Hey everyone, thanks for joining us today. Welcome to this event of building your cloud center of excellence with Hitachi Ventara. I'm your host, Lisa Martin. I've got a couple of guests here with me next to talk about redefining cloud operations and application modernization for customers. Please welcome Prambala Subramanian, the SBP and CTO at Hitachi Ventara. And Manoj Narayanan is here as well, the managing director of technology at GTCR. Guys, thank you so much for joining me today. Excited to have this conversation about redefining cloud ops with you. Pleasure to be here. Yeah. Pram, let's go ahead and start with you. You have done well over a thousand cloud engagements in your career. I'd love to get your point of view on how the complexity around cloud operations and management has evolved in the last, say three to four years. It's a great question, Lisa. Before we understand the complexity around the management itself, the cloud has evolved over the last decade, significantly from being a backend infrastructure or infrastructure as a service for many companies to become the business for many companies. If you think about a lot of these cloud bond companies, cloud is where their entire workload and their business runs. With that as a background for this conversation, if you think about the cloud operations, there was a lot of lift and shift happening in the market where people lifted their workloads or applications and moved them on to the cloud where they created cloud significantly as an infrastructure. And the way they started to manage it was again the same form as they were managing there on from infrastructure. And they call it INO, infrastructure on operations. That's kind of the way traditionally cloud was managed. In the last few years, we've seen a significant shift around thinking of cloud more as a workload rather than as just an infrastructure. And what I mean by workload is in the cloud, everything is now code. So you're codifying your infrastructure and applications already code and your data is also codified as data services. With now that context applied, the way you think about managing the cloud has to significantly change. And many companies are moving towards trying to change their models to look at this complex environment as opposed to treating it like a simple infrastructure that is sitting somewhere else. So that's one of the biggest changes in shifts that are causing a lot of complexity and headache for actually a lot of customers for managing environments. The second critical aspect is even that even exacerbates the situation is multi-cloud environments. Now there are companies that have got it right with things about right cloud for the right workload. So there are companies that I reach out and I talk with they've got their office applications and emails and stuff running on Microsoft 365 which can be on the Azure cloud. Whereas they're running their engineering applications the ones that they build and leverage for their end customers on Amazon. And to some extent they've got it right but still they have a multiple cloud that they have to go after and maintain. This becomes complex when you have two clouds for the same type of workload when I have to host applications for my end customers on Amazon as well as Azure as well as Google then I get into security issues that I have to be consistent across all three. I get into talent because I need to have people that focus on Amazon as well as Azure as well as Google which means I need so much more workforce. I need so much more skills that I need to build, right? That's becoming the second issue. The third one is around data costs. Can I make these clouds talk to each other then you get into the English class and that creates some complexity. So bringing all of this together and managing is really becoming more complex for our customers and obviously as a part of this we will talk about some of the ideas that we can bring in managing such complex environments but this is what we are seeing in terms of why the complexity has become a lot more in the last few years. Right, a lot of complexity in the last few years. Manoj, let's bring you into the conversation now before we dig into your cloud environment give the audience a little bit of an overview of GTCR what kind of company are you? What do you guys do? Definitely Lisa GTCR is Chicago based private equity firm. We've been in the market for more than 40 years and what we do is we invest in companies across different sectors and then we manage the company, drive it to increase the value and then over a period of time, sell it to future buyers. So in a nutshell, we got a large portfolio of companies that we need to manage and make sure that they perform the expectations. And my role within GTCR is from a technology viewpoint. So where I work with all the companies, their technology leadership to make sure that we're getting the best out of technology and technology today drives everything. So how can technology be a good compliment to the business itself? So my role is to play that intermediary role to make sure that there is synergy between the investment thesis and the technology levers that we can pull and also work with partners like Hitachi to make sure that it is done in an optimal manner. I like that you said that technology needs to really compliment the business and vice versa. So Manoj, let's get into the cloud operations environment at GTCR. Talk to me about what the experience has been the last couple of years. Give us an idea of some of the challenges that you were facing with existing cloud ops and the solution that you're using from Hitachi Ventura. Absolutely. In fact, Prem phrased it really well. One of the key things that we're facing is the workload management. So there's so many choices there, so much complexities. We have these companies buying more companies. There is organic growth that is happening. So the variables that we have to deal with are very high. In such a scenario to make sure that the workload management of each of the companies are done in an optimal manner is becoming an increasing concern. So that's one area where any help we can get. Anything we can try to make sure it is done better becomes a huge value at each. A second aspect is a financial transparency. We need to know where the money is going, where the money is coming in from. What is the scale? Especially in a cloud environment, we are talking about an auto-scaled ecosystem having that financial transparency and the metrics associated with that. These become very, very critical to ensure that we have a successful presence in the multi-cloud environment. Talk a little bit about the solution that you're using with Hitachi and the challenges that it is eradicated. Yeah, so end of the day, right? We need to focus on our core competence. So we have got a very strong technology leadership team. We've got a very strong presence in the respective domains of each of the portfolio companies. But where Hitachi comes in and how it comes in as a solution is that they allow us to excel in focusing on our core business and then make sure that we are able to take care of workload management or financial transparency. All of that is taken off the table from us and Hitachi manages it for us, right? So it's a perfectly complementary relationship where they act as two partners and Hark is a solutionist, extremely useful in driving that. And I'm anticipating that it will become more important with time as the complexity of cloud and cloud associated workloads are only becoming more challenging to manage and not less. Right, that's the thing that complexity is there and it's also increasing. Prem, you talked about the complexities that are existing today with respect to cloud operations, the things that have happened over the last couple of years. What are some of your tips, Prem, for the audience? Like the top two or three things that you would say on cloud operations that people need to understand so that they can manage that complexity and allow their business to be driven and complimented by technology. Yeah, great question again, Lisa, right? And I think Manoj alluded to a few of these things as well. The first one is in the new world of the cloud, I think of migration, modernization and management as a single continuum to the cloud. Now, there is no lift and shift and there is no hey, somebody else definitely manages it, right? If you do not lift and shift the right applications the right way onto the cloud, you are going to deal with the complexity of managing it and you'll end up spending more money, time and effort in managing it. So that's number one. Migration, modernization, management of cloud workloads is a single continuum and it's not pre-separate activities, right? That's number one. The second is cost. Cost traditionally has been an afterthought, right? People move the workload to the cloud and I think, again, like I said, I'll refer back to what Manoj said, once we move it to the cloud and then we put all these fancy engineering capability around self-provisioning. Every developer can go and ask for what he or she wants and they get an environment immediately spun up so on and so forth. Suddenly the CIO wakes up to a bill that is significantly larger than what he or she expected, right? And this is become a bit common nowadays, right? The challenge is because we think cost in the cloud as an afterthought. Consider this example. In previous world, you buy hard value, put it in your data center, you have already amortized the cost as a capex. So you can write an application, throw it onto the infrastructure and the application continues to use the infrastructure until you hit a ceiling, you don't care about the money you spent. But if I write a line of code that is inefficient today and I deploy it on the cloud, from minute one, I am paying for the inefficiency. So if I realize it after six months, I've already spent the money. So financial discipline, especially when managing the cloud is no more an afterthought. It is as much something that you have to include in your engineering practice as much as any other DevOps practices, right? Those are my top two tips, Lisa, from my standpoint. Think about cloud workloads. In the last one again, and you will hear me saying this again and again, get into the mindset of everything is code. You don't have a touch and feel infrastructure anymore so you don't really need to have foot on the ground to go manage the infrastructure. It's codified. So your code should be managing it. Now think of how it happens, right? That's where we're going as an evolution for this. Everything is code. That's great advice, great tips for the audience there.  You know, we can talk about skills gaps in many different facets of technology. The SRE role, relatively new skill set, we're hearing a lot about it. SRE led DevSecOps is probably even more so of a new skill set. If I'm an IT leader or an application leader, how do I ensure that I have the right skill set within my organization to be able to manage my cloud operations, to dial down that complexity so that I can really operate successfully as a business? Yeah, so unfortunately, there is no perfect answer, right? It's such a scarce skill set that any day, any of the portfolio company CTOs, if I go and talk and say, hey, here's a great SRE team member, they will be more than willing to fight with each other to get the person next, right? It's that scarce skill set. So a few things we need to look at it. One is, how can I build it with it, right? So nobody gets born as an SRE. You make a person an SRE. So how do you inculcate that culture? So like Prem said earlier, right? Everything is software. So how do we make sure that everybody inculcates that as part of their operating philosophy, be they part of the operations team, or the development team, or the testing team, they need to understand that that is the common guideline and common objective that we're driving towards it. So that skill set and that associated training needs to be driven from within the organization. And that in my mind is the fastest way to make sure that that role gets propagated across organization. That is one. The second thing is, rely on the right partners. So it's not going to be possible for us to get all of these roles built in house. So instead prioritize what roles need to be done from within the organization and what roles can we rely on our partners to drive it for us. So that becomes an important consideration for us to look at as well. Absolutely, that partnership angle is incredibly important from the beginning. Really kind of weaving these companies together on this journey to redefine cloud operations and build that, as we talked about at the beginning of the conversation, really building a cloud-centered excellence that allows the organization to be competitive, successful and really deliver what the end user is expecting. Sorry, I made something to it, I think. Sure. Yeah, one of the common things that I tell customers when we talk about SRE and to Manoj's point is, don't think of SRE as a skill set, which is the common way to raise the industry tries to solve the problem. SRE is a mindset, right? Everybody in a- Well said, well said. Yeah. So everybody in a company should think of him or her as a site reliability engineer and everybody has a role in it, right? Even if you take the new process layout from SRE, there are individuals that are responsible to whom we can go to when there is a problem directly as opposed to going through the traditional ways of, A, I talked to L1 and L1 contrast all, they go to L2 and then to L3. So we're trying to move away from an issue escalation model to what we call as the issue routing or incident routing model, right? Move away from incident escalation to an incident routing model so you get to root to the right folks. So again, to sum it up, SRE should not be solved as a skill set because there is not enough people in the market to solve it that way. If you start solving it as a mindset, I think companies can get a handle of it. I love that. I've actually never heard that before, but it makes perfect sense to think about the SRE as a mindset rather than a skill set that will allow organizations to be much more successful. Krav, I wanted to get your thoughts as enterprises are innovating, they're moving more products and services to the as a service model. Talk about how the dev teams, the ops teams are working together to build and run reliable cost efficient services. Are they working better together? Again, a very polarizing question because some customers are getting it right. Many customers aren't. There is still a big wall between development and operations, right? Even when you think about DevOps as a terminology, the fundamental principle was to make sure Dev and ops works together, but what many companies have achieved today honestly is automating the operations for development. For example, as a developer, I can check in code and my code will appear in production without any friction, right? There is automated testing, automated provisioning and it gets promoted to production. But after production, it goes back into the 20 year old model of operating the code, right? So there is more work that needs to be done for Dev and ops to come closer and work together. And one of the ways that we think this is achievable is not by doing radical org changes, but more by focusing on a product oriented single backlog approach across development and operations, which is, again, there is change management involved, but I think that's a way to start embracing the culture of Dev and ops coming together much better. Now, again, SRE principles, as we double-click and understand it more and Google has done a very good job laying it out for the world. As you think about SRE principle, there are ways and means in that process of how to think about a single backlog. And in hard Hitachi application reliability centers, we've really got a way to look at prioritizing the backlog. And what I mean by that is, Dev teams try to work on backlog that come from product managers on features. The SRE and the operations team try to put backlog into the, sorry, try to put features into the same backlog for improving stability, availability, and financial optimization of your code. And there are ways when you look at your SLOs and error budgets to really coach the product teams to prioritize your backlog based on what's important for you. So if you understand you're spending more money, then you reduce your product features going in and implement the financial optimization that came from your operations team, right? So you now have the ability to throttle these parameters. And that's where SRE becomes a mindset and a principle as opposed to a skill set because this is not an individual thing you have to do. This is the company that is embarking on how to prioritize my backlog beyond just user features. Right, great point. Last question for both of you is the same. Top kind of takeaway things that you want me to remember if I'm an IT leader at an organization and I am planning on redefining CloudOps for my company, Manoj will start with you and then Prem, go to you. What are the top two things that you want me to walk away with understanding how to do that successfully? Yeah, so I'll go back to basics. So the two things I would say need to be taken care of is one is customer experience. So all the things that I do end of the day is it improving the customer experience or not? So that's the first metric. The second thing is anything that I do, is there an ROI by doing that incremental step or not? Otherwise we might get lost in the technology, wizardry, the new tech, et cetera. But end of the day, if the customers are not happy, if there is no ROI, everything else, it's just garnish on top of that. Now it's all about the customer experience, right? That's so true. Prem, what are your thoughts on the top things that I need to be taking away if I am a leader planning to redefine my CloudOps company? Absolutely, and I think from a company standpoint, I think Manoj summarized it extremely, right? There is this ROI and there is this customer experience. From my end, again, I'll suggest two more things as a takeaway, right? One, Cloud cost is not an afterthought. It's essential for us to think about it up front. Number two, do not deeming migration, modernization and operations, they are once free. If you migrate a wrong workload onto the Cloud, you're going to be stuck with it for a long time. An example of a wrong workload, Lisa, for everybody that is listening to this is, if my cost per transaction profile doesn't change and I am not improving my revenue per transaction for a piece of code that's going to run in production, it's better off running in a data center when my cost is capped, it's then amortized and I have control over when I want to upgrade as opposed to putting it on a Cloud and continuing to pay unless it gives me more dividends towards improvement. But that's a simple example of when we think about what should I migrate and how will that cause pain when I want to manage it in the longer run. But that's something that I'll leave the audience and you with as a takeaway. Excellent, guys. Thank you so much for talking to me today about what Hitachi Ventura and GTC are doing together. How you've really dialed down those complexities, enabling the business and the technology folks to really live harmoniously. We appreciate your insights and your perspectives on building a Cloud Center of Excellence. Thank you both for joining me. Thank you. For my guests, I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching this event, Building Your Cloud Center of Excellence with Hitachi Ventura. Thanks for watching.


Novak Djokovic vs. Andre Rubelev is the second quarterfinal for the men's Wimbledon for 2023. And both guys have had to fight to get to this stage. Rubelev entered the tournament as the number 7 seed and will take on Purcell in the first round. This is no problem, getting through in straights. 6-3, 7-5, 6-4. In the second round he take on Kuntrim and Karatsev, and after dropping the first set, he'd have to fight back to win 6-7, 6-3, 6-4, 7-5. The third round he take on Goffan, who had gotten to the quarterfinals here last year. And after fighting through a couple of tie breaks, Rubelev would eventually win in 4. 6-3, 6-7, 7-6, 6-2. In the fourth round he take on the 23rd seed, Bublik, who'd been very impressive to get to this stage and actually beaten Rubelev a couple of weeks ago on the grass. Now, containing the first two sets, Rubelev would fight himself in a dogfight, eventually getting through in 5. 7-5, 6-3, 6-7, 6-7, 6-4, who advanced to his first Wimbledon quarterfinal. Djokovic entered the tournament as the number 2 seed and will take on Kassion in the first round. There's no problem for Nole, getting through in straights. 6-3, 6-3, 7-6. In the second round he take on Thompson. And again, no problems for Nole, getting through in straights. 6-3, 7-6, 7-5. In the third round he take on Stambavrinka, his old enemy, at the slams. But Djokovic was on another level on grass, getting through in straights. 6-3, 6-1, 7-6. In the fourth round he take on the number 17 seed, Hubei Hercatch, who hadn't dropped a set all week. After saving set points in the first set, Djokovic would fight back to win 7-6, 7-6, 5-7, 6-4 to advance to the quarterfinals. These guys have played four times before with Djokovic leading the head-to-head 3-1, but it'll be their first meeting on grass and Djokovic destroyed Rubelev at the start of the year in the Australian Open at the same stage in their last match. If Rubelev's going to win this one, he needs to be super aggressive. And he also needs to serve well. That's something that Hercatch was able to do for the most part of the match against Djokovic in the fourth round. He needs to serve really well. Luckily he did serve well against Bublik, but he needs to start serving even better than that if he's going to push Djokovic around and get a lot of free points. Djokovic is going to win this one. He just needs to play his game. He knows what to do against Rubelev. We saw that in Australia when he had one hamstring because of course he had that problem with the leg in Australia throughout the whole tournament and he was still able to beat Rubelev so easily. So he knows that he just has to play his game and he'll be able to beat Rubelev and grind him down in the end. It's a very interesting match-up because this is probably the only time in the draw that we've actually got some of the big names in the quarter-finals. There's been a lot of random upsets along the way. These guys have avoided that so far, but I'm going to go with Djokovic to win this one in three. It's so hard not to pick him after what happened in Australia at the same stage against Rubelev. And of course, having one leg in Australia, he's got two legs now. So I'm going to go with Djokovic in straights, but let me know down in the comments below. Who do you think is going to win this one?


YouTube Bootcamp is one day away from ending! You need to write the test by May 21st Pacific Time Midnight, end of May 21st, 2014 in order to get your letter saying you are an expert and you can proudly show all of your fans that you passed the YouTube Bootcamp and to do that click the link below to enter the YouTube Bootcamp. The quiz is down there, scroll down at the bottom of that page and before you take the test make sure you read everything on that website and we're going to go over the key points in this video so that you can prepare and take the test. Note, it is not a timed test which means you can take the test anytime and retake it if you mess it all up but it's a good idea to get everything right the first time, it'll make you feel a lot better and you should get it right the first time if you study. Alright guys, let's begin! Let's start with how to get viewers to find the audience. So the first step is really to be a collaborative. The best way to get an audience is to build it with another channel of similar size and similar content. Cross promote between your audiences. Now being accessible is also very important. What that means is if someone stumbles upon your videos in the middle of one of your series they should be able to get the context of what they're watching otherwise they may run away because they don't get the point of your video. So if you're in episode 10 make sure that you assume if someone joins right there for the very first time on episode 10 that they can also figure out what's going on and not feel like they're lost. Now being discoverable is a no-brainer actually. Just means that when there's a popular event or a major holiday make sure you have content around that. For example, the Twitch sale for $1 billion. YouTube bought Twitch for $1 billion. That's the big story of the day. Make a video about it like I did. If you go to youtube.com slash gamers you'll see it. Now if you search for Twitch or YouTube buys Twitch I am actually on the front page not at the top but on the front page and you can be sure that wouldn't have happened if I waited for a few days to make that video. So when there's an event make a video about it ASAP and if there's evergreen content things that people are always searching for also make that because you'll get views over time and be shareable. That means word of mouth. Make sure that you make content that people want to tell their friends about. That way you get free advertising and it's not just you trumpeting watch my videos it's your fans doing it to their friends. How do you keep your viewers happy so that they get what they signed up for? Let's find out. Be conversational. What that means is talk to your audience. Don't just talk to the camera. Ask them what you want. Read your comments. Make videos based on what people suggest to you in the comments. Don't just do what you want to do. Do what your audience wants you to do. Bond with your fans. Now the whole point of being interactive is that you need to gamify your videos. Offer multiple endings through annotations. Make sure that they'll have fun watching and participating and not just you have fun because it's all about the fans. It's actually not about you. And it's about being consistent. Being consistent means you don't change up the style of your channel. If you begin a channel with one kind of content keep doing it. If you want to create a new kind of content create a new channel. The reason for that is because your subscriber base expects a certain kind of stuff and if you change it they may unsubscribe and never come back. Polish your brand identity on YouTube. Make sure that people see a consistent brand so that they recognize you if they see you in thumbnails, in YouTube icons and that is very important if you're going to build a loyal audience because if you keep changing your look they won't recognize you the next time you change your look. Give your channel a proper introduction. Create that unsubscribed video. The one that people see when they come to your channel and they're not subscribed and make sure it's short. It's to the point it tells someone why they should subscribe so that they want to watch more of your videos. Don't just put your latest video into that featured spot. Make sure it's a video that's designed to get someone who's never heard of you before to subscribe to you. Get your viewers to interact. Use annotations. Use descriptions. This is extremely important because an audience that just watches your content is probably going to go somewhere else to watch the same content unless you give them something back. For example, shout outs. Talk to your audience and tell people who you like, whose comments are your favorites, whose channel you've checked out. Give them shout outs. And use Google Plus to get promoted off YouTube. Google Plus, even though some people don't like it does reach an audience away from YouTube and if you don't use Google Plus you're giving up a potential subscriber base that could discover you through the Google Plus search page. How YouTube videos make money in the YouTube monetization ecosystem. The key thing to remember here is that you don't need AdSense to make money.  The most important thing is to make what you love. Don't just make things as a job because people will see through that. You have to make videos about what you truly love and your audience will be inspired with you. Keep yourself happy. Keep your viewers happy and that's the best advice we can give to get viewers. Those are the key points, I think, in the YouTube Bootcamp. I encourage you to go through the entire Bootcamp and tell me in the comments below what key points you felt were the most important so we can all learn from each other's experience. Till next time guys, you've been watching... And we will grow together as a family because this is the freedom family. You are part of it, we are all part of it and we're all growing together. So grow with us and partner with freedom. That play now button right there on the video bar is all you need to click to get started. If you really look at yourself, you will be speechless. What happened to being doctors and teachers? What happened to being your brother's keeper?


Thank you, David, and thank you to CSIS for hosting this event. It's a real honor for me to participate in this discussion, and it's also really gratifying to see TFI, I'm very emotionally tied to TFI, and to see it continuing so successfully under David's excellent leadership as I knew it would. I do have a few policy points to make, but actually I wanted to first take a step back and just offer a few thoughts about how far we've come in ten years. Ten years ago, I was nominated but not yet confirmed to be the Under Secretary for TFI, along with Juan, who was nominated and not yet confirmed to be the Assistant Secretary. And I spent some time doing some research and reading up on this office that I was going to be leading, and I'd read a lot about the history of financial measures and sanctions. And I must say, there was a clear consensus. These things don't work.  They're symbolic at best. They hurt the people you're trying to help by depriving them of things that they need. They don't change the behavior of intransigent regimes. The countries that implement sanctions, those are the countries that get hurt because their companies have to give up lucrative business. The countries that honor the sanctions, their economies get hurt as well. And it's the countries that cheat that benefit. And basically, it was very easy to write an article about the history of how these things fail. So that was really encouraging. And then there was a huge amount of skepticism in Washington about this new office, because if you remember, Treasury had just given up all of its law enforcement with the Department of Homeland Security, and as Juan and I would go up to the Hill and talk to people about this new office, we'd often hear, what do we need this thing for? We just created the Department of Homeland Security. They've got the Custom Service. Why can't they do all of this stuff? Why can't they do this? And then on top of that, it was a really, really small organization. And you heard the comment to Secretary Lew that there are 700 professionals now, but at the time, it was very, very small. I think the policy office that, the big secret we had, the only thing that was really classified, was that Juan and Danny Glazer, who were leading the policy office, really only had them and about seven other people, and they were doing all this stuff, and no one knew that it was so small. The situation was pretty demoralizing at the time. Let's just say, and when I reflect on this event, it was pretty hard to imagine an event like this, with the Secretary of Treasury speaking, with two national security advisors talking. The one thing that they, I thought it was great they agreed on, that the one thing to worry about is that TFI was a victim of its own success, and maybe we were going to overuse these things in the future. I think that's a nice to have problem, if you will. And the transformation that occurred from the beginning until now is, highly to my mind, by two anecdotes that both happened to involve Moammar Gaddafi. So very early on in my tenure at Treasury, this is a time when you recall that Gaddafi had given up the WMD programs in Libya, and apparently he was grousing to the State Department that no one had visited Libya. And so I got the short straw, and Adam Zubin and I took a trip to Libya, and at the end of our visit, they asked us to, just as we were getting ready to leave, they asked us to get on a plane, and it turns out to be Gaddafi's plane, and they fly us out to the desert, and we go to his oasis, and he's sitting out there, he's got a white track suit on, and a sailor's cap, and orange sunglasses, and we walk out there and introduce ourselves, and I remember one of the first things he said to me was, I'm glad you've come. Can you deliver a message to George Bush? I want to send a message to George Bush, and I don't remember exactly what I said, but I remember what I thought, which is I don't think George Bush could pick me out of a lineup, and I don't know how this is going to go. So fast forward to my very last day at Treasury, very last day in 2011. At that time, Gaddafi was conducting attacks on civilians in Libya, and we in the administration were considering putting sanctions on them, and again, I turned to Adam, and we asked, well, if we put sanctions on, what kind of money are we going to, you know, find here in the United States? And I come back from a deputies meeting, probably with Michelle and others, and I have an e-mail from Adam, which says that we've canvassed and it looks like there's $20 billion in the United States or so, and he says that's not a typo, that's billion with a B. And unfortunately for Gaddafi, my ability to get a message to the President had improved. Because I walked over my phone, called Dennis McDonough, talked to Tom Donilon, literally by the end of that day, an executive order had been signed by President Obama, and turned out there was even more than that, that ultimately the Treasury Department ultimately froze for the benefit of the Libyan people. So we'd come quite a long way in that period. So what really had changed? What accounts for this kind of success? And I think it was great to sit and listen to Secretary Lew and to listen to Tom Donilon and Steve Hadley. The fact is the team at TFI delivered effective strategies in a number of different categories, on terrorism in North Korea, on Iran, et cetera, and that kind of success breeds success and you get more support. And I just want to mention kind of what are the features of, why did these things work in the history of sanctions that was so unsuccessful? And I'd point to three things. One is, as you've heard, that we focused instead of on country sanctions, instead of putting embargoes on countries, we focused on illicit activity, on bad conduct. And then when you try to build a coalition, it's not purely political. It's not just the countries that agree politically with the United States, but it's rather those who will stand with you against that kind of activity. And when you're talking about terrorism and money laundering and proliferation, it's pretty easy to build that kind of coalition because there's a huge group of countries and private sector actors who are committed to the integrity of the system. Second, we focused, again, as Steve Hadley mentioned, on the private sector explicitly. And we kind of learned, I would say, that the private sector was perhaps even more important than governments in this effort because when you think about country sanctions and trade sanctions, the private sector has a particular reaction to them. They know it's the rules and they have to follow them and they'll try to follow them, but there's no other incentive to go along with it. So they'll do everything they can to go just to the line and try to work around them. But when it's conduct-based sanctions, they have reputational interests. They have their own sense of integrity about the system and they actually will try to amplify what you're doing. And so much of what we have seen the success that the Treasury has had is by having the private sector do much more than is required simply because they don't want to be involved in illicit conduct. And we made it a point to reach out directly to the private sector extensively in order to build that part of the coalition. And then you find, once the private sector is working with you, that governments find it easier to go along as well. So if the banks and the big companies in their country stop doing business with Iran, say, then it's much easier for that country to go along and impose tougher sanctions. And the third thing that characterized these strategies is that they were all underpinned by intelligence. And this is, I think, the big... What is the one... If I had to point to the one thing that changed the Treasury from 2004 to the present is that it's fully a member of the intelligence community. They have full access to the intelligence community. They've built a tremendous office of intelligence and analysis. I see Leslie Ireland here who leads it now. But let me tell you what it was like in 2004. We had a grand total of zero analysts in the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at Treasury. And Janice Gardner, who was our first assistant secretary, built this thing from scratch. I still remember that our then-no-fact director, Bob Werner, offered her five analysts saying, okay, we'll give you five analysts to start with. And we had a hard time moving those five analysts to the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, because the people on the Hill said, wait a minute, why do you need those people at Treasury? And it's come a long way. You cannot build this kind of conduct-based strategy without that intelligence. And Iran, which we've heard some discussion of, is the perfect example. So in 2006 or so, Steve Hadley and Secretary Rice turned to us and said, we need a strategy to put pressure back on Iran and to give us some leverage. And at the time, I actually think Steve said it here. There were many people, including people in the White House, thought we were, quote, sanctioned out on Iran. And you could understand that because we had comprehensive sanctions on Iran already. You couldn't do business with Iran in the United States. You couldn't buy their oil. Our banks couldn't transact with Iran. So those kind of sanctions were already there and they weren't working. So we had to design a strategy that was specifically designed to get other countries to join us in maximizing pressure and get the world to cut off Iran.  And that depended on having the intelligence. And our intelligence analysts pulled together the network of how Iran was funding terrorism, how they were acquiring items for their proliferation program, how they were acquiring items for the missile program, and how the private sector was unwittingly involved, how they were part of the transaction chain. And we made it a central part of the strategy to go directly to the private sector because, and it was Secretary Paulson who was a big advocate of this, he knew, and it turned out to be true, that when you went to these financial institutions and you said, look, you're in this transaction chain, actually they want very much not to be in that transaction chain. It doesn't take much to persuade them to cut off that kind of business because they really don't want to be in that kind of business and they were appreciative of it. And at the same time, as you all know, we targeted the guilty parties in Iran, we exposed what they were doing, we made the illicit conduct public so that everyone knew this was going to be a serious effort and we're going to go after it. And we briefed our allies on the plan. We told these other governments who knew we had to put pressure on them what the plan was to impose this pressure. And it was a huge diplomatic effort and it was not just the Treasury Department, we couldn't have done it ourselves. Every government leader was helping. When congressional leaders, actually now I'm looking at former representative Harmon because she used to call me when she was going on trips and say, here's who I'm meeting with. How can I help? And we used to collaborate to get support from the Hill to get people to work with us on this. And I remember conversations with her about that. And it worked like we hoped. The banks did cut off the business, the private sector did cut off the business and it did make it easier to build that coalition. And over time, the skepticism toward it faded and we were able to get much, much tougher sanctions over time. There were lots of other things that contributed to that but it was part of it. And again, Iran as we predicted tried to evade. They tried to evade the sanctions but unlike prior country sanctions where evasion works, we turned evasion into an advantage for us because we had good intelligence, we could expose the evasion and continue to use it to feed the same dynamic. And as we heard in the first panel, it's unclear how this thing will end. No one knows how it will end but to the extent Iran is considering giving up its nuclear weapons, its pursuit of nuclear weapons, it's certainly been at least in part because of the leverage that comes from a properly executed set of financial measures. And I think it's been a true bipartisan success. As I just mentioned, this is a strategy that had complete support from Democrats during the Bush administration and complete support from Republicans during the Obama administration. And that's something which I personally found maybe the most gratifying part of it. So I just want to make a couple of points about how TFI can build on this record of success. And, you know, I don't think that just we had breakfast this morning and David and Secretary Lew were saying that we've got to continue to innovate if it's going to continue to be successful. The bad guys are going to innovate, we have to continue to innovate. And I just wanted to make two points and they actually tie to the two panels that you're going to hear later. One about the role of the private sector where Ruben Jeffery and Neil Wollin are going to speak about the intelligence. And the private sector, I think, has been crucial, as I said, to the success of TFI that they've been able to build this partnership with the private sector and get the private sector to amplify their actions. But there's another aspect to the relationship between the Treasury and the private sector, and that's the flow of information back and forth. And that has been something that has greatly improved since 9-11 and in the last 10 years, the kind of information that goes back and forth between the government and the private sector has improved both the reporting that we do, I say we now because I'm obviously in the private sector now at a very large bank, the reporting that we do to the government and also some information we get back from the government. That said, I think this is an area where there is still great untapped potential for better collaboration. And I use the word collaboration intentionally because there is a shared objective which is the integrity of the financial system the private sector has that and the government has it. And there are shared adversaries which are illicit actors. Again, the private sector has the same adversaries that the government does. But in many ways, the government and the private sector are sort of fighting against the shared adversary with one arm tie behind their back because they're not collaborating with the information as well as they could. For the most part, the institutions are analyzing their own information, putting it together with what they can purchase and glean from the public sources and commercial databases and trying to find the anomalies, trying to find the bad guys so that they can then share that information with the government. They do that for the most part with the most important insight they could have which is what is it that the government is already seeing and worried about what is their analysis of the particular threat. And I believe that it is a potential game changer in this effort if there could be found a way to collaborate better. And I know there's a lot of good hard work already going on about this but the collaboration is not yet comprehensive. I don't get it to be that way. Everyone would benefit because the kind of information and the kind of analysis that the private sector would pass back to the government would be so much more valuable and rich and that would help the government to understand the threats. And I think this is something which from my current position I see even more as an opportunity for building on prior success. The second point I'd like to make is about the role of intelligence. As I said a couple of times intelligence is absolutely key to these strategies and there's been a lot of debate obviously in the public now about the what is the appropriate amount of intelligence collection and I think that debate is healthy in a democracy that's perfect to the appropriate and I don't intend to kind of weigh in heavily on the whole debate but I just want to make one point people should consider the cost of not being able to do this. What David and Danny Glazer and Adam tried to present to the president in very tough circumstances are real options to deal with tough problems that and to do so in a way where their military force isn't going to be needed and you can't overestimate the value of that if you can settle something without military force without the kind of information and intelligence that can feed a real strategy then you're left with these kind of sanctions that we know all these people who are writing about them are right they don't work and so you're going to leave the president without that kind of authority it's very hard to value that because of the value of that but I think it's substantial to be able to have those kind of strategies offered to the president when he's got very very tough decisions to make and I know it's something that the Treasury Department really needs this information I'm going to just stop there I want to thank you all again for letting me participate in this I spent seven years working alongside the team at the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at Treasury and everyone who knows who works with me at the time knows that this is what I say this next thing is really from the heart that was for me an honor of a lifetime and I'm very proud that we've put together something that is that has stood the test of time and I'm most proud of the fact that it is a bipartisan thing that is something that everyone recognizes as valuable I hope that it will remain that way I'm sure under David's leadership it will thank you


One thing I do like about child though is like, I don't know if it's ever any issues in the group But like y'all never take it to social media.   Yeah, it's not for nobody to know So is that a red flag of niggas bring it to the net or like y'all have that took before like this is done No, we just never think about bringing it to the next kitchen while we bring it shit about us Know when we going up is mad people watching us now.  Yeah, is that annoying that so many people be watching y'all now or nah, I don't even be in the bad way So it's not annoying. I like it. I Feel like I just look at people as fans Just feel I got a lot of teens got a lot of fans. So you really have to watch what you do watch So is that like do you feel like you're limited you got to be more private now Oh, you feel like it was always a private nigga. Nah, I'm used to it. So I don't even know like So I'm not used to this this year my like my social media life right now. It's regular to me I'm cool with it. It's nothing.   I like functions. Okay, so not like hurry if Females always record a self-app function. Okay, so I don't take it no way Females always show they self and they out doing something And doors though if y'all in the crib together, she can't post you know if you must not by the just saying If they do that's like she out of there. Yeah, no question. Yeah, she gotta delete that before she get out of there That's the fact. What if you didn't peep like what if you're sleeping or something you find out later? I Gotta dress up. I gotta get on time. I gotta be mad and that's the talk of the town Make sure you like comment subscribe and make sure you check out our website at www.talkofthetownshow.com


Hello and welcome to the session. In this session we will discuss effects of rigid motion on a given figure after transformation and we will see if the two figures are congruent or not. Now we have learnt that figures in a plane can be reflected, rotated or translated to produce new figures. Now in our earlier sessions we had discussed about rigid transformations and isometry and now let us recall rigid transformations. Now rigid transformations are those transformations that do not change the shape and size of a figure. That is they preserve the distance between the points and angle measure. Now transformation, reflection and rotation are rigid transformations and these transformations are called rigid motions. And now let us discuss effect of rigid motion on a given figure. Now here let us take an example of rotation. Suppose I have a cardboard cut in a shape of triangle. Let its vertices be P, Q and R. Now if this triangle PQR is rotated about a fixed point by a certain angle we obtain its rotated image as triangle P dash Q dash R dash. Since we do not view any alteration in its angles and length of its sides while rotating so corresponding angles. The two triangles are equal. We have of line segment PR is equal to distance of line segment P dash R dash of line segment QR is equal to distance of line segment Q dash R dash. Line segment PQ is equal to distance of line segment P dash Q dash. Also measure of angle RQP is equal to measure of angle R dash Q dash P dash. Measure of angle PRQ is equal to measure of angle P dash R dash Q dash and measure of is equal to measure of angle Q dash P dash R dash. This is preserved. Also preserved is a rigid motion is a rigid motion and reflection are rigid motions. And now let us discuss congruence. Two figures are congruent exactly the same shape and if one figure is cut out and it can be placed exactly on the top of other then these figures are congruent. Now see the following figures we replaced on the other figure. Blue star exactly lie above the orange star over the blue star. It will also exactly lie over the blue star. Thus the two stars that this green circle will be smaller than this blue circle exactly on the blue circle. So here the two, whether the two figures are congruent when rigid motions like translation, rotation and reflection are performed on the figure. The triangle PQ are about a fixed point by a certain angle and we are getting its rotated image as triangle P dash Q dash R dash.   Thus, we observe one rigid motion like translation, rotation and reflection are performed on a geometrical figure. Then the two figures, that is the pre-image and congruent. We also conclude that two congruents, if their correspondence, you must note that dilation rigid motion requires it increases or decreases the size of figure after dilation is not called a figure. Hope you all have enjoyed the session.


Yeah, so as Jim and Norison mentioned, I want to talk a little bit more detail about how we bring projects to the Linux Foundation if you're curious to do so and also how we kind of support and sustain these projects within the Linux Foundation. Jim did a pretty good job of introducing what the LF is, but in terms of who I am, I spend probably most of my day job working on the Cloud Native Computing Foundation, which is the home of Kubernetes. I also helped start the Open Container Initiative, which standardize a lot of the Docker Container Standards, and I essentially run DevRel all throughout the Linux Foundation by supporting initiatives like To Do Group and so on. So in a previous life, I was a person who worked on Fedora and Gen2 Linux, read a lot of the Eclipse part of the Eclipse IDE, spent a lot of time working on engineering at IBM and Red Hat in early days of my career. So yeah, today I'm going to talk a little bit about, you know, I'll skip a little bit faster about what the Linux Foundation is because Jim did a pretty good job about that. I'll talk about how we operate as an organization. A lot of people still think that the Linux Foundation just supports Linux, but we support a lot of different types of projects and organizations. We're essentially foundation as a service, which is how I like to refer to as an organization. I will then answer the question of if you have a company or organization or project and you want to, you know, bring your code or project to the Linux Foundation, how to do that with some examples. And then I'll kind of end things with some basic tips and then kind of open it up for Q&A. So what is the Linux Foundation? I think Jim already did a good job about this covering this. I'm not going to go into detail, but a couple of things is we essentially have foundations that are either split by technical focus area or industry vertical.  But some new stuff that we did this year is like, you know, we brought the RISC-5 Foundation and Open Power Foundation under the Linux Foundation, which gives us, you know, kind of a play in the more important open, you know, instruction set space. You know, that's going to change the whole chip industry in the next decade. I was involved in setting up the continuous delivery foundation, which if a lot of people, I'm sure you have used Jenkins, I'm sure everyone in this room probably has used Jenkins once in their life, but it serves as a neutral home for continuous delivery projects. And of course, we've kind of rebooted our AI efforts under something called LFAI, and I think later today I'll hear someone talking about Onyx and other AI things. So we're, it's a large organization, you know, there's many, many projects and we support a huge swath of the open source ecosystem. So, you know, like I say, we're a federation of foundations. The Linux Foundation does more than just Linux, so for the, for the star, you know, star folks. So, yes, you know, typical thing, open source is continuing to grow. I think GitHub said something like there's 50 million or so projects that they have that's continuing to grow, it's just absolutely bananas. You know, the LF, we're very different compared to other organizations. So things like the Apache Foundation basically welcomes, you know, any project, right? The LF, we truly really care about a small segment of projects out there that we really want to grow and build sustainable ecosystems on. We're not a place to just dump open source projects. We're here to actually truly build commercial ecosystems around them to sustain them. And we kind of have this model, we call it, you know, we host projects where there are members associated with those projects. Those members build products that make profits. And so what happens is you kind of have a healthy ecosystem where we're the neutral home to projects. We don't do products, that's what our members do. Those products produce profits and it gets reinvested back in the ecosystem. So like CNCF, we have 500 plus members. Those members do a lot of Kubernetes related products. Those make money, those get refunded, those get funded back into the foundation to kind of build this nice, healthy ecosystem. This is basically the best way, in my opinion, to sustain open source projects. So this type of work of like what the actually LF does for projects, you know, we provide a neutral home, which is super important. We provide a lot of developer tooling to kind of assist our projects. Infrastructure, you know, sometimes CICD services, security scanning, like Jim mentioned. We do a lot of ecosystem development. We're all here today at the open source forum in Japan to learn a little bit more about open source. But we do this all over the world. We do it in North America, Europe, other parts of APAC. We just did a Kubernetes forum in Sydney recently. So we're truly kind of global in what we do. And of course we provide a lot of IP management related tooling and services to ensure that when these corporations and members build products, they need to ensure that the IP is clean and so on. So that's kind of our really fundamental job in the organization. So, you know, one thing to note about sustainability is, you know, really it's all about how to kind of build an ecosystem that becomes diverse and manageable over the long term to basically ensure that not one company or entity is truly responsible for its success.  But essentially, all products have a life cycle, right?  You have some type of growth and things kind of sunset over time into whole goals. You invest and then you reap the rewards over time. And the important thing to note is there's no difference between an open source project and really a product per se when it comes to this life cycle. They both share some other thing. Open source projects grow and eventually they, you know, get used widely or they die and then things eventually get, you know, kind of sunset or sustained over time. And the Linux Foundation, our role is to kind of guide these projects and support these projects through this life cycle. So, you know, there's really different phases here in terms of, you know, things you do at launch, things you do when you commercialize an open source project, maintain it and sustain it. The LF has services for all these different types of phases.  You know, arguably I think Jim still, like Linux is still going up on its graph. It's not in sustained mode, necessarily per se. But we have other projects that may be, you know, kind of in the more mature side house. But the LF, we basically act as kind of a, you know, mutual fund or index fund is kind of the analogy. I look for open source projects because what happens is if one of these things becomes, you know, maybe boring or less relevant to the industry, it doesn't mean the organization suffers because we have different, you know, kind of place here. So that's kind of how we work. You know, I'm not going to dive, but like, you know, when you launch a project, you're all about investing in building a brand, trying to attract as many companies and organizations to the initiative. You know, recently, you know, early this year, we started the Continuous Delivery Foundation, which brought, you know, Jenkins, Spinnaker and Tecton together. And we invested a lot in building this brand. It's a very, you know, website. We've done conferences. We've done CECON and so on. So we invest a lot to kind of build out a community at that launch time. Then we go out and commercialize things. So what we mean here is basically trying to diversify the maintainer base, you know, maybe launching some type of like conformance programs like Kubernetes certified, maybe some training. And then eventually you get to the maintain and sustain aspects of life cycle, which, you know, naturally, not all projects continue to grow forever. So you kind of make sure that, you know, these things are healthy enough that companies could depend on them even though if they're not the most, you know, attractive or popular project these days because, you know, just like products and open source projects, everything has a hype cycle to it at the end of the day. So skip that. All right. I'll talk a little bit about different projects at the Linux Foundation. I think a lot of people don't realize how diverse of a set of projects we have. So this is kind of like a graph, you know, that I use or diagram. I guess the better way to describe it is I kind of divide it into two different axes. So the wide axis is we have projects that are code-based, right? You know, software code. And then we have stuff that are spec-based, kind of like standards. You kind of think of that. And then on kind of the x-axis, we have what I call single-project communities and then umbrella-project communities. We're essentially things like CNCF where you have lots of projects, part of them. And so here's just some examples where, you know, for example, Let's Encrypt, I guess Node is kind of now under OpenJS, but these are kind of like singular standalone type projects. And then we have umbrella projects that host projects under a particular theme, vertical or technology, you know, focus. And so we have things like CDF or continuous delivery, LFAI for AI, OpenJS for all JavaScript. And on the spec front, we have a variety of spec projects. A lot of people don't realize that Linux Foundation hosts spec projects. We have our singular specs, things like OCI and OpenAPI Initiative, which is home of kind of the swagger folks back in the day. And then we have our new kind of organization called the Joint Development Foundation, which is really an umbrella project, umbrella organization for spec-related projects. So, like I mentioned, you know, we have, you know, these kind of code plus single community things. These are generally kind of focused on one particular project. Sometimes they're funded, sometimes they're unfunded. It doesn't really matter, but here's some examples that we have. Umbrella, I think this is really kind of where the core growth for Linux Foundation is. We prefer to kind of bring organizations under one particular focus area. It's the best way to kind of raise money and sustain things versus kind of having just singular things on the side. And if you look at this, we almost have umbrella organizations for every kind of major technology, a vertical out there. There's very few that are missing. So we have things for film, automotive, blockchain, AI, cloud, networking, JavaScript. You know, these are huge organizations that really make up the kind of, you know, brunt of the Linux Foundation as an organization. So, you know, one example for CNCF that we kind of like to use, like, you know, what has the LF kind of done for these projects? Well, when I helped start CNCF in, you know, 2015, it was a very small organization. We had less than 30 members. We all met in this, it's actually, it's our fourth year anniversary. I remember this, we met in a small meeting room in New York City to kick off our first board meeting. It was maybe, it was less than 20 people in that room. It was very tiny. And now, you know, four years later, it's hard to at least get away from Kubernetes. From my perspective, it's basically, you know, every cloud with public-private offers it as a service. Everyone that's building distributed applications is finding some way to support Kubernetes. You know, even like the Hadoop folks are completely refactoring everything. Any distributed system that had its own way to kind of, you know, to consensus and deploy these was all refactoring to rebase it on Kubernetes. So, yeah, those are kind of results. I mean, the other kind of thing Jim very much likes this diagram is Google Trends for what it's worth is good and bad, but you could see, you know, CNCF when it was founded, you know, kind of December 2015 type timeframe, you know, the comparison between OpenStack, Kubernetes, Mesa, I just threw Lambda in there because it's kind of interesting to watch is, you know, once we kind of started getting the flywheel of supporting the organization, building an ecosystem, convincing the other clouds to get involved, launching conformance program, you know, about two years in, a little less than two years, when you notice we basically surpassed OpenStack, you know, Lambda and all that stuff there, and now it's just, you know, quite crazy how different things are these days. And this is truly the role of Foundation to kind of build an ecosystem, build a brand, build excitement and sustain these projects. Hyperledger is another example. I'm not the biggest blockchain person, but, you know, there's a huge amount of community out there, people trying to build really interesting products and solutions on that pop blockchain. You know, the big issue with blockchain at that time was it was inherently tied to kind of a lot of the crypto-related, you know, folks, and what you really needed is a neutral organization to bring together the people on the business side of the house looking to build serious products and solutions, and so Hyperledger accomplished that, and they've grown to over, I think it's got to be close to 300-something members, they have about 350, I need to update that, so Jim knows, he's probably logged into Salesforce recently, but so it basically has almost every financial institution and startup in the blockchain space involved under this, I think, and they're actually building serious things that are actually being used, you know, throughout the industry.  Here's our kind of single-spec things. We have a lot of people that realize we host a lot of specs, so, you know, we have OpenAPI, there's the GraphQL Foundation, which I helped launch earlier this year, so these are just kind of samples of what we have built on the specs side of the house, and of course, earlier this year, we also announced the June Development Foundation, which is kind of our umbrella organization for specs, so some of these specs may potentially roll under JDF or kind of interface with JDF in the future, because as an organization, we truly prefer umbrella, you know, foundations if we can. So, one interesting kind of question I get a lot from folks is, like, you know, what's the value of a foundation, right? You know, what do I get out of them where I can't just, like, why can't I just host my project on GitHub? That should be good enough. Well, you know, I think the most important thing you can kind of think about is there really is a value to neutral ownership of assets, you know, like transparency and open governance helps build trust, and if you have a lot of partners you work with, you know, they're going to need that in order to actually build the ecosystem. The reason Kubernetes and CNCF have been successful is because the organization neutrally owns those assets. We as a community come together to build a fair conformance and certification program that everyone agrees to. That type of mindset of transparent, neutral, openly governed organizations, you know, truly enables a positive set, positive sum thinking amongst everyone, in my opinion. No one is fearful that one organization or company will take advantage of them because you kind of have this community of folks working together in a neutral fashion. So, you know, earlier this year we started to produce these what we call project journey reports, which basically try to, like, you know, take metrics, like a matrix of data-driven approach of the value of the foundation, so we did this for Kubernetes recently, and, you know, as you can see, when most open source projects start, it's almost, they almost start where there's like a single progenitor, a single owner, they created it, right? And so if you look at Kubernetes, in the beginning it was mostly all driven by Google, right? And if you look, if you shift from kind of the start in 2014 to five years later, Google now does about 25% of the overall contributions to Kubernetes, and it's a fairly diverse, healthy ecosystem now. What is crazy about this is Google actually did not slow down their contributions, their cumulative contributions to the project have only increased. So they actually have done more work, but the overall slice of the work is only 25%, because what's happened is more people showed up, everyone started to do more work, and to me this is like a core value of what a foundation helps support and provide, and we've started to do these project journey reports for other projects in CNCF, our highest level graduated projects, and this is just an example, when Envoy started out, which is a popular service proxy, it was all Lyft, right? And now it's diversified, where sure, Lyft is doing a lot of the work, but Google came up out of nowhere, started to throw a lot of resources into a bunch of other end user companies and Ali Cloud and so on. So these are the types of ecosystems that we intend to build as an organization. So I highly recommend that you go through these reports because they're very entertaining and it provides more of a data-driven approach to how we look at things. So like I mentioned, why bring your stuff to a foundation? Why not just throw it on GitHub and let things work? So one thing that we do, we actually provide a high level of services for our projects. A lot of people don't realize that the Linux Foundation, we actually have professional staff outside of just like me, we have technical writers, we have people that work in different regions in the world if you wanted to open or reach out to members in Tokyo, in Sydney, in China, all of them work truly a global organization. We help them with infrastructure, we help them with certification and training. So essentially, I think as a foundation, you have to offer more than just purely a neutral home. And the Linux Foundation, and the Toll People, is truly the professional open-source organization where we actually provide professional level of services. We nearly have 200 employees worldwide that work for the organization providing support for our projects. And you can poke around, we've kind of documented what CNCF offers. There's other projects like LFAI that documents it also. So all right, say you want to bring an open-source project to the Linux Foundation, what do you do? Generally, what happens is most projects, when they start, they usually come to us and like, hey, we want to add more developers to our projects. How can you help us do that? And so we have a bit of a process that we have in place. So a couple reasons are, there's like, add more developers or hey, can you help us host an event? So a lot of people don't realize, Linux Foundation, we kind of have events as a service, right?  Events are some of the best ways to kind of build communities. You get a bunch of developers in the same room with new people that may be interested in the project and kind of magic happens. KubeCon started with, you know, a few hundred people in a room and now, you know, was it like a month ago, we hosted KubeCon, there was 12,000 people so building these type of communities through events is super useful. And of course, we were a neutral host for intellectual property. So this is another way, another advantage to the LF, you don't know how people from there are told story, but essentially like what actually for my career where I realized I've been involved with Apache Foundation, Linux Foundation, a bunch of these and the LF way of doing things is, you know, I'm a firm believer in the source project. The project out there is kind of unhappy in their own unique way and there's truly like, you can't just have one way of doing things. You have to customize each project for what it wants to accomplish. And the LF really does that. We don't have this cookie cutter one approach to build the foundation or ecosystem. We personalize it for each proper project. So that's kind of my, the LF way is that there is no way to work with each project individually. I don't know if Jim likes that, but that's not what I would say. That's great. Classic. So what are the basic hosting requirements if you wanted to bring a project to the LF? One, you know, you have to have an OSI approved license, right, stuff, no I won't. Supported by the Linux Foundation member, you know, we have 1,600 members, sure you could find someone to support a project. Complete neutral ownership of all assets. The trademark, GitHub accounts, CICD services, domain, these all become managed by the LF IT organization, right? Because if you don't give that up into a neutral entity, you could have one company, you know, for example, I don't know, you know, Google, right? You know, Google owns the Istio project, right? So they get to decide how that trademark is used. So if you depend on them, you got to be careful. So the trademarks are very important to the community. The most important thing that we kind of stress is, you know, we live by the technical democracy model and what I mean here is anyone is welcome to contribute to the technical projects. Membership is never required. All membership is for is to raise funds, to help sustain the project, to host events, pay for security audits, whatever. So membership is completely orthogonal to communities and so we require this on every project that we host. So like I mentioned before, the LF way is that there is one way, so all of our projects come in all shapes of different sizes. Some are very small, you know, and some are very large like Kubernetes. We don't really dictate one size. Everything is different, so we kind of customize to kind of work with you. Trademarks, like I mentioned, a lot of people don't understand this fact that, you know, if you don't have the trademarks in a neutral organization, they could basically prevent potential people in the ecosystem to use that name, especially if they're building Kubernetes as a service.  If that trademark was not owned by CNCF and government in a neutral way, Google could just say, you can't call that, right? That's not fair. That's not how you build a good neutral ecosystem. Ownership is good, and this is something that almost all open source foundations do is do a neutral ownership of those trademarks. You know, I'm not going to dive into this kind of detail. You could go look at this either, you know, by yourself if you actually wanted to bring a project to the Linux Foundation. Like, here are usually a step of, like, project preparation we require. It's like, identify your internal stakeholders, ensure your IP is clean, and then so on. So this is just something we work with when we kind of work with each project on a neutral basis to figure out what's right for them. Like I mentioned, we try to push people a lot to move projects to umbrella organizations because, you know, think about it. If you have an AI project, you know, why do your own thing when there's already something called LFAI? Or, hey, you have something for the automotive sector? Great. We have the Automotive Linux Foundation. So generally, we are pushing more of our projects under these umbrella things, and the way that organizations work is they usually have lots of members. They all pull their resources under a single thing to support all of our projects across that specific umbrella organization. We have standalone projects also don't necessarily always like to go this route, but, you know, we work with each community to figure out what's best for them. They generally have a very lightweight structure. They just document their governance via a technical charter and they kind of go out on their own. The important thing that I mentioned that, like, I have to sometimes correct people is, you know, all of our projects and you want to contribute technically, the membership dues are only there to pay for, you know, events, security audits, things to sustain the project.  I'm like, you know, you could just contribute code. There's no one preventing you to contribute code to Kubernetes. You don't have to be a CNCF member. I have plenty of members. Like, for example, Lyft, that diagram I showed you earlier, is not a CNCF member, but Envoy is literally one of our most projects. You know, they contribute heavily. Like, there's no membership gate ever to contribute to our projects. Members join to sustain the overall ecosystem. Lyft doesn't member absolutely, but it's not a requirement by any means. So, for me, I say it is a pay to sustain model that we employ at the Linux Foundation. Bootstrapping a community project. I'm going to dive into details about the kind of a process of trying to bootstrap a project where we work with internal and external stakeholders to make this happen. A lot of people ask, all right, Chris, you've said a lot of things. What is this simple flow chart you could show me to like bring a project to the Linux Foundation? It's basically this. So, if you can already fit under an umbrella organization, go put your project there and try to put it there. If not, come to us and we'll see what we can do custom. A lot of our organizations have these landscapes. So, I don't know if you saw the CNCF landscape or CDF landscape. Almost every umbrella foundation has some form of landscape. If you see your project there already, that's probably a good natural home for it. Here are some examples of, you know, two CNCF projects Work and Helm came in. Almost all of our umbrella organizations have some kind of technical steering committee, technical oversight committee. We have a group of independent people that are responsible for the technical direction and which projects get in or not. So, they all have different processes, but everyone basically submits a project. People vote and eventually gets accepted or rejected. Onyx joining LFAI, they have a very similar process. People propose and they vote on it. OpenJS Foundation recently had Electron joined. There's a whole process and people vote through some technical body. That's just some examples. So, here's a bunch of umbrella organizations as I mentioned. You could go look this up when I give out the slides, but any types of projects for specific verticals or technology areas please start there versus trying to do your own thing. Alright, some basic tips to kind of before I kind of end things and I'll open up for any questions. So, very simple. Choose a freaking reasonable license for your project. Don't use any custom licenses. There's been a resurgence of these kind of open core licenses out there. Avoid those at all costs. Just use an OSI. Approve license. Preferably permissive in my opinion. License scanning. Use things like physiology, FASA, SNCC. The tools are so much better these days than they used to be. Please take advantage of them. Anything that helps us have more clarity into the licensing of your software supply chain makes all of our lives significantly easier. It's so much better than it used to be. DCOs are always good. I'm going to go too much in detail. One of the most important things that I think the Linux Foundation provides that a lot of people don't realize makes you require this for CNCF is there's something called the best practices badging and it's like it's like a checklist. I don't know how many people read this. There's a great book called the Checklist Manifesto out there where essentially what doctors and medical professionals do to make sure they don't leave a scalpel in someone. This is kind of like a similar thing where you have a checklist for good things that you should have for your open source project. Like a mailing list. A clear licensing how to report security issues and so on.  It works pretty well. You get a badge. We require this for all of CNCF projects but we would like to see all projects throughout the industry use this because this is a really good set of practices. Yeah, I mean you know it's not just code. You need to build inclusive communities so you know my advice is make sure your communities are inclusive to people who do community management, host speedups do technical writing design to great ways to contribute to build our community. We have some examples in CNCF you could learn of in terms of how we do our meetups. So just like the licensing scanning tools out there. Holy I know the security scanning and disclosure tools have greatly improved. GitHub even recently announced built-in security disclosure and advisory mechanisms inside of GitHub itself. Please have this process for your projects. This is like a high quality important thing to do on your end in my opinion. And then finally Jim mentioned this so I'm not going to go over it. I spent a lot of my time to help co-found the 2D group. The best way to learn about open source program management is through your peers. And we have a great peer network. A set of materials these are even translated into Japanese so if you go to linuxfoundation.jp slash resource open source guides you get the Japanese translation of these guides. And other than that so final thoughts here linuxfoundation is more than just linux you know we host so many different projects of all sizes from spec code. I truly believe there is no one way to build a community for a project it has to be very custom based on the needs of the organization. And the linuxfoundation is one of the premier open source foundations that does this type of work. There are others but I think we are probably the largest out there and most professionally run in my personal opinion. So if you're interested in bringing a project to linuxfoundation there's a great URL and you can feel free to find me or email me and I'm happy to answer any questions so thank you.


You're on hi. This is Stu Miniman with wiki bond here at SNW here with silicon angle I've pushed John Furrier over to the third seat for this segment So we've got Josh Goldstein VP of marketing from Certis So kind of talk a little bit about cloud storage and how they all fit together. Thanks for joining us. Thank you It's a great year. So here at SNW. We're talking about innovation. We're talking about new ways of taking You know what was harder to do and more expensive to do and making them easier and making things more efficient today And I think you know from a cloud standpoint, you know, Certis is helping to do that So can you give us a little bit of background as to who Certis is and what you guys do? Yeah, absolutely Certis as a company Is helping people solve the challenge of how to connect their enterprise into cloud storage and make use of it as a resource Without having to learn how to do everything all over again So with our technology with our products they're able to connect to the cloud as if it were just another local storage array and then use the Infinite resource of the cloud and gain all kinds of capabilities in terms of improved backup and disaster recovery Josh and you say connect to the cloud give us a couple examples Who can I connect to using your technology? You could connect to Amazon S3 You know connect to AT&T synaptic storage as a service You can connect to any EMC at most based provider whether that's public or private Okay, so so I've heard of sometimes you're called a gateway to the cloud That's exactly right, but but but you're more than just just a gateway Can you tell us a little bit about kind of your box and what you do locally? Sure, so gateway kind of refers to the the concept of being able to translate Normal storage protocols like iSCSI, NFS and SIFS into things that are this the vendor specific APIs that the cloud providers operate with We do much more than that So what we provide is a standard storage experience meaning that you have capabilities like thin provisioning You have capabilities like space-efficient snapshots Volume management all the things that you expect out of a normal storage system We're mapping on top of the cloud even though those capabilities don't natively exist in the cloud Okay, so when you think about those kind of cloud providers You would sometimes line to business grabbing a credit card and going out to pay to use Amazon This is you know looks and acts much more like a traditional standard storage environment and your storage guy will understand How to use it storage guy will innately understand how to use it So he can get up and running in about a half an hour and he's using the cloud But the experience is if he was using local storage so half an hour as opposed to you know The weeks or months that's right for yeah There's no more no more provisioning nightmares no more cabling all the disc drives and shelving them up and okay And you know we one of the themes we've been talking about John is about cut cloud washing and you know What is cloud and what isn't cloud and there's without a doubt you plug into the cloud You're an enabler for for moving to the to the cloud. Yeah, I think in our case We're not cloud washing at all. We're really in there with what I kind of think is the true cloud So Josh, I mean I got I got to kind of ask I mean obviously you guys are heavily funded from siliconing Silicon Valley VCs NEA Bessemer the big guns, you know Shasta, so, you know What's what do they see in you guys when you go when you could talk to those guys? Do you mean it's hard? You know those guys are good names. What's the value proposition? What's the game-changing vision for you guys now see back up archiving storage is great clouds early What's the what's the dream that they're buying into right? Well, so the so with us There's a couple things so one is they talk to enterprise customers And they're in a tremendous amount of pain with respect to their storage environments. It's it takes up too much space It's too costly. It's too hard to back it up and we help with all of those things But fundamentally, I think you have to believe in the long term that companies are going to want to leverage cloud Technology in a much bigger way than what they're able to do today We're not really like what well. We're not about backup to the cloud. You can certainly do that through our product We're really about enabling primary storage in the cloud where you don't have to do backup anymore, right? So we're talking about enterprise usage for your technology exactly, right? Can you tell us maybe walk us through a couple of use cases that you're seeing from your customers today? Sure you bet Actually, one of our customers will be here at SNW talking tomorrow. Okay, that's David Jones from Alexa pharmaceuticals. We'll be talking to me exactly. He's given a session. Yeah, he's giving a session 1030 tomorrow morning, okay, but use cases for our stuff. So you see people doing a lot of things with their file shares Where that would go to the cloud? A lot of people doing their enterprise content management applications where the content repositories are now actually living in the cloud And that's a high growth area for their storage Some people are doing server logging where they're keeping the histories of their logs out in the cloud and Any kind of archiving app makes perfect sense So if you're running enterprise vault and you're doing email and file archiving that's that's an ideal use case as well Great good to hear a customer that said one of the things we've we found a little bit lacking at this show Is a lot of vendors talking about technology. We like that customers talking about their real-world environment So, you know kudos to you guys for bringing in a An end user. Oh, thanks. How many customers you guys have you guys talk about that? We can't talk about hundreds Yeah, I can't digits my my millions my CEO You're in the product side right so you're in the price I am on the product so on the road map talk about the road map I mean without giving any details I mean how so you don't want to be known as backup and backups out there for everyone's hospital as a standard operating Kind of ante up to do that right the primary storage is a hard nut to crack in the cloud I mean, it's not trivial, right, right Zeta tried to do that others try to do primary backup. What makes you think you can pull it off? Well, I think you got to look at the problem a little bit differently So one of the the key things that we're doing that that really other people hadn't brought to the table before is that the Technology heritage and the company comes from the WAN optimization space And that's a really critical component for two reasons One is getting the performance you need in order to make this all work the way it's supposed to work and give you the experience You expect the other one is it's the only way you can make the economics work So WAN optimization technology has nice side effects in terms of reducing the amount of storage you're putting in with the cloud provider And reducing the amount of data that you're transferring back and forth. So that changes the economic game quite a bit The other thing that's pretty different is we're not the guys operating the back end of the cloud So some of the companies you were mentioning they were trying to get your data in but then they're guys operating the back end as well We're relying on best-of-breed providers who can do that and do it at a scale that service as a young company wouldn't be able to ever achieve So you're not trying to take that the lunch from anyone else Maybe nibble at some breakfast, but you're not trying to eat someone else's lunch like an EMC maybe or someone else Well, I know well, I mean I think it's the age of co-op petition I think so so you partner with the ammo side, but you're competitive to the traditional on-site storage, right? Yeah, I think that's a fair way to look at it So customers who are buying and deploying our technology are definitely making a choice between Expanding or replacing existing on-site storage rays versus moving some of that data out to the cloud So it's great and anything you can talk is so we can't talk numbers, but you know generally You know, what does the storage community think of you and how are customers finding service? We've had a tremendous response. So the company came out of stealth mode in late September 2010 Since then the response has been really fantastic So that our ability to you know to communicate with customers get evaluation systems out into the field wind deals has really gone Beyond our expectations. Okay, great in you know, so you talked about kind of the cloud hostings. What about partners? How are you going to market these days? So we go to market two different ways So for selling our own product is a completely hundred percent channel model and so we have traditional storage bars and resellers We have networking resellers. So for example, we have some guys who've been big Cisco shops and have thought about bringing storage on but Doing it in kind of a traditional way didn't make a lot of sense to them They had to learn too many new things and the cloud is a lot easier to understand and take advantage of with our products So that's worked out very well for us And then we also have very strong partnerships with the providers themselves So we get a lot of recommendations a lot of pull into and to end user deals coming from the cloud provider side Okay, and I guess from a pricing standpoint working with the providers Is it still kind of the traditional buy by a technology or you know, a lot of the clouds are kind of pays you grow Type thing so so how does that work out with you guys? So in our case you're buying our appliance and deploying it So that's kind of your one-time fee and then the recurring fees are to the cloud provider So there aren't any for using our product Yeah, but still I have to think from an economic standpoint. You're you know, very competitive with a kind of a traditional storage array Oh, it's more than competitive with additional storage right people are seeing TCO You know, we have a very extensive TCO model We work through with end users and they see paybacks that come within a matter of months Excellent talk about what's going on the show here. I mean honestly, you know my two questions My first one is You guys are cutting edge startup. You recently funded. This isn't kind of an existing industry show What's different here or could be different? I mean we're talking earlier our last session that some of the big vendors Some got cut flat-footed with the whole how fast the cloud was approaching and you know, it's all speeds and fees But you know that people are looking for that innovation edge What are you seeing here at SNW that catches your eye? That says hey, that's a that's a mega trend or that's a trend That's emerging. Well, the one that it's funny I was here with my my product manager and we were both commenting on it as it seems that this is the year of flash Which it seems like maybe that was you know happened in the last few years But there's there's a tremendous amount of technology here at the show that has to do with you know Flash drives flash PCI cards integrating flash into your storage controller. There's flash in your box, right? There is flash in our box. Yeah, absolutely.  I think it's getting that way I mean, I don't think it's there yet, but it's certainly the you know It's kind of coming from the bottom up right the controller technology is improving The cost points are coming down and everybody's starting to build it in and figure out how to make better use of it So I think you know you fast forward a couple years. It'll definitely be it So what's the culture of your company? You mentioned that you come from the way and optimization background also That's a that's a network-based phenomenon. That's important with cloud stuff is a company culture Better yet, you guys are so you're hiring you're growing What's the kind of people you're looking for in the product and engineering group? Is there a skill set? Is there a unique edge to you guys that's different? I don't know if I would say that I think you know all technology companies are trying to hire aggressive eight players And you're still looking at Valley so it's hard, right? It is So the things we look for are you know, we want high IQ guys who understand startup culture and are willing to work hard And then come from good backgrounds where they've you know, they've developed this type of technology in the past So some of the stuff we're doing nobody's developed in the past But if you have certain types of networking or storage or protocol experience that it makes a lot of sense for us Did you see this Steve Wozniak keynote yesterday? I missed it One of the lines he said you know everything that he did was a first first floppy disk So you guys sounds like you're doing a lot sounds something similar you guys are doing something that's completely new That's right. Yeah, there's a tremendous amount of our technology that's never been done before and so you learn a lot of stuff along the way So that's part of you know, when you're asking about who do we try to hire, right? You need fast learners and guys who can okay, you know quickly prototype do their experiments and fix how many employees you guys have I think we're about 30 right now. So growing in a startup That's about a 50% growth in the last like, you know, six months to a year, right? Yeah, it's coming up quickly I mean, we've always got positions open. We'll keep an eye on them. Excellent. You know, service is hiring And so this is Stu Miniman with John Furrier talking to Josh Goldstein of service here at SNW and up next We're gonna have Wayne Adams of SNEA. All right. We're inside the cube. Okay. Thanks, Josh for coming by. Appreciate it Yeah, thanks John. All right, Stu, good job. I appreciate it. In the head seat there Appreciate it. Okay, you can leave. We'll bring in Wayne We'll talk behind your back when you leave Stu, what do you think about those guys? I mean, you know, I like that entrepreneurial startup Yeah, yeah, so Surtis definitely has some really interesting technology There's kind of kind of this new Gary Ornstein wrote a great post about a year ago talking about all of these cloud gateway Technology companies out there. That's the thing. I'm looking for from this show is that you know was said it I want to see first where does innovation come from we talked about is it come from the big companies or come from these Little startups that have to be acquired or replicated. I think this is this is the kind of company We want to see in the cube which is pushing the envelope hiring doing things for the first time Yeah, these little 30 person, you know the Silicon Valley with some VCs. VCs love that They love IPO. We doing something for the first time, you know get the big money 10 million dollars is you know a good amount of funding