Hi everyone, Joe for jaspyscasebrakes.com coming at you with 2020 Penini Black Football. Brand new release just dropped today. Six box, half case, pick your team, number two from jaspyscasebrakes.com. One and two are from the same case. Jason Jaspy did break one earlier today. These were the six boxes that were remaining after that. Big thanks to all of these folks for getting into the action. Six box, half case two, Wednesday the 26th. There you go, Tim with the last spot mojo. Nice, and then you saw the R&B slots. That means random number block. So we did that randomizer as well. Loaded that up, very nice. Excellent, let's see who gets those. I'm gonna set that aside right here and let's pop these guys open. Only five cards per box. You know, more details in the fine print there. Good luck. Almost like a obsidian sort of format here. Got what, base cards on the bottom? No, that's a hit on the bottom, one on the bottom. All right, we got Teddy Bridgewater, 62 out of 99. Carolina two, that's gonna go to William H. We got Julio Jones, not numbered. Falcons, Jarell Taylor with that. If there happens to be not numbered cards for the number block group, collect them as one lot and randomize them to one person in that group of numbers. 65 out of 99, I kinda like the black on black right here. Jalen Hertz, Relic, look at the psychedelic colors in the background, it's pretty sharp. That goes to a number block team, so that goes to Eagles five, Philadelphia five, EA. Jalen Hertz, JK Dobbins, 64 out of 99. Three color patch and autograph. Purplebirds, that's gonna be for Aaron Billingsley with the Ravens, these look pretty sharp. And we've got Quintez Cephas, 18 out of 50 for the Lions. Lions are a number block team and that will go to Lions eight. That'll be for EA. Daniel, I'm in the middle of a break right now. I'll answer your question after this. It should have, though. Everything from three weeks ago has been gone for about two and a half weeks. You should have received a tracking number. Hit that support, if you go to jaspyscasebreaks.com, hit that support button, should be long gone. But there have been some delays due to the pandemic obviously. But hit that support button and let us know what the issue is and our team will be able to get back to you. But if you look at your tracking number, still says ready to ship? Well, I'm not part of the shipping team, so you gotta hit that support button and let us know about it and we'll figure it out. Tim with the Vikings. There's DeSean Watson, Texans, Aaron with the Texans. AJ Dillon to 125, 79 out of 125. Relic for the Packers, Ron Wester. Thank you, John. Oh, he's done for the season? They're saying done? 22 out of 52 color patch and autographed Jonathan Taylor. Blue horseshoes, number block teams. That goes to number block two, William. Cole Comet, 12 out of 199, Bears. Richard with that one. Who's reporting that? That's crazy. Makes sense. Well, that should wake up the owner's end. 26 out of 75, right? LeBron's like, I'm done. Yeah, I don't know, I'll wake you guys up. Cam Acres for the Rams. That'll go to Rokeo. Yeah. Richard with the Dolphins on that one. Chase Young, 75 out of 75 for Washington. Washington Five is gonna be EA. We've got four color patch and autographed 39 out of 99, LeVisca Chanel Jr. Jaguars, Colton with the Jags. And we've got Freddie Swain, 007 to 1.99 for the Seahawks. Seahawks 7 is a number block team, Ria with 7. Is it just LeBron leaving or is everyone gonna leave? Hmm, interesting. So it's just gonna be Alex Caruso leading the Lakers to the title. Everyone else is out? There's Raiders, 17 out of 25, David. Alex Caruso and KCP. Alex Caruso, Talon Horton Tucker. Blue Horseshoes, Peyton Manning is a number block team. That's actually not numbered, so that'll represent the non-numbered group right up here. DK Metcalf, two out of 75. Seattle Two, William H with that one. Ryan A thinks it's the whole Lakers clippers team. Two out, patch and auto. Nice, 70 out of 99. And these look really sharp. Nice colors in the patch there. That contrasts really nicely against the black background. Silver, ink, auto. Richard F with the Dolphins. Looks good. And then we've got Zac Bonne, linebacker right here for the Saints, 126. So that goes to six. Saints six is Ben. All right, two to go. 96 out of 99, JJ Watt, Texans, Aaron. We've got 60 out of 99, Justin Jefferson for Aaron and the Ravens. Can't hang on to that top loader there. Behind Tom Brady is T. Higgins. 46 out of 50, Jersey and Auto for the Bengals, Richard F. And behind Tom Brady is Antonio Gandhi-Golden. That's a catch. 143 out of one at 99. That'll be for Washington. Washington is a number block team. So Washington three, go by that digit right there. William H. And there's Tom Brady for the Buccaneers. Karen got the bucks straight up against the Tom Brady base card. Actually it doesn't look too bad in Buccaneers colors. For some reason I find it more likeable as a Buccaneer. Not as a patriot crushing dreams everywhere. All right, last box, good luck everybody. This is Picker Team Two, 2020 Panini Black Football, NFL. A couple thicker cards in here, what do we have here? 47 out of 75, Chiefs, Richard. We got Tua, more Tua, nice set of colors in there. 12 out of 25, Tua Tagovaiola going to Richard and the Dolphins. John Samson also agrees. He seems to like Tom Brady better, non-patriot Tom Brady. I don't know, I just don't have the same anger. Ooh, NFL Shield T. Higgins. Wow, Richard Ferrettis with the Sinsei bangles, got the bangles straight up. And it's kind of popping out of the, you can kind of see that the relic is sort of popping out of the window there, you can't contain it. This never gets old, he's pulling these shields. Wow, Richard. All aboard the Big Hit Express, whoo-hoo. And behind Tristan Werves is Zach Moss, 149 out of 199, Bill's, Bill's nine is William H. Doing well in those number blocks, William. There you go, there you have it. And this is for Karen and the Bucks. And there you go, boys and girls. There was only one non-numbered card for this group right here. We got more Panini Black Football brand you release in the store. Next, pick your team from a fresh case and the next random teams also from a fresh case. So check that out on jazfyscasebreaks.com. All right, so let's go back to the list. Let's go back to this group right here. There was that one-numbered card, might've been a couple others, but the name on top after eight, we'll get those non-numbered cards just for those number block teams. One, two, three, and eight. After eight, we've got Tony. So Tony, you'll get that extra card and any others that I may have missed. Thanks for watching. Thanks for breaking with us, ladies and gentlemen. If you want a reason to do Panini Black Football, maybe that. Maybe they should've found Silver Ink right there, too. That sticker. All right, thanks, everybody. We'll see you next time, jazfyscasebreaks.com.


For now, join me in welcoming our next speaker, Simon Fifth. Simon is a computer scientist. He's a web and open source advocate who likes to write about key topics around free and open source software. And today, Simon is here to discuss how legislators frequently overlook and fail to consult with the important fourth sector, which plays a vital role in the digital world. So let's get started with this enlightening talk. Simon on stage. Well, good afternoon. It's lovely to be here in Berlin. I haven't been in Berlin for four years for some reason. And it is just the same as last time, it seems. So I'm going to talk to you about something which is not related to any specific piece of technology. And so this is your opportunity, if you want to, to have that deep nap that you need after all of those carbohydrates that you have just eaten. But if you, like me, have dosed up on Club Mate, then do join me on a little discussion about representation in legislation. Now, the first thing I have to tell you is that it's the 25th anniversary of the start of the open source movement. And so this is like the party tour. It's also, I think this weekend, the 40th anniversary of the start of the free software movement, of which the open source movement is an expression. So here's what we're going to talk about. The movement that we're all a part of is getting quite old now. I started working in it 24 years ago. And my hair was darker at that time. And I was thinner than I am now. And so quite a lot's changed. So I'm going to talk to you about that. I'm going to talk to you about a concept called the Mesh Society that leads on to talking about something called the fourth sector of society. I'm going to tell you what your political representatives in Brussels are up to at the moment. And that may interest you. And I'm going to suggest to you that what they're doing at the moment is going to cause collateral damage that may affect each of the people in the room if we don't take some action about it. OK, so now you can start sleeping. And we'll go into that talk. First of all, I'm going to give you the briefest possible of histories of open source software just to kind of get us started. In the beginning was the nerd. The nerd had code. And the code was open to all. And then corporations thought that creating artificial scarcity was a cool way to get rich and began to take away the source code. Some guy worked out how to stop that from happening. And thus was born digital self-sovereignty. Digital self-sovereignty is the phrase that I prefer to use so that I don't have to say free software, open source or software freedom, and then have an hour-long conversation with somebody who prefers using one of the other words. Because it turns out that we are a single movement. What divides us is really minimal. The main difference between the two main wings of our movement is that one prefers to focus on the objective, and one prefers to focus on the means. And that is really the root of all of the arguments. But you can discuss that with me maybe over coffee later. So open source is 25 years old. As the internet became ubiquitous, open source took the ideas from free software and pushed the idea into the mainstream by having a focus on using software freedom rather than just seeking the objective of software freedom. And so that's 40 years for the idea and then 25 years of practical mainstream. And the result is that the open source movement is now 25 years old. It's now old enough to buy drinks even in America. And that is everybody's definition of mature. And so we have tended to see that as things become mature, they become subject to regulation. So here's your first quiz. What's going to happen next? Yes, we are now beginning to see that software per se is about to get regulated. And with it, open source is about to get regulated. Exactly how we have got over 70 years into the software era without substantial regulation for liability in software is really very hard to fathom. I don't understand how we have got to here without having somebody regulate us in a significant way. But it's finally happening. Here's an overview of just what I am attempting to follow at the moment in the European scene. You might have heard about the Cyber Resilience Act up here. The Cyber Resilience Act seeks to make software that is made available on the market to the public, have a CE mark. And the CE mark certifies that the party putting the software on the market is not releasing known vulnerabilities and has processes that deal with emerging vulnerabilities. And there are some other things in there that are even more concerning about disclosing discovered vulnerabilities to the public authorities. And so a big group of people has gathered to try and make sure that the Cyber Resilience Act doesn't accidentally cause damage. Along with it, there's the Product Liability Directive. We already have a Product Liability Directive in Europe. So this is the update. And this PLD update extends public liability to software. So the Cyber Resilience Act makes you subject to market regulation by the market surveillance authorities, that's by your government, who will check that you are not doing anything harmful. The PLD makes you liable for damages to members of the general public who might be harmed by you failing to fix a vulnerability that then leads them into a place of harm. You can imagine that things could go wrong if the PLD frames open source software the wrong way. And then we've just seen the Digital Markets Act come out. That's going to force the gatekeeper companies like Apple and Microsoft and Google to open up to interoperability. So I think the DMA is a fantastic opportunity for NextCloud because it means that there will be a legal requirement that the software that controls the market at the moment interoperate with the elements within NextCloud. There is then the AI Act and a corresponding liability directive that goes with it. There is the Interoperable Europe Act, which makes European administrations have to buy software that interoperates across borders in Europe. So for example, you should be able, if you live in Germany, but you work in Poland, you should be able to pay your income taxes that should they become necessary in Poland using a German system. Or you should be able to tax vehicles from Poland that are driven in Germany. Or you should be able to get identity documentation that works in both countries equally. And so the Interoperable Europe Act is in play at the moment. There is a new standard essential patent regulation coming, which I believe is a great opportunity for the open source software movement to finally discover what traps have been laid for us in open standards, so-called open standards. That's a different talk, though. There's the Data Act. And then just this week, I received notification of a standards policy consultation opening, which means there's gonna be another directive coming probably in the spring about this. And this is just what I am covering for the open source initiative. There are more than this. And the reason all these have come along is because there is the EU digital agenda has decided that the European Union is now critically dependent on digital products. And there needs to be a raft of regulation that protect consumers and that arbitrate between players in the market. Particularly where products have consumer safety concerns, the European Union is extremely keen to extend product liability to those products. Open source software is remarkably consequential in Europe. The EU's own numbers say that it comprises perhaps 80% of all software. GitLab came up with a bigger number. GitHub says it's 99% of all software. That the number is somewhere up there at the top of the scale. And the EU's survey says that it drove in 2021, it drove 100 billion euros of gross domestic product. So this is a very economically consequential thing. And as a consequence, it's gonna get regulated. So then the question is, how is it gonna get regulated? Is it going to be informed regulation? Or is it going to be collateral damage? Which is it going to be? And well, I think it's going to be collateral damage. As things stand at the moment, I think it'll be collateral damage. This is actually about positive unintended consequences. This picture tells you that just because something is a sacred cow, it doesn't mean you can't put it to good use. So collateral damage. The regulation that's emerging today is not sufficiently informed. And it is not sufficiently intentional with regard to open source software. I have been to meet the authors of the regulations that I'm interested in, the CRA and the PLD in Brussels. And I must say it is a delightful experience. I've worked on legislation both in Washington and in the UK. And in both of those places, I have never been able to identify who wrote the piece of law I was talking about. It has been just delivered on tablets of stone from a cloud somewhere, the old kind of cloud. But with each of those pieces of legislation, there is a person who wrote it. So in the case of the Cyber Resilience Act, it's a guy called Benjamin Burgle. He is, if most of your age, he is super hyper-educated. He is utterly charming. He is very approachable. He is very, very well-educated on the topic of software. He programs a little. He has some systems at home that he puts open source software on. So he's aware that it exists. He does not, however, have a sufficient grasp of open source software to have framed the CRA in a way that doesn't cause us collateral damage. And so even though the people are approachable, charming, teachable, and educated, we are still suffering from harm. And then there's another problem happening. So many years ago, we fought something called the Software Patent Directive in 2005. And we did that by going and having protest marches in Brussels and by somebody putting flatable boats in the river in Strasbourg with banners on the top. And we had a letter-writing campaign to MEPs. And none of that works anymore because the European Parliament now has a streamlined process that allocates from each political bloc a shadow rapporteur with a staff of two to three people. And that small group of people work on the legislation so that when you write to your local member of the European Parliament, they simply refer you to the person from their political party who is on the team in Brussels.  In order to influence legislation in Brussels today, what you have to do is form relationships with the legislators. You have to provide them with expert information and you have to check their work regularly for introduced issues. It's very hands-on and it requires people who work on it all the time. And then we have an additional problem because we've got a lot of corporations who tell us that they're our friends. Those corporations, some of them, say things like that they've spent a billion dollars on open source. And others say that all of their products are based on open source and that they have a whole division that does open source. There are ways in which if you look in the right way, those things are mostly true. But it turns out that it is not their words that matter. It is their actions that matter. So let me give you an example of the actions our friends do. So there's a company called Ericsson in Europe. Ericsson is a board member of the Linux Foundation. They are a board member of the Eclipse Foundation. Their US operation almost exclusively works on open source software and they have a general manager who's got a great pedigree from HP who is a thoroughly decent guy. However, in 2019, the European Commission was asking for public information on horizontal relationships. That's the relationships between competitors that can rise to the level of being anti-competitive. And so this is what's called antitrust. Antitrust is where players in the market use their power in segment A to illegally gain power in unrelated segment B. That's antitrust. And Frank has been trying to deal with it in the area around NextCloud, nobly for quite some time. So Ericsson wrote about the rules for horizontal relationships and they did their public consultation. You can read it on the commission website. That link there will take you to the consultation and then they sent a letter with their comments, a 14 page letter, which you can also find on that link. And in that 14 page letter, they said Ericsson wishes to direct the commission's attention to what it perceives as a significant gap in the horizontal guidelines in that they do not cover the development of open source software. Ericsson submits that this issue could best be addressed by extending the scope of section seven of the horizontal guidelines to open source development. Now section seven of the guidelines lists the behaviors that are considered anti-competitive and require comprehensive regulation. So our friends Ericsson, who are on the board of the Linux Foundation and the board of Eclipse and will stand up at a conference you attend next year and tell you how much they're committed to open source, also asked the European Commission to regulate it to death because it was a mechanism for anti-competitive behavior. So we can't leave this to the corporate friends that we have. We can't trust them to go and represent us and all of those instruments I was showing you have direct indirect or collateral impacts on development, maintenance and use of open source software by individuals, communities and companies. That raft of legislation when it finally comes into force and comes into effect, which is two separate dates, when it finally comes into effect in about two years time, it's gonna have significant impact on everything that all of you do. And it turns out that open source communities were not consulted in any way before this legislation was promulgated. They did go and consult small and medium enterprises because they recognized that they were poor at getting input from SMEs. So the commission expressly went and visited SMEs to get their opinions and solicited input from them. But they did nothing to approach the Free Software Foundation Europe, the Eclipse Foundation, Open Forum Europe, April in France, the OSBA in Germany, OSI globally, they did nothing, they didn't approach any of us. We first found out about the CRA when it was sent to parliament for approval. That was the first time we heard about it. And as I said earlier, this is very serious because the timeline of legislation has got a lot shorter. The CRA was sent to parliament in January this year and it will be law by December this year. That we no longer have 18 month or two year cycles in which we can engage. The cycle time is getting shorter because the parliament has made its processes much more efficient. Now, to understand why they didn't ask us, we have to consider an informal model for society. I actually think that the current European Union is very well designed for civil society in a post-war era. I think that it does an excellent job on transparency, on inclusivity, on considering national needs within the overall scope of the Union. I'm a massive fan of Europe, which is why I was pissed as hell that my government withdrew from it. There is an implicit assumption in the European Union's approach to the world that only companies make things. They believe that companies make things completely, privately and for profit. And all of their thinking and consultation mechanisms looks for people who do those things. And there is an implicit assumption that citizens consume things. They consume things using the money they earn working for the companies that make things. And so those consumers need protecting. And so companies need consulting and citizens need protecting. And that's the model that the commission uses when it goes out and seeks information. It believes that the economy has centralized production, that it has distribution chains that are controlled by the producers and that there are natural control points in those supply chains where monetization occurs. And consequently, all of its thinking, all of its consultation around the regulations tracks those things. They look for the centralized production, they look for the supply chains, they look for the control points, and they arbitrate them. And that leads to a model for society that looks like this. It leads to a centralized fund-create-deliver function and then consumers at the outside. And that leads to consultation happening with companies and workers when there's new regulation. And it leads to a desire to protect citizens from whatever these two are doing. And that's kind of problematic because we're now in a meshed society. We have global fourth sector peers. So I'm introducing that phrase fourth sector. It was coined by several people at the same time because it seemed to fit the circumstances well. We're in a society that has commons-based peer production globally. It works over global networks. So national boundaries don't affect what is happening. NextCloud has contributors from huge numbers of countries. NextCloud, I expect, although I haven't checked, has got contributors from countries that aren't entitled to do business with us. And as a consequence, open source is already quite impacted by the geopolitical environment. Open source tends to avoid or absorb control points. So when there are patents in standards, it tends to avoid those standards. When there are attempts to enforce copyright, it uses licenses that absorb the control point and turn it into a vehicle for openness. And that leads to a structure like this. These orange ovals are individuals and individuals play multiple roles in society. They're people who fund and use and adapt and study software. They're not playing just one role. They're not just consumers of the software. They may well be contributors to the software. They may well be using a crowdfunding mechanism to help fund the software. I have used crowdfunding both to execute projects and also to support other people's projects. And many of us are in this, in fact, I'd suggest all of us are in this position of playing multiple roles within society. Now, they didn't ask any of us about the Cyber Resilience Act. They didn't write to Frank and say, Frank, you're running one of the most significant projects in Europe. What's your opinion on the Cyber Resilience Act? And they've definitely got Frank's address because he writes to them often enough. The legislative process is mistuned for the modern era. Legislators have no expertise per se. What they do is they act as arbitrators amongst experts. They seek expertise from the market and they then adjudicate and arbitrate between the expertise that's been given to them. The experts involved are coming from the owners of the control points in the centralized production. And because of that, they never invite experts from the fourth sector. Before I forgot to mention, that's the fourth sector. You are the fourth sector. There is the commercial sector, there is the labor sector, there are citizens in the consumer sector and there is the fourth sector of people who have multiple roles within society that they execute at scale by being numerous. So the fourth sector is largely unrepresentative and I don't believe a better arbitration process by the European Commission will fix that. I don't believe that giving them a list of all the people who today they should have consulted about the CRA and getting them to consult you is gonna fix anything. Because it just becomes a game. It just results in building more legacy representation from what should have been represented this year. It doesn't, there's no mechanism for representing what's coming next. And I believe that ultimately, the only solution for this will be radical reform. And unfortunately, that is not on anybody's agenda. The malaise in Europe that is leading to populism across the union is also focused on the post-industrial centralized production model. And it is going to take a reform of that to settle this problem along with a whole load of others. Meanwhile, those of us who make up the fourth sector need to get active and start engaging. Unfortunately, the free software community has some additional problems. We have what I call life of Brian syndrome. That is to say, I don't know if you've noticed this effect, the more we agree about, the more vigorously we disagree about the things we disagree about. And we end up having heated arguments about things that are very, very narrowly scoped. And forget that actually 98% of everything else we agree about. We have that tendency as a community. And also, we're very diverse. We consist of public charities, of trade associations like the Linux Foundation. There are many unincorporated associations like the Debian Project, which has no legal entity behind it. Its trademarks are owned by three umbrella organizations, including software in the public interest. Many projects are fascinating mixtures of charity, incorporation, and unincorporated association. And there are one or two projects which are rigidly in the control of an individual. Exactly how you draw representation from that rich mix is very problematic. So can it be done? Well, yes, I believe it can be done. I think we can be represented in the legislative process. In 2005, we did exactly that around the Software Patent Directive. And we were surprisingly effective. The work that we all did on that resulted in the Software Patent Directive being completely abandoned by the European Parliament, much to everybody's surprise, actually on the day of the vote. And so, that is what encourages us to keep on working right up until the last minute because last time we did this, it was the last minute when the change happened. Times have changed, though, and we need to have more hands-on, more direct engagement with the legislators. The European legislative process has three parties involved. It has the European Commission, who is a civil service that write the draft. It has the European Parliament, which is the elected legislators who take the input from the European Commission and review it across all 600-plus MEPs to work out what it ought to say. And then there is the Council of Ministers, which has got the governments of all of the European countries who look at the same input document and work out what they would like the bill to say. And then they all get together at the end of the process in something called a trilog, where they each bring their version of the document on the table and they build a compromise that reflects the accepted position of all of the parties. I believe it is the most open and representative legislative process in the world. I think it is absolutely fantastic. And I think if ever you hear anyone criticising it, you need to ask them why. Yes, it has faults. Everything has faults. But this is pretty much the state of the art in legislation, in my view.  And we've done that around the CRA. Around the CRA, we have formed a monthly group that meets to discuss public policy. That's done under the auspices of Open Forum Europe. It's open to all open source organisations. And so there's about 70 people who get on a JITSI call to have a conversation about the current legislation that I said.  JITSI does scale. It scales beautifully. It's just that people get locked into what they're used to. And I have a blog post about that if you're interested. So what we've done is we've segmented the CRA. So I only work for OSI 33% of the time. I'm an independent consultant, which is the modern way of saying retired. And so I work a third of my time for OSI on public policy. And so I have focused on definition issues. What does open source mean? And I've visited lots of legislators to have a one hour conversation with them about what open source means and who the open source community is. Eclipse has been much more worried about some of the more detailed liability considerations. And so their representative has been focused on those. The Apache Software Foundation has now appointed a VP of public policy, Doug Villum-Vangulik. And Doug Villum is going and doing all of the insider politicking through his previous connections as CTO of the BBC and as an active part of the Dutch government's open source activities. We've drawn those people together and they're each working on a segment rather than on the same things. They coordinate amongst themselves. And then we've got other people who are joining in there and they're being mentored by those existing experts. So we're growing the group of people who can go and engage. And we also peer review all the public statements. So you might have seen a number of public statements about the CRA. All of those were shared on open source collaborative tools before they were published. So all of the organizations involved saw them even if they weren't signatures. And there were no surprises. We had a unified position, which is why you've seen very little of the usual sniping across the community at other organizations positions in this particular area. There's been a tiny amount of it, but very little. And we're very inclusive in this. We assume that if you're willing to waste an hour a month or more on this topic that you're probably acting in good faith. It is a little bit trust and verify. We do make sure that you aren't actually one of the bad guys. We do have a few people who I'm a bit suspicious of from certain corporations joining the calls saying they're from communities. But we're living with it, it's working. And the result of this has been that the CRA is now being thoroughly covered and I'm now moving on to the product liability directive. So you can join in with this. Now that doesn't mean maybe you don't need a new hobby. I find I've got enough hobbies myself. I have grandchildren. I have a house to keep maintained. I don't really need a new hobby. So you might not as well, but you will want to make sure that the communities that you engage with have joined in with OSI as an affiliate. We have about 80 affiliates now and we work with those affiliates directly on public policy. And the same thing is also happening at FSFE. So FSFE has expanded its public policy team. They now I think have five people working on public policy. They're doing a fine job on the interoperable Europe Act, for example. And we coordinate with them and make sure that we're not overlapping or competing with each other. So you can get involved. You can be your community's contact point for open letter sign on. That'll mean when one of us writes a letter to the commission, we'll send you an email to say, hey, could you check this to make sure it's okay and would your organization like to sign it too? You can join us on the monthly call and chip in and see what the current findings on legislation are. If you do have time, if your job would allow you to spend more than 25% of your time on public policy work, then please get in touch with me and I will talk to you about how you can do that, how you can get more engaged. If you don't like OSI, I will introduce you to the people at FSFE who work on it. If you don't like FSFE, I will introduce you to the people at FFI who do it. We'll make sure that you find a place where you can contribute. So I have to say I am moderately hopeful at the moment. I think that it's likely that the result of all this collective activity is going to result in representation for open source, but it isn't a done deal. We do need to get more people engaged in the process because I'm anticipating that the flow of legislative instruments is going to grow, become greater. And we need to get people from the fourth sector to engage so that we can build a virtual first sector organization to go and engage with the commission until they reform their processes. When they reform their processes, of course everything will be fine, but until then we need to work together and recognize that we have far more that unites us than divides us and we have great tools to use while we do the work. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thanks a lot, Simon, for a very passionate and knowledgeable speech that you have given us to all of our community developers today. So now it's time for a quick Q&A session. So anyone has questions? I see the first hand already. Thank you. I mean, I don't think I'm the only one who has a lot of critique on the EU in general, but two things that you also talked about is, for example, lobbyism, which is deeply anti-democratic, and the second thing would be that there are no directly democratic structures within that to be able to actually participate. But what I want to ask is my theoretical background, what I work with is the Division of Society in three sectors, and that would be politics. Economics and civic society. Do you feel that the open source realm is not part of the civic society, or what do you...? No, I don't believe it is part of civil society because I believe that a lot of the motivation for engaging in open source is part of the economic environment as well. And I think that that's really the division that I was highlighting as the three sectors. I believe there is a fourth sector where people play the roles of those other three sectors, and they play all of those roles, not on the scale of individuals, but there are people who are involved in open source projects whose coding and whose innovation is affecting billions of people. They are operating, they are making things at the scale of a major economic operator. And consequently, the consideration of them needs to be the same consideration that you would give to another entity that's operating in the economic realm. And yet, the people who are doing that work are of a scale that a government would consider them to be individuals, or consider them to be a small civil society collective. My experience is that when you treat open sources as a civil society matter, it basically is put into the category of something to be protected. And by protected, I typically mean it's something that has to be protected from ever finding out what's going on. And that hasn't been a good thing. But what is usually meant by civic society is not just citizens, but non-profits, organizations, and all of that. So I'm a member of, so for OSI, I represent OSI at Etsy, which is one of the De Jure standards organizations in Europe. And Etsy has got a legal requirement that it must consult what are called annex three organizations, which are the civil society organizations. And the civil society organizations that forget the most voice are organizations like B.E.U.C. Buick, which is a consumer rights organization. That consumer rights organization tends to treat open sources harmful. They tend to treat it as a source of risk for tools for pedophiles, as a source of risk for hacking of home devices. So they're very much supporting the CRA and the things that put restrictions on open source. And so although you can consider open source to be part of civil society, and I do, I think I do agree with that, what it results in in the legislative flow is the people who are representing you don't represent you, because they actually believe that the work that many people here do is harmful to citizens. And they're very, they are of all the groups that I've ever tried to persuade, they're the hardest to persuade that that's not so. And so I find when I'm dealing with these annex three organizations at Etsy, they're not on my side. And that's part of the reason why I'm talking about a fourth sector, because I don't believe that we fit into that. Although we do obviously fit into that third sector, we're not represented by those that represent the third sector in the legislative process. So. Thank you. Thank you very much for the presentation. So I understand that those legislations could be harmful for the old fourth sector and the open source. Could you give concrete examples of how this legislation could be harmful? I don't know, maybe how it could be, yeah, harmful to projects like NextCloud or to individuals contributing. I'll have a go. So I'm not an expert in how the NextCloud project and community are structured, but there's two things the CRA is going to do that are consequential, I think, to NextCloud. One of them is that it will require that if NextCloud is considered to put the NextCloud software on the market, which is a technical term defined in the legislation, then the entity placing it on the market, which will almost certainly be frank, will be responsible for putting a CE mark on NextCloud. And to put a CE mark on NextCloud, the project will need to adopt processes that control risk, that prevent out-of-date versions being available to the general public. So it will become very difficult for people to get, somebody who's now running Windows 7, and I think more about LibreOffice myself, because that's the project that I've been involved in, someone who wants the Windows 7 version of LibreOffice isn't going to be able to download it anymore because all of the CVEs that are fixed in that, in the latest version, will result in it becoming a dangerous, almost munitions grade risk. So that's one of them. The second thing that will happen is that NextCloud will need to report any exploitable vulnerabilities to the government in the country where they reside. So you'll need to report it to the organization that handles cyber engagement in Germany, and you have to document it in sufficient detail for them to assess the risk to the general public and then take their direction about how to respond and tell people about it. And I believe both of those things will be extremely burdensome to the NextCloud community. I don't know if Frank agreed. Yeah, sorry, Simon, don't want to hijack your presentation. Thanks a lot for that, by the way. Now, I may quickly can give a more concrete example. So the Cyber Resilience Act means that, as described, that once you put something into the market, then you have certain responsibilities and you also need to do certain things, which is as described tubally, the case for a company. The thing is that, under the current text, everybody who is publishing some open source, publish it. Yeah, don't understand it. Yeah, yeah. He would be good for it. So everybody who is putting any open source on the internet is then suddenly considered a company who has all these legal requirements. So if our community, if some person writes NextCloud app and puts it on GitHub, then this person has to do all the things that are required by the CRA, which is like being liable for it, like managing the risk also has to pay like significant fees if something goes wrong. So basically it means that no individual actually can publish any open source software anymore because they're suddenly like treated as a company. So it's a very concrete risk for us. Yeah. No, because there's a, so the question was that doesn't GitHub then put on the market and the answer is no because there is an exception for repositories. And so GitHub is not responsible for putting it on the market. Yeah, so this would basically kill like the open source community. I don't hear anything. It's, it is a vehicle of market regulation. So it's, it's, it will become a mandatory requirement for product to put placed on the market in Europe. And you won't be able to, so you know how all open source licenses have in big capital letters at the end, we're not responsible for how you harm yourself with this. It says it in more words. That is, that's completely redundant under the CRA. You are totally responsible for all the harm that you just caused to a consumer. Doesn't matter what the license says. Yeah, so everybody would just write a small script or a small application, put it like somewhere on the internet and then someone else like using it and it's, it's harm because it might have a bug or security problem like years later than you personally responsible for that. And it's obviously means that this would kill the open source community. And one other thing to add and then I leave this back to you and sorry, it's also about the interesting point that the commission doesn't really seem to want to have any input from the open source people. So there was supposed to be a hearing in Brussels like Monday next week, I was, I was invited and it's canceled now. And no one knows why it's canceled and if there will be another opportunity. So they're clearly not interested in getting any, anything from open source people. I mean, they is a very big, very, they is doing a lot of work there. So we've got some people want more input than others in that process. And of course it's human beings involved. People have different approaches. We do have a question over here. So open source is perceived as being a threat and if so, did this emerge with the rise of AI or how so? No, open source for most of these people open source is not regarded. And most of the impacts of the CRAR, Benjamin did a fantastic job understanding open source and his understanding of open source is, it was about where my understanding of open source was when I had been working on it for about four years. You know, he's done a great job. He's assimilated it very well, but he hasn't really understood how code is made how it flows around communities. He doesn't really understand where he's going to cause impact. So there is an exception in the CRA in Recital 10 that says that none of this applies to open source software. And, but it doesn't actually say that. What it says is that it doesn't apply to open source software that is non-commercial. And anybody who's been talking about open source and free software for any length of time will do an immediate face palm at that point because that's the worst possible way of determining whether something is in scope. And we have repeatedly said that to the authors of the CRA and they tell us, no, that's what the blue guide which is the framework guide for EU legislation uses the word commercial and so they want to use the word commercial too. The biggest fix that I would do is probably to do with that word commercial. I have written a blog post recently on the ISI website about that if you want to see roughly where the thinking has got to. Tingting, thank you first of all for this talk. Very, very great. I have this question about stewardship, right? And the role of companies in this, right? So working at NextCloud, I see a lot of good things happening that we're trying to achieve. So I'm kind of wondering and I was somewhat feeling that it was missing in your story, what can an open source company do in this matter? So what can an open source company do? I think that Frank does a tremendous job for you, just so you know. Frank is very visible. Yeah. So NextCloud is very visible and very active. And the result of that is that NextCloud does tend to get mentioned as an example and does tend to get invited to meetings which then get canceled. So I think actually at the moment NextCloud is probably doing the things that you should do. The one more thing, if you're of sufficient scale as an open source company, having a member of the staff who can spend 25% of their time is very valuable. And there's a few companies that have done that. So we do hear from some companies in France who have got, it's typically the founder who comes and does the engagement. So I think you can do that. I also think that, I don't know where the NextCloud is already a member of OSBA. So there's the open source business alliance here in Germany. I think that any open source company in Germany should be a member of OSBA. OSBA last week did some extremely effective lobbying on your behalf with the German government delegation to the CRA negotiations that I think is actually gonna result in a big improvement for the CRA, Miriam Seyforth, and people went along and did that. So I think that's the second thing that you can do. I think the third thing that you can do is to document positive examples. Because one of the challenges that we have is finding case studies that we can give to. So we went to talk to Benjamin early in this process in March, and he said, well, have you got some case studies that would help me understand the harm that the CRA will do? And the answer is no, we really haven't got them. And we could really do with that person who's got 25% of their time documenting a one page story of how you see the CRA at the moment, the harm that it's going to do. And each time a piece of legislation comes on the radar at OSBA to do the same thing. Because actually having documentation that I can take and go and put on Omar's desk on Monday and say, well, you say that open source is accepted, but look, this is what NextCloud say. They say that yes, it's accepted, but not sufficiently. And Omar is amazingly grateful for those things because he wants to do things that are good for your company. You know, there's no one out to get you. And when you equip them with the evidence, they respond positively to the evidence and they do change the legislation to remove the accidental harm. We have run into a few cases where the harm is intentional. So we did run into some people at the commission who told us that they want the community to spend the money on the cyber resilience so that SMEs integrating it for sale in Europe don't have to make the investment to do the work themselves. And we... And we did ask them who they thought was doing that, because we don't know anyone who's doing that and why are they trying to make life easier for them? And shouldn't those be the people who are investing to make it happen anyway? But so yes, so please document, engage, be visible, be positive would be the things. Okay, so this seems to be a really ill advised directive and it seems like companies are trying to drag down open source to their level and then beat them with money. But my question still is like the point of security and misuse is still there. Do you have maybe an idea for an alternative to address those issues more? Yes, we do. So when the Cyber Resilience Act came out, we did a four column chart of each clause that affected open source and we proposed alternative language and the parliament rapporteur adopted the majority of our suggestions. And so the parliament draft actually does have a lot of protections that are in there. Unfortunately, last month, somebody then introduced a whole load of new language that undid all that improvement that we did. And we're not quite sure where it came from but there's places I suspect it came from every time it happens. Some companies with an M or an E or something at the beginning of their name. So we can, I do think we can improve the CRA and fix the issues in it. The wall we ran up against was discovering co-legislators who actually wanted to achieve the effect that we perceived as negative. And to fix that, and we try to understand why do they want to do this thing where they're pushing all the responsibility down into the community? And it's based on an incorrect perception of how open source engages with the European economy and fixing it involves a good deal more education than we have time to do before it goes into trilogs. Trilogs start, were supposed to start tomorrow. And that was the reason that your meeting got canceled because the trilog was brought forward to tomorrow. And I think it's now fallen back again. So you might get another invitation. In the case of the PLD, the PLD is pretty good. The version of the commission that Omar came up within the commission, it has got different, the language has got a different structure to it. It has slightly different concepts that they're using. And as a result, the collateral damage is much less from PLD. And in addition, we've been talking with both the commission and the author and also with the rapporteur and they've been very responsive to the input that we've made. So I'm actually fairly happy about the PLD. And honestly, that's the thing that really affects NextCloud as the PLD. Because there is a risk that NextCloud will receive market regulation actions over compliance with the CRA, it's far more likely that you'll have consumers seeking compensation for data loss under the PLD. And the PLD is being structured so that that's much less likely to happen. So I'm fairly positive about the PLD. And then all the same open source language things are all showing up in the AI Act and the AI Liability Directive as well. And they were written by someone different and they're all slightly different. And we're all having to go through all of the language again. And actually, that's the point we've run out of resources. We haven't got anybody to work on that at the moment. Hi, sorry to hear you again. It's my last question, I promise. But did you, like using lobby control or something, one of those information sources, is there a possibility to find out what happened in the meantime? So the lobbyist tracker is very, very good. And we can see who's been in. We can't see what the meeting, you can't see who went in. It just gives you the name of the organization being represented. And it doesn't tell you the subject of the meeting. So you can't really find out what happened. And so you then have to get a, you can't ask the commission representatives directly what was discussed because that would be a breach of confidentiality. So there is a certain amount of divination that you're doing to kind of work out where the lay lines are and what was going on. I've got a reasonable idea that a lot of the negative pushback that we had came from the consumer rights organizations. That's where we think a lot of it came from. In the deep past, you and I had fun with the CLA problems. People are signing their rights to companies. Project Harmony, yes. One of the many things called Project Harmony. They're all evil. Anything called Harmony is maligned, just in case you're interested. But one of the sort of fig leafs for assigning all your rights to an organization was that they would quote, protect you. And given the inevitable harm that seems to be coming here and my dislike for CLA is, do you see any kind of form of protecting individual contributors whereby the company would take the liability in truth rather than actually as a fig leaf for their contributors? So I honestly haven't investigated whether that's feasible. I kind of think it's profoundly unlikely. All things considered. But I do think the best way of getting rid, the best thing we can do is to get rid of copyright assignment though and not assign copyright to anybody including the Free Software Foundation. But keep the copyright yourself and just use the open source license and give people software freedom. That was a commercial on behalf of the people who hate copyright assignment society. But I think it's worth investigating whether there's ways of putting a blanket of protection over the community. But it's another cost. Has Collabra got the budget to buy liability insurance for all of the LibreOffice contributors? And would you anyway? Because the code that community includes your competitors.  So I think that's a complicated subject. But it may be that you and Frank both want to buy public liability insurance and offer a blanket to your communities. You know, that may be something you want to do. I would be surprised if you had the budget for it. But maybe you will, I don't know. Because you're both such lovely people, you know. Oh. So I, I'll just put this up on. So I'm very happy to take questions. All the contact points are on some slide or other. That slide there, I particularly like emails and direct messages on Mastodon. Those both make me happy. I am less excited about other forms of communication, particularly if they are synchronous. Those are definitely not preferred synchronous communications. So do feel free to ask questions. I'll try and engage as positive possible. I'm afraid I only speak English reliably. I speak several other languages sufficiently to get myself into deep, deep, deep trouble when somebody replies to me. But none enough to be able to have a dialogue with you. And I apologize for my inadequacy. Thank you. Thank you, Simon.


I'm very glad to see you here. And I hope you enjoyed my talk. Today I want to speak about hidden games in Django Country Padmin Library. This is a long series of talks. I start to speak about it in 2021. And yeah, it is my fifth or sixth talk about Django Country Padmin. I work, who am? I don't know. I am Maxim Danilev. I work like a software developer around 25 years. And last nine years, I work with Python and with Django. And last eight years, I work exactly with Django Country Padmin. Four years ago, I started to work also with Vue.js and Nux.js. And I have a serious talks also how Vue.js works with Django together. OK, all examples you can find in Repository. All my talks you can find in Repository. And links to other video talks you can find in Repository. Before I start, I want to say special thanks for my previous team. Anastasia always created for me design of presentation. Pavel Pelikin implemented all my crazy idea. And Martina Henreina tested it. Folks, I miss you, but something happens. And we try to see what happens in future. Also, special thanks for my family. Thank you for my wife, who support me. Thank you for my children. They await me at home. And thank you for my animals, Marcel and Kisa. And thank you for companies who support me on this conference. Nobody is here. And yeah, I don't know who appears here on the next talks. OK, basic steps. Before we start to use Django-Contribute Admin, we should create a models. Are you know about models in Django? Who knows about models in Django? Thank you. Thank you. In this case, I create two free models. I create a shop. I create model product. And I create model image. Every shop can contain many products. And every shop and every product can contain many images. This is only models. Till this moment, Django-Contribute Admin not works. Before, we should create a model admins. I have created a model admin for a shop, model admin for a product, and some inlines. I know about inlines in model admin. Inlines has a possibility to change some binded objects in form, in change form from parent objects. I show a little bit later how it works. If you start your project, or example project for repository, you can see ad form for change data form shop. You can change title. You can change description. And also, in the same time, you can add some products to shop. And in the same time, you can add some images to shop. Good or not, I cannot say. But this possibility at some products and at some images is exactly inlines. We have inlines form in parent form. OK. In this talk, I compile knowledge about creating user-friendly and developer-friendly admin panel based on the Django-Contribute Admin model. At first, we should to register site admin. But we should not register site admin. We should register site admin config in our settings API to start to work with Django-Contribute Admin model. And in documentation, you can find this example. For my opinion, we can do something better than in documentation. And my offer to you to create application which I call admins. And I register this admins application like normal. Why we should to do it normally? Because we can contain readability. We can achieve readability in our settings API. Everybody who works with settings API can remember how huge this text can be. And that's why I try to contain readability from scratch. And this is the only possibility. You can do all what you want in Django. I offer you to do something better on my opinion. And after that, we should to register admin URLs. Also, in documentation, you can find example. We register admin URLs if I work with paradigms multiple admin sites. I should register. I should with hand write every URL in URLs API. I think this is also not good. Why? Because we can made it automatically. In Django, we contain one container which knows about every admin site. And after that, I ask from container all admin sites. And I take name from every admin site. And I register these URLs automatically. And after that, for me, it's don't matter how many multiple admin site I have. I have always only one line in URLs API. And this all happens automatically. If I create new admin URL, it comes automatically. And of course, for me, it is better. What I mean about multiple admin URLs? This multiple admin paradigm helped me to register some model admins only on the one admin site. This other URL, I can register other model admin. And after that, I can protect this URL group by permission for user. For example, my translation can achieve only translation admin site. My content manager can achieve only content admin site. That's all. Sometimes finance manager or tax manager should go only to sales. And I can give them only one permission. You can achieve this admin site or not. It's much, much, much better than to work with permission on one admin site with a whole list of model admins. Who has more than 100 model admins on the admin site? And this is a possibility to split it on many, many admin site and work easily. OK, but again, I like automate all in Django. Django is funny. Django helped me fly fast and with fun. But sometimes, Django offer me to make something unimportant. For example, I should register model admin. This is a standard example. I should import models. I should create model admins. And I should register appropriately model with appropriately model admin. Too much work for me, exactly. What I want to do, I create model admin auto register. And after that, you don't need to read this quote. You can see it in the repository. But what happens? After that, I create admin PI. I write only model admins. And on start of my server, auto register goes through full models, goes through full admins. And appropriate model is registered with appropriate model admin. It's easy. And I offer you. If you try to do it one time, you cannot forget about it. Every time I put this quote in every new project, because it's amazing, easy to work. Next step, model admin ordering. I don't know why creator of this element put some logic against humanity. I don't know. I cannot answer why this application and these models came in this order. I know. Of course. It's alphabetically order. But sometimes I want to set up myself. I want to decide myself in which order it should come. And I can change it only with one line. I should have a write get up list from admin side, from every admin side. I made it like a mixing. And after that, I can change order of application appropriately order how I register my apps in set up pay. And after that, order of model admins is exactly the same order how I define classes in models. It means I can swap a shop and image. And image comes on the first place. Shop comes on the second place. It's so easy. It's so nice. Try to do it. Of course, after that, you understand what I mean. Janga can be more easy, more funny. And I like Janga, sorry. I mean, we can take control of our project back. Not from, we can take control from Janga developers and they can take it in our hands. OK, the big problem about this problem I tell many times. Every model admin is singleton. I know what means singleton. It means we have always in our project only one instance of model admin. Why is this problem? If I compare model admin and generic class-based views paradigm from Janga, generic class-based views paradigm is on the bottom of screen. In this paradigm, on every request, we create a new instance of view. In model admin, we don't create any instances. It was created on the server start. Problem is, I cannot use these instance like a data container. I cannot store some results in this data container because if other user works in the same time with the same instance, they can overwrite my data. This is a problem. But also, if I solve this problem, also we can increase speed. But some computation happens many times on one request. I have a talk there where I can show nine times calls one method, four times calls other method. I can cache these computation results. And how I can solve it? Solutions is easy, only four lines. On every request, entry point is admin view on every admin side. On every request, I take this singleton instance, I create the copy of this instance, and I call appropriate method of new instance. And this is easy, and it works. And every time on every request, right now, I have the new instance of model admin. We create this solution on Django 1.3, and after that, always we put this patch in our projects. What we can achieve? If I store computations results in cache, I can cache it in data container. We can increase, we can win around 20% of response time. 20% is already say something, but I can increase more, I can win more time if I do something else. But try to use it. I write some articles about it in the internet. If you don't understand what I mean, you can try to read it in an article probably there. You can understand better. OK, next element, Django admin actions. For my opinion in Django country admin, Django admin actions, this is the best feature in full library. What I mean? Django admin actions help me to change many objects in one time. Model admin give me interface, crude interface to work with one object. Model admin actions give me interface to change many objects in one time. But sometime I want to work with actions in generic class with view paradigm. Django offer us only functional based view paradigm in actions. How can I do something? Of course I can. I create a mixing which only patch view class from generic class based view. And this mixing help me to convert every model admin action in generic class based views action. Why I need it? At first, I can create action in this action. I can set up some attributes and I can create process. I can create child action from this action. I can override only process or I can override only some attributes. And this is much flexible than works with functions. Try it and you also cannot forget this technology for model admin. I like it. But I should say warning, please don't use default action decorator from Django. This decorator not safety. I already tell it on the other talk. And this decorator cannot work with user permission, like for example, standard permission required decorator from Django. I offer you simply to avoid this decorator. I think it should be overridden in Django core, in Django country admin. Sorry. Varning, how we can work with permission for actions, we can simply override this method from model admin class and after that this all works. You can use it. For example, one permission, change quantity for products can use, this action can use only stock manager. And I give this permission and only stock manager can call this action. It's important and flexible. OK, and we go to middle of my talk. And important thing, who knows about admin API in Django? By default, we have only two. Admin API, SSI 18th N, internalization API, and autocomplete view. But sometimes I see many libraries which create a new API for crude interfaces for backend admin and after that they create their own reactive backend. But why do they need to write this API? They already exist in Django. What I mean, only what I need from Django, I want to receive on every request instead of template response. I want to receive JSON response. How it happens, it's easy. The same view which I already overridden before, in this view I catch every template response answer. Template is not rendered yet and I take only context from template response. And I jsonize this context like a JSON answer. That's all. And in this moment, with two lines of code, I achieve full crude APIs for full model admins in my project. I don't need any Django REST framework for that. Of course, I have here one trick. I use standard Django serializer. I overrided it as my JSON encoder. I like to write, I like to use Django instead of other libraries. And in Django, we have also serializer possibility. And I use Django serializer possibility in this solution. OK. This is a standard answer from example. You can start, you can see it. And you receive the full information which you need to render template. Or you can use this information on the front end to create some flexible back end front end for your manager. OK, I only offer you don't write new crude admin API. They already exist. But sometimes people want to create something Q because they cannot find it in the existing library. OK, in the middle of my talk, all features which I already tell, you can find on the video. And repository and go on. And we go right in my talk. Model admin get fields, have an bug. Probably you should know about it. I create my model title and slug. I create two model admin. In one model admin, I declare fields like a fields attribute. In other model admin, I declare fields like a field set attribute. And if I call model admin get fields, for first model admin, I receive a title. For second model admin, I receive title and slug. It means get fields not works normally in Django. And this not solved yet. And right now we go to deeper in Django admin, flowable inlines. Sometime you can see change form appears. And after that we have some inlines. But what if I want to put one inline somewhere in middle of admin form? I know many solution. They override templates. I don't know something else. But in reality, it's only two lines of code. I create my read-only field. And on the render of this read-only field, I take from context inline. And I render this inline on the read-only field. That's all. I take from context inline. And I put this inline instead of read-only field. But if I go deeper in this idea, what if I want to take some inline from other model admin and put this inline in place on read-only field? This is nested inlines, which already achievable from Django 1.3. But nobody knows about it. Only four lines of code. But we have find it works right now. You can use it. But we have some bugs, exactly bugs, in standard inline.js in default Django. And my team, we have completely overridden this inline.js. You can use it from repository. Don't matter. I want to use nested inlines or not. My inline.js already removes some bugs from old inline.js. OK. Many-to-many truth model, one idea. If I use truth model in Django, custom truth model for many-to-many, I cannot change it in model admin. I receive an error, but not for me. If I use instead of standard model, if I only change one attribute in meta, auto-created, I add this attribute in meta, automatically it works. But please, avoid it if you don't understand how it works. But it can be painful in future. We use it already three years, this possibility. OK. Once possibilities, I want to say, OK, the first. In model admin form, we have related widget wrapper. If I have some object from our table, appears some icons, special icons. Sorry, this widget is hard-coded in Django admin. And I want to throw away some icons, how I can do it. You can see on the video my investigation and offers. But the best solution we can say for widget. Please, can view related files attribute, and after that, the view possibility disappears. This is easy, but we go deeper and related fields with autocomplete. Autocomplete already exists in Django from 2.0, but we don't have many documentation about it. And it's easy to set up. But sometimes it works. But sometimes I want to see from land United States of America only region for United States of America, dependent fields. How I can change it? It's easy. It works like a charm. You can see it, United Kingdom. How it works? Of course, with autocomplete. I should only override getSearchResult in child model admin, and I should give information for parent select, which child select should be changed. And it works. We created for that small search JS script. But very important, we have found some bugs in autocomplete.js, default autocomplete.js in Django. And my team, we have overridden these autocomplete.js and removed some bugs. It's also in the repository. OK, last idea, which I want to say today. Model admin form, object state versioning. We have many libraries which help me to keep version of object state.  I have created it. But we should not do it. Why? We can use log entry, sorry, error, not item, log entry. Django country admin write on every state changes the information about state. The last row, action time from last row, this is change time. The action time from first row for this object, this is creation time. User from the last row is the last editor. Creator from the first row is creator. And if I use subquery, I can create only one asking database, and it works like a charm right now. You can see. For example, the last state changes happens in Yuli for this product object. And we can state changes use for form safe. How? Simply, I use this data stamp like a versioning. And on the safe, I check last stamp like a version number. It works. You can use it and summary from my talk. If you want to write something, probably, it already exists in Django. If you are a Django programmer, try to work with Django, not with Python. And try to learn Django. Don't matter. Have your documentation or not. Make Django not bar. Thank you.


The participation of the OBC, what we call present OBCs, for the first time in the celebration of the 200 years of Peshwa victory, that I think so had inflicted the society, not the society but some of the fringe elements within the Hindu religion. Till yesterday I would say it was said that the Mahars only fought for it. But for the first time we brought about the history that the Mahars were very large in number, that's true. But along with that there were the OBCs, there were the Marathas who were harassed by the Peshwas and they also joined in the war against Peshwas, the whole army won the war. For the first time the history was told in a proper sense. And therefore the relatives and also the community people from those who participated came in a very large number. Normally you can say last year when the celebration was there the government figure says that it was just about a lakh. But this year the figure was of 5 lakhs. So the participation along with the Dalits, the OBCs was a large number. And this I think so many people, many of the fringe organizations, basically the Hindu organizations, thought that this is a shift and therefore they attacked bringing in again the element of fears and fear and as well as suppressing the whole movement itself. So that was the issue and therefore when there was no action from the government, on the third when we gave a call it was absolutely a non-violent band. After 3 o'clock the violence started and that is where we are blaming all political parties. That after 3 o'clock when they saw that the band is peaceful without any incident. It is then then the political parties saw to it that there is violence and the band is damaged, politically damaged that it was not a silent band but a violent band. So that is what it is. Now what we are witnessing at the present stage and where we have been able to brought out things before the Hindu mass, basically by addressing the Hindu mass, those who believe in state having Hindu as a religion and those who are in the forefront of propagating this, preaching this. We are now showing what is their real color of these people. They have, when they would attack the Muslims, yes they would say it was not our issue. When they attacked the churches it was not our issue. When they attacked the Sholcaste we said it was not. But now they have started attacking the Hindus themselves. So this is not an attempt for them to convert this country into a Hindu country but they want to convert this country into a Vedic religion country. And Vedic religion country when they say it, they say that the whole constitution and the system should be based on Manusmorti. Manusmorti is a very clear example of an inequality system in this country and where everybody fought for it. So this is now I think so becoming a larger picture. Those who have taken part in this carnage with the rentlessly the supreme court pounding on them for the first time the Prime Minister while paying homage to Shivaji Maharaj. He posted his photo along with Shambhaji Vire who is one of the accused. It's now basically very clear a message to the supreme court that he is my colleague. Now it has to be seen whether this message, indirect message which has been sent. The supreme court will take its stand I am very sure about it. But for the masses it is very sure that this Prime Minister is shielding the person responsible for the carnage. Therefore human beings have no value. What the Prime Minister's poster with Shambhaji Vire is now indicating that human beings have no value. It is our ideology that is going to have value. Before this ideology every human being has to bow down. If it doesn't bow down there will be a carnage. So your life has no value. This is what the message is. So then you see it as a revolution and a counter-revolution. I see this as a counter-revolution. Now this is a challenge not just between the Buddhists or the Dalits. It's not a challenge for the whole Hindu mass I would say so. Whether they would like to have a freedom which they enjoyed for the last 70 years or whether they would like to have a caged life. And in a caged life your life has no value. You may be even put to death and there is nothing which is going to happen to you. Now this is where the Hindu mass has to answer. Whether you would like to have the 70 years freedom which this constitution gave them or whether they would like to have a Manuva system where they are going to be caged and individual life has no value. This is what the Hindu mass has to give. It's not just the Dalits or the Christians or the Muslims or the Buddhists or the Sikhs. It's a Hindu mass who has to say whether he would like freedom or whether he would like a caged life. That is what it is. See this is what is going to happen in fascism. This is a fascism. By a democracy the manna in which Hitler came to power. He came to power by a democracy.  It's the same process which has been started. The only difference between is that Hitler didn't give a chance to the people to have a second election where they could have thrown him off. Here people have a chance of a parliamentary elections where they have a chance of throwing this government off. But what they are saying is that we are returning back to power. And from 1922 we will have a Manuat system coming because that is the year when they will have absolute majority in Raj Sabha. That is what they are propagating. They said unless and until we have majority in both the houses we can't change the constitution. My larger population as I have said earlier that whether you would like to be a free citizen or whether you would like to be a caged citizen. If you would like to be a caged citizen then vote for BJP. If you would like to remain as a free citizen then vote against BJP. It's absolutely clear. Even when in the 80s and 90s when there was an absolute majority of the Congress during Rajiv Gandhi's period the democracy was also smothered. Even in that period I played an important role along with the B.P. Singh, Chandrasekhar, Ram Krishna, Hegri. I was in the forefront. It's not that I was not there in the forefront. Whenever there is a demand for a situation where something is to be saved I have always been there. I don't believe in petty politics and be hanging around in power. So whatever little experiments were needed to be done for the society to understand and change. Yes, I restrict myself Maharashtra but I never gave up on national politics. Now at the present stage there are very few individuals who are ready to take on the present government. One of the fear which people have is that we will be head back either by income tax, either by ED or by CBI or IB. Some inquiries will go on. So why get into the wrong box of the government? But being in politics for the last 30-35 years I have kept myself away from all these. Voices. And therefore you can say I am in a better position to take on the present government than many of the political leaders. All the best for you on this challenge. Thank you. Thanks a lot.


Dr. Megan Larissa Good is teaching pastor at Trinity Mennonite Church in Glendale, Arizona, and the author of The Bible Unwrapped, Making Sense of Scripture Today, published by Harold Press in 2018. She holds a BA from Gordon College, a Master of Divinity from Duke Divinity School, and a Doctor of Ministry from Portland Seminary. She is a frequent preacher and lecturer at churches and universities across the country, speaking on subjects such as biblical hermeneutics and contemporary preaching. Her blog, MeganLarissaGood.com, offers short devotional reflections and features articles exploring the nature of biblical hermeneutics. Dr. Good combines and embodies many gifts that I believe the world urgently needs at this time. She is a careful and attentive scholar of the Bible and an energized, creative and imaginative pastor. She is courageous in going into unfamiliar places to build relationships, willing to challenge time-worn ways of doing things, and eager to take a spirit-led adventure seemingly wherever it will take her. We at AMBS have learned to know and love Megan as a dedicated and hard-working and insightful member of the AMBS Board of Directors. And I have personally appreciated and greatly benefited from her role as an advisor on the AMBS Church Leadership Center advisory board. Her love of the in-depth study of Scripture and her passion for making biblical scholarship not only usable but attractive to large and wide audiences inspires me and gives me great hope. Megan lives in Phoenix, Arizona, with what she calls, quote, her prized dinosaur bone and a ridiculously large book collection, unquote. Megan, we are so delighted to have you here honored. Invite you now to come and speak on the great parade. I invite you to pray with me as we approach God's word together. Lord, breathe on your word by the power of your spirit so that it would live for us and we can live for you. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. The book of Second Corinthians has long been one of my favorite books of the Bible. There's something about this book and it's a combination of practical insight and personal insight into the life of Paul that I love. And one of the big questions of the book of Second Corinthians is a conversation between Paul and the Corinthian church that he planted on whether or not Paul is actually qualified for the ministry he's undertaken. You've got to love it when your church has that conversation. I can think of two times in my life that stand out most distinctly where I question my own qualifications. One was the day that I got my driver's license and took my first kind of cruise through town without anyone in the car. And I thought about how two months earlier when I had taken Driver's Ed I actually rolled backwards off the speed bump because I didn't get enough momentum to get over. And the Driver's Ed instructor who had been teaching for more than 40 years had taught the parents of my classmates that I was the worst beginning driver he'd ever seen.  The second time I had that feeling of being totally unqualified was the week I graduated from seminary. Six days after the graduation ceremony I was hired as a 25 year old lead pastor and the night after that hire I stayed awake all night lying in bed thinking did this church just have a collective psychotic break? One of my current dreams is that someday a seminary is going to ask me to teach a class on things that seminary does not prepare you for in pastoral ministry. I have a running list going I've been keeping one for a while. One what to do when one of your parishioners is in a genuine spiritual crisis over what is the fate of the soul of their cat. Another is what to do when parents bring their six year old to you and this has happened to me twice and say please explain to my child who Cain and Abel married. Another is what to do when you were conducting a funeral and it turns out that all of the other speakers at the funeral who were sharing on behalf of the family all show up completely wasted. Another and this one did not happen to me but it did happen to a male colleague of mine is what to do when you go to your town's only gas station to buy flowers for a housebound parishioner and that parishioner pulls on the bud of the rose and it unfolds into lace underwear. This is sufficient for these things, Paul asks. And the only answer we can possibly offer is nobody.  I don't think I have to stand up here today and make a case to you on how badly the world is broken. In the time that it takes us as leaders to bind up one wound, evil makes ten more. Compassion fatigue is a real thing. You might have the experience of Ezekiel. This is a chapter of Ezekiel I read over and over again. An experience of just getting up in the pulpit and speaking a word burning on your heart from God and having your congregation turn to you and say, thank you pastor for that beautiful love song. You might have the experience and all of us will of encountering someone in the world who is literally addicted to the thing that is killing them and that lash out at you when you try to help. I mean, there is a burden. Most of us come in to these kind of ministries with a burden to save the world and keep it on tracks and help things come together and everything in the world seems to resist that effort. And sooner or later, whether it's happened to you yet or whether it will happen to you some point in the future, you'll come to a moment where you are overwhelmed and exhausted and completely beat up and you'll ask yourself the question, who is qualified for this? Second Corinthians, as I mentioned, is Paul's most personal letter. And I love this passage of Second Corinthians we read this morning because in this passage, Paul describes his personal experience in ministry as quote, like being led in triumphal procession. Now the image of this triumphal procession, this is an image taken from the military of the Roman Empire. A triumphal procession is what happens when a general achieves victory and returns to Rome and enters into Rome wearing purple robes and being led in a chariot with horses with golden bridles. And he's followed by all of his troops who've achieved victory with him marching behind and then all the prisoners of war and everybody in the crowds and on the sidelines cheer and the victory story is told and the people praise the God who made it possible. Now in this metaphor, Paul imagines Christ as the general at the head of the victory parade. And it's easy to assume when you hear that that what Paul is imagining is that we are the troops following behind Christ, the troops who shared in the work and now share in the triumph and the glory. And we think to ourselves, well, if that's ministry, that's not so bad. But then you read the surrounding context of Second Corinthians and you read the writer thought of Paul and you suddenly have the realization Paul does not mean that ministers are the troops following behind the general. Paul is describing ministers of the gospel as the prisoners in the parade. And you know what happens to the prisoners? They get killed at the end of the parade. So Paul says to the Corinthian church, this is what ministry is like. It's like being on an endless parade where your weaknesses are on display for everyone to see and what you march and march and march and then you're killed at the end. And I know what some of you are thinking, this is the most depressing seminary grad sermon you've ever heard. It's too late for a refund on your degree. Note that when Paul uses this kind of tragic metaphor, it comes in a context in which Paul says, thanks be to God that this is the case. I mean anyone who would have seen one of these parades in this culture would have a picture in their mind of the captives who are marching through with their heads hanging down in total despair. But in Paul's image of the great parade, the captive section is leading the celebration. The captive section of the parade are dancing and singing all the way along. And the onlookers of the parade are looking at them thinking, what is wrong with these people? Don't they know where this great walk is going? This whole scene is crazy. It makes no sense unless the captives know something that no one else does. Now here's the fact, the hold of evil on the world is great and there is no way to break that hold without costly sacrifice.   The resurrected and the ascended Christ is marching at the head of the victory procession of God. And it's so important, it's so crucial for us as ministers to understand our place in this story. We are not in God's army. We are not. If we were in the army, our job would be to fight God's battles, banquish evil and make peace happen. God forbid that we think that. To begin with, we are thoroughly outmatched. The opposition is too strong, the obstacles are too great, and this can only end in total failure and despair.  Hear me, future leaders, the broken world is not out there waiting for you to go and save it. It has been saved and it will be saved by Jesus Christ, just as you. He is the one with the power to make all things right. So who are we? We are just captives to his mercy. We have been swept up in the spoils of his triumph, and we have been bound to the path of his parade. There's a war unfolding, no question about it, and the stakes are higher than we think, but as ministers and as leaders, we have not been commissioned as soldiers in battle. The stakes are really unimaginably high, but they are not our stakes to bear. This is why Christianity is such great news. The stakes belong to Christ, and the outcome is guaranteed in him. That means that what we are commissioning you for today, we are commissioning you for a ministry of celebration. We are sending you out as the world's most joy-filled captives.  The God of the universe is toppling tyrants beginning here with me. Praise God that I've been taken captive by the mercy of the Lamb. Paul draws us into this mystery that's at the very heart of the Gospel, that this paradox, that there's a real sense that when you are called into the parade of Christ, you are certainly on a path to death. Jesus says this openly, the only path to triumph is the path of the cross. Death is the only place this can lead, but the paradox is that the work of ministry is the work of celebration because our primary work is to do two things. To proclaim to the world its glorious destiny and to rejoice ahead of time in the victory that's overcoming everything. To people on the outside, we are going to look and smell like inevitable death, but we are going to sniff our own robes and we are going to recognize that scent.   So let's get practical here. What is the difference in doing ministry this way? What does it look like to practice ministry as a member of Christ's triumphal procession? I want to tell you just two small stories from my own ministry. Some years ago I reached out to a member of the community who was pretty housebound and lonely and not church attending and through our relationship she became a member of the church. She eventually went on hospice and the next time I went to see her as she was on her deathbed she sat me down and she told me she had decided to pay a man to do her funeral instead of me. I got back in my car and you know sometimes it's just one blow too many. And I put my head on my steering wheel and just started crying and thought I give up. And that's when I felt the presence of the Holy Spirit just fill the car and I heard the voice of the Spirit as clearly as I've ever heard it say to me, rejoice with her because her image of me is about to get so much bigger. And I sat there and just was blinded by this flash of the sheer glory of God. I sat in the shadow of eternity for a moment and just celebrated with her the joy and the beauty that was ahead of both of us and I found myself weeping from sheer overwhelming joy because I realized there was no battle left to fight there were no words left to be said everything that needed to be said would be spoken by the victory of Jesus Christ of which we were both simply joyful captives. So second story, like many of you will experience from time to time I doubt my sufficiency as a communicator in the modern world and a couple of months ago I was invited to guest preach at this huge evangelical church and after I had preached the sermon I was standing at the front and a woman came up to me and she told me that she had not set foot inside a church building in more than 15 years. And she said, I want you to know that I came here today because I thought someone else was preaching. I met God this morning while you were preaching and I wanted you to know that I'm giving my life to him. I laughed and I threw my arms around her and I said, well then welcome home. This is ministry as a captive. It is the realization that it is not my parade and it is not your parade. This is not our story. God was calling that woman on that Sunday morning and she was coming back regardless of who was standing in that pulpit. The light of truth was going to reign regardless of whether I won the argument that day in the car that I persuaded anyone to hold my point of view. We can hype ourselves up and we can take on heavy burdens with the thought of our indispensability or we can take a deep liberating breath in the spirit of Jesus and get over ourselves a little. The world will be healed because Jesus punctures evil. Jesus ends deception. Jesus defeats death and Jesus draws all things to himself and that is going to happen. That is the future regardless of whether you get up and work tomorrow or spend the entire day under the covers eating Cheetos. That future is inevitable. That is the future that Christ has won. But friends, the incredible joy of getting to participate in the story. That is the gift of sheer grace. The privilege of your weakness being the place that other people see the power of Christ. The privilege of getting to join your voice with a choir of captives who are singing ahead of time. The privilege of letting your dying body be the place where the aroma of life goes out. If you are going to do ministry, there is only one reason to do ministry. Do it for joy. There is no other reason to do ministry than to do it for sheer joy. You don't have to be a Christian minister to do peace or justice or do good for the world. All sorts of people do that who aren't Christian. What makes ministry uniquely profoundly Christian is the joy that we can afford. As Christians we can afford each other's failures and we can afford our own failures. We can afford patience with seeds and with yeast that take way too long to grow. We can afford hope when all hope is lost. We can afford to love even the very people who will kill us because we have been caught up in the victory procession of Christ.  And the world's destiny has been written too and that too is glorious. So we can afford to go out today and we can afford to give ourselves fully to a ministry of celebration. Smelling like empty grave clothes and bound for freedom. Who is sufficient for these things? Who is qualified? Nobody but Christ. And we are His captives. Where He goes, we follow after. Thanks be to God who gives us this victory through Jesus Christ our Lord.