Thank you all for coming to this wonderful community interoperability panel. How is everyone feeling this morning? Raise your hand if you're not feeling I'm glad to see you honest to you. This is good So I guess maybe to start off. How about you ever all of us kind of introduce ourselves and the communities that we represent Sure, my name is Joshua. I heart. I'm the vice president of marketing business development for z-cash or Actually for the electric point company, which is the inventor and supporter of the cash My name is Jake Juan and I am the co-founder of tenor mitts and the cosmos project. I don't represent the cosmos project that I supported and Terry Culver CEO of Ethereum classic class So first question is a challenge question Do we think that it's in the long run even possible to have an of multiple coin communities peacefully Interoperating or as the maximalists say are we destined to be stuck in a Hobbesian war of all coins against all until one coin Coin wins and we have one single global cryptocurrency So for me, I mean absolutely even I think different communities are gonna have different coins for different needs and that work in different contexts So I don't believe in the winner takes all kind of model But I do think that they can collaborate and work together I also agree I think that One of the things that we don't see yet But we'll probably see more in the future are things like local currency coins or local local municipal Dows and so on and every one of those they may not all have their own chain But they will be their own community that is distinct from other communities. So this I think that's just as one example That that shows that that shows me that there will be many chains. I Agree, I don't think a winner take all future is really viable You know, we all live our lives as parts of different communities already with different values I don't see that changing in the blockchain and crypto space So what so one thing that that is that I heard there is kind of talking about communities and values, right? And this is not a language that you normally hear people kind of use to talk to talk about the currencies, right? You don't normally hear people saying oh I use us dollars because I support us dollar values And I'm going to switch to euros because down with us imperialism or I'm going I'm going to switch to like Rimen beer or yen or whatever other currency like this is not something that Happens right now yet and I mean people don't even do this with stocks, right? Like you don't even hear that much of people saying, you know, I love I love Apple So I'm gonna buy Apple stock like it kind of happens, but like not too much. So Is the I guess why do we expect this will change? I Think it actually is tribal, right? So we have we have our own currencies that work in our own way in a different context It's just that the the tribalism historically maybe has been physical more maybe than the digital and so maybe that dynamic Is what's changed? I Think we haven't had maybe the the technology And we still don't have to elect for for large number of people to Use multiple points and for there to be competition among coins and for like people in the United States to To support one point versus the other certainly the regulations don't allow it yet but I think this will change as the industry matures and As as it's adopted by the community despite What the powers that being I want But I don't know when hopefully in the next three years Okay so I guess some kind of turning things a bit we can talk a bit about the technical collaboration, right? So our difference I have community is how Their own indifference out of blockchains that they're working on but we also end up sharing a lot of tech, right? so for example, if you're in the end there in classic share a large portion of the of the tech stack and Ethereum and ZCAT Zcash is based on Z gates and arcs and Ethereum heavily employed Z gates and arcs and Cosmos shares a Lot of cryptography So do you think we're kind of doing a good enough job of and of coordinating on How we have improved the tech the technologies that are shared between us and if not what are some things you think we can do better on I Think we could do a much better job. I think you know many Blockchains are facing the same fundamental questions And I think many of us are trying to reinvent the wheel. I think we can identify those questions and work them together One of the things I totally agree and to add to that I think one thing I learned along this journey is that if you can define a protocol of communication between Two components of a tech stack example But we're like if you consider tech stack for a blockchain there are so many components And if you can well define the protocol or the interface between these components then like you can have different Communities responsible for their flavor of implementation and so you can have competition For a module or component, but ultimately all working towards a whole because it's pluggable So I've experienced that once and we're trying to also push for that in in other regards like with with a consensus engine Tenement with the ABCI protocol for example, but it's also obviously an adhering with the API and so on already exists as well I think it's helpful to be intentional right rather than pass it so passively You know we can borrow technology and that kind of thing but but we can accelerate much more when we're intentional So, you know getting Blake to add it to assemble and work between NZ cash and An electric coin company I think is hugely important for that allowing interoperability in future so you can use the cash within within DeFi That's unlocking some you know some other things and potential With with work on white client potential integration with with cosmos for example But those those interactions and those conversations don't happen Passively they happen generally when people are in the same room together and they're able to kind of sit down and think And they're thinking about selfishly about their own project that they're working on But the magic can happen and the collisions can happen when when folks get a room So if we suppose that the imagine a future where our communities are Collaborating more what are some kind of positive results that you could and if imagine or hope to get out of that? Well, the cash being embedded in smart contracts, so you're able to In the places where you need that that kind of privacy That that's there to the extent that likes things like ZK snark to some of the research that our cryptographers are doing And being able to use that within a theory I'm independent of the cash. I think it's super cool So for me those are a couple but I'd love to see a more intentional organization That brings various Communities or representatives or people from various communities to start to have these conversations like I mentioned The ethereum is playing it for the crypto community for largest today Maybe we can reach. Well, how do we reach out to all the projects? What what is that association? So I'd love to see something like that I Think a theory is like kind of set the standard for that right of bringing all of kind of these disparate Developers and projects and things like that together. It's been phenomenal. So it's kind of it. It's kind of the bar that has been set I think the community How is it that? How is it that I guess now I'm asking one question. How is it that ethereum? Is able to do this whereas like other projects don't? How is ethereum able to do collaboration whereas other projects don't yeah Like how is it that ethereum is better able to collaborate with this bird like many projects? Hmm I mean part of it I think might be just the facts that ethereum has had a kind of anti-maximalist ethos kind of from the start like In the case of like Bitcoin, there's definitely more of this culture of like This is the legit coin or these are the legit coins And if you're not a legit coin, then you're a scam and the ethereum community has its own opinions about what's a legit coin and what's a scam But I feel like it's kind of broader and kind of brought brought brought enough to allow Collaboration among technically good projects to happen. So just Recognizing the legitimacy of different approaches is the first step to cooperating with different approaches. I Think the other thing would be cool is like if if beyond kind of Technology collaboration and we figured out how to do a better job of Working on things like product market fit or things out in the field Where we're engaging together with the community to reach populations and to try to solve specific use cases where we're not really doing that today We kind of doesn't feel like it maybe we're kind of coming together and we talk about this stuff and we engage technically But when it comes to the kind of actual execution on the ground There's a little bit less of that that kind of collaboration I think greater collaboration speaks to the way in which Blockchains have to grow. I mean, you know, we don't expect to get a corporate strategy plan That's costly and printed and everybody follows it This is an iterative creative process for which there may not be any one single right answer And so to do that you need an increasingly diverse community with increasingly diverse ideas and and debate Mm-hmm One question I have is Every time I fly I feel guilty because of the carbon footprint and in the crypto community requires a Lot of flying in order to me and like you mentioned being in the same place as what makes the magic happen But I feel like for us to scale to a larger community Like at some point we're gonna have to figure out how to make this work without flying And but I don't know how to do that Maybe The thing you would we would need is more kind of grassroots kind of a local level of our ability like what it should Ethereum Japan and Cosmos Japan be talking to each other more You know, it's like the unit for friends and we're already in Japan should maybe should we be chatting or at least those of us who are in Japan Yeah Same with Korea same with like Taiwan same with China same with anything So regarding the kind of Community aspects of In interoperability well actually so one other question we have is like we talked about There's technology and there's a kind of collaboration because of shared technology and There's also this idea that of different coin Coins in different blockchain communities stand for Different values and like ideologies I guess maybe to start off like what are some of the key things that I you would describe each of your community communities are standing for Well, I think Ethereum classic was originally defined as a statement about governance And it wasn't really technical at all it's since taken on a technical agenda And that'll become stronger over time I think at the moment and this is something that's evolving, right? I think at the moment it feels very closely tied to the idea of immutability even though that's not exclusive to a theorem classic and the idea of security so that you could foresee a chain that Focuses more on maybe transaction finality a larger fewer transactions than you know more spawn transactions So on Twitter yesterday, I think Bob somewhere will describe the ETC as being ETH technology and BTC values. I mean, do you agree with that characterization? Do you think it's more complicated than that? I mean, I understand the ETH technology part. I don't understand the values. He's referred to I would say it's different. I think the community itself is distinct characterized by that that Ability to move in a different direction around governance And and that's historical and now trying to position the community in a way that Enables it to collaborate. I think I would position us really as being in a place where we're looking to collaborate very strongly For Cosmos, maybe the key value is interoperability We do other things too like like offering security in the consensus algorithm Happen in making the making sure that the hub is permissionless, but The core product of the Cosmos hub is about connecting to other blockchains And creating protocols for interoperability between blockchains So interop Yeah, and sovereignty so giving groups their own blockchains Communities their own sovereignty their own ability to dictate Decide what happens on that blockchain? Yeah, I mean for us ultimately it's freedom I mean we get Zcash is classified as a privacy point, but you can't have freedom without Without privacy or the option to privacy to be able to protect Which what's yours like I've been talking about like a friend of mine at Moe who is a Syrian refugee and Moe had a business had bank accounts in Syria family family homes and Was forced to leave because he was protesting and government locked down everything so he no longer had self sovereignty of his own his own money And the government could see all of that stuff right they can see all of it because they control it It's in their context and they have access to bank accounts and all that kind of thing So when he moved he had to move to Jordan He had to rebuild his life and that's when he got into cryptocurrency. He's like I need I Need to be able to protect my wealth I Need that freedom and I need to be able to do it private privately because I don't trust any of these kind of government entities to To have access and invisibility and then the other things like we talked even it's it's a personal security But it's also business security and it's even national security. So we've seen the impact of data being used by a foreign actor in Russia trying to influence another foreign actor in the US Based upon the manipulation of the population from data that they collected And so it's a national security imperative that that governments actually mandate some, you know privacy for for citizens And so that's what we're That's kind of some of the core core values that we have I guess I see an interesting disparity between the answers here Josh's answer is about and of Zcash's values with respect to and Concerns that people in the broader world would have whereas you are to answer is for more about Like this is our these are the values that our blockchain expresses With respects to other blockchains or with respect to the blockchain space So I guess like first of all do either of you disagree with freedom in privacy No No, I don't disagree with it But but I think each of these are nuanced So privacy for example like how do you I? Think the thing that we don't know yet and the thing that we should try to answer From an ethics point of view of designing you know answering the question What should we design for of course we want to enable privacy, but if we enable complete privacy of transactions and account balances How can that be abused in such a way that? That may not be easy to use today. I think there's one argument to say that for example terrorist funding Is more than much easier with us? USD cash, for example, that's what they use However If if if you make the USD cash Or you know really easy to transport Then it just becomes that much easier as well to to conduct private terrorist transactions That's just one example, but Jay says the internet right the internet made it easier for terrorism The internet made it easy for terrorism because they could pass pass information along peer-to-peer whatever without any kind of central control But there's no argument to kind of Expose or make all of that visible and the opposite is true like we have now mandated basically HTTPS everywhere We're fed up with all of these kind of honeypot databases where everybody's collecting individual social, you know data that can be hacked by China or whatever third-party So it's not like any of these tools could be used for for terrorism true Though maybe And I'm not I'm not disagreeing. I don't know what the answer is. I I don't know what the answer is I'm exploring it, but like at least with sites like I can choose not to associate with this site for example, but when you're talking about Privacy preserving money If I don't want to support You a currency that is being used by terrorists as an example I feel like I won't I wouldn't have a choice if we designed a system wrong So yeah, I think I guess my point is we just need to be cognizant of how we design the system so that we don't get locked into a system accidentally Terry do you disagree with privacy and freedom? Absolutely not. I Think you know, they're essential for the kind of economic independence that we're trying to kill So like in cases where there's kind of different emphasized values one thing that's sometimes worth kind of sorting out is Is it just a difference in priorities? So like for example, I might imagine that Ethereum people are currently not into privacy and we even have tornado. Cash now, but like when choosing between I know universal general Isability and privacy Ethereum is clearly going universal generalizability first whereas the gash is going privacy first But like there's not a big incompatible There there doesn't seem to be a big incompatibility because like if you can have both event eventually been great but other times you might have Values that are more incompatible with each other, right? So like for example in the case of Ethereum well, we like proof of stake and Ethereum classic people like proof of work and like Ethereum people seem to Like like sharding more and we feel like we're one scale of these importance whereas the DC people Feel that the security trade-offs are too much for that. So Do you think there's kind of many in so one of the properties of kind of trade-offs that are Just the differences in priorities is that if it's just a matter of differences in priorities then in the long run We might end up just kind of building the same thing like one person goes north first and then east the other person goes east and then First and then north when you still end up northeast Do you think there's a possibility we'll just end up building the same thing in ten years time? I there's a possibility, but we're so diverse as people and so opinionated. I'm not I'm not sure how You know from a governance perspective how that happens there may be some Like back stage we're talking about murders or whatever, but there may be some some of that kind of activity But in some ways it just makes sense, right? So some of the separation makes sense So Zcash was was forked off of Bitcoin Because Bitcoin core didn't want to add The the cryptography on top of Bitcoin. It was too novel They're worried about it, you know disrupting the network and so this other coin was born and this other coins he cashed then can explore You know different kinds of applications and properties that that you know they couldn't do on Bitcoin So that's I think it's a healthy dynamic and whether those two like ever come back together. I don't know but There's value in diversity if they do come back together. Do you think coin mergers are possible? Do you think they're a good idea? I think it's super interesting, but it for me it's like this two jet planes like trying to kind of come together in the middle and in sort of a whole bunch of stuff out and so I Think when that happen, I think it will happen I think it will be interesting as as kind of an experiment in the In the space. I'm not quite sure the mechanics of how it would work, but I feel like maybe it's more likely to happen if They're working on different directions such that and they complement each other then and if these projects had like governance or decision-making legitimate legitimate decision-making systems Such that It's clear that they agree to do a coin merger We're talking for clarity. We're talking about at layer one coins merging not like two other like two years of 20 token I think it's quite likely that we don't end up in the same place at all And I think that's because the you know the value is as expressed in technological choices will result in different usage And I think over time what could happen is that certain coins and certain stacks are seen as You know the best for certain you type use cases And you know you go to one chain one type of transaction you go to another chain for a different type of transaction Do you think Zcash and Monero have a different uses? I don't I don't think they have Different uses I think with both of them the intent is for the coin if I understand Monero Berkeley We use as a medium ultimately as a medium exchange To not have broad-based kind of some programmability, but not like touring complete programmability at layer one I mean that I think the court kind of what we're trying to accomplish is really similar And it's actually really interesting does like online or on Twitter if you've used these Twitter It looks very combative like these two projects are just at each other and that's not the reality You have certain actors that kind of play that up, but like at Zcon one the last Zcash conference We had in Monero. I don't remember the Monero conference was in in Denver, but we had like a co-panel Between the between the two projects and so there's a lot that's That's actually shared. Do you think the Zcash and Monero communities have different values? I think some values are different. Yes such as I think that The the so like How for example, some of the governance and how funding decisions are made and whether or not there's alignment of coin holders with developers You know they use the grants program right now Zcash is funded off chain And so the the question is is like how much is necessary to secure the network versus how much should be used to fund development Is that the right kind of model? So Zcash community largely believes that that's the right kind of model The incentives aligned between the coin holders and the developers where Monero doesn't share that same So like one thing I've noticed as a kind of possible general general trend is that Like developers are generally like seem to be more willing to be friendly with each other than head of community members are And one reason I feel this might be the case is that Developers often do have kind of aligned interests in that Developers see each other as both just building cool stuff and they want to see cool stuff built Whereas coin holders like if you're a Zcash coin holder you want Zcash to succeed and you ain't got no Monero and if you're a Monero coin holder then Like you want Monero to succeed and like some people might have both but lots of them, you know it got no Zcash and even in the Ethereum community, you know like some of the more maximalist push that we've seen this come Is coming from people who aren't The developers so are there risks that could happen if kind of developer communities are aligned but broader communities are not aligned Yeah, probably the developers will get outcast I don't see it now that's possible though. I mean at the end of the day the developers are the ones building the chain I guess the question is what's the tolerance or elasticity of debate within a particular community? Um, if the developers have a significant disagreement with the community well, they can afford If the community has a significant disagreement with the developers, they could buy a different coin Um, I'm not sure where that line is and I think it varies depending on the issue Maybe it'll get easier for a community that disagrees with the developers to to fork it and to Create structure With dows just like the elect people and then kind of if you have the right dows system If you're like this developer new developer network might be able to evolve and mature How do you define a community? Is it Does it sound like it was like coin holders developers, but is the community broader than coin holders and developers? Oh, sure. And and hopefully in time it becomes even much broader to really users Um, but I think at the moment at least in the debates we have there's a kind of almost bilateral debate Where you know, there are folks who aren't developers and you know, and then there are folks who are and there's that that interaction between the two So one other dynamic I've noticed is that I sometimes get the feeling that strangely enough Collaboration may be more possible when ideologies are more incompatible and so Like one example of this is that even if you look at kind of ethereum ethereum and ethereum classic in the long term then in the long term like Sharding gives much greater layer one throughput than not doing sharding and proof of stake Gives a different security model than proof of work And there's people that are kind of diehard proof of work people that are not going to do proof of stake and Sharding like legitimately makes security trade-offs compared to not doing sharding that some people don't want to accept and so one Kind of effects that comes out of this is that of both communities Might even feel safer because there's we know that there is kind of one base That's going to use one thing and it's not and it's not willing to switch to the other thing Because the trade-offs are just unacceptable. Like it's not even like better or worse. It's just like What one side thinks is better is is if you From the perspective of the other side is making things worse And so one side is going to stay over here the other side is going to stay over here and that actually Could make it people feel like collaboration Is possible because there like we know that there's no risk of one side fully eating the other side Would you would you agree with that? You think it's more complicated No, I would agree with it certainly in in the case of ethereum classic and ethereum You know as ethereum is moving to 2.0. We've taken the opportunity to You know reiterate our commitment to proof of work And then start to figure out how we can complement Each other in that space maybe maybe Maybe a corollary or takeaway is that If you if you take a community and you segment them into distinct Ideologies And you you define sub communities Maybe maybe it can accelerate the growth of this project You can do it the right way I don't sometimes it's so ideologically misaligned. I just can't happen right So if you have so if there was a nation-state that wanted to create a digital concurrency with the intent of completely Surveiling and manipulating their people Then that would be incongruent with our mission. We just wouldn't do it. We just couldn't work together independent of that Okay, so we know that cryptocurrencies are going to exist as a category and fiat currencies are going to exist as a category But will there be more than two coins? Okay, different fiat's disagree so there'll be multiple fiat's but Are there like can we come up with more examples of kind of pairs of cryptocurrencies where it's kind of just Obvious that one direction is different from the other direction. They'll both continue to continue to exist I can't think of any others at the moment You can't no I can't be so any others between like Ethereum and Bitcoin Well, I mean I guess in a macro level, but but how much uh, you know tangible cooperation is taking place There's cooperation taking I'd say there's cooperation taking place kind of implicitly even between Ethereum and Bitcoin like we're using in some case the same SACP 256k1 libraries So You get you get such a thing with staking tokens. Um, if you need distinct validator sets and especially for regional validator sets, but maybe you might have The validators with different Ideas of how to secure their systems and so on so for all each of these staking sets They would have their own staking token as well, but it's not clear to me what the Market cat ratio would be between staking tokens and cryptocurrency cash tokens I could I could see the amount of privacy and generality trade-off as being a kind of not 100 100 percent resolvable as well Privacy and privacy and generality Like you could imagine general-purpose privacy, but like there's there's trade-offs that you have to make there Like one example of this is that z-cash believes in kind of forcing everything to be private whereas like We're more of a hey world and hey world legal box like you do what you want Well, but so it's in cash. It's an optionality, right? So you should have the option to be able to disclose or not disclose Right and but that you know, there's all kinds of arguments as to why you need openness, whether it's Things like audibility or things that maybe could be solved with technology, but I don't know is there is there are there Maximus out there that believe that privacy shouldn't happen that should just be completely completely open system I am I was just like at present Visiting like Korea for a week and I got at least five media people asking me questions of the form like Don't you think privacy will enable criminals? So yeah, people definitely exist in the blockchain community Hmm It's I mean I'm sure you're aware of your own coin being de-listed from a couple of exchanges I am largely because of misunderstandings and some banking concerns, but No, don't worry. I put up a good fight for you guys there So Actually that brings up another another point which is there's like aside from kind of tech and applications A third frontier of kind of possible collaboration is kind of outreach to the broader public Which couldn't and it could include the regulators that could include kind of getting public legitimacy in general Do you think there's more that we could do on that side? Yeah, I 100% believe there's more that we can do on that side In some cases like I had referenced early the kind of the need to be out kind of in the community and some of the Stuff we're we're running some pilots where we're pulling in different projects together to collectively Educate like the initial pilot we ran was was in the south fronks to collectively educate Students and what we learned about the use of of cryptocurrency in the south fronks is per capita the least unbanked population in the u.s The reality is is like once we got engaged there all of us came away completely blown away by the Inside of the students that we were kind of engaging with and they flipped the script On us But that was a project that you know brought together Like kasa who like doesn't support zcash for example Jim and I flex a number of Misari a number of projects kind of came together on these kind of efforts And I would love to be able to see more of that kind of active Collaboration one thing that was interesting in terms of regulators and sometimes it's really it's really difficult Is okx like okx had said that they were going to do less zcash and then yesterday I got a message from them saying we've decided to put this on hold And we're putting this on hold why we do further further investigation. It had to do with fad of travel requirements But it was both zcash and dash But we didn't collaborate But we went in separately and had separate kinds of conversations, but I think it would have actually been Even though there's some ideological disagreement between zcash and dash I think that it would have been a beneficial for us to kind of collectively game plan on How we work together to to provide You know additional information new information to regulators that can make better decisions One aspect of community outreach that that Some of us are exploring is for example working with Um People who are a community of people who are interested in like ethical software or how to make sure that we design for ethical systems And I think broadly in general Maybe the questioner should be asking or I feel like the question that I should be asking is like We are what kind of monetary system should we be designing for the future? And I think that comes with so many questions and communities That have different opinions already about what to do there. So there's a need to Reach out to those communities and not necessarily like indoctrinate them with blockchain, but like understand All these nuances so that we can better design our future Yeah, I think there's a lot more outreach we can do and and really in two ways one to the general public I think there's still a lot of misconceptions In the general public about what blockchain is what it can do what people do with it And the second is you know really engaging certain participants in the ecosystem who don't typically You know participate say in a forum like this We spend a lot of time engaging with regulators with exchanges with custodians Uh Because they actually can have a significant impact on the ability of the technology to see what our adoption And there's a lot more education that I think needs to be done there about What the strengths and weaknesses of the technology are and what the roadmap is? Just wanted to bring up A tangent You know so we have different ideologies of communities representing different ideologies Um I feel like what we will not just us but the world needs to get better at is allowing These communities with opposing views to have discourse together Um, and I haven't really seen good software or interfaces to allow this to happen, but it's like Wouldn't it be great if you can have A long running discussion where the end result is like almost a conversation but between representatives of two communities such that Then anyone from both sides can read and understand all nuances I feel like that would maybe help us transcend a lot of people And at the end of the day though, like I'm sure there's there's a limit sign What we will end up agreeing on And that's good. Like that's why multiple platforms exist Hmm Yeah, so, you know, is there a I guess um If there is kind of One and if one simple thing that we can start doing more of just to Get the benefits of collab of kind of collaborating reduce the harms of of anti collaborating over the next Over the next few months at least like between our communities Is there any kind of one simple Example of something we can do that pop that pops out in your head So I'd like to see more kind of Working groups again. Like I think ethereum In this kind of community is is fantastic and welcoming and warm And there's a kind of all this opportunity for collisions, but I think if we're more intentional like for Like for us in the ethereum foundation, for example to be able to have regular Times where the core like photographers developers and engineers can come together Kind of work through ideas and plans and by inviting other folks like you know Matt was in here earlier from thesis Or other people in the community and kind of lay these kind of ideas out there and then also look and collectively work on funding mechanisms So allow for some of these other Kind of potential contributors That can provide some of the glue between Between these communities I think that would be great as well I guess one is enabling communities to have a voice In the likeness of what I just mentioned like having discourse So maybe there are other things that can happen by enabling voice for a community the other thing I ask myself often is um We need to physically meet in order for this kind of You know a dialogue to happen, but how do we scale it so that we don't necessarily have to travel If we can crack that I feel like we would have much more rapid iteration rate of discovery I agree with that and I would simply add Stop trying to debate complex topics on twitter To stop can we debate complex topics on reddit? I feel like it's better, but it's still centralized. What about memo dot cash? Memo's on cash. Yeah, it's like this thing where you just like dumb comments on the big win cash blockchain It's okay because they have 32 gigabytes or something Great collaboration Okay, well, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you


Good afternoon or good morning, depending where you're dialing in from my name is Brendan O'Donnell. I'm a contractor supporting PO aviation and the vice chair of the business working group. And I'll be. Leading the discussion here today for the, for the business overview portion of the face to face meeting. It's great to see so many folks and particularly that I don't recognize. So, so welcome. If this is your 1st face business overview session, and for those that are coming back, it's always good to kind of refresh the, the, the, the, the, why behind why we're doing this or taking this face approach. So agenda for today, you'll hear from 3 speakers. I'll get, I'll give the executive overview and talk to the conformance program and processes in the, in the face library. Jason York from PO aviation will talk about the contract guide and the business guide and then chip down from RTI. We'll talk about some of the initiatives. So, well, you know, as a very high level, what is, what is face? What is face? It's an open, it's an open standard collaboratively developed under the auspices of the open group. And with participants from government industry and academia, it seeks to define a new, both technical and business approaches to developing and procuring avionics software and everything that all of the sort of finished products that the consortium produces are publicly available. And we use the, the internal processes for developing consensus from the open group, but the overall goal of face and the face approach is to get the best avionics software to the warfighter faster. And we'll talk a little more depth kind of what this means here, but but that's, that's a very high level overview of, of, of why face. Well, a little more details of why or what the current landscape looks like that has driven us to the face approach. Historically, DOD, airborne systems have been developed by a single vendor and they've been developed to a unique set of requirements. Those are platform unique designs that in the past have not enabled reuse of software across programs. There's high barriers to entry or high barriers to competition within and across platforms. So it's very difficult to get new technologies sometimes onto existing platforms. And it drives, you know, particularly from the government perspective, the need to bundle software and prevent us from getting the latest most current software on platforms because we have to kind of integrate them all together in a way that makes financial sense before we're able to put those the latest and greatest software on our platforms. The chart down there on the lower right hand side talks to the increasing complexity of software over time and throughout different platforms, both in the DOD space and in commercial aviation. And as you can see, you know, a generation or two ago, a lot of the capability in a aviation platform was, was in the hardware and the systems on the aircraft and over time, that capability really now resides in the increased capability resides in the software. And commercial aviation was on it a path of exponential growth from a software complexity and cost standpoint. They, they put in some processes to drive down or break that curve in order to flatten it out and reduce the cost and time required to integrate software. And, you know, a lot of the the impetus for face came from some of those efforts to bring that to the DOD platforms. So currently, or historically, we haven't been able to reuse software across platforms. There's no set of open standards in that. And for those that did exist, it was, it was very difficult to enforce conformance to those standards. As importantly, the, the acquiring aircraft organizations within DOD weren't funded or incentivized to look across the enterprise and support reuse of software. And so the face, the organizations that started face realized that perhaps a government industry collaborative open standard may address some of those issues and face was born. So, let me tell you kind of from a very practical perspective, what's this what this means to the the warfighter who's flying a DOD aircraft, and I'll use myself as an example. I'm a former Marine Corps attack helicopter pilot in 2005, I was a young captain in the fleet, flying fleet aircraft, with no appreciation for any sort of acquisitions or systems development. I was the squadron safety officer, which, which each squadron has a school trained safety officer who's responsible for the safety program within the organization, and additionally is responsible for conducting a mishap investigations. While the ploy overseas to Iraq, we were conducting a mishap investigation that was related to some causal factors having to do with the way that the transponder was installed in the H1 aircraft. In that aircraft, the transponder was installed in the front seats, so two pilots, only the front seat pilot could change the transponder. And that transponder had mechanical dials, kind of plunger buttons that needed to get pushed. That often got stuck, lots of sand got in there. And so at one point, this, this mishap occurred because the pilots lost situational awareness due to the fact that they had to pass the controls to the pilot in the front seat in order to make a transponder change. Within the course of doing that investigation, we developed something called a hazard report, which gets promulgated out to the aviation community. And some folks came forward with a potential solution that would replace that mechanical box, move it to the tail boom of the aircraft, and put the ability to change transponder codes within our CDN use or a comm nav system. That would enable pilots in either seat to change those codes and then eliminate the problems that we had with the mechanical plungers. And so we ran that up the process. Again, as a young captain in the fleet, did everything that we needed to do, and the response that we got back was no, we're not going to do that. We're not going to make that investment. And when we pushed a little more, we said, this is, this is crazy. The cost to do this is not that much per aircraft from what we had discovered. However, the, what we didn't realize is that this happened, the hardware costs, but really was the integration intuitively of that new software that we're prohibitive. Additionally, we had an upgraded aircraft that was coming out that would address this issue. But the type model series that we flew flew for another about 10 years with this same problem that never got fixed. From a fleet aviaries perspective, something like FACE, had we had that in place, may have reduced those software integration costs and been able to provide the latest technology out to the fighter. So just a quick case study of at a very practical level for what we think FACE can improve and over the current way we field technology. So looking at FACE and this diagram here asks the question about what is competitive about all these devices and we're re-in the room together. I'd wait for an answer, but it's pretty obvious here that what's competitive about these devices is the application design. So a light bulb can provide light in many different ways. It provides different wavelengths. It provides, has different characteristics for the amount of heat it gives off, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, energy efficiency and all of those are competitive features of the light bulb. However, it would make no sense if every time you were, you know, wouldn't be efficient if every time you wanted to change the type of light bulb that you were using in your house, you had to go completely replace all of the light bulb receptacles. So the interface to the modern light bulb has been standardized and there's an ANSI standard there that describes the interface that those light bulbs need to use in order to be, in order to be attractive to the marketplace. And this at a very basic level is what we're trying to accomplish with this. So on the left side you see how we've traditionally developed new technologies and fielded them into DOD aircraft, very low level integration. Each, on the left side, each of those technologies really has a one-off or a one-X integration cost and effort for each of the platforms on the left-hand side. With the, you know, all of the requirements that the war fighters have, we just have too few dollars to supply all of those technology needs and we wind up making trades over, you know, what technologies we're going to prioritize. On the right-hand side, with the face approach and looking at the face sort of technical architecture there that the TWG overview will go into much more detail, the desire is to be able to develop those technologies and use them across multiple platforms. And so if we do invest in a new software provided capability that we can not only use that as we would on the on the left-hand side for a single platform, but that same software can be used across the fleet. The bottom line is to be able to provide more capabilities to the war fighters for the for the dollars that we're investing. And so that drives kind of four characteristics of face, affordability, drive down costs for both industry and government, speed, enable fielding of technology at a more rapid rate, something that's been proven in the commercial aerospace world. Agility, using common architecture and common data models and data platforms, increasing interoperability across domain systems and capabilities. And then finally, excellence driving, the face does not make claims about the technical performance as we'll see here in a minute about about a face conformance software. We do believe that the face approach will support the excellence in the development of aviation software. So the two major stakeholders that that you know form the members of the consortium and really are the beneficiaries of the face approach on the one hand is the government. We've talked a bit about there, but the face approach helps government PMs. It helps government technologists address policy mandates. So, you know, there were some recent guidance released in the form of the tri-services memo. Each of the services have been promulgating updated policy mandates regarding modular open systems architecture approaches. And so face helps government systems engineers and PMs address some of those policy mandates. In addition, we believe the face approach will enable the government to spend their investment dollars in a much more efficient way. So reducing lifecycle costs, reducing obsolescence issues, enabling the government to spend their dollars on fielding technologies to the warfighter. We believe face will allow us to do that at a faster pace. So, you know, the example I showed before from my experience, you know, perhaps had the face ecosystem existed then, there would have been a faster path to be to enable the increased capability that would have made sense from a 10-year horizon when it didn't make sense because we had a replacement type model series coming. At the end of the day, we want to support reuse in order to be able to drive increased capabilities to the warfighter. Just as important, and I think something that the face approach has done very well is in the development of the technical standard and these business approaches have been very conscious of industry's role in developing software and their need to make a profit. And so what are some of those benefits to the industry stakeholders within face? Obviously, the customer has those policies and mandates we talked about earlier about open systems architectures and face helps industry support the customer requirements. Face for industry can increase competitive opportunities. So, in the legacy way of providing capabilities to the warfighter, many of those platforms, the, you know, competition was effectively locked out because a vendor didn't win a spot on the latest and greatest platform that was selected. Those vendors had high barriers to entry and because those were closed platforms. With the face approach, even if a particular vendor is not successful in getting in, let's just say on an initial acquisition of a platform, because that platform has open architectures designed in, they can remain competitive over the lifecycle of the platform. So things that were previously closed to them under the face approach are not. And then, you know, face is just a good way to do business as far as being able to reuse software across product lines, drive down industries time to develop new software and pursue product line approaches that have a real return on investment. So for a long time in this brief, we talked about face as something that was coming. Face that was from a business perspective that was very future looking and had all of these great promises. But face is up, it's running. Version three dot one of the standard is out. Industry is using software product lines with face requirements across multiple primes and suppliers and seeing a return on those investments. There's a ton of technical business expertise available. If you look at some of the face outreach events, the efforts with Balsa to get a hello world type face application out there, all of the technical interchange meetings and the integration events that have been supported have demonstrated that from a technical perspective, folks can build software to face. And folks are interested in building software to face. On the other side, government has come out with several RFIs, RFPs, programs of record that have face requirements. If you go to the face registry, which we'll talk about in a little bit, there's currently 22 units of conformance that have completed the complete process from 13 software suppliers. And every indication we have is that there is a lot more on the way. So the bottom line is that face is not something that's coming in the future. It's here today. It's ready to use and it's ready for folks to develop to. Here are some consortium members. I won't spend a lot of time here, but you can see just from the organization of consortium, they're sponsor level members, principal level members, and then associate members. It's the face is broken up into the business working group, technical working group. And then there's the enterprise architecture standing committee and the domain interoperability working group are sort of the main or the organizational structure of the consortium. A few common misconceptions, just as before we get started in talking about some of the details on conformance and the face library that that will address, particularly, we found this is helpful for folks who are participating for the first time, is that all face platform software must be face, all platform software must be face conformant. That is a misconception. What those pieces of software that are or are not face conformant on a particular platform or program, that's a business case that the individual PM will need to work through, but there's nothing inherent about face that requires everything on a platform to be face conformant. Lots of folks have concerns around data rights and how face impacts industries ability to maintain their IP. There's nothing inherent about face that makes any claim on software intellectual property or data rights. All of those things just like in any other program will require clear contractual language to spell out what the government or assistance integrator is going to acquire and those that they're not. Face as you'll see here in a bit has provided a good deal of guidance to help both software developers and program managers or integrators think through those issues. Face only applies to future systems, not true. There's lots of efforts going on right now to apply face to the current fleet. Another misconception is that face somehow guarantees or prevents airworthiness qualification. Again, nothing about face and we'll talk to you in a bit. Face really is talking about software interfaces and there's nothing about face that either guarantees that you'll be airworthy if you develop somebody in the face standard or prevents it. That being said, there's lots of work going on to assist software developers and integrators and program managers to be able to reuse artifacts that were generated for face conformance for other qualification processes including airworthiness. Misconception about faces that it either ensures or inhibits performance. Talk about this more, but face does not test your unit of conformance for function and you only test for whether it aligns or meets the requirements of the face technical standard. Then it's cost and schedule prohibitive. Again, nothing about face and we believe this has been demonstrated is particularly costly or time consuming from a software development perspective. There's lots of, and we'll talk about where you can find these, but there's lots of work that's been done in the consortium over the past several years to support development of the standard and to support folks being able to develop and acquire software that's been developed to the face standard. Here's just a sample of some of those products that are available to you. If you're interested in developing to the standard, we'll talk about where you can find some of this information. Again, as we said before, all of the work products, once they get through the internal approval processes for face are publicly available and anybody in the world can develop face units of conformance. Just real quick for those that are interested in participating this week in the business working group, we kind of have two focuses that we've taken. One is kind of a strategic longer-term focus, led up by James Doty, who's the PWG chair and chip downing, who's the chair of the outreach committee, looking forward and looking at things that are coming down to Python where we want to be next year or five years down the road. The other side of the work with the business working group is ensuring the processes that we've got today, conformance, some of our library tools, problem reporting and change request processes, are working and those current trains are being run on time. For this week, we've got two sessions. There's one tomorrow afternoon and then one Wednesday afternoon. The first session will be focused on outreach, upcoming events and some of the near-term focus work. And then the second session will be more general all hands and we'll talk about some of the some items related to face road map. So how are we looking forward and where do we, Joe talked a little this morning about evolution of the face technical standard, but where do we see that from a timeline and then what are all the events to the left of, let's just say the next either minor or major version of the face technical standard that need to happen to support that. We'll also talk about some of the website updates and some other things during that second session tomorrow. So if you have an interest in some of the face business processes, please join us for those two sessions this week. So I'll stop here and pause. If there's anybody got any quick questions on the overview, we can try to address them. Next, we'll talk a little bit about some of the more specific products and processes, the contract guide, business guide and then some outreach items. And like I said before, I am trying to keep us right about two and a half hours so folks can make the CWG at 315 Eastern. All right, thank you for your attention. And like I said, if you do have questions, go ahead and just submit them in the chat box and we will try to address them. We'll also try to make some time at the end for just any general questions. But next up will be Jason York to talk about contract guide and the business guide. Thank you, Brandon.  But before I do that, I kind of want to set the stage, give you a bit of background while we think these are important and then discuss the aspects of each. Next slide, please. Brandon, can you advance? Sorry about that. Hey, no problem. Thank you. So over the last 20 months, we've seen a significant amount of modular open system approach guidance come out. Back in January of 19, there was a cross-services memo. We were very excited about that because it's simply called out face as an open standard. We got a couple of quotes from that memo. And shortly after that, the secretary of the Navy issued an instruction that was already in the works. But that kind of expanded upon that and emphasized the importance of MOSA for the Navy. The Army acquisition executive back earlier this year put out a policy for MOSA that was specifically derived from the tri-services memo. And most recently, the secretary of the Air Force issued an instruction back towards the end of June. So I just wanted to make sure that you're aware of all the MOSA guidance that we've received over a very short period of time. And there are, you know, follow-on more detailed, you know, guidance coming out. This isn't something for a specific service. This is really DOD-wide. And if you're interested in more details on this, we actually have it in the Face Business Guide 3.0 that will be published soon. So hopefully by the end of this week or maybe next week. But it's definitely in the pipeline and should come out so you can read more about this. So why is this important? Next slide, please. So MOSA and the face approach. And to understand MOSA, there are really five principles that it's broken down to. I've got them listed here. And the face approach actually addresses each one of those principles. So why is the face approach important? Because if you follow the face approach, now granted, it's restricted to the software domain. That's what we are as a component level standard for software. But if you follow the face approach, you address all five of the MOSA principles. Or at least it greatly helps you address all five of the MOSA principles. So that's why it's really important. Next slide. So the face contract guide 3.0. This was recently published in June, right before the virtual 10-year anniversary meeting. So the intent of the contract guide is to help with the finding requirements, help recreation of solicitation with face requirements. It actually provides sample language that acquiring PM can go in and read tailor for their facilities. And it's broken down, the original version, version 1.0, we focused on request for proposals. So that's broken down in the specific things that you typically see. Statement of work, section L, section M, section H, and deliverables. So in the deliverables coverage of the contract guide, there's a table. And it goes through the standard software deliverables and any specific tailoring that you would need for face. And one thing that's really telling is faced up and require additional software deliverables. They're seed drills. We start talking about additional seed drills. PMs start bringing time and money. Well, we fit context of deliverables that's already currently out there and common in acquiring software. So for version 2 of the contract guide, we expanded it. We were seeing a lot of request for information coming out. So for version 2, we added request for information. Section E gave some example topics that covered a few different things including data architecture, data modeling. And then the most recent version, we expanded that into broad agency announcements and other transaction authority topics because we were seeing a good bit of that coming out. Just for, this may be old hat to most people, but the broad agency announcement, it does follow the FAR 30-016. And you can use that for acquisition of basic and applied research, but it can't be specifically related to a specific system or a hardware procurement. Now, the OTA is not governed by FAR, but it gives the government the authority to carry out certain prototype projects. So it really helps streamline and what we're seeing here is acquisition of innovative research and prototype from industry and academia. So I'm sure that most of your seeing things come out, opportunities come out in DAAs or OTAs, so we decided to expand the contract guide to cover those. And I want to say, there's many different ways for the acquiring people. We didn't want to be cookie cutter, so we took a standard approach, but we also provided a commentary box which shows other ways to ask for certain things. Maybe you don't want to have a separate risk management plan, and if Paulie should explain that you're pretty small, but you want to roll that into a software development plan, we get commentary in there to give you some options. We couldn't enumerate all the potential cases that are acquiring PMs on my encounter, but we tried to cover most that feels pretty common. And the contract guide, the focus is, like I said, acquiring PMs and their staff to actually, where the rubber meets the road to go out and make procurement with products that satisfy face requirements to acquire that software. Next slide. Now the business guide version 3.0, like I mentioned, it is going to be published. It's in the final stages of publication, so you should wrap up and get that out published and make it publicly available. It is more of an outreach document, and it goes over the value and benefit of the government and industry and how they are addressed. And what you will see in that is a lot of this makes about it, how the face approach is satisfying the most about it, and it is the reason why you should follow the face approach. So those are the two assets that I wanted to cover with you today. Next slide. Quick summary, comparing the face contract guide, the business guide, who is our intimate audience and what is the purpose. If you have any questions about this, we have contact information for James, Brendan and myself. We are happy to engage with you and provide you with anything you need on either of those. Okay, Jason, thank you. And Mr. Matthew Drew, I see your question there. That's a great question. I promise you we will come back and we will address that. I would like to keep moving here and give Chip enough time at the end, and then we will come back and definitely talk to that. So next topic is to talk about face conformance and that process, and perhaps we will address some of your questions here, kind of the why, what, who, and how related to the face program. And so what is face conformance? It is an assessment of a software item or domain specific data model known as a unit of conformance to the applicable conformance requirements in the technical standard. So the, that which gets certified is known as a unit of conformance. And it gets certified against the face technical standard. So I've briefly discussed a bit earlier. It is not a measure of any of the functionality or performance of the software that's to be being developed. Only alignment to the face technical standard primarily how those interfaces align to the technical standard. Some verification evidence is done by inspection, but there's no functional testing as part of the face performance process. So if your, you know, your algorithm adds two plus two, face will not be checking to make sure the answer is four. And if it's five, it won't, it can still be face conformance. And it's also not a guarantee of a plug-and-play solution. So face does not eliminate the need for systems engineering, but it likely reduces the level of the engineering requirements in order to reuse that software. And so when we talk about face, and if you've been around the open group for any number of times, certain folks will beat you up about being very precise in some of the language. But there is no compliance to the conformance standard. There's no alignment to the face standard. It's either certified conformant or it is not. And what that means is it's completed all the steps in the face conformance process. Systems don't get necessarily a face certification. Only those units of conformance are what gets certified. And a system or a subsystem can be made of both face-certified UOCs or software components that don't align to the face standard. And there's currently no face certification for things like independent libraries, runtimes, or frameworks. So why do the face conformance process, why do face conformance in this Jason highlighted earlier, one of the most tenants was having certification. And so face provides a level of confidence that the unit of conformance does comply to the technical standard. So we'll talk a little bit here about some of the roles in the face conformance process. And as you read some of the documents that Jason described earlier, you can get more details about each of these. But we talk about the software supplier. And let me just say, often companies can fill, well, a few different roles, but the software supplier generally is that entity that's developing software to the standard. So that could be an integrator or the original developer or anybody else that wants to get a get some software certified. Face verification authorities have been approved by the face steering committee. And there are several of them. I believe right now there are four face VA's. Some of them are government organizations. Some of them are commercial entities. But those are the those are within face that is who conducts that for the record tests that tests your software against the face technical standard. And then once that's complete, they provide the verification evidence for the face certification authority. So there is a single face certification authority. Currently it is the open group. And that's the organization that's required or that's responsible for ensuring that all of the paperwork from the VA has been complete. All of the data about a face UOC has been provided. And then at the end of the day, they're the ones to provide that face conformance certificate. In addition to that, there's also some benefit that they provide from a trademark and maintaining the brand of the face perspective. And then additionally, there's the face library administrator. So that's the entity also being performed by the open group currently that is responsible for managing the listing of the face of the face certified units of conformance that are published publicly available in the face registry. So just a very high level diagram of the process that the face conformance program lays out. Before a software supplier gets started, there's some work to be done to the left of the process, which is preparation. So that's understanding what's involved in developing the software, doing your homework and then building your software. When a software supplier is ready, they can initiate verification of that software that's been developed. And to do that, they will coordinate with one of those face verification authorities. That is a contractual relationship between that software supplier and that face verification authority. There's a cost associated with getting that unit of that software verified. That cost will vary and it's a market set price. So depending on how complicated your software is, the cost may be relatively low or high. Once that process is complete, then the software supplier can initiate certification of that unit that software. They'll provide some paperwork.  And then there's also a fee that I believe is about $980 right now to get that unit of that software fully certified. Then when the software supplier wants to, they can register that software in the face registry. So they can make that face certified unit of conformance publicly available for folks to discover.  So a few takeaways. In face, the software is either fully, has completed the face conformance process or it's not. So there's no such thing as being almost face or aligned to the face standard or compliant with the technical regulations of the face standard. It's either been through the process or it's not. If you want to learn more about conformance, if you go to opengrip.org slash face, there's a conformance tab. And then for everything we've over the last couple of years, one of the keys to success to navigating through this process is getting with your verification authority early. They are the technical experts on doing face conformance certification. And those folks can help you navigate through the most difficult part of the process, which is getting the technical certification. So that's a bit about face conformance and the process. And I'll talk next about the face library. So I'll go through these relatively quickly, but face has provided infrastructure to discover units of conformance that have completed the process. In addition, there's a few web tools, the web page, and a couple other tools that support communicating information about face and also some of the certification processes that we'll talk about here in a second. So we have this something called the face registry. It's at facesoftware.org slash registry. And as we discussed before, only software that has completed the entire face conformance process is listed in the registry. So once it's complete, then at the software suppliers initiation, they can publish that into the registry and the world can discover their face unit of conformance. The registry is kind of set up like an Amazon. You can filter for different characteristics. You can search the registry and the purpose there is to promote discovery of face applications. When we get to how you're going to actually acquire or get that face unit of conformance, that then moves into kind of a one-on-one contractual interaction between a software supplier and the acquiring party. We have something called the face landing page, which a lot of you I'm sure I have seen, but it's at opengroup.org slash face. And here's where you can find lots of information on generally about the consortium, when the next meetings are. And then this is really the gateway to all of that publicly available face information, the documents and things that we talked about a few slides earlier. To support gathering the metadata that eventually will populate in the face registry, the government members of the consortium have developed and provided to the open group a workflow tool. So users can log in. You can provide metadata about your unit of conformance. And then there are steps in the process to get that metadata published into the registry. And as you can see at the top, that workflow in the workflow tool maps to the high-level diagram we talked about earlier. And then the face registry, as I mentioned, is where users can go and view those units of conformance that have completed the process and that are available to be acquired. I mentioned earlier that all of those face documents, once they're complete, the internal open group review process are publicly available. So anybody in the world can get them and develop face conformance software for those users that don't have access to something like the face-to-face meetings, or for anybody that has a problem developing using those published documents and tools. We also have a problem reporting and change request web tool. So any user can come here, can log in. Their information is anonymized when it gets submitted, but they can either provide recommendations for improving an existing face document or tool, or if there are a problem developing to the standard, they can communicate that. When things come into the tool, they get adjudicated, they get sent to the right folks within the consortium to address them. If their routine matters, they get put on a certain track to get addressed, if it's something that's preventing a user from developing to the standards, say one of our tools is not working as advertised or there's a problem that the consortium wasn't aware of, that gets on an accelerated timeline to be addressed. And so the face library, as I said, everything contains a few tools, the website, the problem reporting change request process and the registry primarily, and it's really about supporting the infrastructure for developing and discovering those face users. Okay, still haven't forgotten about the questions in the chat. We'll chip you're up and I'll click through your slides and then we'll come back and address those questions and then anything else and then that way folks who need to move on to the TWG will not hold. Thanks, Brendan. Can everybody hear me okay? Yep, got you on the clear chip. Perfect, next slide please. I am Chip Downing. I am the Senior Market Development Director at Real-Time Innovations. I also am the face BWG Outreach Chair. We have a committee that's formed to promote face globally. Here's our charter right here about promoting the adoption and support of the face technical standard and business approach. These efforts include developing, coordinating, messaging, education, events, outreach efforts, whatever it takes for supporting a global aerospace defense audience. Next slide please. So today's, or I think it's, yeah, I think it's today's outreach agenda during the BWG meeting. We typically go through new announcements and updates and there's typically always something that changes almost every meeting. We'll talk about the different government speaking opportunities. We look at our five-year strategy. We have Army, Navy and Air Force update the team on their commitments. Also take a look at some activities, events that are coming up here in the near future. Next slide please. Things change. Certainly COVID has made a lot of things change. We're going to have a face technical interchange meeting and that's an event sponsored by the face consortium and its members where we meet at a facility and demonstrate our face conformant and or face aligned products together. It was supposed to be in the Holiday Inn in Solomon's in a couple weeks. It's not going to happen now. It's now going to have been pushed off to March 23, 2020 at the same location. This is an event that's open to everybody. It's free. There's no cost to attend. There may be a slight cost to exhibit but in most cases it's free as anybody can come in including folks from outside the United States. It's not an ITAR or any type of U.S. only type of event. It is open to everyone. It's a good venue to see all the different partner integration stacks, to see the different players organized together and just network with everybody on the team. Next slide please. This is James. Just to clarify, the date is 2021 for the next time, not 2020. I think I've been correctly marked on that chart. You're right. Absolutely. Okay. Just making sure. The date's changed so much. I know I've got something wrong here. So on this slide I was smart. I did not put a year in but the same thing happened with the aerospace tech week. It was supposed to happen in March. Then it was supposed to happen next March 2021 and just this week it was announced that they've now pushed that out to June 9th and 10th and to lose France. And if you've ever been to France in the summer times to lose a great place to go, especially the first week of June, couple weeks of June. So I hope everybody can go there. This is not a face consortium sponsored event. This is sponsored by Aerospace Tech Week. There is exhibition space available for face members and other companies that are exhibiting face conformant and or face aligned products. But there's a few spots left and I think with this date extension we'll probably do a sellout at this event.  If you are trying to sell your face conformer products over in Europe, this is a great place to try to do that. If you like being a face ambassador to European nations, this is also a great place to do that. Next slide please. Any questions? So next slide. There's some contact information here. One more. There you go. So the presenters are James Stote, Brendan O'Donnell, Chip Downey, Jason York. Feel free to contact us if you have any questions whatsoever. Back to you Brendan. Okay, James. Thanks, Chip. And I just wanted to emphasize more and send out earlier, I believe last Friday, with the registration that for the September 21st, Tim, the event itself was to get canceled and the in-person portion of that is getting moved to live next March. But there is an event on the 21st, so from today, next Monday, where the papers are going to be presented. Sally or Alicia, if there's anything I missed there was unclear about, please let me know. Yeah, no, actually Brendan, this is Sally. Thank you for reiterating that. Lauren did send out a reminder to ask folks to register for the Tim next Monday. We're looking forward to a great event. It's actually got several papers from FACE being presented and there's two tracks. So that's open. And then yes, indeed, we are looking forward to the expo live and in person on March 23rd and having a lot of the exhibitors and all of the new products and achievements to be showcased. So thank you for pointing that out. I appreciate it. Alicia, anything to please ma'am? I would just say that there are non-FACE topic related papers and I think there's an additional five or so SOSA papers and even some of the SOSA papers show the interaction relationship between FACE and SOSA technical standards working together. So we're very, very excited about this. This is a situation where if it hadn't been virtual, all the authors would not be able to present. And so we are very, very excited that the authors of all nine papers are able to present at the team. So thank you. And in one additional comment, I apologize, Brendan, for Shanghai and the meeting real quick on the Tim next week. Once we are with our sponsor, Adakor, who's kicking it off and then Captain Wilson, who will be giving opening remarks, that's when we will shift off to two tracks. I wanted to share the news that the start of track two is actually Chris Crook, who will be doing a FACE introduction and then he will share the microphone with Patrick Collier, who's going to do a SOSA one. But that's right off the bat after the opening remarks happen at the Tim next Monday. Thank you. And that's open to... To the public. It's free to attend. Yep. So thank you for those updates. Okay. So we have about 17 minutes until the TWG brief starts. We'll shift. So number one, thank you for your time and attention. I want to try to keep us on schedule. And so we'll go to the question, Matthew, that you had and for folks who might not be able to see the chat. And the question is, can you explain a bit about the emphasis on low cost? Is my understanding that gaining conformance can be expensive and time consuming process? How do you market this to new UOC developers slash companies interested in throwing in? How can you market this to new companies interested in throwing in their hat to the FACE development community? So I will say just... And I want to make sure we were precise about this earlier in the brief. When we talk about, and I think particularly from the government perspective, reducing costs. What we're really talking about is reducing integration costs and enabling DOD to spend its investment dollars on capabilities that are going to go to the war fighter and not spending those resources on kind of deadweight integration costs. And so there's definitely other folks on this call who can talk more about the... From a technical perspective, the time and the costs for developing a FACE UOC. But I think as Chris alluded to in his comment in the chat, generally not more expensive. But a lot of that's going to be a function of the complexity of the unit of conformance that you're trying to get certified. And so I think you have to look at it as compared to what and the question is does developing a piece of software to the FACE standard add appreciably more time and effort or cost than if you were developing that software to another standard perhaps? Chris, if you're on the line, is there anything else you'd like to talk to there? Okay, great. Let's see. I hope that answered your question, Matthew. And if there's other questions, I'm happy to stay on the line for a while, but I did want to allow our folks to get a quick break before they have to be back for the TWG overview. Are there any other FACE business overview related questions? Just one last comment, friend, and sorry, Sally again. I'm also excited to announce that Jill Carter is giving the closing remarks at the TIM next Monday. So, Joe, forgive me for not mentioning that up front. We're thrilled to have you do so. Thanks. And so for folks who are new to FACE, please, you know, you saw a couple names on there. My name, Brendan O'Donnell, Jason York, Chip Downing, James Doty, who's the Chair of the BWG. There's anything in particular that you want a deeper dive on or get a demonstration of, or have specific questions from a business perspective, particularly if you're looking to advocate for FACE in your organization, and you need materials to help describe why the FACE approach and some of the benefits there. Please don't hesitate to reach out to any of us. If we, you know, if we can't do it this week because of the FACE meeting, we're happy to do it kind of a one-on-one session with anybody, you know, over the next couple of weeks to get you the information. And with that, I don't see any other questions. I'll give about five more seconds. And if anybody wants to post one, great. And if not, then appreciate your waste time. And we will talk to you later this week. And please join us for the Business Working Group sessions tomorrow and Wednesday.


Our natural state of who we are has got created us this sacred, but to me, nothing of the earth is sacred. Where I could say that flipside is in the state of mind everything of the earth is sacred, you know, because it's all inclusive. So you could say it either way, but it's like this state, no thing, no individual thing, you know, no person, place, thing, object. I'm not really into spiritualizing matter and turning some of holy water. I've got holy water here, you know, like they have in the Catholic Church, you know. Really, I'm not in it. I mean, I go to, they have me speak in all kinds of centers. I was out in Los Angeles at the Sai Baba Center, and they get to choose a Sai Baba, and flowers, and came and sit in the chairs. That's the flowers in there and the fruit, and it's like, what's the fruit for? It's like, well, it's an offering for the Master, you know. I don't think he's really interested in the fruit. You know, it's a state of mind that's not personal, so we don't need to have these personal kind of gurus and look up to people, as if there's some that have got it and some that don't, because that's not really what the state is. You know, it's a state of perfect equality where we're all in it together. And that's the feeling I have, is that, you know, of course in that state that no one's ahead, no one's behind, there aren't beginners and intermediate and advanced, it's all the same thing. So to me, that's what the state is. It's a state of perfect union, perfect connectedness, and it doesn't have these little degrees and gradations. And that's also why there's perfected vulnerability, because if everything is connected and everything is one, then what would attack even mean? You have to have two to have an attack. You have to have an attacker and an attackee. But if everything is one, then it just means that invulnerability is natural, because there is no attack. So that's what the topic is tonight. I want to just pause for a moment and see that this is all resonating, or if there's things that are like, ooh, ooh, ee-e-e-e-e, but this is different than what I thought I was going to hear. If there's any questions or comments or things like that, then we can use this. Can you be disrespected about yourself? Yeah, it's like as you go on the spiritual path, that's where you really, really start to get down deeper and deeper and deeper, because the ego will try to find anything to be insulted about or feel like it's being mistreated in some way. All sense of victimization is based on the beliefs that you can be unfairly treated and certainly being disrespected. And once you kind of get past a lot of other things, then it's like the ego is kind of like that spider sitting back and just a look or a glance or a facial expression can be like, how dare you? Or maybe you're expecting a comment or you're expecting something to compliment or something like this and it's not there. It's the absence of it. Again, it seems like an insult or a sense of being disrespected. It's like I was just down in Argentina last November and these two women had been classmates when they were 17 years old and they are now in their 50s and they re-met in one of my gatherings. And so they've connected and they became really close friends and they call each other and they have breakfast together now and they chat and they have tea and they were my translators when I went down there. So that one was on my one side, she was like translating everything that I was saying to the audience and the other one was on the other side and everything that was spoken in Spanish, she was whispering in my ear giving me the Spanish to English translation. So we did 15, 20 different gatherings and it was this miracle where everything was flowing, flowing and then one of the gatherings, one Patricia, the one who was translating over here for me, she saw some people that came in to the gathering and she recognized them and she knew who they were and she just was like looking and she told me that she was insulted that they were walking late to the gathering that they were extremely disruptive and she said the one, she said I knew him, I knew he's not sincere and he's not devoted to anything so I purposely didn't even send him an email because I didn't even want him there and my other friends, my best friend, she must have invited him and brought him in and they walked in late and she just continued translating, she just was... and then he asked a question of me and I answered him and he kind of kept at it and she told me later she said oh he was toying with you, he was trying to trap you, he was trying to set you up she was just seething, just trying to continue on with the translation, just seething that this man would be trying to trap me and trap me and trap me and then they got up when the gathering was still going on and they left early she said oh she could hardly stay in her chair, you know, that they... how they even got here without the email and then to come in late and then to do the trapping questions and then to leave early, she was just really insulted and so all the way home she was just like oh I was so angry David, I couldn't believe it and she said, didn't you see any of that, don't you intuit that, didn't you intuit any of that and I said no, no, I thought he was so sweet, you know, it's just... I mean you're in that state where all you want to do is give and you're not looking for anything, you know, you know I was in a cafe today talking about this with the waitress who was preparing the food and there was a woman reading a book off to the side and then before we left she came up and said I want to come to the gathering and I'll be there late and so on and so forth and so put down a name and we called her and told her where it was going to be and everything but it's like, you know, the best part of it is that you don't have to plan it or figure it out you just show up, I always just show up I mean it seems like physically I always show up if they put my name on something and say I'm going to be there, I show up and then emotionally or with my heart I show up and that's it, I mean that's as far as I go with it I mean I don't pick the words to say I don't have to figure anything out figure the questions out or figure anything out I go there to give and there's a line in the Course in Miracles where Jesus says that in any situation where you perceive that something is lacking it is always what you have failed to give that's what is lacking in any situation what you have failed to give well that's, when you look at that that's the way out of feeling disrespected is to show up with just the willingness to give and you have this wellspring of love inside of you that just wants to come pouring through so it's not like you have a shortage it's like having the ocean in your heart and wanting to just pour out the ocean and so I think for me that's where it went from a spiritual practice into a state of mind


When you start a street brand, I feel like the key is throw it up on Instagram, give it away, see my clothes online, on other people. Duke Christian George III from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, proudly, and we're in Los Angeles, California right now, and I have a brand called Cloney. My first shirt, the Coachella shirt, ended up on Alessandra Ambrosia, and she got photographed in it. It's crazy how it just happens. So we're in the back part of my garage, detached garage from my house that I live in, and there's a little back area that I've kind of turned into the Cloney headquarters.  I'll call my friend who's good on Photoshop and I'll go find my blanks. What I think is cool would it look like, and I'll just print them and, you know, do them out of my trunk. Justin Bieber was next. He loved the gangsters' jacket. He wore it to Kendall Jenner's birthday.  Bella Thorne Ward is a young, it-girl actress who has a zillion followers. They're a brand and they start wearing it and it forced me to, like, really go...


In 1974, a little over a week before he and Mickey Mantle were inducted into the Hall of Fame together, Whitey Ford's number 16 was retired by the Yankees. Earlier today on social media, the Yankees posted pictures of tonight's uniforms featuring the patch honoring him. Bob Lorenz and John Flaherty back with you once again. We got to grow and love, well, everybody loved Whitey Ford. Big events at Old Timers Day and you even got to see not only at Old Timers Day, but spring training and be around him. Yeah, around him in spring training, but my greatest memory of Whitey Ford is 2009 when the Yankees opened up the new stadium. Yankees were nice enough to invite me to be a Yankee legend to like circle the infield. I was embarrassed to be there, right? But it was all about alphabetical order. I get announced, I walk out to my spot. Who's behind me? But Whitey Ford walking towards me and I was almost embarrassed to be standing there and he comes up right next to my right side and he kind of leans in and he said, kid, who they playing today? Who they opening up with? And I said, Mr. Ford, they're opening up with the Cleveland Indians. And he proceeded to go on about an opening day start that he had against Cleveland and he won that game. And I don't even remember any of that, Bob. I actually remember being smart enough to look around and take it all in and realize Whitey Ford is talking to me on the new Yankee stadium field. It's a moment that'll live with me forever. Yeah, Flaherty and Ford right next to each other. All right, Paul O'Neill showed his love earlier today tweeting a picture of himself and Whitey together wearing their pinstripe finest. And right now we want to hear some recollections about the legend from Paul, Michael K. and Buck Showalter. And Paul, let's start with you. That's a great tribute on social media. Well, it's one of the things you get to do as a New York Yankee. You get to meet Yogi and Mickey and Whitey and they were always together. And, you know, I remember the first year going out there, going out on the field. It was such a tradition for the Yankees to have the all-time greats out on the field. And it's the first time that it kind of struck me as I'm somewhere different. This is a franchise that loves its history and loves its winning. There was always a twinkle in his eye and I was listening to Flash talk. It was always kid. How are you doing kid? And that day, that picture was the last old-timers day and I remember walking down the tunnel and, you know, Yogi and Whitey are always the last called. And I said, Whitey, you got to hustle up, man. He's kind of scuffling around.  I'm sprinting. And I tell you what, he's sprinting to the finish line. Well, he was an amazing guy. And, you know, Paul talked about the relationship with Yogi and I was lucky enough to be involved in the old-timers days at the old stadium. And just when Yogi and Whitey and Mickey and Billy were together, they just lit up and Paul said it best. It's hard to articulate, but when Whitey Ford was in a room, there was sort of a magic. There was a sparkle in his eye.  He always seemed to be smiling.  It was a great American life. A kid born in Manhattan and then moved to a story of Queens and makes it with the Yankees and pitches a brilliant game in Game 4 against the Phillies in 1950. And he became one of the all-time greats. He has the greatest winning percentage of any pitcher in the 20th century, has six World Series titles, and two of them were taken away, would have had eight, because he was not on the 51 and 52 World Series championship teams because he served in the military. And I also had the honor and the privilege of being called kid by Whitey Ford. He was a delight to be around, always had a smile, always had a great line and a quip. And he's really the last of the Old Guard, the Monument Park Old Guard, the Mount Rushmore of Yankee greats that is now gone. And it's sad. It's a sad moment for sure.  And I think he enjoyed every second of it.


Cranes take their name from the shrill sound of their voices. They have a special way of setting out on a journey. The birds arrange themselves with military discipline. To make sure they are not driven off course, they swallow sand, weighing themselves down with gravel until they are heavy enough to resist the force of the wind. Then they fly to a great height, so that by looking down from above they can see their destination. One leader flies ahead of the flock. The leader knows the way, scolds lazy flyers and keeps the others in order with her calls. If her voice becomes hoarse, another bird will take her place. And if a member of the flock becomes tired, the others will gather around to secure her in the air and allow their companion to rest until she regains her strength. At night, the cranes keep a careful watch. The guards stand at their places, watching over the rest of the flock as they sleep. Other birds circle the camp, looking out for any enemies who might attack them. When there is cause for alarm, the cranes call out to wake the rest of the flock and make sure they are safe. The flock divides the night into watches and arranges the sequence of guards according to strict rules. Once a guard has completed her time on duty, she goes to sleep. But first she must wake one of the sleepers by calling out so that she can be replaced. The new guard takes over the task willingly. Not like us. We would do it in a bad temper because we want to carry on sleeping. The crane quickly takes up the post and carries out the task just as carefully as her predecessor did. Cranes have an ingenious way of keeping awake. They hold stones in their claws. If a watcher falls asleep, the stone will fall to the ground, make a noise and wake her up. The colour of the crane's feathers reveals their age, gradually darkening as they grow older.


Hello everybody! This video will tell you what to do if your browser won't open websites, while Skype, cloud services and other Internet applications do not have any problems. I would like to note that these recommendations will be suitable for all popular web browsers – Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, Yandex browser, Microsoft Edge and Internet Explorer. Before you start fixing this problem, you can try rolling back to the last saved restore point or using a system recovery image. First of all, your computer should be checked for malware and adware. Too often such programs prevent your browser from working properly. I made one of my previous videos to show how to get rid of viruses, Trojans and adware. After deleting all viruses and unwanted software, go to Control Panel, Internet Options, click on LAN Settings in the tab Connections. If you have the checked box next to Use a Proxy Service for your LAN, uncheck it and check the box next to Automatically Detect Settings instead. That click OK. You can also open the Proxy Service Settings menu from the browser. For Google Chrome, Opera and Yandex browser, the steps are similar.  Then follow the steps I have shown before. In Mozilla Firefox, go to Menu, Options, Advanced and in the tab Network, find Connections and then Settings. Use Use System Proxy Settings and click OK. In Internet Explorer, go to Service, browse the properties and then follow the instructions above. In Microsoft Edge, go to Menu, Settings, View Advanced Settings and click on Open Proxy Settings. If Manual Proxy Setup is enabled, disable it and then go to the tab Automatic Proxy Setup to activate Automatically Detect Settings. If the browser won't open websites even after Proxy Setup operations, you should check the entry app in it DLLS in the register editor. To do it, press Windows plus R and enter Ragged It. Go to HKEY Local Machine, Software, Microsoft, Windows NT, Current Version, Windows, right click on the entry app in it DLLS and click Modify. If in the Value line you can see the path to any DLL file, for example C file name DLL, it should be deleted. For that, copy the path to that file, clear the line and click OK. Then paste this path to the File Explorer, enable the option Show Hidden Files and delete this file as well as any other suspicious Excel files which are in the found folder. You may need to boot your computer in Safe Mode to delete the file. You can watch my previous videos to see how to do it. Once again, go to the register editor, find the entry app in it DLLS in the section HKEY, Current User, Software, Microsoft, Windows NT, Current Version, Windows, and repeat the steps I have described above, then restart the computer. Then you should check the file hosts. It can be found here, C, Windows, System32, Drivers, ETS, ETC. Open it with Notepad and read the values. If the last line is followed by other lines with IP addresses, delete them, save changes in the Notepad and restart the computer. If your browser still won't open websites, there may be a problem with the DNS server. Next of all, go to Network & Sharing Center, click on Connections, then Properties, click on IPv4 and Properties. Select Use the following DNS server addresses and enter these values. Enter DNS server 8888, alternate DNS server 844 and try opening any webpage with your browser. If it doesn't help, launch the command prompt as administrator and enter the following command IPconfig slash dns. This command will clear the DNS cache, then enter the command root minus f. This command will clear the root table from all gateway entries. Now you see OK message, close the command prompt, and restart the computer. If you liked this video, click the like button below and subscribe to our channel to see more. Thank you for watching and good luck.