potentially some some some more structured things that we can we can try in the future to to enhance and make it even more transparently clear that that those things are are going on which is I think really important I also want to point out before I let Terry cut in that the thing that Colette was talking about about there being a safe space to dig into the hard problems you you glanced over a known hard problem that we all in this room know is the one that you glanced over and it it was obliquely referenced in the earlier session and we are in fact not in a space where I'm going to reference that by name on on the thing because it will derail us at the moment we need to be able to to to dig into we need to be able to have more productive follow-up conversations about that without without everybody needing to tiptoe around the those sorts of things so I think that's a really great example of exactly why doing work on being able to have a safe place to talk about the and not necessarily the safe room to talk about that problem but we even have a hard time right now talking about talking about that problem right and I know that's super meta and like I know we love to talk about talking about talking about problems and then make a structure in which we talk about talking about the structure that we're going to talk about the problem but but in this particular case I think it really shows systemically that we we we we do have a loss of of how to really functionally dig into that and I think that's a hopefully one of the things that we will work on and come up with some some suggestions I like I like to call that cultural avoidance in action everyone we're getting pretty close to time and so I'm going to say the word back but so is that okay yeah okay we have five minutes left so yeah I just wanted to answer like a compliment to the question that we just asked I don't think you should look into the goals and principles stuff as an example of the way things will be going in the future it's more the thing that the things that we had in our backlog that we never got around to do and that that leadership training actually opened our eyes in the necessity to make it to advance really fast it's not as if the goals and the principles were started up and then there were already things that Monty wanted to write forever or that me and and and I wanted to push at the release management team level it's just that we the training basically spurred us into action say well we should actually like take a step backward and try to improve things rather than bitch about things not getting in the wrong in the right direction and and it also highlighted some ways that we could do something that we had been talking about for a long time so I'd have the idea of having released goals you know back a year ago and some of this stuff about communication and communicating expectations and clearly Documenting and having the contract to go back and forth with agreement That's built into the goal process that came directly out of the the training sessions and the material that was there so it made it Not obvious, but it gave a path to create a system where I wasn't seeing a way to do that before So so say One question sort of around the health of the community like for example like at a company or I've been at one And that where they send out these like quarterly like surveys of all the employees to gather how the feedback is going on Like it's sort of I don't know the gauges the company's Culture or whatever emotional state. I don't know those kind of things that could like is it anything thought about for like open Stack for that I would love to have a cultural measurement It's maybe something similar to what the yeah It's going to be based on participation much like voting It's difficult in our community because the the constituency is moving so fast like that like if you just survey developer per developer I would say we have Like a lot of people that submit one two three patches and those change a lot and so in the end It's difficult to have those kind of analysis, but I think it's still variable Yeah, I would just not put too much trust in it. Okay. Yeah, another question was like it's an anonymous dropbox for like people to like Ask questions that were tried. I don't know It's something seems like a form or something that could let people complain on that would be like just anonymous somewhat That's like you just ping me on IRC Okay Just making a known place where people can just be like I have problems with XYZ and the team does have an IRC Room to But I mean I can take a PM anytime But but but part of what I'm trying to do is sort of get some of these conversations out in the open Okay, and develop the skill set so that we can have them together so that we're not so afraid of one another anymore That makes sense. I think you know to your point about goals and potentially being a failure Whatever one of the things I pointed out in the earlier session was There's a there's a distinct lack of trust in the community that I think I want to sort of It involves bringing it forth before we Before we start to heal it, right? And sometimes you want to start those conversations in private But you need to get them into the public sphere at some point To repeat that you I'm not gonna Rocky's proud of us Rocky said nice things. She's specifically proud of Doug. I'm proud of I said I wanted to congratulate the group for getting the the goals and and other aspects out there because Now you have a way forward to actually find a way to Get the better participation Okay, thank you And it is definitely meant to be iterative and and we had Suggestions this week about improvements that we could already make to that process that we'll be working on Probably not next week, but maybe the week after So I've been back here. Apologize for fighting jet lag. I've been really enjoying the panel discussion I was wondering if you could talk about what's on the agenda next for this stewardship working group and What people can do to to help and join with that? It's gonna largely be determined by who shows up at our meetings, which I would love for everyone here to show up at Hey, when when and where are the meetings are on? Are they even Tuesdays? They're every other Tuesday, and I don't know if they're odd or even and there was a whole thing about it at 1500 UTC And open-stack meeting three we also have an IRC channel. That's open-stack hyphen SWG And I'm got the mind food on IRC if you're curious, but but nervous I'll I'll I'll be like cool story. Don't be nervous And so a few of the things that got thrown out the cross-project session were creating Some resources on some of the sort of modules of learning that happened at that training There will be another training the foundation has has agreed to fund one more this next coming calendar year So we will be doing another training But I also want to make it much more available to the community in general probably in more bite-sized pieces So I'm gonna be working on that. I think we've decided that we want to untangle the list under etherpad for the cross-project session was untangle the ball of Crazy that is our communication system and try to make it like more efficient and better and easier for people to use So I think that's been suggested and that was specifically since that's kind of shorthand in the room Language that we used to write that down that that was specifically about how to make sure people see the messages that they need to see Right so the volume on the mailing list is really high people are all in different time zones And so in asynchronous communication is challenging and specifically coming up with some ideas to improve those That part of the communication. Yes, so I'm getting nasty looks from the back So I think so let's say this conversation also whatever you show up with at the meeting and want to do No, so let's just this conversation just started. Please come to the meetings and You know where to find these folks. You know where to find me and we'd love to hear from you. Thank you


The Prophet ﷺ during the hijrah, there's a moment where they're trying to pass and the Prophet ﷺ they're trying to go around a place and their guide tells them we can't go through the crevice of the mountains. There's two thieves that are right here, this is their spot. So the Prophet ﷺ says, oh, that's people I can talk to. So he goes between the crevice of the two mountains so he starts calling out to them, saying salams. You could imagine the two thieves are confused. Like you know we're here and you're, what, what is happening? And they come out and they talk to the Prophet ﷺ and he asks, what are your names? And they say, nashnul muhanad, where are the two lowlives? I thought they were calling themselves lowlives. That was the names their tribe gave them. That's how bad this was. And the Prophet ﷺ says, ben antu manul kermit. No, in fact you are dignified. And he speaks with them and he tells them I'm going to Medina. Join me in Medina. They stopped thieving and became sahaba. This is what this love does. It sees your potential. It says, how can I help you get there?


This video is sponsored by Dice Dungeons. Stick around after the show for a special offer. Has the following tragedy ever happened to you? You've attempted to look up how to grapple somebody just like... once. Ever. Well that's unlucky for you because in Pathfinder... there's an awful lot of rules for that. Figuring out how the rules for grapple work in Pathfinder is legendarily difficult. We've even made jokes about it in our own sketches. I'll find the grappling rules. No, no, no, never mind. Maybe you've tried looking up resources or how to do it elsewhere on the internet and found these confusing web-like flowcharts. Like these from D20PFSRD.com, or as I affectionately call it, the PIFSRD. And those are good and thorough, but they take some getting through. Today I'm hoping to A. Give an easy to follow rundown of how it all works. And B. Present an alternative and much simpler reference guide in the form of my handy dandy grappling grid. If that's all you're here for, you can skip to right here. Or you can just check the description below for a link to the finished image. So let's get into it. How does grappling work? As a super simple initial overview, the process looks like this. An attacking creature tries to grab a defending one. If they succeed, the defender gets to try to escape. If the defender cannot, the attacker has to maintain the hold. And then they can either move, damage, or pin the defender. The defender gets another shot at escaping, but if they fail a second time, they either get walloped again or, most likely, tied up and done in like last night's takeout. At least that's how I eat takeout. Anyway, let's break down each of those parts into actual rules. A grapple is, like many other attack-like things in Pathfinder, a combat maneuver. And like many other thing-like things in Pathfinder, combat maneuvers really need a couple of feats to start working how you want them to. Specifically, things like trip, disarm, sunder, and yes, grapple, will provoke attacks of opportunity unless you have the improved blank feet.  So that's nice. But it does require improved arm strike, when some lose some. Anyway, aside from the fee tax, how do these things work? The basics are simple enough. Every character has a combat maneuver bonus, CMB, and combat maneuver defense, CMD.  Instead of comparing it to an opponent's AC, though, you target their CMD, which is equal to 10, plus both a creature's strength and dex. As a fun lesser-known fact, if you happen to be getting any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, or sacred bonuses to your AC, you add those to your CMD too. You see how fun that was? Lastly, both of these numbers get a plus one if you're large and a minus one if you're small. Sorry, halflings, limbs are rules. All right, but chances are you knew most of that. What about the grappling? Okay, okay, here we go. There are two creatures involved in a grapple. An attacker, who is in control of the grapple, and a defender, who is not. To start off, the attacker rolls their CMB versus the defender's CMD. First hitch, if the attacker doesn't have improved grapple, this provokes an attack of opportunity. If that attack hits, the attacker takes a penalty to their grapple check equal to the damage they take here. If the grapple check fails, then hey, congratulations! You're done here! But presumably, of course, it doesn't, right? If the grapple check succeeds, both creatures, the attacker and the defender, gain the grappled condition. That means that they both take a minus four to their dexterity, which means a minus two to their dex bonus. Note that this also decreases their CMD. They both take a minus two to their attacks that don't deal with escaping or maintaining the grapple. And neither can move, take attacks of opportunity, or do anything that takes two hands. So you, you clever person, may wonder, does that mean I can do things that don't take two hands? Yep, if it doesn't involve moving or two hands, it's fair game. As long as you happen to have components at hand, you can even cast a spell, though you'll need to make a concentration check versus 10 plus the attacker's CMD plus the spell level. But yeah, you got one hand and a light weapon? Go ahead and make a full attack while you've got the chance if you like. But you probably will not like, because whether you're the attacker or the defender, you've got some new opportunities here. If you've just been grappled, you can take a standard action to make either a combat maneuver or escape artist check versus the attacker's CMD. On a success, you can escape, in which case no one has the grappled condition any longer. Or you can decide to take control of the grapple instead and become the attacker. Meanwhile, if you're the attacker, at the start of any turn in which you control a grapple, you must maintain that grapple by making a new combat maneuver check as a standard action. The good news is that you get a plus five bonus to that check, so you should have a good chance at keeping hold. Then, once you've maintained your grapple, you get to add a free additional effect as part of that same standard action, for which you get three, count them, one, two, three options. One, inflict damage. Yep, just roll damage as if you would hit with a single one-handed melee attack. Two, move yourself and the defender up to half your speed. Note that if you want to do this so you can put your opponent somewhere dangerous, like off a cliff, they get a new check to try and escape at plus four. Or three, and here's the real kicker, advance the defender from the grapple condition to the pinned condition. A pinned creature has all the same restrictions as a grappled one, except that instead of a minus four to dex, they're simply denied their dexterity bonus altogether. Plus, they take an extra minus four to their AC. If you're the one who's just been pinned, you still need to make the same combat maneuver or escape artist check as before. But you don't need to escape being pinned and then escape grappled after that. One success gets you free of both.  At the top of your turn, you once again need to make a combat maneuver check at plus five to maintain. And if you succeed, you once again get to add one of those same additional grapple effects to that standard action. However, if you happen to have some rope on hand, your options for that effect get spicier. If you don't have any rope on hand, pause this video right now, schedule a session, and have your character go buy some rope. Go, go do it. I'll wait, I will. Don't ever not have rope. Okay, so now that you've got some rope, if you've maintained a grapple against a pinned defender, instead of advancing them to pinned, which they already are, you can tie them up and have them helpless. And what does helpless mean? Essentially, the only thing they'll be able to do is spend a full minute trying to escape the ropes. That's going to be a CMB or escape artist check versus a DC of 20 plus your CMB. Note that that means that if your CMB is higher than theirs, they just cannot escape. Even if they roll a natural 20. Additionally, their deck score is treated as zero, which brings their deck's bonus down to minus five, and melee attacks get a plus four against them. Most temptingly, they are now susceptible to a Kudugra. And I mean, there are actual rules for how to proceed with the Kudugra, but the gist of it is, you just get to kill them. The end. Want one more sneaky extra tip? I mean, probably. Yeah, you do, because otherwise, why would you be here watching me talk about all this for so long? Is it the hair? It's probably the hair. Anyways, you can actually skip over pinned entirely and go straight from grapple to helpless if you make a second combat maneuver check after the one you used to maintain your grapple at a minus 10. Likely? No, absolutely not. But hey, dream big, right? You catch all that? Just to make sure, and to reinforce a little, let's run through a sample grappling sequence starring our two totally normal combatants, Grappelina and Git Godorax. To start, Grappelina does what she does best and attempts to initiate a grapple as a standard action. Since she has the improved grapple feat, this does not provoke an attack of opportunity from Git Godorax. Grappelina's d20 roll plus her combat maneuver bonus is higher than Git Godorax's combat maneuver defense, so she succeeds, giving both herself and Git Godorax the grapple condition. Next, at the top of Git Godorax's turn, he's going to attempt to make a combat maneuver check of his own to escape. However, the result of this check does not beat Grappelina's CMD, so he's still caught. Next, for her standard action on her turn, Grappelina makes a combat maneuver check to maintain her grapple. Since she succeeds, she gets to attack an additional effect onto that action. Instead of moving him around or dealing damage to him straight, Grappelina chooses to advance to Git Godorax to the pinned condition. Git Godorax himself will, on his turn, once again take a standard action to try and escape. He has just remembered that he's got a pretty good escape artist bonus, so he'll try that this time. And this time, his check is higher than Grappelina's CMD, so he's free. What a trooper. Let's give him a hand, huh? Had he not escaped and had Grappelina maintain her grapple for one more turn, she would have been able to tie him up with all of the rope she obviously has on hand, giving him the helpless condition. And let's be honest, that probably would have been the end of poor poor Git Godorax. Okay, so we've heard how it's all supposed to work, and we've seen how it's all supposed to flow, but does that help when we're 16 turns into a combat that was supposed to be three turns long? No, it does not. So after losing my place in the middle of a flowchart for the fourth time, I decided to try and configure some new fangled kind of reference document. Here, low and behold, the grappling grid. Here's how it works. We've got four columns starting with It's My Turn And, where you go down the rows to find the current situation you're dealing with. Either somebody has just started a grapple, or someone has the grappled, pinned, or helpless condition. Then you just go over to the column for if you are the attacker or defender, and boom, a rundown on what steps you can take. Then, far this right, we've got a column that reminds you what each condition in question does for you. The grid doesn't cover every situation by any means, but hopefully it's organized in a way that makes it usable for a decent number of basic proceedings. If you'd like to keep a copy of it around, there's a link to download from our website in the description. Alright, well, that seems like it's enough for today, doesn't it? Until next time, if you find yourself having trouble with complicated combat maneuver rules, just get a grip. Ta-da! Hey guys, we'd just like to take a moment to give a shout out to our sponsor for this video, DiceDungeons.com. They've got a bunch of cool stuff. I got these little tokens from their website. These are my Paladin tokens I use in Killspark. I throw them at Ricky when he annoys me. They've also got these super, super awesome rosewood dice chests. Magnetic lids. Hold all seven of your dice. They're super awesome. You can also get these dice on that website. And yeah, go check them out. This is a bit at the end of the thing. Hey guys, this is the part of the video where I talk about last week, last time's video thing. It's the Disney Princess fifth edition video. And y'all had a great, a bunch of great suggestions on how to make that one better. People mentioned that Bard gets a wish at the end, which means you're saying you can just literally make reality happen. That's great. A few people you just mentioned, not using the Revised Ranger, which has apparently fallen out of favor with some people, and instead using player handbook variants. I don't know that much about those. I just were looking at the Revised Ranger and thinking it was cool and better. But yeah, that sounds great too. Somebody mentioned dipping into Archfey Warlock because that gives you a great easy way to talk to animals. And I think a familiar companion. That's a great idea.  Matlock has a, who edits these, says, Yeah, that was my bad. I had it sped up to like 500% instead of doing a jump cut, but didn't hear the audio fall out at cause. In my defense, I was on a lot of drugs. Don't, that last part is probably not true. Matlock, don't say that. Thanks for watching. And we'll be back to discuss everything I got wrong about grappling next week.


Thank you. I'm really excited to be here. Floating has truly changed my life. In January of 2017, I floated for the very first time. But for you to understand a little bit about why it's made such a difference in my life, I have to tell you a little bit about myself. I don't advertise these things, but I have a physical degeneration in my spine that means that I've lived essentially in constant pain since I was 12, 13 years old. So back in 1983 in eighth grade, I had a surgery back at the Mayo Clinic where they attempted to reconstruct my spine. That worked pretty well. And I had four or five years of relatively pain-free, but the situation kind of re-evolved into itself. And I ended up having complete reconstructive surgery of my low spine here in Portland in 1998. So I just celebrated 20 years since my reconstructive surgery. I'm refused from L1 to L5, which is basically the entire small of your back that's reconstructed with parts of my hip and rib, four titanium screws, and so I'm kind of a bionic man in a way. I live a relatively minor life. A lot of people in my life aren't even aware that this goes on for me. I've worked here on campus where you guys all were yesterday at Portland State for over 20 years, have two kids and a wife and a family that I spend a lot of time outdoors and hiking and photographing and things like that. So for the most part, I live a pretty normal life, but it's always in pain. I'm not a believer in painkillers, and I've tried a lot of alternatives over the years, but nothing has really worked well enough that I've kept up with it. Had some testing where my pain tolerance has been measured as kind of off the scale. So that's basically what I count on to make it through my days. My wife here at Christmas of 2016 bought me a gift card to float on, and I've been thinking about it for a while. Had toyed with the idea, but you know, there's always some better use for that money, and I've just never done it for myself. So she made this gift to me, and on January 20th of 2017, I went and floated for the first time. I'm kind of a strategic mind. I like strategy games. I like spreadsheets, as my wife will certainly tell you, and building databases and things like that. So I did a lot of research into what floating would be like. I've watched Float Nation. I've watched blogs and vlogs and listened to the podcast from the industry and things, so I kind of knew what I was getting into, but I didn't know the kind of experience that I was going to have. I floated in the Room 3 at Float On, which is, I forget, Evolution Pod, so it's a smaller pod in that first float. And when I first got into the tank, I struggled a little bit with getting my neck to be comfortable, which kind of surprised me. Almost immediately, my back was almost as comfortable as it ever would be laying down at the end of a long day or getting comfortable in my own bed, but my neck was really problematic. So I tried different techniques to get that right, and it took about 40 minutes for my neck to find some level of comfort. At that point, about 40 minutes in, my neck was starting to get more comfortable, my legs and pelvis were pretty comfortable, my back was actually really relaxing in a way that I never could remember. My body was, it sounded very much like a bowl of Rice Krispies when you pour milk on it. It was snap, crackle, pop all over the place. I was hearing pops and noises from joints, and I felt like the muscles in my back were releasing in a way that they just never had. So now, about 60 minutes in, and I'm trying some different things with arm positions and trying to find that exact place that's going to get me over the edge. I'd heard these things about people seeing lights in the sky, and I wanted to experience those kind of things. And that's when I noticed my breathing was really starting to change, and my heartbeat, and the things that Justin was talking about earlier this morning, I was starting to experience those things. You know, my back wasn't 100% comfortable yet, but my neck was really getting there, 60 minutes into that float. At 75 minutes, some things started to happen that were really unusual for me. I put my neck, my head all the way back, and felt that water almost all the way up to my eyebrows, and that was kind of a magical position for me. That seemed to loosen things up in a different way. At that point, I felt something that the only time I've ever felt anything like it was having epidurals. It was the warm wash, and it was the endorphins kicking in through my body, and that isn't a completely pain-free experience for me, but it was something that was happening naturally in my body that the only way I'd ever experienced it was with an epidural in the past. So the floats that float on are 90 minutes. Now I'm about 80 to 85 minutes into the float, and I'm thinking about what's different, what's happening with me, and because I'm feeling my neck, but that's kind of all I'm feeling, and it finally dawned on me that what I was feeling was what I was not feeling. This was the first time since I was 12 or 13 years old. This is almost four decades that I wasn't feeling my back, and it was just a completely magical thing for me. I got choked up even thinking about it when I tell this story. You know, then the lights and the music come on because it's almost the end of the float, right? But I cheated, and I just laid there for about a minute and a half, and just like, is this really real? I come out of the float, and I go talk to the folks out at the counter, and you know, the float on guys are just really terrific in how they handhold you and treat their client. So they were really interested in this story, and I went home and I wrote about it, and that was as much for me. In fact, at that moment it really was for me. I never imagined that something like this day was going to happen, but I needed to almost re-experience it through writing about it to know that it was real, that this is really something that could happen for me, because you know, I kind of quite frankly given up searching for it. I thought that this is just the way life is for me, and so what you guys are doing as an industry is something that can really help people, and you know that it's become a real passion for me to share the stories and to get more people to know what kind of experiences that they can have in their own lives. So in the time since that first float, I've become a member at float on. I float pretty regularly. You know, there's financial realities about it, and I'd love to float every day. That's just, you know, not a financial reality, but I float on a real regular basis. People at float on have been great to me. They've treated me really well and made it to where I could float more than I would have been able to float otherwise, but I've really wanted to spend some time over the last couple of weeks experiencing other float centers, so I floated around at the other float centers here in Portland to learn what experiences are like at other places and try to put myself in a better place for this talk to talk from a broader base of experience. Recently, I've had some really terrific floats. Not every float happens that way. In fact, only probably one out of every four out of every five will I reach a pain-free state, but every float improves my life. Every float relaxes me in a way that I can't find relaxation anywhere else. It relieves me of the burdens of gravity, which are a real burden for me at times, and so I'm really pleased that I have found that. It's my hope that my story and stories like mine can be shared in a way that can get more people to experience floating, and ultimately the kinds of projects that Dr. Feinstein and some of the others are working on that can make this a more broad and widespread, something that ultimately down the line maybe insurance companies and doctors can literally prescribe and make it more accessible. There's a lot of people out there that could experience something really similar to what I did, so thank you very much for inviting me to be here. If there's something that I can do for you as an industry or as a float center to help spread a story that has been successful, I'm here, so reach out to me. I'd love to be a part of that. Thank you.


Our guest today is President Togo. Very pleased and honored to have you here. The President will do it in a little bit. Mr. President, did the Soviets have any role in the attack in Beirut yesterday? I can't take questions here on this. Thank you, Mr. President. President, have you or will you ask for Israeli assistance now on this? I can't take questions now on this. I think there will be plenty of opportunities. Are relations with Togo good? Very good. I'm most supported. Who answered a question? Who answered? Well, it was pertinent to this situation. Hi, President. How are you? I'm good. How are you? I'm good. How are you? I'm good. How are you? I'm good. How are you? I'm good. How are you? Someone here will come through and there it is. We'll just do it there. You can only end my life. And Max, you do go back. Grab back. Just don't compare with that. That's the way it's supposed to be. That's the way it's supposed to be. No, I don't think you're going to do it. He says you're going to do it. He says you're going to do it. Can I bring that into you? Yes. There it is right there. There's already a Harry Jackson. There's one that's borrowed from Mack Baldritch. He makes that point. He makes that point. He makes that point. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. You can't remember because you've got too much of a mind. We were standing close together and the man said, Jackson, if you move a step away, you're hiding the wrong. And I said, I don't know if it's wrong, I could never do that. With the boss and you were the one that I thought about it about. That's the one that I do know is you don't get the courage to pertain. And you were so happy about it that I wanted to get a copy of that. And it says on here, sir, it says on here, we've dedicated this to you. For President Ronald Reagan. For hanging tough your friends, Juddine and Harry Jackson. Thank you very much, sir. This is a book I want to show you. I brought this along for you. Don't let him show it to you. Make him give it to you. I'm going to give it to you. I got it, but I wanted to make it work for you there for a minute. Anyway, this is a great honor. It's portraits of 5,000 years of Western civilization, starting with Nefertiti and Egypt.  No, no, no, this is a brand new one. This is one of the ones that was kind of a national one for about three years. And it starts with Nefertiti and it goes through all the greats, all the history, like all the Renaissance, greats, okay? And right at the end of this, there's a, hey, it ends with this. And this is what I wrote to you on here. Thank you very much. You're welcome. But that's, uh, well, there it is. And I recognize the future of this where it has to go. That's right over here in the library. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Very, very great. Well, I just, I called him and he is up and going out there and told me he'd seen some tragic sites, but then he also told me, he said, but those young men, he said, they're morale and they're a spirit so hot. Very pleased to hear. He has a 21-foot pole. He has a 21-foot statue that I just seen of John Wayne. It goes up in Beverly Hills. 21 feet. That's a 21-foot. And it's got a rotate. It's got a rotate 24 hours a day. And it's, I, I, uh, We'd be seen as just a half hour, like a half hour documentary on this sculpture. Can we put this together? Please. Thank you very much. I have to tell you one more thing. I want to shout, maybe. Thank you very much. No, no, that's not a funny story.  And I was president of the Screen Actors Guild, and it was the time, the only time, we ever had to have a strike. We called a strike. We didn't want, but it was just forced on us. And of course, some days, the abuse in the press, me as president of the Guild, was worse than others. And, uh, I came home one day, and Nancy told me, every day when that press was real bad, and I say, we weren't good friends, that are you might have expected. The phone would ring in the morning, and it would be Duke Wayne to talk to Nancy, and tell her, the thought she might like to hear the voice of a friend, and not to be upset by this. Keeping her, keeping her. They go a rough talk. He was a mark, people don't think, it might sound like it could be that sensitive, as one of the most loyal, respectful, yeah, marvellous, people that you know. I would like to bring all of my brothers and sisters, right over here. I appreciate this one. Well, I appreciate it. Please give her mine. The last person. Thank you. Thank you for the time. Pleasure. I'll get up with the other boat for something. How you doing? Glad to see you. Zucca. President. Thank you. All right. Step down. All right. Maybe Jim wants to get one by the step. I'd rather have Jim. You're her hero. You've stepped in, Ben. You get one by the step. I met you in Birmingham during the campaign last time. I got it, that's right. We were upstairs with Jeremiah Denton. Yeah, yes. Well, you're just a little souvenir. Well, thank you so much. Thanks for the presentation, Chris. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Good to see you. We'll be back in a minute with Nancy. Yes, Mr. President, Mrs. Cuyers is being very helpful to us on the witness issue. I know. Well, I wanted to give it a little more privacy. And I want to give a few words and a lot of relatives, too. Back in. That's all right. We've got 1,700 people working for us in the government. We can't do anything about it. That's right, Mr. President. We can't get on the job situation. See, I might just follow all your problems. I don't know. You've got a two-minute problem. No, no, no. I pray as a review, I tell you, you've really got a moment. Yes. Coming back in the middle of the night, and I thought you made a very excellent statement. And you know what? It isn't one where there's a fiction. It's a terrorist group. It's a terrorist group that kind of just know back in the population. You'll never know. We're pretty sure we know what the real deal is. It's all circumstantial evidence, but we believe it's the same element that did this to our embassy last April. Thank you, Mr. President. We hope we can do something to be sure that nobody will try to do this as soon as we're trying to do it. That's what we need to do for about a year. She's all percived until she gets a little bit of your time. It's all right with me. I'm going to really try to prove to the man that I want to change the country, and I'm convinced of that. I really do. I'm very sensitive. Well, make sure that happens. Mr. President. Hi. How do you do? I'm very proud of you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. President. Mr. President, these people want to demonstrate to you one thing, the National Federation of the Blind wants to share with you the notion that blind people are not necessarily as handicapped as many sighted people believe they are, they can be less dependent on them. Oh, listen, why don't I just get a picture over here? Mr. President, we'd like to suggest you dedicate one of your five minute radio shows to some of the things that blind people can do also. Mr. President, let me say this to you, I believe we have the distinction, first, we are the largest organization of the disabled in this country with 50,000 plus members. I believe we are the only organization in this country of the disabled that has not come out in print attacking this administration. Now, it suggests something that there could be a dispelling of the notion that there is a solid phalanx of the disabled in opposition to this administration if there was somebody with enough imagination to do it. I think we can find the imagination. I think you're messing with her. Well, it's very awesome. Thank you, sir. Well, I just resumed a walk across the country and when I was reading and kicking track of that, I couldn't help but wonder a lot of things like what I think it is such a thing that you've done and just what was being talked about here, how much attention this has brought to this very thing. Mr. President, I went up to Baltimore to meet him when he came in and I can tell you he looks tireder now than he did after a 3,000 mile walk. Mr. President, you had seven pairs of shoes. Well, yeah, but it was not only the fatigue and everything, but all the things, the strange parts of the world and so forth, and what happened at the end of the day and the hiking? I crawled in my motorhome and died. That's how it is. I'm not fine here. I wasn't with him this time. My wife and children were with me for the first half of the trip and then I had two friends as drivers a second half and they were five to ten miles ahead and I'm down the road. What we were doing up there, Mr. President, was real simple. We were trying to demonstrate in a graphic way that for blind people all over this country that if we use the tools that we learned to use like a cannon, a dog, a braille, all the things that we need, all we ask is open the door and we'll get it ourselves. We don't need a handout, we just need a hand. It's as simple as that. Mr. President, over here was just saying yes to all of you. I'm hard and sore with you and that's because I feel that what we need in this country is a crusade to say with regard to any person with any physical handicap that the answer is rehabilitation. Everyone is capable as you all are proven of living very useful lives and we've got to make that the rule in what we try to accomplish. But Mr. President, we don't necessarily mean or rather need more money and more bureaus to do it because there is a common notion that the more money you spend, the better service you get. That isn't necessarily true. What we really need is a redirection of the money we have and there are ways to do it, mostly as some of the bureaus have built bigger and bigger. They've looked inward, not outward. They've gone to more conferences and written more papers and talked to each other. And we know because there's been a distinction, well there's been no distinction made between service providers as they're called or professionals and organizations of consumers, of blind people. That's your speech Mr. President. Yes. This is exactly what I mean. In Idaho, the agency is working very closely with the blind and trying to do, well as a blind person, I had that agency. So we're trying to get the things that the blind are asking for. We don't find that that's always the case across the country and we want this administration to succeed in its effort to cut the costs of handouts and to increase opportunities. Mr. President, we're right in tune with your philosophy that very often the government works against the people. And we know that it works against blind people, federal as well as the state. And we think we can teach the government a way of working with the blind people if we can get the opportunity to do so. We've got to get people in this administration to really hear us and to let us help to reform those programs. We know how those reforms can be made if we get the opportunity. Dr. Jernigan over here knows how they can be made and our organization does. I guess I've got one more thing to say Mr. President. First I have the chance to speak to a President of the United States and I'm grateful to have that chance. But what we really are up against is this. We have trouble being heard because once an administration comes in there is such a big bureaucracy that when people start talking about advocates for the disabled they go right back to the same bureaucracy which failed in the previous administration and the one before that and all the rest of them. We are not heard as an organization yet we're the most active. I think we're as articulate as anybody else in this country. We came here with a different idea as a matter of fact. There are almost 75,000 fewer of those bureaucrats than there were when we came here two and a half years ago. But you're right what happens with a government aid program too often is once it develops an administration and those people begin to see their careers as dependent on the clients of that program then their effort becomes preserve the bureaucracy never mind helping people become independent of that program. But when I was governor of California I'm very proud of the fact that we moved up from 13th among the states to 3rd among the states in the rehabilitation and the putting a lot of people out in useful occupations proving that there wasn't any handicap that a person could not be independent. And I'm heart and soul with that and we'll do our best and we'll be pleased to work with you. Mr. President, thank you very much for your time. I came up through my whole life through the other way and I've been blind most of my life. I was ashamed of it. I didn't have the skills or the confidence. The philosophy of the National Federation of the Blind, which is blind people themselves sharing simply their experience, their strength, their hope and their willingness to work not for a handout but for just being people with human dignity is what made me feel good about a blind person and that's why I walked across this country to say I'm comfortable with it, I can do it, just give us a chance and we can do it a day at a time and a seven at a time. I had a question. No one came up there. Are you wearing the shirt upside down for a reason? I have no idea what's even on there. I just turned it around because upside down the flag is a distress signal. Oh, I'm a distress signal. Thank you so much. Well, thank all of you. Thank you. Thank you.


I'm Chaz Fant and I am going to talk to you about surface water availability in Morocco and the main point, so I'm going to talk to you about surface water but I really want to more discuss on this subtopic which is the balancing uncertainty that's more the focus and I this is some work that I did with Alyssa McCluskey is here and Kin Stresbeck who's coming a little bit later by the way I'm a civil engineer should be clear about that so I'm not going to go through the water cycle I know you guys know how the water cycle works the most part but I just want to point out that I'm talking specifically about surface water so I I'm not talking about storage I'm not talking about aquifers surface water so there's snowmelt and and other things which I'll get into so I'm part of the team and in this team we we have this integrated framework and you'll actually see this later I stole this from my advisors presentation is presenting later so I won't go through in detail but actually he doesn't know that I stole it so don't tell him but I what I'm presenting is the the rivers the runoff stream flow section of this and I'm presenting this because this is a fairly straightforward simple model and then we can get it into the some of the uncertainties and how do we present this these sorts of things quick overview of it's Clarence who is the surface rainfall runoff model so what we like about this model is that the focus is on climate impact so it nudging the climate we end up getting this change in runoff so there's a calibration validation process to build the base model and for the future like I said we just basically nudge the climate and see what happens to the runoff fairly simple this is just a quick schematic again input climate output runoff the structure if you care about these sorts of things it's two layers there's quick runoff and and slow runoff and alright so now now to Morocco so this is our basin map and so we did this for this was funded by a group who will remain nameless and they they told us we have people who can go out and get the data so they went out and got the data and they came back and they give us 16 basins with with measured stream flow and the other 21 we have no idea but we're you know we have to we have to model this entire country so there are our theories and hydrology to deal with these sorts of things which we we use the best that we could the simplest but still this this does introduce quite a bit of uncertainty I mean we have no no idea what the the measured stream flow and a lot of these basins might be so then there's the this other idea of natural versus actual or measured stream flow so actual is it rains it hits the ground runoff goes into the river so that's that would be natural but actual stream flow is people you know people come to the river they take from the river they irrigate they do all sorts of things with that or they build dams and they control the stream flow and so what you end up getting is is measured which is most of the time tampered with by by people which is good and I'm not I'm not saying that's a bad thing but the model that we're using is specifically designed for natural stream flow so it has the the climate signal so this is another thing that introduces uncertainty in the in the historical data so then we get to the GCMs which I'm I'm not going to go into a full account of the uncertainty of the GCMs I assume you guys for the most part understand that they can't predict for example what weather will be like on January 21st of 2053 but they are a good they're great models and they design for a specific purpose so in this study we were given downscaled from the Hadley model downscaled results at point one degrees and so and this again was this was the funders were giving us this data and I assume that they did a pretty extensive study to find out which model is the best model then they did spent a lot more money on trying to downscale using the best method etc etc and we said okay from another project we have this other sweet we have this fit these 56 scenarios that we can we can use and it's easy once we build the model it's it's fairly simple to just add add more scenarios we can run them through so just a quick for those of you aren't so familiar with the GCM models GCMs are really best at predicting long-term global changes and specifically in temperature so once you move to precipitation which of course is really important for for runoff there's quite a bit more uncertainty and so we want we sort of want to stay as close to that obviously we were doing a project that's local and where time matters so we can't we can't use that specifically but we want to stay as close as we can to to that and this is this idea of balancing how do we balance that and and using you know these super downscaled you know up to daily results so what we do is we take GCM historical and because each each GCM runs a historical run we take the future GCM results and we take those and we we figure out what's the change because GCMs don't do a great job of predicting what has already happened what we know has happened so we end up with with this change in climate and we take that change in climate and in this case we had a 30-year measured climate and we put those together so we we nudge the the measured climate or shock it if you're an economist and then we end up with with this climate that we put into the model and I should say for the for the future we ended up with average decadal changes for each month so 12 values for each month and I'm sorry 12 up 12 values total and we took the 30 years applied that change and then took the mean of that so we my point being that we were taking a lot of we're doing a lot of averaging and even with doing all these all this averaging we end up with so this is temperature on the left precipitation on the right for 2030 2050 and 2080 I know this is kind of hard to read and the the distribution and the boxing whisker plots is the 56 scenarios that we ran so you can see that there's there's an enormous distribution even by 2030 and remember this is a 30-year average each of those 10 years representing 30 more years so really this is a 90-year average from the model this is a lot of averaging and still we get changes in temperature with GCMs are fairly good at predicting changes in temperature between zero and almost up to two by 2030 which is you know in 20 years less than 20 years and then by 2050 you know you still get these these huge variations and precipitation as well and this is in percentage so this it's a percentage of so you get you know somewhere between negative 20 and positive 60 in the A2 scenario so then we ran it through the model and we end up with results so you know same sort of distributions is not so surprising in general precipitation is going down most of the medians are below the the zero mark and temperature is going up so obviously runoff is going to generally go down and so yeah so we end up getting these these pretty large distributions and then the X marks here so the the X on this side is the A2 the Hadley A2 and then on this side is actually B2 but I didn't really have a good place to put it just to show you you know where these where these end up falling and so you know obviously we chose a method taking a lot of doing a lot of averaging and and maybe downscaling can give you a better sense of what's happening you know this is for I forgot to mention this for a specific basin but you end up with at the end of the day you kind of end up with this this one point this one mark and you don't really know if this one mark is at the top or at the bottom of the full distribution and so this is change over all of Morocco's is you know again taking more more averaging taking more means over all of the basins and you know obviously the the distribution kind of shortens a little bit some are dry some are wetter and then the Hadley actually ends up kind of somewhere in the middle pretty much in within that 50% middle 50% so finally I had a little bit more time than I thought the so obviously the future is uncertain we all know that and I don't think a colleague of mine said the future is uncertain GCMs are terrible therefore what we should do and engineers often have a safety factor I'm sure you guys are familiar with that so he was saying what we should do is we should just change the safety factors bump it up a little bit so instead of 1.5 we'll use it to end of the day we don't need to really do these huge impact studies problem with that of course is it's more expensive and we really need to to to narrow that that you know where that is exactly so instead of maybe 1.5 we might decide we'll use 1.8 based on on long analysis because it's more expensive to build up to so I'm not saying that the the GCMs are bad they're great they're the best the science has to offer I think climate scientists have a really difficult really difficult job trying to predict these things but what I do want to say is I think it's it's really important that we start to and then this has been said before but that we start to understand these things with an uncertain future and start planning with an uncertain future just like we've done in the past and I think that understanding where that distribution falls is is really valuable information for for policymakers and that is the end