Live from Las Vegas, it's theCUBE! Covering AWS re-invent 2019. Brought to you by Amazon Web Services and Intel, along with its ecosystem partners. Well, welcome back everyone. It's CUBE's live coverage in Las Vegas for AWS re-invent. It's theCUBE's 10th year of operations, our seventh AWS re-invent. And every year it gets better and better. And every year we've had theCUBE at re-invent. Jerry Chen has been on as a guest. He's a VIP Jerry Chen. Now a general partner at Greylock Tier One, one of the leading global venture capitals at Silicon Valley. Jerry, you've been with the journey with us the whole time. I guess I'm your good luck charm. Well, keep it going. Keep on changing the game. So thanks for coming on. Thanks for having me. So now that you're a seasoned partner now at Greylock, you got a lot of investments under your belt. How's it going? It's great. I mean, look, every single year I look around the landscape thinking what else could be coming? What's going to be surprising this year? What's the new trends? What both macro trends, also company trends? Like who's going to buy who? Who's going to go public? Every year just gets busier and busier and bigger and bigger. All these new categories are emerging with this new architecture. I call it cloud 2.0, maybe next-gen cloud, whatever you want to call it. It's clear visibility now into the fact that DevOps is working. Sure. Cloud operations, large-scale operations with cloud is certainly a great value proposition. You're seeing now multiple databases. Pick the tool. I think Jassy got that right in his keynote. I believe that. But now the data equation comes over the top. So you got DevOps, infrastructure as code. You got data now, looking like it's going to go down that same path of data as code where developers don't have to deal with all the different nuances of how data is stored, how it's handled, where is it? Warm or cold or at glacier? So developers still don't have that yet today. This seems to be an area of Amazon. What's your take on all this? I think you saw, so what drove DevOps? Speed, right? It's basically how developers should also do operations merging into groups. So we're seeing the same trend, data ops, right? How data engineers and data scientists can now have the same speed developers had for the past 10 years, data ops. So A, what does that mean? Give me the menu of what I want, like Goldilocks, too big, too small, just right. Too hot, too cold, just right. Like give me the storage tier, the data tier, the size you want, the temperature you want, and the speed I want. So you're seeing data ops get the same kind of Goldilocks treatment as developers. And on terms of like cloud evolution, again, you've seen the movie from the beginning at VMware now through Amazon seventh year. What jumps out at you? What do you look at as squinting through the trend lines and the fashion of the features? It still seems to be the same old game. Compute networking storage and software. Well, I mean, compute memory storage, those are the atomic building blocks of compute, right? So regardless of serverless or these high-level frameworks, deep down, you still have compute networking and storage. So that's the building blocks. But I think we're seeing 10th year re-event, this kind of, it's not one size fits all, but this really big, fat, long tail, small instances, micro instances, serverless, big instances for like jumbo VMs, bare metal, right? So you're seeing not one architecture, but folks can kind of pick and choose, buy compute by the drip, the drop, or buy compute by the whole VM or whole server fold. And a lot of people are like the builders love that. Amazon owns the builder market. I mean, if anyone who's doing a startup, they pretty much start on Amazon.   So Microsoft's been winning with this approach of consumable cloud. And it's a nice card to play because they're not yet there with capabilities with Amazon. So it's a good call, they got enterprise sales force. Microsoft playing a different game than AWS, because they have to. Sure, I mean, what's the football analogy? You have no running game, you need a passing game, right? So if you can't beat them with a running game, you go with a passing game. And so Amazon has kind of like the fundamental building blocks of power tools for the builders. There's a large segment of population out there that don't want that level of building blocks, but they want it a little more prescriptive. So I think Microsoft has been around enterprise for many, many years. They understand prescriptive tools and architectures, so they're going to come a little bit more prefab, if you will. Here's how you have to construct your right application, ML apps, AI apps, et cetera. Let me give you the building blocks at a higher level of abstraction. So I want to get your take on value creation. Sure. If it's still early innings, it's still got a lot more growth. You start to see Jassy even admit that in his keynote today. He said, quote, there are two types of developers and customers, people who want the building blocks and people who want solutions or prefab or some sort of more consumable. It's a little prescriptive, yeah. So I think Amazon's going to start going that way. But that being said, there's still opportunities for startups.  Where do you see opportunity? If you're looking at the startup landscape, what is the playbook? How should you advise startups? Because, you know, of course, I have the best team whenever, but you look at Amazon, it's like, okay, they got large scale. Yeah.   Do I take advantage of them? Do I draft off them? There are white spaces as vertical markets exploding. Now available. What's your view on how startups should attack the wealth creation opportunity value creation? They're, I mean, Amazon's creating a new market, right? So you look at their list of many of services. There's just 175 services out there, which is basically too many for any one company to win every single service. So, but you look at that many of services, each one of the services themselves can be startup, our collection of services can be startup. So I look at that as a roadmap for opportunity of companies can actually go in and create value around AI, around data, around security, around observability. Because Amazon is not going to naturally win all those markets. What they do have is distribution, right? They have a lot of developer mind share. So if you're startup, you play one or three themes. Like one is how do I pick one area and go deeper IP, right? I cheaper, better, faster, own some IP and they're going to execute better. And that's doable over, over again in different markets. Number two is, we've talked about this before, it's not going to be one cloud wins all. Amazon's clearly lead, they have won most of the cloud so far, but it'll be a multi-cloud world. It'll be on-premise world. So how do I play a multi-cloud world? It's another angle. So go deep in IP, go multi-cloud. Number three is this end-to-end solution, kind of prescriptive.  So how can I put together a full suite of tools from beginning to end that can give me a product that's a better experience? So either I have something that's deeper IP, play a scene between multiple clouds or give an end-to-end solution around a problem and solve that one problem for a customer. In most cases, on the underlays Amazon or Azure. Or Google or Ali Cloud or on-premises, not going away anytime soon, right? And so how do we create a single fabric, if you will, that looks similar? I want to riff with you in real time here on theCUBE around data. So data scale is obviously a big discussion. That's starting to happen now. Data tsunami, we've heard that for years. So there's two scale benefits. Horizontal scale of data and then vertical specialism, vertical scale, or using AI machine learning with in-apps, having data. So how do you view that? What's your reaction to the notion of creating horizontal scale value and vertical specialism value? Both are a great place for startups, right? They're not meet exclusive. So I think if you go horizontal, the amount of data being created by your applications, your infrastructure, your sensors, time series data, a ridiculously large amount, right? And that's not going away anytime soon. I recently did an investment in Chronosphere that you guys covered over at KubeCon a few weeks ago that's talking about metrics and observability data, time series data. So they're going to handle that horizontal amount of data, petabytes and petabytes. How can query this quickly, deeply with a lot of insight? That's one play, right? Cheaper, better, faster at scale. The next play, like I said, is vertical. It's how do I own data, slice the data with more context than no one else can have? We talked about the virtual cycle of data, right? The system of intelligence, if you will.  And so either pick a lane or pick a geography, you can go either way. It's hard to do both, though. It's hard, for startup. For startup. Even any big company. Very few companies can do two things well. Startups especially, it's a seed by doing one thing very well. I think my observation is that I think in looking at Amazon is that they want the horizontal and they're leaving up on the table for our startups the vertical. Yeah, if you look at their strategy, the lower level Amazon gets, the more open source, the more ubiquitous you try to be from containers, serverless, networking, S3, basic substrate, so horizontal, horizontal, low price. As a good hire up from deep mind, like AI technologies, perception, prediction, they're getting a little more specialized, right? So you can see these solutions around retail, healthcare, voice, so the higher up in the stack, they can build more narrow solutions because like any startup, any product, you need the right wedge. So what's the right wedge in the customers? At the base layer for the developers, building blocks, ubiquitous. For solutions, marketing, healthcare, financial services, retail, how do I find a fine point wedge? So the old venture business was all enamored with consumer over the years. And then what, maybe four years ago, enterprise got hot, we were lowly enterprise guys, when no one- Enterprise been hot forever, my mind, Tom, but maybe- Well, first of all, we've been hot on enterprise, we love enterprise. But then all of a sudden it just seemed like, oh my God, people had an awakening, like and in this real value that we had, the IT spend has been trillions, and the stats are roughly 20 or so percent. Yet to move to the cloud or this new next-gen architecture that you're investing companies in. So a big market, that's an investment thesis. So a huge enterprise market, Steve Mulaney from AVH has called it a thousand foot wave. So there's going to be a massive enterprise money, big bag of money on the table. Lot of retransformations, a lot of reborn in the cloud, a lot of action. What's your take on that? Do you see it the same way? Because they're getting in big time, Goldman Sachs on stage here. So that's a lot of cash. How do you think it's going to be deployed and who's going to be fighting for it?  So on the consumer side, the classic example, you're Instagram fighting, Facebook and photo sharing, you pick the mobile first wave, iPhone wave, right? The first mobile native photo sharing. If you're fighting enterprise infrastructure, you pick the cloud native wave, right? You pick the big data wave, you pick the AI wave. So first as a founder startup, I'm looking for these macro waves that I see not going away time soon. So moving from batch data to streaming real-time data, that's a way that's happening, that's inevitable. Dollars are flowing from slower batch databases to streaming real-time analytics. So Rockset, one of the investments we talked about, they're writing that way from going batch to real-time, how to do analytics and SQL on real-time data. Likewise, time series is going from like, batch data, slow data to mass amounts of time series data, chronosphere, playing that way. So I think you have to look for these macro waves of cloud, which we, anyone knows, but then you pick these small wavelets, if that's a word, like a wavelets or a smaller wave within the wave that says, okay, I'm going to pick this one trend, right as a startup, right as investor, and because that's going to be more powerful than my competitors. And then get inside the wave or inside the tornado, whatever metaphor. We're going to torch the metaphors, but yeah, ride that wave. All right, Jerry, great to have you on, seven years of CUBE action, great to have you on. Congratulations, you've been with us the whole time. Congratulations to you, the CUBE, the entire staff here. It's amazing to watch your business grow the past seven years as well. And we soft launch our CUBE 365 search hits in Amazon's marketplace. SAS, our first SAS offering. I love it, I mean. No venture funding, you know, and we're going to be out there, you know, maybe we'll let you in on the deal.  Jerry, great to have you on, again, great to watch your career at Greylock, always having on, great commentary, awesome time. Jerry Chen, venture partner, general partner at Greylock, it's a CUBE coverage, breaking down the commentary, extracting the signal from the noise here at ReInvent 2019, I'm John Furrier, back with more after this short break.


小!(Drop-Drop-drop-dentro-繁g-D graduates and thus enriching the athletes to make themselves feel僕...  wygl karma trying to be one-time choice, I just realized that's the quickly specification of all myuitics


If you're experiencing long-term symptoms of COVID-19 or long COVID, you might have difficulty working the same way you did before. Did you know you may be entitled to temporary or long-term changes that help you stay on the job or return to work when you're ready? Learn more about these supports and how to request them by visiting askjan.org.


So as we've seen, the key feature of a phase transition, a transition between two different phases of matter, is that the free energy change between the two phases is equal to zero at the particular temperature of the phase transition. So at the temperature where those two phases coexist, the difference in their free energy is zero. So we know something about free energy. We know Gibbs free energy is equal to enthalpy minus t times entropy. And if the temperature is constant, then we can say the change in Gibbs free energy is the change in the enthalpy minus t times the change in the entropy. And that's true for molar quantities as well as it's true for the extensive quantities. So if we're doing that at the phase transition, delta G of the phase transition is enthalpy change of the phase transition minus the temperature of the phase transition multiplied by the change in entropy when the phase transition happens. The delta G of the phase transition is the thing that we know is equal to zero. That means that these two terms must be equal to each other. The enthalpy of a phase transition must be equal to the temperature times the entropy change of that phase transition. Or the form where that equation is most useful most of the time is to isolate the temperature. The temperature at which a phase transition occurs is enthalpy of that phase transition divided by entropy of that phase transition. So here's a relationship between three quantities. The temperature, let's say the melting point, the enthalpy change, when a substance melts and the entropy change when a substance melts. Or same thing for boiling or any other phase change. So to see how that equation works, let's say we have some data about water. We can look up the enthalpy and the entropy of melting or fusion. Those values, enthalpy of melting is about six kilojoules per mole. And the entropy is 22 joules per mole kelvin. And while we're at it, we can also look up data for boiling. The molar enthalpy of vaporization when water boils is equal to 40.68 kilojoules per mole and the molar entropy of vaporization when water boils. Its entropy increases by 109.02 joules per kelvin per mole of water. So those are all values that we can look up. Those have been measured and tabulated many times before. What we can do with that information is we can make predictions. The temperature of a phase change, in particular, let's say the temperature of fusion, the melting point for water, is just the ratio of the entropy of fusion, the enthalpy of fusion to the entropy of fusion. So if we take the ratio of these two values, 6.01 kilojoules per mole, that would be 6,010 joules per mole. If I divide that by 22 joules per mole kelvin, the units, joules cancel, moles cancel, 1 over 1 over kelvin gives me units of kelvin as the temperature should be. And that ratio, it won't surprise you to learn that if you divide 6,010 by 22, that will come out to be 273 kelvin. So that's a value you already knew. I don't need to tell you that water melts at 0 degrees Celsius or 273 kelvin or 32 Fahrenheit. But that value happens to be also the ratio between its enthalpy of fusion and its entropy of fusion. Likewise, we can predict something else. We already know the boiling point of water, the temperature at which it vaporizes, enthalpy of vaporization over the entropy of vaporization. The ratio of these two quantities, 40,680 joules per mole divided by 109.02 joules per mole kelvin. Units cancel in the same way. We have a few more sig figs here. So that ratio, if I take 40,680 divided by 109.02, you can confirm that that ratio comes out to be 373.1 kelvin is our prediction for the boiling point of water. So again, not a surprise that 100 degrees Celsius is the boiling point of water. Just reinforces the fact that this ratio of the entropy to the entropy tells us what the phase change temperature is for any sort of phase change, melting, boiling, whatever phase change you want. And of course, this is true not just for water, but other substances where you may be less familiar with the melting and boiling points. You can use it just as well.


Welcome to the Justice Committee's 22nd meeting of 2015. I remind all to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices or put them on to airport mode so that they do not interfere with the sound system. I have received apologies from Christine Grahame, which is why I am sitting in her seat today. First item 1 is the decision on taking business in private. The committee is invited to agree to consider our draft stage 1 report on the inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths, etc. of Scotland Bill under item 7 and any future consideration of the report if needed in private. Are we agreed? Yes. Excellent. Item 2, subordinate legislation, our next item is the consideration of one affirmative instrument, the draft advice and assistance by way of representation of Scotland amendment 3, regulations 2015. I welcome to the meeting Paul Wheelhouse, Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, and the Scottish Government officials Catriona Mackenzie, Civil Law and Legal System Division, and Alasdor Smith, director for legal services. That item allows us to gather evidence in advance of the debate on the instrument under the next item. Members will have seen the submission from the Law Society of Scotland confirming that it had no comment to make on that order. I understand that the minister does not need an opening statement. That is correct, convener. I will therefore go straight to questions from members. Are there any questions on the instrument? How was this problem detected, as it were? It is a good point. The provision for double jeopardy has only been really used. This is indeed only the third application to being made to the High Court by Lord Advocate. We were informed earlier this month that there is an individual, currently the subject of double jeopardy application, who does not qualify for ABWAR but will not be able to afford the cost of his legal representation without it. As a result of deliberations, we consider that public funding should be made available in order to secure the individual's right to effective access to justice in terms of article 6 of ECHR. Hence, given the urgency of the case, why we are here today to move the order. In terms of the financial effects going forward, any further comment on that? Are we regarding it as a one-off or do you think that this could be a trend? As I said, I repeat the point. The proceedings are very rare. This is only the third application. The change is expected to have relatively little significant impact on overall expenditure from the legal aid fund but, in the context of the nature of the case, it will be a significant case in its own right. Individual case costs are typically fairly high and we are estimating the region of £100,000 for this case. There are very few cases of this kind. As I say, those regulations will only add this kind of cost to the funding cases where a person is involved and not previously been financially eligible for ABWAR. Indeed, we cannot discuss the case itself, but the reason why it is necessary is that the individual concerned is someone who has been acquitted of a crime and, therefore, under double jeopardy procedures, is not technically yet accused of anything specifically. It is an application for a double jeopardy procedure. In broad terms, you are not concerned with the on-going financial impact? Clearly, as Mr Campbell will be aware, we are trying to manage legal aid budgets, so I do not want to say that we have no concerns about additional expense, but we think that this is a level of expenditure that can be borne within the legal aid budget and we do not have any significant concerns on that front. We can now move to the formal debate on the motion to approve the instrument considered under the previous item. I therefore invite the minister to move motion S4M-1303 that the Justice Committee recommends that the draft advice and assistance by way of representation Scotland amendment number 3 regulations 2015 be approved. Any members wish to speak in the motion? The question is that motion S4M-1303 be adhered to. Are we all agreed? Excellent. Thank you. I thank the minister for his attendance today. Thank you very much. Item 4 is subordinate legislation. Our next business is the consideration of one negative instrument. That is the All Scotland Sheriff Court, Sheriff Personal Injury Court Order 2015, SSI 2015 forward slash 213. The instrument designates Edinburgh Sheriff Court as a sheriff personal injury court to exercise all Scotland jurisdiction in cases above £5,000 and jurisdiction in cases below £5,000 for specific cases designated by the order. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee is content with the drafting of the instrument. Do members have any comments on SSI 2015 213? Are members content to make no recommendation in relation to the instrument? Excellent. I suspend briefly to allow Margaret and her officials to take up their seats as witnesses. Resume proceedings now with item 5, the Apologies Scotland Bill. Our final evidence session on this piece of legislation, I welcome Margaret Mitchell, the member in charge of the bill to the meeting as a witness, along with the Scottish Parliament officials Mary Dinasdale, senior assistant clerk in the non-government bills unit and Neil Ross, solicitor with the committee and chamber team. I understand that Margaret would like to make a brief opening statement. I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to make a few brief opening remarks about the Apology Bill. One of the main purposes of the bill is to address the apparently entrenched culture in Scotland, as one witness put it, to never apologise and do not say that you are sorry for anything. It is not indeed as some mistakenly thought to tackle any perceived increase in litigation, but rather to address the very real problem of reluctance and failure to offer an apology for fear of litigation. The bill therefore seeks to provide legal certainty that an apology cannot be used as evidence of liability in certain legal proceedings. I became aware of the existence of apology legislation when Professor Miller, the Scottish Human Rights Commissioner, spoke to the cross-party group on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. That was way back in April 2010. He talked then about how some parliaments had passed laws to ensure that an apology could be given. I am heartened that he remains supportive of the bill and of the view that a generic apology in the context of historic child abuse should not be admissible and that an apology law is one important element among a range of remedies and improved actives to justice to which survivors are entitled. A meaningful apology includes recognition of what has gone wrong and an assurance that the circumstances will be reviewed and, in the case of historic in-care survivors, that the state puts in place arrangements to ensure that the abuse is not repeated. With that in mind, I sought to give the opportunity for the widest possible disclosure, so historic abuse victims and others would have both the acknowledgement of the wrong done or bad outcome and a full explanation that they thought sought. The application of the bill is not restricted but is wide-ranging and it applies to civil proceedings in the public, private, third and voluntary sectors. I arrived at the definition of an apology that contains protection for statements of fact and fault after much deliberation. Evidence to the committee has focused on whether the effect of the bill could be in certain circumstances to prevent an individual securing compensation, in particular where a statement of fact within an apology might be the only evidence available. I am aware that there is a balance to be struck to ensure that there are no unintended consequences of injustice to pursuers. That has been a consistent concern of the minister and I thank him for his willingness to engage and remain open minded about the bill that he supports in principle. Having listened carefully to what witnesses and ministers have to say, I am persuaded that the wording at section 3B on statements of fact could be omitted from the bill. Stage 1 has provided the opportunity for the robust testing of the bill's provisions. There is a fear that an admission of fault can in some circumstances lead to litigation. Section 3A addresses that problem by removing the legal disincentives. However, I recognise that there may be risks in providing such protections. I also recognise here that the minister is not currently persuaded that the harm-prevented outweighs the potential risk of harm caused. I should be interested to hear the committee's views. At the end of the day, that comes down to a policy decision. It may well be that I have to accept that the minister remains of the view that inclusion of fault may be a step too far. The effect of the omissions, if they are to be enacted of 3A fault and certainly fact, brings the bill closer to the terms of section 2 of the compensation act, which I believe the minister confirmed that he would be content with. However, section 2 is a single provision within a broader act, and it does not contain a definition of an apology. My bill would still contain a definition and the ability for the apologiser to indicate that a lesson's learned exercise would be carried out, which is what the pursuer generally seeks. The indication of a possible review would be protected and may help to give the apologiser confidence and encouragement to make the apology in the first place. I confirm that I am keen to continue to engage in further dialogue with the minister on matters of detail on the bill, to which the minister referred during his evidence session last week, and to consider amendments at stage 2, where there is a case to be made for further exemptions. I thank you, Margaret, for your statement, which was very helpful in clarifying your views on how it might go forward. I invite members to ask questions. When we had our round table, there were a number of representatives from the BMA and the nursing professions who expressed some concern about the impact that agreeing and apology might have on their professional bodies' kind of code of conduct. Do you have an opportunity to discuss that with either the GMC or, indeed, with the nursing and midwifery council? Yes, there were concerns expressed during the evidence session. I have been in contact with the GMC. In fact, the committee has had correspondence from the GMC this morning, which I think is helpful in clarifying the position. It is entirely proper that the GMC under regulation 55 of the good medical practice, which became effective in 22 April 2015, expects its registrants to apologise and to offer an explanation. If they fail to do so, there is at least the possibility that the regulator would investigate that as a conduct matter. That dovetails with the duty of candor already in operation England and Wales. However, I think that what was happening at the evidence session was that those giving evidence were conflating the statutory protection of an apology and the statutory duty to provide an apology. The draft legislation does not require the professionals to apologise and will not place them in any greater peril from regulatory sanction than they would face already. I think that the letter from the GMC is very helpful, clarifies that point and gives the medical professionals who raised this point some reassurance. You mentioned the duty of candor. The minister has argued that the scope of your bill could undermine the duty of candor. He has been suggesting that that duty should be excluded from the scope of your bill. Do you have a view on that, Ms Mitchell? Yes. My fear would be that, if it was admissible, that would deter medical professionals and doctors from giving an apology in the first place. Charlie Irwin quotes from some academics who said that most experts continue to view the fear of liability as the primary barrier to the development of effective and wide-sweeping patient safety initiatives in hospital. If it is then admissible, despite all the protections around it, that could possibly deter them from giving an apology. Having said that, it is going to be up to the Government to decide its policy on the act and, certainly under the provisions of the act, it already has the duty or powers to vary and include other sections. The Scottish Minister, made by regulation, modified the list of exceptions in subsection 1 alternatively. This could be an amendment brought forward at stage 2. I think that I should refer to my legislative interest as a member of the Faculty of Advocates, but can I refer you to the evidence of Mr Stevenson of the Faculty of Advocates on 9 June, when he talked about the fact that, in the faculty's view, the bill, if enacted, would take away from people rights that they currently have. Therefore, from the point of view of access to justice, it might limit access to justice. Would you like to comment on the question of taking away rights from people? Perhaps you would like to expand on that, Mr Campbell. Can I say just to answer the question more generally? In effect, what the bill is doing is clarifying the current law and just putting it in statute, which I think is helpful. At the present time, an admission of liability can be used in evidence, especially in an admission against interest, as I think Ronnie Conway, the Association of Professional and Personal Injury Lawyers, made the same point. Under the terms of your bill, any such admission would not be admissible, so there would therefore be a limitation on the current position. It is not a reinforcement of the current position. What you have just said explains why we need the apology bill and to tease out exactly what is an admission of liability. Admission of liability certainly would not be protected, but the terms of the bill, admission of regret, of sorrow, the taking of responsibility, the offer of redress to review into the circumstances are all protected. We are debating whether we can go and admit fault, given that an admission of fault is not an admission of liability. In fact, there is very useful case law on this particular point. The leading case is Hunter v Hanley in 1955, which gives a three test for establishing liability. Usual normal practice must not have been adopted, and the course of practice must be such that no one acting with ordinary care would have taken that. The law society got a little bit further and explained the duty or how negligence is proved, which is to prove that the duty of care has been breached and that there has been loss or injury caused by that. That is a world away from saying, I am sorry, I made a mistake, or I am saying that that was my fault. Very often people do that when it clearly is not their fault. I can give a personal example of this on the N8 motorway. I was stationary at this sensation. My car was moving forward. It went into the car in front. I got out of the car and said, I am really sorry about that. I have no idea what happened. That was my fault. Here is my car. There is no damage done, but there it is if we need to pursue it further. I just so happened that way down the line when I went to East Kilbride and parked the public library, someone got out and said, I saw what happened on the motorway there, that guy running into you if you need a witness. Let me know. Now I got out. I said, sorry, I said it is my fault. It patently was not my fault. That is the difficulty. The fact that I have now excluded statements of fact means that the facts can be looked at, but the weakest law is going just now. It is accepted that admission of fault is not the same as an admission of liability. I am not supposed to be giving evidence, but would you agree that a test in Hunter and Hanley is about the test for professional lecturers who want a better word, whether there is a failure to exercise reasonable care and skill? That is not the same thing in a motor accident, for example, where things are perhaps slightly more clear cut. It is clearly established that in a professional negligence case saying you are sorry is not the same thing as saying that you have failed to exercise the degree of care and skill to be expected of a reasonably competent professional. I think that we might be conflating the two, but I am not giving evidence, so I should be careful with that. The faculty went on to say in their evidence that, in their view, the bill would disadvantage certain people. Where is the balancing advantage? How confident can we be that there would be a benefit from depriving people of the rights they currently have? They looked at the empirical evidence around the world and they cannot actually seem to find anywhere that seems to be good evidence that laws such as this actually work. Where is the empirical evidence to support this legislation? Rodri Cammbell is right that it is difficult to establish hard facts about how this legislation works. In the United States, Australia and Canada, those laws have been in place for 10, maybe 12 years and have not been altered and have not been found to be causing any problems. In fact, I can go further and give you the comment from Chris Wheeler, Deputy Ombnisman of New South Wales, who has commented that, for several years, the apology legislation has been regularly reviewed in terms of case law across Australia and Canada, in particular to see whether there have been any unintended consequences and search for media stories that might point to a downside. No evidence appears to have been found that the statutory protection for apologies has had any negative results. I am turning it around to Cammbell and saying that, if there may not be a hard and fast empirical evidence, those laws have been in place for many years now and seem to be unproblematic. The research has been carried out in New South Wales and no negative results have been found. I hope that that would give the committee some comfort. I am inherently sympathetic to that approach. You used a couple of terms in your opening remarks, and that was about an entrenched culture and a perception of increased litigation. I am wondering to the extent to which the position of, for instance, insurance companies relates to that, where they will normally exclude cover, if you have admitted liability. That is a factor that will go to create that culture. What are the implications for your proposed legislation beyond that? I am very encouraged that the Association of British Insurers have chosen not to comment on the bill, which indicates that they are broadly content with the... Is that a reasonable assumption? Having spoken with the Association of British Insurers over a period of time, I have to admit that I first came into the bill's team waving the British Columbia one page bill in front of them about three years ago, saying that it should not take too long, it is relatively straightforward. There has been a lot of in-depth study and analysis to get to the point at which we are at. Therefore, I can assure Mr Finlay that I am very encouraged by the fact that they have chosen not to comment. More than that, we know that, if fault and fact is taken out, they are perfectly happy with what has remained, which seems to be the essence of section 2 of the compensation act. It is clear that that would not void any contracts. I am encouraged that the position that we are in just now would not cause any problems with the insurance companies. In the event of the legislation being passed, how will you envisage the promotion of the legislation, because that is how you would ultimately be changing culture longer? I think that the fact that you have an apology bill in the first place goes a long way for people to have confidence to say, right, apologies, worried about it, we know stuff or are worried about it, despite all the training, despite all the insurances. Knowing that the law and legal certainty and the various how evidence plays is all contained in the apology bill, I think that it would be helpful. I do envisage and guidelines a campaign of explaining more and highlighting more and having other measures that would help the promotion of apologies and raise awareness of it and lead to better practice and better outcomes. I may have missed the position of the Scottish Children's reporter administration about the exclusion. Do you have a comment on that, please? Yes, I have met them. It would depend on the final format of the bill, whether we include fault or not, at the end of the day. If fault is included, it looks as though it would be unnecessary, it would not apply, it would not lead the exception. If fault is included, I am sympathetic to looking at that as an exception, because I understand that it is to establish the main facts that they are looking at, rather than to look at a legal proceeding as such. I would be sympathetic to that being an inclusion. Thank you very much. Do you agree that it might actually be in the commercial interest of insurers for this legislation to take place, because it potentially will restrict the rights of pursuers or plaintiffs to bring cases where otherwise they would be able to found on admission or apology, whatever you care to say? Given the terms of the legislation, it would not be possible to refer to that in subsequent proceedings, and that would be generally to the advantage of defendant insurer. Do you agree with that? Perhaps I could explain or address that question by saying just now, and I think that you gave a perfect example when you said admissions of liability, but, of course, there are admissible, confusing the idea of admissions of fault and regret, etc. All that is covered in evidence just now, and if pursuers are then encouraged to go forward by legal representatives, such as Lister for the School of Activities, personal insurance lawyers, when they have given an apology in those terms, then they are going to be disappointed at the end of the day. They are going to incur legal costs, which they shouldn't have occurred and will inevitably be there, despite the loser pay rule. At the end of the day, it could work very well to the benefit of those pursuing a claim, because the giving of an apology under those terms and the inadmissible ability of it does not stop them pursuing compensation if they are not satisfied at that sufficient redress and if they feel that there is a case to answer. The only difference would be that they are likely to keep more of the compensation payment and not pay out in unintended costs to legal representatives. I have a supplementary on that question. Regarding financial and insurance professional regulations, do you think that there will be a conflict because we are reserved matters? Yes, I can give Christian Allard some reassurance on that very point that this was looked at in the memorandum. According to the parliamentary rules, the question of it being a reserved matter that was looked at in the bill was competent. Does that answer your question? I will find it difficult, because we know how much reservation we have in the introduction of such a bill. The implementation could find a lot of difficulties if it is not recognised, if a profession does not recognise that this Parliament is reserved, it could end up being debated in another Parliament than this one. I think that we are confusing two things. The legislation is ruled to be competent under the Scotland Act in that it clarifies the law that it does not seek to change insurance, which, as you rightly say, is reserved. You might be referring to a tribunal that might have a reserved aspect and some devolved aspect, in which cases there are issues of details that could successfully be teased out at stage 2. I go back to the fact that, under section 2D, ministers have the right to make exemptions under the bill as we go along. My main question is this. It seems to be very complicated and there seems to be a lot of objection to it. Some could say minor, but my biggest problem is what you said earlier on. When you were asked about empirical evidence that such a legislation is working anywhere in the world, your answer was that there were no evidence to the contrary. In fact, such a legislation was introduced and there were no negative effect to it. I do have an objection to this. Introducing is a law which has no positive effect, which only has no negative effect. To my mind, it's a law too many. So it's very difficult to understand what difference this law will make if there is no evidence. We worked very hard in this committee to try to find evidence that such a legislation would work. We didn't find any. I think that a lot of things need to be broken up there. In the first part of your question, there is no hard facts and empirical evidence that there is, I suppose, you could see in some of the US, that's the nearest that we get it, the United States sees some evidence that, after apology has been granted then or passed, then legislation has been passed, then cases went up in the short term and then litigation team to fall away. As I said at the beginning, this is not a bill to address any perceived increase in litigation. It's to address the fear of litigation, which is unfounded. I think that, as an MSP, I would be surprised if you, Mr Allard and everyone else here, hadn't been in a situation where someone comes to you and says, look, such and such an event happened. All I want is the acknowledgement of this and apology and to make sure above all that it doesn't happen to anyone else. Now, this gives the legal certainty to the person from whom the apology is thought, to give that apology and to give that explanation and to try and make sure it doesn't happen to anyone else. I think that the benefits from that are absolutely huge. It brings closure. For years and years, people can hang on to an incident and keep going back and over it because they never, ever got an apology. In fact, that's why some apology was law introduced in Massachusetts in the very first place way back in 1986. A senator's daughter was killed in an accident and an apology was never given. I think that we underestimate just the power of an apology to make a difference. Perhaps I could suggest that, if you looked at your glass being half full rather than half empty, that would be a good way to look at the legislation. It's very difficult to find evidence and we tried very much which is a question. But when you talk about entrenched culture to never apologize, it does exist but it is about entrenched. In fact, we see that from the nursing and midwife council and general medical council, a lot of things happening to make sure that people will apologize more and more, professionals will apologize more and more. So it's not if nothing is happening, a lot of things are happening and don't you think that legislation will be better introduced like if it was in England incorporated in another bill and like the Scottish Government is thinking about doing with the duty of Canada, having it incorporated seems to be a lot more receptive from professionals, from professional bodies who seems to prefer it in England like it has been introduced or has gotten like the bill has been to introduce it? Don't you think that it would be a preferred way? No, I think that there's a misunderstanding in what you say. It's not the fact that it's incorporated in another bill that seems to have found favour. It was the terms of the Compensation Act, sorrow, regret and even the taking of responsibility and looking at redress were all considered to be protected in an apology and my bill is therefore saying that it should be inadmissible. I think that there is huge value in just clarifying what is already the law and giving real legal certainty within the apology bill so that people can have the confidence to apologise and I think that that's the value of putting on and establishing an apology bill on the statute book where people can have that confidence, they can't look to the apology legislation and it will hopefully result in this fear being taken away and people being much more encouraged to give an apology and I think that there is real value in having standalone legislation to promote that. We don't have it down south, it's not standalone legislation on that particular issue and we would have that type of legislation incorporated with the duty of Canada in Scotland. So there is a question, you would maybe think about delaying your bill and see how he would the duty of Canada, the introduction of duty of Canada will change the system, would you not think thinking about delaying your bill to see how it will be, how the legislation will be changed? I feel, you know, I'm really genuinely puzzled about you know why we should be putting all our eggs in one basket to look at medical provision under duty of Canberra and not considering the hugely widely application of this bill. If you look at the legal service at the public service ombudsman who has always been so supportive of the legislation because he knows the longer it takes to give an effect of an apology to stop giving the non-apologies like I'm sorry if you felt to really give an effect of apology and to deal with the situation the complain has docked at, the more the prices and the cost goes up and the more unsatisfactory it is for the person who's seeking that apology. In the private sphere I could give lots of examples of places where an effect of apology just comes everything down and lets people get on with resolving the issue that needs to be looked at and I think that's the real value on it. To me then the duty of Canberra can be looked at stage 2, the government can choose to make an exception that can go on in its own right. It's new legislation I think in England and Wales part of it has still to be enacted and the main part was introduced in 2014 so we're a long way to looking at how effective that is and how it's going to play out so I see no reason or no logic in not going forward with this bill because of the duty of Canberra. And last question you don't see any logic to maybe exclude the medical profession from your bill? Well I think we look at the circumstances GMC have already been supportive of the apology being given and being inadmissible in civil proceedings that came in this morning. I think the detail of how it plays out could be looked at stage 2 but we do have the general comfort that it isn't going to affect. No one's telling the medical procession that they must apologise as a result of this bill but there are some real guidelines and provisions that would give the medical profession comfort and I think it's good this morning that we've established and the GMC have confirmed that it wouldn't interfere with their guidelines or have any effect on the guidelines and the giving of their apologies that they've laid down. Margaret, the minister is suggesting that public inquiries, arbitrations and tribunials should be excluded from the bill. Would you like to make a comment on that? Yes, there again I'm quite relaxed and prepared to look at this at stage 2 if the case is made that there should be an exception then clearly the committee will decide that at stage 2 but I realise that it may not be a definitive list. It depends again on the final provisions of the bill. It might not be necessary to do that if the bill drops fault and we're left with the expression of regret and just offered to redress but in general answer to your questions I'm perfectly happy to look at these as exceptions as the bill progresses. I noted the answer that you gave to John Finnie in relation to the Scottish Children's Reporters Administration and if you were looking to remove that from the bill, it was sympathetic. I know it's the words that you gave us there. If you were doing that, wouldn't that effectively weaken the effect of what you're trying to achieve here by making all these exclusions? I think that each of the cases must be made for quite robustly by teasing out why you would want an exception and mostly it's come about with tribunals, arbitrary, all of these have to be looked at in detail but the general principle of the bill is to provide this legal certainty about being able to say sorry and express regret and take responsibility and that certainly isn't weakened if anything that provides much more assurance to people especially the undertaking to look into the circumstances and see if any lessons can be learned. Again, the detail is going to be up to a policy decision at the end of the day but the wider principles of the bill and the provisions to deliver these wider principles are ones that are worthy of going ahead regardless of the exceptions which may at the end of the day be incorporated in the bill. I wonder whether you have any thoughts or comments on how the bill will interact with pre-action protocols? My feeling is that there should be nothing in the bill that interferes with legal proceedings as they are and therefore if legal proceedings are already under way the bill would not come into effect so if apologies are already used in the media proceedings and they are under way then of course it would be the same law applying so my bill would only come into effect if there had been no legal proceedings under way and it was an apology given without legal proceedings being looked at at all. How do you think how it's drafted at the moment that covers that? Do you think that that's clear at the moment in how it's drafted at all? If it's not clear then I think there's an opportunity to make it clearer as the bill progresses. Okay and just one other thing just to clarify for me I heard you say in your statement that you're you're content to take out the reference to fact. I'm not clear on what you said about fault are you still considering that you're still talking to people about that? Yes it's clear that at the moment the minister feels that the possible risk of harm doesn't and doesn't balance with the the possible benefits of the bill now that's to be teased out I mean I think already we've heard admissions of liability being conflated with statements of fact and there are various heart of scrolls of fault before fault would be a statement of liability but at the end of the day I fully realised that this isn't a hardened and fast black or white decision it's going to be a policy decision and people will know from from their own feelings from one assessment just which side of the balance it that the inclusion of fault might fall and what I'm saying is if it's the the government's decision having looked at fault again and what would be the consequences of that that it still feels the balance is more against a pursuer then I'm happy to accept that and fault would therefore be excluded but I hope we can have that to be and it is looked at thoroughly because it can make such a difference really to people if people are able to say sorry I made a mistake whether you did or not as my example kind of proved and I think that just encourages a more more full and balanced apology. Thank you. Thanks. Any other questions? We heard obviously from the government but we also heard from the form of insurance lawyers in respect of the legislation section 2 the compensation act 2006 in England that certainly Mr Watson the insurance lawyers said that straightforward legislation such as that that made it clear that an act of apology itself did not amount to the mission of liability would have great merit which I think is a view also shared by the government why would you like to just recap why you think following the example in England would be inappropriate. Sorry I didn't hear the end of what you said. Why don't we just run with something similar to section 2 of the compensation act in England? Yes to probably add to the the quote and certainly the submission for the forum of insurance lawyers they did say yes they'd be happy with the kind of section 2 type provision but also they were happy with the provisions of the the bill if we didn't go that way then they were content with the provisions of the bill all of them to be included however your main point is really what's the added value and the added value is the compensation act doesn't give a definition of an apology now this is not prescriptive it just shows what can be included in the ecology and what helps to be included in the apology that's laid out in statute and again I go back to sorrow regret the taking off responsibility the acknowledgement the thing has happened in the first place is a pretty important things for those seeking an apology and certainly to bring closure the indication that as we've got in 3c that you can look at the circumstances with a view to seeing if any lessons can be learned I think is is also huge none of which is is really in the compensation act and so therefore I think there is certainly huge added value in going beyond that and it changes the law too in ensuring that the apology which has no legal effect and isn't taken in evidence is inadmissible so it's going a little bit further and I think that all helps and encourages the principle and intent of the bill which is to encourage and apologies. Thank you. I just go back to general medical council memorandum I didn't find anything itself to say but he was supporting the bill. The letter that's come through they have today sent a statement through which says which is helpful which said we would support an apology being inadmissible in minumiso of the legal liability in civil proceedings and they go on to talk about other but not inadmissible other certain fitness to practice etc these are other details which I can share with the committee and which again could be teased out at stage 2 but I think that that certainly suggests that they support the inadmissibility of legal liability in civil proceedings which is what the bill does. Right but we have not directly saying that we were supporting the bill at stage. I just ask a wee technical point then just at the end you exempt specifically exempt inquiries under the fatal accidents and sudden death inquiries scotland act 1976 but as you know the inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths etc bill actually repeal those act might it be better I just wondered whether there would be merit in having all the exemptions defined by spots Scottish ministers in the first place well that's certainly a stage 2 type type amendment which I think may have some merit in working and is worthy of consideration that at that point is more on the detail but important detail thanks thanks Margaret and Maidenstall Neil Ross for attending the committee and we just suspend for a couple of minutes to let Margaret come back to her normal position in the committee thank you we now move on to item 6 EU issues paper 5 invites a committee to note correspondence from the European and external relations committee in relation to its work on migration and from the minister on my on migration and its EU justice work I'm going to invite Roderick Campbell as our EU reporter to say anything about the correspondence received once you provide it. I don't really think I have much to add but be on the what's already in the paper to be honest anyone who's got any specific questions invite any other members to make comments on those John simply to say it I mean it's a humanitarian disaster that's referred to in here with issues in the Mediterranean and I think there's a very positive plan there and I certainly commend the Scottish Government's approach it is one of a humanitarian and not punitive and I think that's what I would like to see as land or support to indeed. I was particularly encouraged by the Scottish Government giving its understanding of European cooperation saying its cooperation was important not isolation in its key in that particular matter and I'm very very much encouraged with the response of the Scottish Government. Any further comment? The winner to see four positive steps for taking things forward is good to see here's what can be done that's very refreshing and sometimes you spend time in here being bamboozled it was helpful to say that's what we're going to do. Excellent so members are content to note the correspondence and return to the issue after the summer recess when we are likely to have received another update from the minister. Excellent item seven the sorry I have to do that beforehand it right we agreed to act item one to move into private session for the final item item seven the draft report into the inquiries into fatal accidents and southern deaths etc scotland bell so if we can do so thank you very much


My name is Chris Tancy and I live in Houston, Texas. This is video two of three on how you can sign up to be a volunteer within your local neighborhood. This system was developed and is being provided to local communities to help them facilitate both the people who have skills and resources with the people who might need help or are homebound. This video is dedicated to how to sign up to be a volunteer. In the third video we'll go over how the system all works together so if you're technically inclined or want a bigger picture make sure to check that out. So first thing I'm going to do is grab my mobile phone and go to a special link to sign up as a volunteer. So I'm going to come in here and click this link and what we're doing is we're sharing this link within our community. The first thing the volunteer sees is a little bit of information about the community that this person's supporting and then some simple questions about who they are and what they can do to help. So I'm gonna go ahead and put my name in here my address where I live next to my phone number but now for the really interesting things. So we wanted to have a way that our neighbors and our volunteers who wish to help could go ahead and designate how they want to help. This is very important because if you're requesting help you might not need someone with high specialty skills to run an errand for you or bring you food or a piece of equipment like a dehumidifier. So it's going to ask you for two things your primary skill the thing you're most skilled at or the thing you'd be most beneficial for for your neighborhood and your secondary skill. So I'm going to go ahead and select my primary skill. I'll say my primary skill is probably computer technical nature for sure and then for a secondary skill I'm going to go ahead and list anything I think I could do that could also help out. I'm going to say I could probably be an okay caregiver you'd have to ask my family or my cat let me know she needs a lot of help but I could probably also help with food prep for sure I could probably even drive someone if I had to. All right next is there any other information I was a volunteer I want to give I'm going to say I spend time working and digital health a little bit about me and next it's going to ask for resources. So resources are different than skills or things you and your family might have that you could help out if your neighborhood needs them. So I'm going to go ahead here and say let's see well gosh I actually have some extra masks and I have a pulse oximeter if you want to check someone's oxygen oxygen level in their lungs I actually have a lot of sterile wipes I actually have a portable humidifier and I have some extra cold and flu meds so that's pretty good finally it's going to say as a volunteer how do you want us to contact you well let's say you can basically contact me anywhere you want and then finally share my information share information means how do you want the information you just shared shared with the other volunteers and or people requesting help within your neighborhood I'm going to say on a case by case basis and hit submit and it's that simple now my record as a volunteer and what I can offer to my community why we are in our isolation for the next few weeks or however long it is will be recorded and people who need help can go ahead and log a request if you're interested in how to log a request for help see video one next video video three we're going to talk about how all of this works together if you're technically inclined or you just want to see what's behind the curtain here thank you so much be well and wash your hands


That's good morning, everyone. My video is not coming on. Is my video on? Students, is the video on? For me, it doesn't show that it's on. No posting. No. I think now it's coming. Sorry about that. Good morning, everyone. Let's spend this time with a word of prayer. So anyone of us can please lead in prayer. Anybody can lead in prayer. Shall I? Yes, please. Hallelujah. Thank you a lot. Thank you, Father. Thank you, Lord, for your grace and mercy by which, Lord, you have brought us this far, Lord. Once again, you've given us this opportunity, Lord, to come together as a class, now to listen to this lecture. Father, Lord, we pray that whatever we hear, we listen. These are deep truths, Father, Lord. May we be able to put them into practice. We pray, Father, Lord, that not many get the opportunity to learn these, but you have given this opportunity, Father. Let us not take them for granted, Lord. Help us, Lord, have this constant pursuing, Father, of these truths that we are learning. Father, Lord, and all the purposes, Father, that you have for us, Lord, that we be able to use these strategies, use these different ways in which, Father, the people in the world of God, Father, laid out, Father, foundations of their plans, the purposes, Lord, that you had for them. Thank you. I praise you for Pastor Paul. Bless him, Lord. Anoint him, Father, with the Holy Spirit. Lord, give us a receptive heart, a sensitive spirit. Lord, give us willingness, Father, to obey you and trust you. In Jesus' precious name, we pray. Amen. Amen. Thank you, Divya. All right. So last week, we completed chapter five, competitive advantage and strategies. So with some of the points that we looked at, one, know what you're up against. When you compete, compete clean and fair, develop a winning strategy. So when you're strategizing, planning, develop a strategy that is winning. Sometimes we all go through fear. We all go through change, which is not always nice, but we looked at the point, Goliath is not your real enemy, fear was, and how David was able to overcome that fear because he just knew who he was up against and the strategies that he used was brilliant. Get the Lord's counsel and be open to unusual strategies and we look at many other aspects there. So let's get into chapter six, organizational structure and design. Now, organizational structure and design is important for any organization, whether it is organization with just five people, whether it's an organization with 100 people, it doesn't really matter. You need organizational structure and design. And what does it do? When we have structure and design, it enables us to adapt to the seasons and situations that are happening around us. It avoids bottlenecks. It's a process where it makes the environment that we're working in easier. Now, getting the right structure and right design is important, but you also need the right people to fill up those positions. So for example, as an organization, you need the right people, right, right people to fill up their positions. And only then, you know, you know that as an organization, you will be able to win and do well as an organization. So let's look at a few points in your notes. Structure, order and design are godly virtues. First Corinthians 14, 33 and 40. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace as in all the churches of the saints, let all things be done decently and in order. Now, we've heard this many times. God is a God of structure, order and design. When you look at the universe itself and how the universe functions, the creation itself has order, structure and design. Nothing came out from, everything didn't come out of nothing. It was structure, order created by God. And God instituted the church, God instituted marriage and family and both these institutions are made with certain order. They have a certain structure, right? Now, why is structure and design important? Because structure and design will portray wisdom, right? So if you look at, now if you look at creation, look at the sun, the moon, the stars and the galaxies and how everything is, you know, just so orderly set in place in the universe.  You look at the plants and creation, the animals, look at the wisdom in which they, you know, they created, the way they function, the way they procreate everything. There is so much of wisdom. Structure and order and design will help an organization to walk and to work in wisdom, right? And all through the scriptures, all the Old Testament, even the New Testament, we see that God works with order, structure and design. And when we as an organization or a ministry, we may set up a ministry, right? We're just starting off now. Align your organizational structure to a strategy, right? Now, let me just give you the structure that we have at ABC. So we have senior pastor, then we have associate pastors, then we have ministry leaders and then we have team leaders and then volunteers, right? This is just a basic structure, right? That's how the organization has a structure. Look at what God does in the book of Numbers when the people of Israel are coming out of Egypt. Numbers chapter one and verse 52. The rest of all the Israelites shall set up camp company by company, each man with his own group and under his own banner. Now, look at this, very interesting, right? God is telling the people of Israel. He's brought them out of Egypt. He's not saying, okay, just keep walking, take left, take right, walk however you want, do what you want. As long as we just reach the promised land. That's the promise I gave you. You'll reach the promised land. So you need to reach. I will take you there. No. What are you saying? Okay, the way you go out also, the way you enter into the promised land, there needs to be ordered, there needs to be designed. What does he say? Right. Numbers 10 was 13 and 14. They began to march at the command of the Lord through Moses. And each time they move, they move in the same order. Those under the banner of the division, led by the tribe of Judah, started out first, company by company, with Nassan son of Amil Adabad, the in command. Now, there are 600 Israelites, 600,000 people are there in the wilderness. And God has given instructions to Moses. Moses, here's what you're going to do. One first thing you're going to take these people, set them up into tribes. Now we know there are 12 tribes. So each tribe, you have a banner, you have a flag. So you will walk with your tribe. Now the tribe of Judah can't say, hey, I want my friends are in tribal Benjamin. I want to go and join them. No. Tribal Judah, you'll be there. Right. Now each tribe had a leader. So 12 tribes, they come and report to Moses directly. So Moses is there. Just an example. Moses is there. The tribe leaders. I think my tribe is what's happening in my tribe. And you see, they come and give reports to Moses. But here's the thing. The Lord God also established a way in which, they would walk and then they would camp for certain days in a certain place. So it was not like they can camp however they wanted. No. God also gave them directions on, okay, tribe of Benjamin, you're here, tribe of Judah, tribe of Manasseh. These are the places that you will settle it. Tribe by tribe, when they moved, they moved in order. And there were different kinds of trumpets. This is very interesting. Different kinds of trumpets for different kinds of situations. So one kind of trumpet was to gather the leaders. Another trumpet was to gather the entire community. Another was a trumpet that would say, okay, the camp has to begin to prepare to move. So everything was in order. Can you picture? There's 600,000 people. Imagine you say, okay, go and tell them it's time to move one person going and telling the tribe. The tribe leader will forget what to say. And then everyone are just doing the work. No. It's not that there was a trumpet to blow it. Everyone heard it. Hey, this trumpet means it's time to move. So probably they had the entire day to pack their things, everything, and begin their journey. So in a very organized way, God, all the people of Israel out of Egypt, even as they enter the promised land, they were very, very organized. Now, was it the people who were organized? Yes, but God had given the instruction to Moses. And Moses, along with this team, was able to perform the structure and the strategies. So what about us? What about us in ministry? What about us in the workplace? Align your organizational structure to strategy. And so you have a strategy in place. God, I want to reach out to this entire city. In the next five years, I want to see a ministry that is blessing lives, touching lives in the church. I want to start a Bible college, now align organizational structure. So if you have a justification, at least in the future, you should think about, okay, you need somebody who can handle the Bible college. You need a team that can call and encourage people. You need a graphics team to do the, so you're having all the picture in your mind. Now you may be 10, 20 people in the church, but if that's the vision, that's the entire vision that you have. You need a strategy. Otherwise it's going to be, remember what the book of James says, faith without deeds is our mess. So we have the faith, we have the vision, you have to put it into practice. Of course, at the right time, we'll have the right teams, right people coming into place. Now, we must be wise in this also. If you have a hundred people in the church, you don't need 25 people as staff in the church. Or you have a hundred people working in your office. You don't need, so you're starting a small scale company. You don't need at one time 100 people.  Things as a, as a visionary, as a pioneer, these are some things that we must think of, right? Even the way that, worship was ordained in the Old Testament and the Old Covenant was so organized, right? There was an entrance to the tabernacle. There was a back entrance. It was very meticulous because God by nature is that way. He's very organized, right? Next point. Organizational design affects strategic capability and sustainability, right? It affects strategic capability and sustainability. Whenever we start something, we want it to sustain. We want it to last long, right? We want it to make an impact for many years and for many generations. Let's look at this was from 1 Chronicles, chapter 16, was 4 and 37, right? Then David assigned some of the Levites to the chest of God to lead worship, to intercede, give thanks and praise God, the God of Israel. David left Asaph and his co-workers with the chest of the Covenant of God and in charge of the work of worship, they were responsible for the needs of worship around the clock. Now, the first thing David did when he became the king was he brought the Ark of the Covenant into which the Ark of the Covenant was basically a symbol of God's presence. If you backtrack and go to the time of Moses and Joshua, they carry the Ark of the Covenant wherever they went. It was to say that the presence of God and this Ark of the Covenant was placed in a tent covering in Jerusalem. Now, one of the things that David desired was to have non-stop worship in that place. So, he didn't say David didn't say, okay, you form the teams, you do it this way, organized for it. He himself planned because God gave him the wisdom. That's what he did. He organized 4,000 people to attend to the tabernacle. 4,000 people.  You want to use, yes, 4,000 musicians around the clock out on the clock. But people were singing and people were singing in the night and they would take turns. Now, these were again organized into teams. Okay, everyone. I think the network was slow. I'm sorry. Let me just say about that. There's a little away from the wife. All right, so all the musicians and singers were high skilled so there was excellence in all that was done. Isn't that wonderful? David didn't say, David didn't say, okay, we're going to do round the clock worship. 4,000 people who ever can join, join and sing. No. They were all musicians and singers who were highly skilled and everything was done in excellence. The worship of the tabernacle of David went round the clock 24, 7, for 33 years, which is never done before. How did he do that? He organized the sustainability. It didn't happen for one year. It didn't happen for five years, 33 years. Why? Because the teams were set in place. Of course, David had the resources of 4,000 people as we in our organization, the work that we are doing. We may not have the resources initially, but as we get the resources, as resources have been given to us as opportunity, make sure that we have effective strategy in place so that there's sustainability and that is whatever is done is done for a long time. David did that. Next thing, have the right. Yes, go ahead, Divya. I just wanted to share something that's happening over here in the past one week. This very much was reminded of that when we were telling about David's continual worship. So there is a university called Aspery in Kentucky. So they had a chapel regular chapel service that started on Wednesday, February 10 o'clock, which has never stopped. As you were teaching this organizational strategy, I was just thinking when it is a move of God like this, wide scale, one thing is you are requesting prayers that will last because there are reports like it is happening now in another university in Ohio. So it's like slowly coming up. Of course there should be protection over it rather than a lot of skepticism on it. It's a lot of repentance and confession. There is a genuine move of God. That's what everyone is reporting and saying. It's wonderful to see that. I was just reminded of 33 years. How did that happen? That's time. That's amazing. Prayers support as well. Yeah. Thank you so much for sharing. Yes. There is this revival but here's the thing. David was pre-planned. He planned it and he did it. Now what happens in times like this? It was just a regular chapel service that started off just a move of God. Now a good thing to do is let that worship continue. Being there but of course we need to so in the back something that the planning, the organizing can be done. Now that's also important. So imagine the worship is going on. Now it's not like the same person who's leading the worship. There has to be that switch between Christians and singers. So what's important is in the background some kind of strategy some kind of planning I'm sure will be going on and there are people who are there for day and night and it's just going on so practical things like providing for some kind of water or something. So there are two kinds but it's wonderful when God does it. It's wonderful to do it and the reason David was able to have this for 33 years I think is because of his meticulous planning 4,000 people 288 prophetic singers and musicians 24 smaller units team leaders everything was set in place so there was never a time who's going to go lead worship next everyone knew their part everyone knew that they should be there right? Just a small follow up on what you were telling there are people who are 24 by 7 volunteering supporting this especially the faculties but they were saying these families have small kids but still they are so passionate they are staying over and they are volunteering providing the support that is required and it is wonderful to see even the professors and everyone is they have halted the classes for this Yes Yes we studied a little bit of this and there is a move of God there is a genuine genuine work of God that is people's hearts all of these titles and all these achievements will all be put down because there is a move of God there will be a sense of unity sense of oneness humility sense of holiness all of these things will begin to show where there is a move of God so it is wonderful right next point feel free to stop me in between you can ask questions at any time next point have the right teams in place now teams are important we know about this we have seen Jesus himself having the right teams but the right teams are very important right let's look at this first chronicles 12 17, 18, 21 and 22 when David went out to meet them this is what he said if you have come in peace and to help me you are most welcome to join this company but if you have come to betray me to my enemies innocent as I am the God of our ancestors will see through you and bring judgment on you God's spirit to control of one of them Amasai who later became the commander of the 30 and he called out David's son Jesse we are yours success for you and to those who help you God is on your side David welcomed them and made them officers in his army they served David as officers over his troops because they were all outstanding soldiers later they were officers in the Israelite army almost every day new men joined David's forces so that his army was soon enormous David was one of the most was the most successful king right politically, administratively militarily and spiritually he was he thrived as a king why because David was able to set in place right teams he was able to build people up right and organize strong units he was able to do that he built an army now before he became the king of Judah even before he became the king there were about thousands of thousands maybe hundreds I think it was 800 or hundreds of people were already saying ok David we will follow you why will you follow me people are behind my life no no we will follow you whatever you say we will do so even before he became the king he had an army with him and now when he became the king he had all the liberty soldiers dead and gone he would become the king he had all the liberty so he used those strengths and he established strong teams like strong teams he had a special set of 37 warriors who oversaw the entire army out of these were the famous 30 and the 3 who were the most valiant of David soldiers all of this is in 2nd Samuel 23 so he had a team he had a core team that he worked with right 30 people were his main team and out of the 30 people his 3 were his core team you see how he organized this whole thing who was David shepherd boy I am sure I am just picturing him looking after the sheep and saying ok 5 go there 5 go here 10 go here so when these 5 try to run away I will use these 5 other sheep to maybe he was thinking of all of these things but you see he was he had it in him he was always there and then the wisdom of God enabled him to have the right teams in place when you and I are working in an organization have the right teams in place now you may not be in a position to hire the right people but even with the teams that you have empower them build them up work together grow together become a strong unit right and in ministry if it is you know if it is something that you are planning to build a team think ahead you know plan ahead have a nice team a strong team now building these teams takes time right it does not happen overnight but when you have the vision when you have a strategy those teams will build very strong teams right sometimes your best team begins with the most unlikely if look at this was from per Samuel 22 1 and 2 David fled from the city of God and went into a cave near the town of Adola when his brothers and the rest of the family heard that he was there they joined him people who were oppressed or in debt or dissatisfied went to him about 400 men in all and he became the leader their leader now this was the this is what I was talking about the lowest point of his life he was running away from his life you know hiding in caves destined to be the next king but he was a fugitive running at this time 400 men decide to join and come under David's leadership because they knew David's capabilities and here's what David did David welcome them come David's mighty army began an unlikely moment in his life in an unlikely place starting with unlikely men isn't so wonderful right look at this David is running for his life he's hiding in caves right Saul is still trying to kill him he's in the lowest point of his life right saying hey what kind of life is this I'm hiding in caves the king is after me God you said I'm going to become king of Israel what is happening God is saying God made it in such a way that David you're in the lowest point of your life I will send some people 400 people come and say okay David we know about you we've heard that you killed the good liar we know that you you know saved Saul's life we know that you are going to be you're anointed God has used you so we are coming under your leadership David says okay come and he begins his you know strengthening this army unlikely place who knew that 400 people will come to a cave searching for David in an unlikely time they didn't say oh you're running away from Saul Saul is going to catch you and kill you then there's no use of being around you so let me choose somebody else he's an unlikely man whether you're building a team or whether you're building an organization you may not always have the opportunity to start of your start being perfect it's good if it's perfect but even if it's something very small it's alright even if it's unlikely people it's alright alright I reminded of in Mangalore there was this we were about 10 12 people and this young couple came to church and they came they sat and they went away the next Sunday again they came and I began to talk to them and they were saying you know what we don't know much about the Lord all we know you know we are from a different background we don't know much about the Lord but we like the word here so we said okay if we come I said yeah sure we can come and we spent a lot of time together and eventually you know this young couple were you know always there for all our meetings all our programs and then another young couple came so they said we'd like to be part of the volunteering team and it was so wonderful to see that when people themselves come and say okay I'm willing I'm there for you two things one very important is remember that God has sent them to you God has entrusted them to you two it is your responsibility to look after them to care for them to build them up in the ways of God it's not like they've come okay they're volunteering so that's good at them volunteer we must make the effort of being there of empowering them of training them, leading them and that's what David did when these 400 people came he was able to build them into a strong unit as an army believe in your team see beyond your current struggles now we'll not read this entire verse in Mark 16 but here's what happened let me just summarize it freely the Lord Jesus is he's dead he rose again from the dead he's come back he meets his disciples now the 11 who was closest to Jesus did not believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead they saw they saw Jesus crucified they saw him buried in the tomb and now they thought it's all over I couldn't imagine they were in this place of mixed emotion because they spent the most time with Jesus they were in a place of bereavement what kind of a death has Jesus come through and that boosome death and they buried him Jesus is resurrected from the dead and he's come to meet them right they were unbelieving they didn't think that Jesus will rise again from the dead even though they were there when Jesus said Lazarus come forth and he raised from the dead what did Jesus say I am the resurrection and the life but here now they didn't believe they have looked at the natural Jesus is dead they crucified him in their minds he was dead and gone they did not believe the initial reports of what Mary Magalene had brought that the tomb the stone was rolled away and the body was not dead but these were the closest men of Jesus whom Jesus personally trained this is core team not the 72 this core team but what is quite amazing we see here is that the same who Jesus who did not believe Jesus resurrected from the dead he corrected them for their unbelief and he commissioned them go and make disciples he gave them the great commission he gave them the great vision Jesus didn't flinch he didn't say oh I train you for three and a half years after three and a half years is this how this is you still didn't believe me oh he knew that it was just for a moment all they needed was to get over this moment once they got past that moment they were equipped and powered to the point that they were willing to give their lives for this vision and the mission that he was placing before them here's the thing he could trust them Jesus could count on them you and I can learn so many things from this believe in your team in the people that you have invested in don't quit on them right I can talk of many many places where I have made mistakes but I thank God for the team that I have worked with because those mistakes there are some mistakes there are mistakes that we make and we have all our work but we are here to build each other up believe in your team see beyond their struggles right when you believe in them they are encouraged and they are willing to grow right so just because somebody makes a mistake in your team for example in the ministry somebody makes a mistake doesn't mean we can say ok you made this mistake so now you know we choose somebody else now even in team Jesus didn't choose another 12 different 12 people he chose the same 11 people the people who for example Peter denied him and he says Peter you lead the church what belief what trust he had on Peter and that is something that we must develop as leaders we must develop this ability to see beyond people's feelings right easy for those failures to come into our mind first he did this this wrong but Jesus didn't do that he didn't look at the failure of the disciples but he said as of now you're going through a season but I know what you can do I'm commissioning you I'm empowering you to go and make disciples out of nations and they did it they were willing to give their life for Christ right when we believe in our team they'd be willing to do anything beyond a 40 hour week worker they'd be able to do more than that they'll go above and beyond they'll go walk that extra mile with you because they believe in you right next point you're just the right people you can overcome the odds judges 7 and verse 7 God said to give you Gideon I'll use the 300 men who lapped at the stream to save you and give you the Midianite give Midian into your hands all the rest may go home when you have time just go ahead and read judges 7 what happens is Gideon is ready to go against God has commissioned Gideon Gideon I'm going to use you to lead the people and defeat the Midianite army now the Midianite army was a vast army a strong army right Gideon says are you sure God yes okay you call all of them who are willing to fight so 32,000 men came came up right in these 32,000 men 22,000 were fearful and afraid so God said to Gideon send those 22,000 home so you have 10,000 left in these 10,000 God picked 300 now how did he pick these 300 he said to them in these 10,000 men tell them to go to the river and drink water right so whoever drank water by taking the water in their palms and drinking it there were 300 people the others they had a posture of drinking directly from the river those who drank directly from the river were sent home those who drank from the you know with their hands making a cup shape it was a symbol of readiness for battle alertness and readiness right so Gideon took those 300 and went into battle God stepped in and with these 300 people the Mirionite army was defeated and there was peace in the land over 40 years can you picture that I can picture Gideon standing there 32,000 okay 10,000 gone sorry 22,000 gone I mean left it only 10,000 people and then God says no it's not enough you do this 300 left and I can picture Gideon saying 300 people gone this is why past Mirionite army God says I am going with you I won't go before you and with these 300 people you will defeat the Mirionite army they did it right and there was peace in the land for 40 years sometimes we don't need a large army to outdo competition or to do great things we don't need a large army you just need the right people with the right attitude to help you fulfill that vision it's not always the quantity sometimes it is the quality the right people in the right place right so in terms of your business in terms of ministry whatever you are if there are planning to do something big in ministry even if you have two or three people to begin with do not despise it the Bible says do not despise mega beginnings God can do with those two or three people what you could have more than what you can do with 100 people 90 of them can come sit in the table work be unproductive God can say use maybe 10 people these 10 are more than enough for you to fulfill the vision that I have given you that's a wonderful wonderful way and that God can work so we need the wisdom of God to understand the way he works never look at it as it can't be done each one of us are designed from maximize function and performance right now let's go to the next one break it down only to the necessary levels stay lean and stay flat now in this portion we see that Moses had a challenge he had to disseminate God's commands down to each individual so you got about 600,000 people imagine Moses saying out of the 600,000 maybe about 500,000 had problems he is saying this he is saying we will not go she is saying we will not go all kinds of problems Moses is there thinking I am hearing directly from God and now these people are all coming one by one it is too much for me he was stressed out he had to ensure disputes had to be challenged he had to ensure this peace he had to ensure that God's standards were set in place he had to ensure that there was prayer everything so what did he do Moses raised up leaders he delegated leaders on important matters so in terms of peace within the teams within the camp he delegated leaders and he said these leaders will report to me directly brilliant move he had a judiciary process in place so leaders of 1000s, 100s, 50s and 10s 1000s, 100s, 50s and 10s all leaders then he had 12 captains one over each tribe then he had governance 70 elders appointed to govern and address daily needs oh I did not get enough morning I overslept so I could not go pick up Mana no problem you go to the 70 elders I did not pick up enough Mana they will give you some go to this house take it from them so then that task is a resort it does not have to go to Moses for that Moses is busy talking to God in the mountains so he made sure that everything is delegated special task force 12 captains one from each tribe to go and spy in the land of Canaan of worship and service in the Tabernacle so if he wanted to know something he just asked the high priest he wanted to know about things that are happening within the camp he could probably go to the leaders and ask them or the 12 tribes of each tribe he could ask them what is happening in their tribes then he had Levi's who assisted the service so you see this it is a wonderful strategy in everything that God did and you and I we may be working in an organization right now or you may have a plan too or you may be already entrepreneurs started your own business already in ministry leading pioneering ministry or you plan to pioneer a ministry gather these inputs if you are leading a ministry in the church gather these inputs use them and use effective strategy because God is a God of order and design and everything that he did was done in an order done in design we saw the examples from David's life as a king he did it in order Moses did it in order so we are called to do things in order not only in our professional life or ministry but also in our personal life because that's what God expects of us right so we close here any questions any thoughts alright no worries let's quickly close in prayer Father we thank you for this time we thank you for your word and Lord we've learned so much today Lord that you are a God who's a God of order and design and structure and we pray God in every area of our lives whether it's the workplace, whether in ministry or the family in our personal lives God help us Lord to be more organized to continue to depend on you for wisdom to do the things that you have called us to do Lord Lord we pray that you will empower us not only through our skills but also empower us in our spirit anoint the things that we do the plans that we have of God and let it be pleasing in your sight we thank you Lord for teaching us thank you Lord for trusting us Lord and we pray God that we will continue to do everything that you have called us to do for the establishment and betterment of your kingdom here or not we thank you and praise you in Jesus name we pray Amen Amen thank you everyone have a wonderful week ahead see you on Monday for our next class God bless