Okay, I think we can probably get started. So thanks everybody for joining today. This is a CNF working group we meet weekly on Mondays at 1600 UTC. So the link to the meeting minutes is in the chat if you want to add your name at the top just so we can keep track of who's here that'd be great. Before we jump in, is there anything that anyone wants to add to the agenda. Okay, there's nothing we'll just dive right in. So the first one is a idea that Ian brought up in the Slack channel. And basically, he would like to have some basic ground rules for like pull requests, basically, having things languish and kind of having some rules. And if there's no major disagreements, then we should be able to merge things. Obviously, I think this will allow us to kind of move forward faster and make people feel like they can edit things because things will get merged and approved. So Ian, is there anything else you want to add to that? Particularly, I don't think. Okay. Does anybody have any thoughts on this or like ideas on how we could frame this maybe. Just some way of moving them forward so that they don't sit there for weeks. Yeah, this is Watson. Yeah, we did. We have had a problem in the, I want to say the subgroup or some other groups where there were some rules definitions actually pushed through ran through really quickly. There's like low attendance. So I'd rather not do the, like one or two weeks or something probably make use it as like a something that it's not caught in a longer. There's probably some other problem if we're not approving things within a month, let's say. Yeah, so I think the question is how long is a good idea. The idea being that if you've got something worth committing then, or, you know, that you're proposing to commit that it can always be edited after the fact. This, you know, to say that it's in the repository does not mean to say that it's part of anything we would necessarily release, but beyond a certain point it becomes very difficult to kind of propose meaningful edits in a pull request. It's easier to add a pull request on top of something that's already been committed than is to eternally debate something in the pull request itself. Are you talking about, do we have a real example that we can look at? Are there ones that have zero approvals yet? No, we don't. But we don't have ones that are ever, we rarely have ones that are fully approved by every reviewer we've asked to look at it as well so that I think is more the question. Okay, yeah, so that maybe that's something we could say like it needs at least two approvers. Usually the list is just to get someone's attention that when we have eight people on, we're not saying we want all of them to approve. We want some number of them and they're usually just here's some interested parties. So a minimum and I think that would address what you're saying Watson that we're not going to let just anything through, but when there's only a small number of attendees, it could be. Yeah, quorum, some type of quorum, something like that maybe. Yeah, I guess, does anybody have an answer? Oh, go ahead. I'm going to say if the problem is, if the problem is things being hard to edit in, you know, pull request, and maybe it could be marked as draft, or whatever, as we edited, and we can approve it into a draft and it has draft as the name. And then the final approvals takes a draft out of the name. What would determine when draft goes away or when it needs to have drafted its name. That would be the final pull request would be taking draft out the name, and then that at that point we're getting into whatever democratic process or whatever it is that we're doing, as far as saying okay it's accepted. I guess, I would be in favor of keeping things fairly lightweight rather than having a lot of rules and requirements on how and when pull request can be merged, I think, agree with Ian like we should have like some things that things don't just sit around forever but I don't think we need to make it really laborious otherwise I think it's going to really slow down the work of the group. Yeah, that's a really serious point of the quorum. Once that we have defined the roles, I guess that we can use those roles as approvers right. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's probably one of the problem. Yeah, it's probably you also end up in a situation where so small number of people is basically making this all the decisions. If you do it that way. I definitely want to keep it where the only thing with roles would be enough people from groups but not the the tech leads and chairs are not final approvers on any of this it's still community voting. We can go up with some number and then shifted if it. If it doesn't work like the chart charter updates probably should have more people and then other things as they're coming in, adding use cases and and other things could probably have a smaller number. And then we can shift those if it if it doesn't feel like we have enough. representation within the group. Yeah. Maybe I can take a stab at a pull request around this next week. And then we can kind of once maybe it'll be easier once we have like something like a little bit more concrete. How would we approve your pull request. Question. How about this negative proposal bill to talk about in the group. You know, I can drop it in as a Google doc or whatever to discuss, or actually I get have discussion. Yeah, I mean, theoretically, we could just use the process laid out in the pull request to approve the pull request. Yeah, I mean, then be facetious obviously but I think that trying to put it down in paper is probably the right answer. Because it's where they're in once we've got the details and it's a document it does actually look halfway plausible. Yeah. Okay, so I just want to point out, you know, it's a repository. I hope we treat it as a living document it's not necessarily, you know, if a pull request gets approved it's not somebody's power play to define things for the whole group forever. Right. Yeah, exactly. Okay. So, is there anything that anyone else wants to add on that before we kind of move to the next topics. So I think we could probably go on this topic for the rest of the meeting, but until I think we have something more concrete. I don't know if it would be really productive, or as productive as going on to other topics. This is all over I just have a quick comment and I would suggest we don't actually discuss it, but maybe something you can just kind of throw into your thinking. If you if you try to put an attempt, and that would just be around the point of reviewers, and how those reviewers are selected I mean we could we have a list each week that everyone's signing up saying I was attending this meeting. I mean, perhaps there's a way that we can sort of pull randomly from the from the list of people who are attending to ask for review so that it's not always the same people might be might be one way to just sort of just get trigger the engagement from others. Thanks. Great. And so, I think in maybe the comment that led to this discussion was around like this pull request around enterprise VPN use cases, because it has been sitting here for a little while. It is. Yeah. But it hasn't actually been sitting there that long we've only discussed it once so far so it's not. It suddenly occurred to me that I didn't know what would make it move forward and maybe we should answer that question before we get to something we agree less clearly on, but yeah, I mean it's, it's an example of something that eventually wants that people can propose their own independent changes on it, rather than, again, fighting about it in its pull request so. Yeah. So, I don't know, do we want to dive into it now. Do people have people have a time to look at it. Are there comments about this specific pull request that you made now. And so for everyone that's not familiar with it in made it kind of like a first use case document and just wrote out about BGP on a customer network. I think this is an example of that type of pull request that we were mentioning. You know, almost should just get auto approved right. It's, it can be edited later. Yeah. And it's just a working document. Yeah.  It's got the comments on it are now 10 days old so it must have been in actually more than one week so my mistake on that, but I don't think there's a comment that anyone has put in there that desperately needs fixing at this point. There's been some useful discussion. I guess I've been arguing that it's good enough as it is. It's got a couple of approvals as well actually so it's not like it's getting any disagreement to speak of. I don't know what to do with the discussion that remains, you know, because there's been some useful points that came up in in that discussion but no particular actions proposed from them. There's maybe it's worth reviewing that to make sure there's not something we're missing but aside from that I mean it's not getting dissenting any meaningful form so what would makers want to commit it. And this Taylor I'm personally okay with the use cases moving forward. If quicker than say a best practice, which if we have a stamp of approval with effect RFPs as you pointed out and some of these things I think when we get to the poor or press process we can label you know charter would become a bigger deal. Like you said this one doesn't have descent so that's probably the biggest thing on any poor question we address all the items, and, and probably go through and if someone isn't available, like we waited on, I think, Robbie for one on a month or two ago there was stuff waiting for all that had comments that we want to be able to discuss in this call if if it's not getting addressed would be good. The only thing on this particular number 60 PR that I saw as you were scrolling by bill was, I think Victor is one or two up. No, let's see. Oh, no, it was right below victors. I just saw it again. Go down a little bit. Maybe it was yours bill. Yeah, on the was it the language terminology. Yeah, I added a section for that you'll notice there's a bunch of commits. Great. So, yeah. You're, you're, you're good then. Yeah, I'm happy. I think I don't know if maybe I forgot to approve it after that. Okay, sorry. That's my fault. Give it approval. And there was I saw a question mark and victors. Did that one get addressed. I put a comment on there, which he's read. So, I think he's read. Hang on, I need to check that. Yeah, I'm here. Yeah, so yeah, I can probably I can approve it because my point was regarding the multiplexers probably open another discussion where we can talk about what what it's going to be or how it looks like the Kubernetes based deployment, the human deployment could include those multiplexers. But my point is, yeah, probably my discussion point is not going to be discussed here. So I guess the use case is fine. Let me just approve it. Yeah, one thing I'm asking myself because I was writing a deployment use case out last night. Someone doesn't do his homework very early. I'm sorry about that. And that one, as I'm writing it is ending up with a bunch of reasoning in about we should do it this way. And I don't like that very much. It should describe the problem, not the solution. This one, I think multiplexers are a potential solution for the problem that it highlights. And that's the point you're making. And I don't know where those proposed solutions go because I think they're worth committing even if we don't accept them I don't think they have to turn into a best practice. But I because I think they want their discussion recording as we you know we do use multiplexes or we don't use multiplexes for these reasons, and there's no obvious place to put that stuff yet. So that might be a topic we want to talk about or add to the agenda. So let me do that. Yeah, thanks. So, unless there's any last raging to send some of this call it I think we can merge this pull request. Can you refresh. I think one of the things that you point out was make sure and approve if you've gone through the discussion use the PR approval process click do the review and click approve. At the top. Whenever you're interacting. And if you're adding comments about the that's specific to the content and a PR. It makes it easier to do the review process and add comments there because it comes through as part of your on that right with the reviewers it'll show that you've done a review, and you had some comments, or potentially a request for changes. And then it'll be a lot easier to then go back and and switch that to approved. Like, like Taylor did. Yeah, I think a lot of people have been doing that. And then, once it's done then Ian or whoever's on the pull request can mark those as approved or resolved and then we know it's completed it down. Yep. Any objectives to merging that one. Okay, too late now you're gonna have to make another pull request. So, yeah, I think. So thanks for, thanks to Ian for putting together a first use case. Getting that across the line so I'm looking forward to see how this kind of move forward. So, hopefully you can have more standards around how we can improve things. Going forwards. Okay. The next one is for people that missed it. There is the self nominations went out to the list on Friday. So, if you're looking to be either a co-chair or a tech lead. And then you're going to have to send a brief pitch which includes your name contact information seat you're interested in. And basically a supporting statement for either the co-chair or the tech lead. So, just reminder for anyone that's interested, please submit your self nomination to the mailing list. Do tech leads do need to be a tech lead to a specific aim or are we just looking for people in general. So, we do say like which part of the project you'd like to be a tech lead for. And so, I think that's, that's talking about like what part of the project would you be most interested in rather than just in general. I don't think that ties you to one specific thing but I think it'll help people understand what you're most interested in. Probably more part of the election part. So, if you're saying I'm good at all tech is not going to be as useful as I, I, I work on a lot of use cases and in this area and I'd really like to help drive the deployment use cases and or something like that. I'm familiar with Kubernetes specific networking and I want to help bridge the gap for the knowledge there or something. Okay, so we'll basically get the nominees and then we will sort of rather than it being quite as clear as it might be we'll try and work out what posts we want based on people's suggestions. The idea would be, do we have people that represent different parts of the technology and other areas that we're wanting so that we can help drive this sections and have representation to help. So, there's our overall making sure we're moving forward with the higher level topics and and people are getting their ideas across and whatever else and then that the tech leads are helping to make sure that we're going into enough details if we're saying, do we know enough on a certain area to start adopting this is a solid set of use cases so that we can break it down. Or here's the best practice have we covered enough in the areas. So to help help with all that before best practices put forward. Yeah, okay. I'm a little bit worried about this specificity of the tech leads right which part of the project. We don't really have a comprehensive list right we don't really have a scope of all the parts of this project and would be applied to each I kind of feel like at this stage at least is probably best that the tech leads would be untitled beyond the fact that the tech leads. Because we have people with a lot of different experiences in different realms it's, it's not like a nominee. Yeah. I'm wondering whether we tie this back to what we were talking about earlier with who is, who do we draw our approvers for for, you know, try and get things in within a handful of weeks. So, you might argue that what we've got here is you want a list of approvers from which we draw tech leads and that would work better. This seems over elaborated this point. I think, well, it means that we don't have to choose our tech leads yet because we don't know what our areas are but it we just basically put the approvers together which we actually do need a bit more urgently. So you're basically defining the role of a tech lead as a commit approver. As the prover of some variety. Yes. You know, we'd expect them to specialize and then they would lead in a certain area once we've worked out what those areas are but right now we just need them to sign up to be approvers that, you know, they are gatekeepers and they give their attention to the backlog. I feel uncomfortable even with the word gatekeeper here. But he is a group here and even people who don't have time maybe to become tech leads would also like to be involved in and have a say I think I think as a whole where gatekeepers. Yeah, I'm not suggesting that just because you don't have a title you don't have a say, I'm saying that, you know, if we want to move things forward then it has to be on somebody's head. So that's, that's the point of having a core group of one variety or another. If it's not going to serve a purpose then this is the wrong answer so so don't assume that I'm saying this is absolutely the right thing to do I'm asking, what could we do that's going to help. Bill maybe you can clarify more what you mean by by tech leads what role you think they'll serve. I think those are the people in the community that we look to that have the deep technical knowledge in specific like to dive into things and I think essentially how that's good time to our conversation from earlier is that like, you'd need at least like one approval from a tech lead and like a couple from like the community. And so like those are the people on the project that have like the time and expertise to dive into like is this like really a best practice or not. Well, it might help to pull up our either our governance charter on tech leads or go all the way back to the TSE or sick security or someone else where a lot of this is sourced. Here's a maybe more specific question that I asked last time. So the networking orchestration task force is that a topic. Should I apply myself to be a tech lead for that if there will be pull request for that area. I think that just when you're saying off the cuff. I'm just off the top of my head right now it's that sounds like an area that would be okay just saying I have experience in this case and network orchestration side and whatever else. And I think this would be a good area for us to make sure that we've covered and we can go into this like if you let's see the wording here. It's a little bit harder. I like the TSE it's a little bit more straightforward, but deep technical dive into an area. I'm going to put a link in the chat bill. So they that has the time and ability to perform deep technical dives on the project. So this is just a general sick level and you can see them all slight variations on on the different ones like sick security and stuff versus six but it's the same idea. So what you're saying towel in my mind could fit so we're saying orchestration is important. So what are some of the areas around that and this is an area that you want to put some focus in right now so that that seems legitimate concern. I wouldn't say it's the lead of the task force would probably be tech lead for network orchestration Kubernetes network orchestration. Right task force is an informal name. Well the task force I would just say that happens to be there but if the task force went away we would still care about network orchestration. So wherever it was done it would be an area that we would want to cover. Well, I feel like I have to think about this I am starting network orchestration specifically I kind of feel CNF working group is a temporary place for it. While we figure out better what we want to do so for me maybe committing to this role and responsibility here. And I'm thinking out loud but what do you guys think you think it would be important to have a tech lead dealing with orchestration in the group. This is a more clear word than simply orchestration. We said more before that there's the orchestration of the CNF and the way the CNF uses whatever the platform provides to it but the point about this is for this sort of thing you need to be working holistically you need to understand the consequences for the rest of this that isn't orchestration. Until we've kind of got through that process that's one of the reasons why I think it doesn't make sense just yet to break that out into a separate group. Because you know if it went off and did it own thing it would basically trample like a herd of elephants over all of the other bits of work that needs to be done to paint a picture of an ecosystem all together. If you so I mean it you know if I ask you how I start the CNF then obviously you will talk to me about how it needs to plum itself into the network and what implications that has. But what you don't necessarily get from that is there are 101 ways of doing that without respecting boundaries between CNFs you know I can just dive in and do dangerous things. And, and holistically, while that gets you past the orchestration problem it doesn't take account of the other areas that it might affect so that's the reason why I think this needs to be looked at with the viewpoint of actually I don't much care about orchestration I just care the whole system works before you start saying here's the orchestration task we need to go off and fix. Sure yeah it's a big category and as you know I, I very specifically want to focus on one specific area right the networking part. The orchestrating CNFs as a whole and network services is a huge component to and. But I think it's separate but but I think I tend to agree with you I think if we start right now delineating all the various topics that we should have a tech lead. That's basically defining the scope of what we're trying to achieve here it's equivalent. Okay, I would refer back to the notes when we had the discussion about the task force and breaking it down into smaller parts and what could be more directly applicable right now and they CNF working group. And then just think about the areas where you think we need to cover and dive into. So, what are areas that we're going to miss in this group if we don't take some time in it. I think those are in an area that you want to contribute then that would be where I would, you could put it forward and say, This is good. I'm already looking at it. I have a passion for this. And I'd like to help make sure that we go deeply enough and look at enough options that we're making good informed decisions. Okay, that that makes a lot of sense to me so I think we we shouldn't treat the tech leads as some sort of comprehensive. We're not picking a tech lead for everything necessary. It's just really people stepping up to lead specific issues. We're almost done and at top basis right. Yeah, and it could also absolutely so if you have a passion about something it's better to do that than say you're being assigned to this area that you don't like it all and don't think is important. And for sure that and the other part in this is, we may have multiple tech leads in an area that are, you may be researching on one topic someone else may say, I'm really want to cover like Victor's been mentioning the multi and other things if we're looking at current solutions and how does that go back, go back, so go we're going to dive into this well there's going to be overlap that's okay. And how does it work do we vote on the tech leads or the chair or. Yeah, the process. Yeah so I can go over to the voting PR now. This is how it's late. This is my first idea of how it could happen. Obviously, this is one idea and I want this to be something that the community is happy with this isn't saying this is how we're going to be voting so I see that there's a couple comments in here. So, the initial idea is to have organizational voting and so this came out of the flu and D project just so that people can have the background, each company organization has one vote. I feel like this leads to unbalanced representation. He's still here. Oh wait, did you ask something me. Yeah, no to Ian. Yeah. Yeah, and I will say the same what did you ask me I didn't catch that. Sorry, you're not in favor of the organizational voting. I am pointing out problems with it. I'm not sure I'm not in favor is quite where I go with that but I mean, I don't see if you want to do it then I don't think you've got enough detail. Right if I turn up and someone else I don't agree with turns up from Cisco who is your organization. Just to give you one example. Well don't we already have that. Isn't there already a voting member representative for for each organization. And how is that decided by your organization I mean there's a whole. My organization is 70,000 people. So that's why you get into trouble with this that's the problem is that who's the sponsor for your membership in CNCF. I get no one on the service provider side of the fence. So, yeah, is that Shane talking. Yes. Yeah, so you're saying the CNCF voting member. Right, I mean that's that's why you have a voting member is to avoid this issue. Well, the other thing I mean about this aside from that, and I see the logic here right it means you can't be overwhelmed by numbers from a given organization and I'm not saying that's a bad thing I think that's quite sensible. But conversely it seems to give a very peculiar power dynamic anybody use from a startup or an individual contributor who's not currently working for involved company suddenly has equivalent power of any large company who's you know lifeblood and day job is this so it becomes a bit weird. And again, this is unfortunately it's criticism without an answer I actually don't have an answer I'm just saying why these are the problems we're going to face with it how we're going to deal with them if they come up. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, that's the problem with systems is there's always flaws in them. So, if you have a different proposal and more than welcome to hear to listen to it. Yeah, I need, I guess we need another proposal then and then we can, well, well the the the other proposal I would have is you get rid of the you ignore the organization side of things and instead you to deal with people individually.  Where can make discussions into this group and yeah, okay.  If you're doing work I would argue yes. I mean it sounds weird because I'm on the midnight. I'm on the I'm on the losing side here but I mean, right because that my point is that gives me the exact opposite of the small company issue that you were referring to right is that a large company could come in with 10 people into a single working group, and essentially take over. Yeah, they just say okay this is how much it'll cost us. Exactly. I was trying to say that Taylor without a I'm going to go ahead and put it forward. Thanks though. Yeah. Okay, so one thing that we're going to have to do. This isn't going to be only freeform what we want. We want to be aligned with the TFC and CFTC and there are rules about that. So if we kept going forward there's some type of representation and voting already aligned so maybe that's something that we could go back to. I know on unlike, if this was a project it's even more clear where you can't make it into sandbox and and on from there unless you have a certain amount of representation split between works. There's also a prior example looking at groups like Apache who they say for people who are voting members or maintainers, and you can have no more than a certain percentage of the overall project so it doesn't. So I think it's important to minimize penalizing people companies who want to get heavily involved, but at the same time, also provides a limit on actual number of votes that they can provide and the number I think is somewhere around 30. I think around 30%, but double check and see what's what they do and that might also be another. Yeah, I think this comes back to democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the other. So there is, there is no exact voting system that will give us all the, that will unearth all the intentions that we that we want as a community. Every single system has its problem so this actually comes down to is which one minimizes as much as possible some of the outliers, all at the same time, ensuring legitimacy of the of the group. And it's a hard balance. You could simply go one vote for organization for the working group. So you take away the voting member issue and active members in the working group, each or gets one vote. Yeah, that is possible as well but then the question that is actually I get the same vote as as all of redhead and all of Cisco and they if they provide multiple people who contribute a lot as well so we do want to be careful with that as well. Yeah. So if anybody has a better idea of how we should do this or they think they have an idea of how we can make this more fair to the community or create a better democracy. I would be very happy to hear it. Yeah. Well probably it's something related but do we have a number of position for this or like how many techniques are going to consider for this. Yep. So, right now, there's not a limit on the number of check tech leads. This is similar on if you go look at the TSC general rules or you go look at any of the other SIGs or working groups, tech leads are open. If people have an area that they're passionate about and they think needs to be researched and step forward. Yeah. And I guess to help make sure someone is there to help go go deep down into an important area and you can rally around it and chairs are the like talk level moderator administrator to move the whole group forward. Yeah, I guess with this model it's what I was trying to encourage is more people to get involved as tech leads. And so, leave it out as open and possible and not not make it lower. I'm not, I guess maybe not lower the bar is the right word but encourage participation from people as tech leads. So there's not a limit on that and it's a not a really high requirement so they just need to get 60% of the votes cast to be elected. So at this point are we really do we really want to elect the tech leads or just have people sign up and we see we have too many in one domain then maybe then we need to elect but it sounds like we may not have enough tech leads at the moment so this conversation seems to be a bit moved. So we may have the exact opposite problem of not having enough people and then this type of conversation could be possibly postponed. And I think the more important question is, is to make sure that we scope down the powers properly like we we don't want these people to be king makers we want them to be facilitators and this this also means that we want that they, not be the, in a role to basically squash things that are that are not aligned with their company and not that I expect people here to do that. But we have to take this type of things into consideration for the long term health of the project so it becomes some, I think that there is something that we have to be a little bit careful with in terms of how much power we we give these groups but also make sure that the group has the correct set of antibodies that if we need to move on we need to make a decision that something is been as as that there's a really hard decision has to be made that I got it. So we want to scope this thing, this particular, this particular path out like how do we want to make sure that that we can at least get some forward momentum without without giving one group the power to squash squash others. I think that's actually might come back to our earlier discussion around what are the rules for approving and merging pull requests. Once we have that it'll become more clear what each of the roles actually is able to do. Okay, I know we're running out of time so if people couldn't like add more comments or somebody has another idea of how we should do elections, please add this let's come back to this next week. And maybe we can do the some of the discussion asynchronously. So next, I don't think is welcome call. No, so I haven't heard all message him about the use case templates. So we have an update. Also, is anybody interested in helping creating a PR to define the different actors that will be speaking to know this one's been here. This issue has been open for a while just so I just want to check back in. Okay. And then Ian, do you want to, this is the kind of the discussion from earlier. I guess, maybe the discussion is, it's not a use case it's not a best practice so where does it fall exactly. It's, yeah, the way I see this is we have use cases that say what we want people to be able to do. We have best practices that say, this is our personal preference or you know industry wide recognition recommendation for how it should be done, which might well be simply you do this and it will cost you less to do. Or I in many of these areas is obviously going to be you do it this way because we need everybody to do it the same way in order to get the most benefit. But there's the bit in the middle, which is, I could do it this way, is that a good idea, can we write down our thoughts on this, you know, a design requirements design implementation in some regards. So, you know, per that conversation earlier about multis right so here are my use cases that describe how I'd like to use networking here's how multis measures up to that. Maybe it's perfect, maybe it's imperfect, maybe it needs a ton of changes, maybe it's not the only thing you need. Where do I put that down so that it's on record. We already have a docs directory, and I think we could put any type of documentation that helps spring context. We can put it into there, if nothing else. If it's, if you think there's additional context, it's more specific to a use case but it isn't required for the use case, you could put it in a the use case folder, like within within the sub folder of your use case in the in the use case folder. Yeah, I, I, yeah, okay. And where you want to get in and talk about like, here's a here's a implementation that I'm wanting to talk about and maybe examine how it would work. Then I would say boot those completely out and my first suggestion would be the CNF test bed, which was, it was designed for that so you could have three or four implementations of an idea, using different multiplexers, or using transport protocols like we had some using me my F and different kernel interfaces and flat network and bridge networks. They're all the same top level idea of a use case but implemented differently. And those are, we have it broken up like is this kind of the workload infrastructure pieces or the main part was going into the use case folder there. So it was designed for that. And then if we get down to a very, very specific best practice test, that's what the test suite, the CNF test suite is for, but I would say right now those would be the two areas for code. And if you click on the use case bill. Go and like that top one, three C two in three chains two nodes, I think this one yet so Michael from Intel. This is one that he helped build and you have the communication what is this test case that was built, you know around the use case idea was the actual implementation that was used talking about a more. This was a more specific area, not a big, big use case but in a very small set and what what was the test case. And there was other test cases that implemented this in different ways. And you can see it talks all about it. How was it done. How do you actually test it. It used in a fee bench to run and do the, the packet generation. You happen to be able to redeploy this yourself using the code I mean that was I do with CNF test bed, but we have other ideas that came in here that we're on like the Linux Foundation sees that lab, which were FDF the FDIO sees it so there there's actual use cases in here that were documented. I think the IP sec one would be one that was on both sides. One, there you go. Yeah, Michael helped with this and also I think Peter and some other people from if anyone's there with some of the people on the FDIC said that was tested on both places. I think the answer is, we will need these. There is no point in giving them a place of their own just yet. They might get one in the future it doesn't matter terribly much if they do or they don't. And we can attach them either to the user stories in the user story directory, or we can attach them in general in the docs to the docs directory. And if we decide to move them around in the future we'll just do a bit of a rearrangement, and we'll learn more by doing than worrying about it right now. Okay, we've about two minutes left. Is there anything anyone else wants to bring up before we close for today. Okay, thanks everyone for joining today. Thanks. Thanks. Bye. Bye.


Oh my God, look at that. Boilin'. Whoa. Good one? Whoa. You know why. Whoa. Oh, it just turned. Oh, did I just lose it? No way. It's coming at me. Whoa. Whoa. Good fish. Whoa. Now you in a minute. Feels chubby. It's big. Oh, nice. Not a nice rookie. Wow. Wow. Wormin'. Wormin'. We are wormin'. Another 18, 20 incher. All right, guys. We are smashin' the brookies here on Moose Head. This is number four for the day. Yeah. And in a half day. And once Chubb's figured out that, we were going to catch him on worms. That's what we've been doing. Dude, smoker.


Welcome to Global Agenda. To tackle the challenges of rabbit urbanization and mobility, governments and businesses are having their attentions turned to a key concept known as MAS or Mobility as a Service. Now this involves integrating various ways of transportation to make access to mobility easier for the consumer. And if I may introduce one example. This is a phone app that is used in Helsinki Finland, one of the leaders of MAS. And as you can see, you put in your current destination and where you want to go. And then it will give you multiple transportation options. Now this includes car sharing, bike sharing, ride hailing, public transportation systems such as trains, buses. And depending on where you want to go, it will give you a combination maybe of even some of those different transportation options. And once you've decided which route you want to go with, you can also make the payment online for every part of that travel. Now this is of course one way that MAS is supposed to be convenient for people who will be using this system. But more importantly, is mobility really sustainable and inclusive for all members of society. And that's what I would like to be discussing with our panelists today. Thank you all for joining me. And as MAS of course spreads around the world, we have different things to talk about, whether it is really a game changer for transportation as a whole. And of course we call the whole change in mobility a mobility revolution. Now is this really a revolution that will benefit all or not? First of all I'd like to start with Anish. Thank you very much. Anish, coming from a major car manufacturer in India, how is your company approaching MAS? We feel that MAS is here to stay. It is something that is going to revolutionize transportation in many ways. We would look at it as different modules really. So the first module that we look at is technology that's enabling this. A lot of the other factors were in play already. The second big module is ride sharing. How do you share assets better? How do you enable people to get from place A to be easier and in a more affordable way because you're sharing assets? That ride sharing can be four-wheelers or it can be at the last mile, which often can be more inclusive, whether it's two-wheelers or three-wheelers or going from a train station to an office hub. The third component on that is electric. And this is something that technically doesn't really fit into MAS. You could do MAS without the electric component, but it goes back to what you started with earlier, which is cities are concerned about congestion, about pollution, and that is something that's solved by electric. So which is where that's thrown into the mix as well. Often these solutions are looked at as cleaner solutions have done with electric. And then the fourth one to take care of congestion is autonomous. So those are the four modules really that MAS is about. And we see that becoming reality in what time frame we can debate it. All of us will have different views on what the time frame is. And not only auto manufacturers, various other parts of the ecosystem will have to adjust and be ready for the future. Thank you. Megan, you are coming from the perspective of a not-for-profit social enterprise, not from the car industry directly or transportation industry. But how would you define sustainable mobility? Well, I think that I look at mobility in this context and I think about the way that we design our infrastructure is a message to people about their own social mobility and it sends a pretty strong message actually about what society believes in and what we're going to stand for. So it is very concerning for me the conversation around mobility because I think it has a direct link on the ever-pressing issue that we are all dealing with around equality and people's sense of inequality, whether that's as a digital divide, whether that's as an educational divide and opportunity divide. So this question of mobility, it's not just about how we get around. It's about the message we're sending to people about how important their aspirations are and how are we going to enable those aspirations in the best possible way. And Pradeep, now as a leading global transportation network company, do you see Moz as a major business opportunity? You know, the origin of Uber is in this notion of replacing private vehicle ownership. There's just a fascinating stat in India and the 30 million passenger vehicles in India of which half a million is now transporting more than one person. On an average, every time a vehicle is on the road, there is 1.1% in it. And anybody who's traversed in Indian cities over the last 10 years, the average speed of moving in a city in Bangalore, as an example, has gone from 14 kilometers per hour, which wasn't great, to nine. And frankly, cities are dying. And I would argue mass is a social requirement. Of course, it's a tremendous business opportunity and that there's no doubt Uber was conceded out of this idea of creating mobility as a service. But the need is not really commercial. Frankly, this is something that society has to solve for so we can keep our cities livable. For the people who live there, I have two children, 10 and 7, both are asthmatic, grow up in Delhi. And vehicle pollution is one of the biggest reasons why they suffer from that. And I'm sure we'll all agree that we all have to play a big part in changing that for the next generations to come. So absolutely a big business opportunity but equally a massive social priority. We see that, which is probably why the cities, governments, businesses are all moving in that direction. But is it really that easy? I'd like to talk about the challenges and I think we've already started to touch on some of that. There are definitely challenges to introducing such a sustainable and inclusive system. Delhi, you spoke about, for example, air pollution, traffic congestion, these are some concerns, of course, that this capital shares along with many other capitals around the world. But if you think about having to delete personal cars from this picture, which is basically kind of what Moz is about, right? We are talking about whether we go for public transportation or we keep these personal cars. But what do we mean by replacing these personal cars for a better service, which Moz is supposed to be mobility as a service? So what is that service? What is that experience that will go beyond having a personal means of transportation for, first of all, to predict? So I think you asked the question, which I think is the hardest question to solve for. It's easy to say we want to replace private ownership. Frankly, with what? You need to replace it with something that in our minds does three things. One, it's reliable, which means that it is available when you want it within a reasonable period of time. And it has to be all the time for every citizen. Second, it's got to be affordable, which means that it's a social good. It's, to me, no different from food, electricity, housing. Transport is a basic social need. And so you think about this as an affordable service that we are providing. And affordability means obviously different things to different people. And the last thing, it's got to be sustainable, which means that it's got to play its part in reducing pollution and in decongesting cities. All of those three things have to be provided, which means the solution really is not necessarily only one mode of transport. It doesn't need to be only cars or only buses or only trains. But public transit is a huge part of whatever solution you think about. Last mile connectivity is a big part of the solution. And I'd argue electric, as Anish said, has to be a big part of the solution. So if you pull these things together, you probably can create an ecosystem which makes it affordable, reliable, and sustainable. But Uber doesn't rely on, well, in a way, cars. And it may not be a personal device. But the more, even though they may be electrical, the more there are that too could lead to congestion. So I think this is a very pertinent question if you follow the public press and the announcements we've been making, I'd say over the last 12 months, there are a number of things that will give you a clear signal that Uber is not a car company anymore. Car is one of the modes of transport. But we have integrated public transit now onto our systems. You've seen the announcements that we have made in cities like Denver where you can book public transit or at least discover public options similar to the app that you just showed us about Helsinki. That's one example. India is a great example. Our fastest growing service is two-wheelers and three-wheelers, most of which is focused on providing last mile connectivity. And pretty much every electric vehicle that's viable today in India is already on our platform on a test basis. So we are investing to learn and figure out how to make this work. So for us, Uber is not only about being a car service, but it's a transportation service which probably will integrate multiple modes of transport. Well, Anish, coming from a car company, again, if I may say, Ma seems to contradict with personal car ownership for a car manufacturer how this is played. Not just cars, but we are in 20 different industries today and we see almost all of them being threatened by some form of technology evolution. It's a financial services. You could talk about FinTech and Agri. You could talk about AgriTech. There's a whole host of things. And that's in many ways a great place to be. In many ways, it's a really bad place to be. It's great because it allows us to get ahead of things and define the industries. And it's bad because, yes, it's threatening in different forms. So from a car standpoint, our industry is going to change. We look at where this industry will be in terms of objects of mobility and objects of... In some ways, I would say people that want something that is beyond their regular mobility. So objects of desire. Those objects will continue over time. Now, the question is, how do you supply both? And in many ways, how do you get into different forms of the mass system as well? Because the exciting part here is that while all the challenges exist, the demand is there today. It's about figuring out the supply. For a consumer, it's great to be able to pull out a phone and say, I want to go from place A to B. This is how I go there. Now, the question is, who's going to be a winner in that space is not known as yet. Uber certainly has a great lead on it. Google may come in over Uber at some point in time. Or someone else might. Today, I would look at Google very often in New York or various other places to see how to take a subway from place A to B and they will start integrating other forms of transportation in there as well. So there are going to be multiple players in this space that go on. So the industry is going to get completely upended. You look at electric cars. The components required for a car are a fraction of what's required for ICE cars. The entire component industry in cars is going to change. So we're looking at a major transformation that's taking place. So for us, we look at it as an exciting time. We look at it as one that we've got to understand various different parts of it. We are playing in almost every single part of it in some form and trying to figure out where do we invest more. It's a classic case of what I call optionality. So place the certain chips on the table in various different forms and then if you see something taking off further then make greater investments there. So it's a fun game. Do you think other companies that rely on oil-driven vehicles or for example, oil companies do you think they see this revolution in the same way you just mentioned? I would say everyone does. If you look at what auto companies around the world are doing, they're investing in different forms of components of mass in a significant way. There is a fair amount of consolidation that's starting to take place, alliances that are starting to take place in the auto industry. So the industry is shaping up for it. So I would not say that we stand out versus everyone else. I do see various different auto manufacturers conscious about it and ready to take on the challenge. Megan, what Pradeep and Anish have been talking about is a shared view across the transportation industry. I think that would be a very positive sign for quite a few people. But what do you see as the challenges and of course the mindsets of people who use this transportation? Yeah, I think we have an utterly different issue ahead of us and it's an issue that has an extremely short timeline to solve and it's the issue of aspirations. The places in the world where we most need to address the transport issue and mobility are the places in the world where owning a car is still an aspiration and it's seen as the sign of success financially and in many other ways. Largely because it's always been linked to an ability to move around. But now it's way beyond that. In fact, I know somebody in Switzerland who does not own a car. He does not need to own a car in Switzerland. The public transport system is brilliant. However, everybody I know who knows him does not own a car. Until we start to shift our aspirational mentality to one that is in line with what the planet can support I think we are going to continue to run in circles around this problem. The cities that I see Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, Cape Town, Johannesburg, Lagos, Jakarta if you spend one day in these cities you understand we are absolutely out of time to solve this issue. The second thing I'd like to bring up is about the technology, the platform itself so you just showed that beautiful app. If you can't read and write, you can't use that app. Here in Delhi, a third of the people who need to use public transport, probably even more cannot read and write. The same in Lagos, Nigeria the same in Dar es Salaam. So this is a networked and connected problem that deals and touches on many different things so we have to come together I really see it as an opportunity for us to come together to be co-designing from the point of the beneficiary, the user such that we are actually taking a systems change approach to a system and network problem. I don't think we are in the day on this issue where one company or one solution or one platform is going to be a one size fits all. So I think that's really strongly how I feel now about designing into these kind of complex problems that are both environmental, human and affect our economies dramatically. May I say, Megan, your point around this becoming a system problem to solve is absolutely the right one. It is too large a problem for any one entity to solve. On the point of aspiration, I am actually quite optimistic. We just did a study with a consulting firm where we went out and asked millennials on their desire around automotive ownership and it's actually quite shocking how quickly they moved on from this idea of needing to own an asset. And of course I think there is a, definitely seems to me that there is an urban rural divide which I think is a big one to recognize. But there is hope in that I don't think young people put as much stock in owning a vehicle. It seems like owning any sort of asset but definitely owning a vehicle and that's something that I think is a space for us to build on. Would you like to comment on? Yeah, let me just share an advertisement by Zoomcar. I must claim that we have an investment in the company so with that disclaimer it was a fascinating advertisement. You had this couple standing in the foothills of a beautiful mountain in the snow and the guy goes down on his knees and sort of offers a ring and says will you be mine for 12 months and you could see a grimace on the girl's face and he says 6 months and she smiles. And the ad says afraid of commitment, get a Zoomcar for 6 months. So you're right, it is starting to move towards less commitment and I don't want to buy things I don't want so Megan, your solutions may be closer than you think. That's encouraging. You think? Well now that we're on this topic of are they going to create further divides among people Moz could have that possibility we are talking about urban areas because usually urbanization and the concept of Moz come together but are we really supposed to only talk about urban areas? What about the rural areas or are these rural areas going to remain rural areas? I think this all needs to be thought about and that's the part of society that perhaps we are cutting off when we introduce concepts like Moz anyone wants to start. Ali, go ahead. I was just going to come at it from the rural point of view because obviously that's where I work and that's what I see on a daily basis and I think that one of the challenges is that it never works to take an urban solution and just suddenly plonk it in a rural area because the needs of rural people are pretty dramatically different and actually they don't want to migrate to the city that's sort of a global misnomer rural people would stay in rural areas if the way of life was enabled if economies were enabled if villages were strong and self-sufficient and able to provide opportunity and if we actually started to reinvest also in rural areas at the rate we're investing in our cities right now. So I see that it is an opportunity for us to really start to allow communities to have a voice in what it is they need what will enable them economically what the kinds of solutions that will work for them. In some ways I can see electric being adopted hugely faster in rural areas than it actually is in urban areas and a great business opportunity because there are no charging kiosks so this is already a thought in my head. We took in a very, very rural place in Rajasthan three electric vehicles and the staff immediately adopted them because rural people really resonate with the environment. They really resonate with efficiency, with cost with not spending on things they don't need to spend on. So the adoption time is extremely fast. Even women? I have women drivers. Just because I'm just wondering how much the transport system well mainly if we start talking about public transportation of course this doesn't mean just men but when we think about car use somehow there is that sort of image of the masculinity of the industry. So again I'm saying with electric vehicles or other modes of transport how are the women, children or other parts of society people in all parts of society are they all going to be accessing these modes of transport in the same way? No, I think clearly women have a huge challenge right now in terms of public transport in the developing world. This is consistent across the developing world. Issues of security, issues of their own social mobility to be able to access that transport because of the perceptions around that. We have an amazing organization here in Delhi called Women on Wheels for those of you who haven't heard of it that trains women drivers who then drive only women and families and that has opened up a huge opportunity I think and additional mobility for people. I think also the issue of disability of inclusion in systems that are enabled with the physically challenged in mind is something essential and something that is another huge business opportunity. So these things are opportunities for us to not only design equality into accessibility but also to send a message about a standard a way of building infrastructure that is actually one that will provide a positive impression about commitment of resources in a public sense even if it's a private mechanism that gets it there. The situations. Inclusiveness is a very important aspect and it's not just rural it's even in urban areas in fact more so in urban areas. Look at the fraction of consumers that travel in cars today it's a very tiny fraction. So mass really has to solve this for consumers at the mass stage. That's something that requires integration with public transportation. That requires last mile solutions. It's the rickshaws or rickshaws as we have now taking people from a station to an office hub. It's the bicycle sharing that allows people to take a bicycle as you walk out of the house and then take that and travel to a bus station or potentially a train station. So these are the solutions that really need to be worked on in a more integrative manner. That is starting to happen. We've got a number of pilots in many cases in this but it's not happening at scale as yet and that has to start catching up. The possibility that this can happen has existed only for the last four or five years after technology has been deployed at the scale that it's been deployed but I can see so many green shoots. I'll give you three examples. One we have launched a bike service in India which is called UberMoto. We don't have precise information but by what we see roughly one out of four riders are women. Before we launched the service I had a number of people assert that women in India would be very uncomfortable sitting behind a bike taxi driver because it's a close physical space. As it turns out women are adopting the service. First it's because it's convenient, it's reliable and in their perception it's safer because it's open and it's perceived as safer than other modes of transport. One example. Let's take a non-Uber example. There's a company that's coming up in the US for us who have children school transport is a very big issue because we are very concerned about safety. Are we able to track them? Are they in safe modes of transport? Are the drivers good etc? The service in the US is built on Uber as a platform so it uses the tech but they do a number of things on top of that of the nature that you talked about Megan which provides service that provides greater sense of comfort and reliability that's another example and lastly let's take the job creation aspect which is if you take out all of our courier partners people deliver food and this is not just Uber but across all food delivery platforms the number of women who are participating they work 4 hours, 6 hours, 8 hours in a flexible way that's built around their life so they have certain sets of duties to be done as it relates to potentially the kids or the families and this by the way is not an India thing we see this everywhere around the emerging world and they have time where they want to figure out ways to be economically productive they're just able to take a two wheeler which is relatively accessible and use that to create economic opportunity so there are many ways that the platform can be used the tech needs to be available and accessible to everybody and I'm actually quite hopeful that private entrepreneurship will create many of these things solving very specific problems which is actually where I'd like to start talking a bit about collaborations or the balance between working with governments whether it be regional whether it be national obviously when we talk about infrastructure it can't just be about private companies well I mean it could perhaps but where it starts from the government side it could start from the private sector but can we we can't take out either part of the balance can't we would anyone like to start from there I just don't see big modes of transportation and revolutions and mobility taking that part of the equation out I think I don't know now the microphone's gone I think we work in a very comprehensive model that is always working with government on advocacy and policy change at the same time we're working on building a particular initiative and I mean I have really found that landscape to have changed a great deal in the last sort of three to five years I see government much more willing to engage in different types of partnerships partnerships that are with private sector that are with social entrepreneurs that are with civil society so I think we have to all be advocates and really push for that it never works to go somewhere without government right because at a certain point you need them you need them to regulate you need them to scope you need them to create policy that enables you to go further and faster and so you can't sort of wait till the eleventh hour to bring them on board and get them smart about what you're doing this just never works so we have to be respectful with each of the pillars if you think about the three pillars of society government private sector and community I think that is the lesson for the twenty second century in terms of partnership is not to disempower any of those not to not respect them and to really leverage their strengths government has a lot to lend us in terms of data and reach and ways of communicating and ways of getting people to comply because we're talking about social behavior change here that is aligned with the business model but we are really talking about as we move towards mass as a viable option either rural or urban as human behavioral change well human beings only change their behavior for two reasons because there's an incentive or because there's a sanctioner penalty so government can act as a brilliant mechanism in that cocktail and I think we have to think about them positively and here in India government is being extremely clear I think in the way they're moving they want to privatize much more the management of some of these kinds of services and infrastructure items and they are significantly I think going to move in that direction increasingly now so we had best be prepared guys I feel there are three important things for the government to focus on three important things one is standards especially given a large space where you have a large number of private players there is a need to set standards electric charging for example there are various different technologies if you've got different players putting in different infrastructure it's not going to work or it's going to be once slower and a lot more expensive from a collective standpoint the second part is addressing what I would call the perils of a winner take all model we referred to it earlier in terms of affordability I would put economic sustainability there a winner take model sometimes has a peril of companies subsidizing to a large extent today in the hope of reaping profits in the future so the government has to play a role in ensuring that affordability is maintained at a sustainable level and not change once you have a monopoly in place and the third is data privacy this model has again the peril of data being potentially misused so what are the standards and safeguards around data privacy so those are the three key areas where I see the government having to play a significant role interesting you mentioned affordability and keeping a sort of standard for that because coming from a private business you would think that as competition it would be difficult for you to think of that as one of course I mean generally speaking for the sustainability of mobility itself it's necessary but from a business standpoint it's interesting that that opinion comes from you Anish it's something that is essential for the future of mass if you set up a mass system today anywhere and suddenly the prices have gone up to X in two years time that's not sustainable so that's going to result in some problem down the road so while we very much advocate less governance wherever possible and letting the private sector play I think there is a need for certain safeguards to be put in place to ensure that we have a sustainable model for the future data privacy you mentioned yeah I maybe just a couple of things to add Anish to your list of three things I do think government has a really important role in making and I'll say this knowing that we are in such early stages of this transformation of a multi-trillion dollar industry that is used by every single human being on earth transport is a service like that and which means that you have to be very careful to create enough of a regulatory sandbox to allow the technologies and the innovators to play out the biggest risk frankly I see is that you stifle innovation and it is often well intentioned but without understanding the second and third order effects of those decisions I think the role that the government plays in making sure regulations are constructive and protects the interest at first of the consumer it has to be for the end user as long as it protects the interest of the consumer and is for good of society I think those governing principles have to be in place but you need space to be able to innovate and that I think is an important thing to keep in mind just in the environment we are in I think in I want to expand a little bit your point around data London is a great example if you look at the London transit authority it actually allows its data to be publicly used there are 8000 developers that use that data for various sources of public good public transit planning urban planning where do you build roads where do you expand roads where do you build bridges it's appalling obviously to see the state of data used in many many countries and how infrastructure gets built because this infrastructure is really expensive and so you want to make sure that you have used data in the best possible way and here again it's not data flowing one way right this has got to be data flowing not just between the government and the private parties but how do you do it in a way that's accessible to anybody who wants to innovate with enough rules around data privacy and the third role that the government has to play at least in markets where there are large scale government subsidies in place you really have to question what's the best way to allocate public resources for maximum good and I'd argue that we haven't visited that question in a long time in a country like India and there must be better ways if you look at France is a great example outside of Nice we have a partnership with the state municipality where we co-opt and provide quote unquote public transit services and that fills in gaps that exist in the existing public infrastructure because if the government were to provide it it is just way more expensive and it probably is not the best user of taxpayer money so I think the government has a few other roles to play in addition to all of the all of the ones that Anisha and Megan mentioned you mentioned the for example London the 8000 developers through access to private data are we sure that's safe as in I know there are many safety issues when we talk about innovation innovation of course should not be stopped by certain forms of information but then again for the end user we need to feel safe about being able to use these systems are we sure we're safe when it's openly in the hands of many different people and you know I think this is a question it's not just in the transport space obviously the amount of data that's available in the public domain in the world of social that we live in particularly that being aggregated to Anisha's point in the hands of very few people it is absolutely an issue of the highest importance and I think you will see now increasingly language from many of the companies that hold the data that actually is calling for the governments to play a more active role which you know I'd argue a few years back you'd never hear that and I think it's increasingly the recognition that there needs to be better safeguards in place so that people can trust that while there is good coming out of all of these services there's also bad that could happen if this is not controlled so we are very much in the camp of again finding constructive ways to keep data protected in all possible ways I think this is a topic that will see a tremendous amount of movement in just the very near future so then do you feel which is something I want to expand to of course the other panelists as well but do you feel that the MAS platform should basically be led by which side the government or by the private sector of course the people at the end but who should be really the driving force behind all this I'm happy to take a cut it's not clear to us that the governments are the best operators of systems like this and that's a stance that's not just in transport but it's been taken across multiple industries and if you think about what the government in India as an example is saying increasingly is we don't want to be the operators of things and so I would argue that the private sector has an important role to play again within a certain set of frameworks guardrails precautions that are laid out in a regulatory framework Anish for example when it comes to smart cities and many of them are coming into play these days regional governments are working on their own cities and making them into smart ones but there again if that's the case and I know Mahindra has been working in that realm as well how do you see the balance I see this as a collaborative partnership and I see this as multiple private players because if you just look at MAS today it's a collection of various different things that exist in some form someone's going from their home to a train station someone's going from their home to an office directly so that's being provided in some form now MAS is just making it simpler easier technology makes it easier for you to say how do I go from place A to be faster a shared service makes it more affordable electric makes it cleaner so there are different aspects that are just making it easier overall therefore I don't see someone coming in and taking over that entire space infrastructure is important private company cannot run public transport it's going to be difficult for the government to run the technology layers that come on top because that's where a lot of private companies come in and I agree with that innovation will really drive that manufacturing electric cars again will be done by the private sector now who in the private sector does that is up for debate but all of those things will have different components it's a very large ecosystem with multiple players the question is how do they all play together and make it easy for the consumer and more importantly make it sustainable for the consumer in future you mentioned data privacy though so how do you see that then who's going to be responsible for that that's where I agree with Rudip again so what is the policy around it that the government has to set and then how do you enforce that so London is a great example data is shared but not at the public level not at the individual level it's aggregate data and even with an aggregate data there are certain aspects of it that may not be shared so how do you set those policies and enforce them becomes important because that way it can be used for good in fact just to add one example to that we have something called Uber movement which is a data platform where data in various aggregated anonymized non-individually identifiable ways are shared with government agencies and with the specific purpose of getting more efficient at urban planning I'd argue that any entity that's sitting on that high value data should be used for as much public good as you can and that's a good example I think of how data can be used not just for transport but many other use cases Megan Yeah just maybe a word on government I think it's clear government needs to rethink its role into this new tech enabled AI enabled world it's a moment where governments across the world need to start rethinking what is our role and it might have been as a provider before as an operator clearly that's not the right space for government to be operating in they don't have those resources and they can't move at the speed that everything is demanding the entire tech revolution has increased and accelerated the need for innovation in a fluid and an ongoing way so it's clear governments can't move at that rate so then it becomes a question of how do we define that role are they prepared to truly make that kind of innovative step so that they begin to act as a framework, as a policy framework as a protection framework is the government's responsibility to ensure the protection of its citizens and their rights well that gets a little dicey when government is using AI and using our data for their own needs and wants and so this is where it becomes one of three pillars that community fights back and says actually you don't have the right to use my data like that I'm happy for this company to use it in the way it enables some service for me but I'm not happy to have my behavior predicted and suddenly the government determining what I can and cannot have as an access which is where we could go if AI starts to predict our movements in that way then we will not have access to the kinds of transportation mobility we want because they will tell us well you don't need that and so we're not going to make that available to you so I think it is a very very difficult space and I think the only way that it's resolved is if each of the partners in these equations stand strong with the end user really the end user and their protection and their welfare as the point of reference and it has to come back to that over and over I do have to say that personally if I were to know that some public entity was going to know my every movement and that every day I go to the grocery store at this hour every day I go to my office at this hour or I go from point A to B quite regularly and who am I interacting with etc etc I mean these things mobility means so much not just about me personally moving around but really my lifestyle and I must say that I don't know if I really want my lifestyle to be out there so open that everyone can predict what I would be doing next and I'd argue minority forget transport services you know we are all avid users of various services that Google provides if you have location turned on your phone it doesn't matter whether you're taking transport option A, B or C it is available right and I think there is a ton of work to be done because that information can be used for good for you and for society it also can be used in ways that are not good and so I think the reflection for us collectively is we have to this and this can't be only the government's job we all have to come together and you made the point around the ecosystem coming together everybody bears responsibility to make sure that this is used in a way that's productive I also well we are beginning to wrap up this session but of course Moz is a service because that's what the word means and so we've been saying yes it has to be sustainable it must be inclusive but Megan you mentioned aspiration but can we really how should I say this ask people to choose a more green option or how can we make people want to take that different option that would be more sustainable that would be more inclusive you have to say that we talked about disabilities for example sometimes it is easier for someone with a physical disability to take a certain mode of personal transport because it would be accustomed for them but how can we expect in a more public realm that Moz is for those sorts of people to take that option instead of their personal vehicle or whatever that mode of transport which is accustomed to them to use I'd say we have to find a way to make it simpler for folks and more affordable people will make economic choices that are best for them but if you've got a brand new metro in Delhi and that's much faster to take you from your home to office and it takes you 2 hours by car and it takes you 40 minutes by metro and it's clean and nice you'll take it with people really take that a lot of people are a lot of friends I have in Delhi have switched to metro because it's much easier from that standpoint now what you also have to solve for is what happens at the last mile on both ends till you solve that that's why the solutions have to be there and that's what we've got to work for as an ecosystem to put the solutions in place I didn't mean to interrupt Anish please just to build on your thought you hit the nail on its head you have to have the end consumer convenience in mind because remember you're spending hours of your daily life on the road trying to get to point A to point B you're not doing this for fun it's not a fun experience it's a functional need which means it has to be incredibly efficient and it has to be affordable the visual that we have often in mind is one that says you press a button and you get a ride but that ride has to take you all the way to the end point and that may be that you have a two wheeler picking you from your house somebody comes because you pressed a button that person shows up takes you to the metro station you have cashless ways of getting in and the physical environment is good you get into the metro and you're not getting jostled out and you have some degree of comfort and I think that's important and you get off the same thing has to happen at the back end you don't need to be standing on a crowded street trying to hail an auto rickshaw and haggling with that's an incredibly inconvenient experience and I think we have ways to be able to stitch all this but different people have to play different roles in stitching that together if you put the end user in your mind and provide this day in day out ride and ride out travel after travel adoption I don't see as an issue to me electric is part of the same solution if you make electric easily accessible just visualize a world where all oil stations become EV charging points that could happen if that were to happen I'm sure there will be much greater adoption much faster and because it's fundamentally cheaper and I say that people you give people to equal choices they will make the healthier choice we see that with food already and so I think that I'm very optimistic that that can happen but then that too is incentive isn't it for governments to want to give incentive to for example companies like oil companies to switch over to those charging systems incentives will play a key role it's a cost of ownership so if you look at electric anywhere in the world governments have given incentives for companies and individuals to start switching to electric but just to expand on what we are talking about and what you've mentioned not just at the metro level we've started a service again as a smaller pilot that takes people in a right sharing car from a certain point in Mumbai to a certain other point so it could be home hubs to office hubs and that's in an electric car right now that's set up as a shared service each seat is set up as a business class seat in an airplane with your own monitor with wifi with a bunch of things around you and you have the privacy in your own seat and you have an electric car now yes consumers would pay a little more for that but there's a very high demand for that today but again if you offer convenience and if you offer a better outcome then people will take it but I want to also add one more thing in all our conversation while we're talking about congestion and pollution we've been only talking about passenger transport the other big equation here is goods transport you've got a very large number of trucks in our city is going from point A to point B and coming back empty right so how do you start addressing that problem of goods mobility and that will be a big factor in this whole equation of reducing congestion and reducing pollution I'm a pessimist I think until we have a carbon tax until it starts to hit the bottom line until cities are no longer able to borrow money at concessional rates for building of infrastructure without moving decisively towards a more sustainable mobility system I think we're just not going to get the speed or the uptake that we need so I'm a bit pessimistic in this moment well that's the other part well as I mentioned earlier I talked about rural areas but the incentive for governments for example to push or business to expand in those areas there's got to be something in place for them to look in that direction or else they won't and that will leave a very big population behind maybe not in number but in terms of social device or we will be at the end of we will be cutting them off from a lot of possibilities so again we talk in sentences the only thing I would say is that I really deeply believe that the market innovates it's to come back to what you said I think that's the beauty of the market and market based solutions is that they take all the barriers they look at them and they find the way through to be successful right this is how we are as human beings so I think it's about setting the bar higher putting out there where we want to be in 2020 or 2030 or 2050 and saying okay now we innovate to that the problem has been we continue to set the bar too low and then we don't get very far as if we're kind of afraid to say let's actually make tough rules I think tough rules are okay because I think the market will absolutely adapt and absolutely innovate to those rules we sell ourselves short often and that especially happens in rural areas it's kind of still cowboy land in the rural parts of the global south and they can adapt to rules both the human beings who live there and the companies that serve those areas and need to serve them so then in a way then we are talking about leadership from the business sector absolutely and government and the policy sector yeah I am an optimist I think a lot is happening right we have a company called Lithium that has taken 800 electric cars in Bangalore and are transporting people from their homes to offices every day now could that 800 be 8000 yes absolutely we need to move faster but the point is you have a start up doing that right electric rickshaws are taking over in a year or two you're going to have a higher proportion of electric rickshaws and non-electric rickshaws sold so you're starting to see cost of ownership become affordable for fleets first for three wheelers first and then even for four wheelers for fleets and then it will move to consumers so I see a tremendous momentum and it can be faster but at least it's headed in the right direction pretty I wouldn't be doing what I do if I wasn't an optimist it is tough to do transportation in the physical world it's not a pure digital service and I would say it's just consumer adoption of these things have been so amazing around every city we operate in 650 odd cities every city people have just laughed on because there is something inherently good affordable important about sharing that I think people are just latching on to the faster we can push that the more we can get the full ecosystem to go collaborate I'm optimistic that we'll make a difference I'm with Megan that there may be tough rules required and maybe we've just not been hard enough congestion tax by the way is a great example it's showing up in quite a few locations so I'm sure there will be many cities that will try and we'll learn from that but I am an optimist that we will make a difference today more than I was growing up so hopefully we can all collaborate to get there faster just one last word from each of you before I open up the floor for questions starting with Anish well I'll be asking the same thing of three of you but as we've been discussing I can see how Moz is still a relatively new concept there are certain rules in place for transportation but on the other hand so much more as possible certain rules and regulations are actually still not there and therefore I think we've been talking about tougher rules but for you what do you see as the biggest motivation for driving Moz forward I see the biggest motivation to be enhanced expectations from consumers in this world of technology I see them changing their view what is available is not enough I'm not going to settle with what I have I want something more and that combined with innovation where someone is going to come in and offer something more is really what's exciting for me it's the concept that with a platform like Moz that is actually workable for everybody you completely unlock people's ability to attain their own aspirations to move from here to there because that's where the job is that they want to do or that's where the family member is they want to support or that's where a child needs to go to school I think it's the ultimate tool for unlocking social mobility and economic mobility for those who are currently disproportionately disadvantaged by not having access to good transportation with your permission I'll build on what you said Megan and share a story this is just from last week we had a chance to spend time with the principal scientific advisor to the government of India and he gave us a fabulous story he said in his mind entrance examinations into the most coveted engineering institutes in India is a substantial underrepresentation of women and as they work through kind of why that happens one of the interesting things he said is women just don't show up to coaching classes the way men do and they don't invest as much and there are other reasons but one of the interesting things he said is most of the classes are in the evening and in most cities families just don't want to let young women out because they just don't trust that the transit transportation solutions available today are good enough and he was just making this a point around social mobility he made the other observation as he looked out of his office and he said this is the prime commercial location in India and he looks out of that and look at the working population he says less than one out of five people here is a woman and that participation is still very low in large parts of the world and there is a developing divide there I think I'm optimistic because frankly we won't have a choice and transport has a very very important role to drive inclusivity in our society so again I think we will see a lot more than we have seen in the last call it half a decade the next decade should be quite exciting well thank you to the panelists because yes we touched upon so many different issues related to sustainable mobility being security data education crossing social divides because it may provide more means of transport for people who didn't have access yet again regulations where are we going to go with that and it is exciting to know that because it is such a new framework that there is so much more that can be done but because there is so much more that can be done we really on the consumer side as well need to make the right decisions thank you and I'd like to open up the floor for Q&As oh well could we sorry the hand went up first thank you my name is Philippe Bonnier from La Jaffee Switzerland I have a question to Mr. Shah I understand that Mahindra is strongly involved in this project of smart cities could you tell us something about it on how it could solve the mobility problem on whether you would include all those what has been implemented in Singapore like the auction for the car plate or if you enter some specific area of the city you have to pay a special price to avoid congestion so we have been building townships for the last 25 years now and we've got a number of lessons from that in terms of how to build one what are the interactions between professional life and personal life and how to use it etc there's a lot more that needs to be done around policy and that frankly is a partnership with the government on are they willing to put in certain zones and technology today hasn't reached that level as yet there are various cities that are experimenting with it to have a zone for automated cars only and my sense is that's still about 5 it's going to be easier to put in the taxes that you talked about or the penalties for congestion tax but to have a truly smart city with automated transportation is still a little while away do we have time for one more question or okay I'm very sorry you might want to approach the panelists individually but we do have to wrap up this session thank you all for coming and we hope you get to meet and talk with them individually thank you so much thank you thank you Megan and thank you Anish thank you all thank you thank you