But I think one of the things that was really important too is we've gone through the history, what's going on in the community right now. We've heard from an end user using it in production and gotten on board with the path. But what is next in GitOps? And we do a lot of work at Red Hat out in the open and stuff, but there's a bunch of stuff going on too internally. So I thought we'd round out today with a talk by CMAC and let him talk a little bit about how we're making it happen here at OpenShift in the Red Hat world. So CMAC, introduce yourself and let it rip here. Sure thing. Thanks, Leon. Just checking first, does everyone hear me? Am I audible? You're really great. Thanks. I've seen myself at Campfire, I've been in Red Hat for quite a long time, beyond 10 years. And I'm part of the product management team at Red Hat within the OpenShift and Hybrid Cloud Group. And I want to talk to you about a little bit more of what's next within the GitOps space and on OpenShift as a platform specifically. And before that, I want to cover a little bit of why GitOps in general. I know that you heard about this a little bit from Christian and Cornelia as well. But I want to look at it from a different perspective that we see as a recurring pattern with a lot of our customers. And talk a little bit also about why specifically now, why is now a GitOps common co-located event and common decision today. And there are many, many conferences and events are happening around GitOps. What's the significance of time here? And then focus more on what's next, what area we'll be pursuing and what we see happening in the community. So let's start with why GitOps. And Cornelia laid out really well stories of how GitOps is born out of the DevOps movement and the values and principles of there. And I'm not going to get too much into that conversation. What I want to point out is that adopting GitOps is difficult and challenging. A lot of organizations are on a journey to adopt GitOps. Like the numbers that you hear from analysts are around 60%, 70% of organization and the interview are on that journey. However, one aspect of that difficulty comes from obviously the cultural perspective and dealing with people and shift the mindset. The other aspect which is expected to be more straightforward, but in practice has proven to be quite challenging is to make sense of all of the principles and practices that exist in DevOps. What happens is that most teams, most organizations start with continuous integration which is kind of a low hanging fruit to automate and building the application and releasing applications, some of the aspect of building and delivering application. And from that point on, it becomes quite difficult to navigate this space and figure out what should be done next, where else they need to go. And this is an area that we see some of the teams, a lot of the teams start to stagnate. They couldn't get stuck beyond that. It's not clear how to proceed from there. An observation of the situation is also when you look at 100 different teams adopting DevOps practices, even though the practices are the same, the values are the same, you probably see about 100 different ways that DevOps is implemented. So that brings a lot of flexibility to the teams to find their own path, but also puts a lot of responsibility on those teams to find their own path. A lot of teams are much more, they would have much more success if there's a prescription to start with and find their path beyond that point when maturity increases. So that's one aspect of DevOps that has been challenging for a lot of the practitioners. And another aspect is that we see a shift of focus from continuous integration to continuous delivery. So like I mentioned, CI is what a lot of teams start with as the first step of the DevOps journey and go hanging through. But as that is tackled in that spectrum of continuous delivery that we defined with all the stages that involve from a change going all the way to the production, whatever production means for that change or application, a shift of focus is happening to the darker blue side of the spectrum on deployment really. How do I actually deliver these things that I have built to those environments with simpler advanced scenarios? And as a consequence of that, there is a change also on how people speak about these concepts within DevOps space. CD is really referring to that entirety of the process, regardless of human continuous, delivery or continuous deployment. In practice, a lot more over the last year, we see CDs used very often to refer just to that deployment to the actual delivery of the things, of the software, not to that entire different processes. As a consequence of this, a lot of the solutions out there, a lot of projects within the open source or commercial solutions coming out when you hear CD, they often mean that that last model that Cornelia was also talking about, they don't mean that they are an entirety of the platform that cover every stages that are involved in application delivery. So with that in mind, with difficulties of navigating the DevOps space because of the high level of abstraction that DevOps talks about, these principles and values and the shift that is happening among the practitioners that are looking more how to address the deployment part and delivery part of this application delivery process and workflows, that has sparked the interest of many teams, many organizations to look for a solution or something that gives them a lot more prescription than DevOps as a movement has provided. And that really brings up a lot of these teams to land on GitOps as a practice. We have already defined what GitOps is. I'm not going to get too much into that, but it is truly a blueprint, a concrete way of proceeding with DevOps adoption, with implementing some of the practices that are already familiar for many organizations, really build on the infrastructure as code principle and having version control for all the artifacts and conflicts and everything that is involved in application delivery. So a lot of those aspects are known. They're just not put together in this particular composition that GitOps is proposing. And the value, the advantage of people and the benefit that are immediately getting from reaching to looking into the GitOps workflow is that in those 100 teams that I talked about, if they adopt GitOps workflow, all 100s of them are essentially, the workflow looks pretty similar to each other, as Dan also walked us through the open GitOps initiative and the principles that are coming as it are extremely prescriptive in the way that you need to proceed and how you should organize your application delivery to adhere to the GitOps principles and be able to get the benefits that GitOps provides. So we see GitOps as really one particular blueprint of how DevOps implementation, specifically from the process and technology perspective looks like. It doesn't do much, unfortunately, for the cultural aspect. It is a change of mindset, but those challenges of DevOps still remain. So that's really how a lot of organizations have landed on GitOps and looking for really how to get out of that stagnation that they have experienced within DevOps. But it's a valid question that why all of this is happening now. Why am I talking about GitOps to you today and all these events are happening this year? Because if you think about it, GitOps is, even as the phrasing of GitOps is nothing new, V-Work takes all the credit, obviously, for coning the war and making and evangelizing the concept of GitOps and the Git workflow around it. However, this happened about five years ago. So what is the deal that you're hearing about this now? And we haven't had so many things happening around GitOps since then. It's only the last 12 months, really, that we see a huge update and huge interest from the community and the customer base and teams around the GitOps workflow. So where that comes from, Cornelia talked about this a little bit. Containers had to do a lot of it. And more than that, it's really Kubernetes that has changed the type of infrastructure that teams and organizations deal with. And a lot of that is attributed to Kubernetes, but from a certain and particular aspect. So if you look at the latest stats that are coming out, what you're seeing on the slide is coming from the CNCS survey that was conducted 2020. So it's already quite old and stale, but it does make a point that they want to highlight here is that 83% of organizations that were surveyed at that point were running Kubernetes in production. The number that had Kubernetes in house was close to 93% or 95% if I recall correctly. These are the ones that are running it in production. And this number, more than 50%, around 50% had more than five clusters. So what they recognize in that survey about two years ago is that the number of teams, organizations that are running two to five clusters in house is decreasing year over year. And number that are running above six clusters and 10 clusters and 50 clusters, that's increasing. And what does that have to do with anything? Why is that correlated to get up? So the reason for that is really the more clusters customers are dealing with teams or organizations are dealing with, there is more complexity in doing pretty much anything that has to do with operations. The operations of the platforms becomes more difficult Kubernetes itself. If you're dealing with 50 clusters, you're an IT ops team or platform ops team dealing with 100 clusters, how do you make sure that the network policies across all these clusters are consistent or authentication configuration is consistent or a lot of other aspects of the cluster itself?  So if you compare this to that traditional way of CI that I mentioned as a low hanging fruit, people put that in their CI, you have a look in that CI deployed to 20 clusters, then something goes wrong and you're left on your own. The CI is not really doing anything for you when something is failing after a successful deployment. So with increasing the number of clusters, there are a lot of complexity that comes with running a lot of operation. There are a lot of simplicity coming along the way as well because managing smaller clusters are much easier than managing larger clusters. So there is a reason that organizations are going toward adopting and having a large number of clusters. One aspect that it has to do with the maturity of Kubernetes adoption organizations that are adopting Kubernetes. So they're spreading within the organization more and more teams are on more than this platform, more and more applications are on more than Kubernetes platforms. On the other hand, it's easier for them to, if you want to, for example, upgrade the nodes of Kubernetes is much easier if that cluster has 10 nodes instead of 200 nodes. So there are benefits of having large number of small clusters, but there are complexities that get increased in how you manage those clusters from a configuration perspective and how you deliver applications to it. So that's something that we see as one of the really main drivers that is pushing a lot of interest toward GitOps as a workflow, especially to start with as a workflow for managing cluster configuration itself. And after that for deployment of application, application delivery. So this is actually something that perhaps sometimes comes as counter-intuitive because GitOps, because piggybacking on Git workflows, and that's something that is really absorbed and internalized within the application teams. Dev teams sometimes are perceived as something that is only limited to applications and delivering applications. What we are seeing in reality is that most organizations are first and primarily interested in it as a means of configuration management of clusters and delivering changes to those clusters, then applications and workflows being only one of the aspects of what they are managing on those clusters. So that's really what we attribute the huge growth of interest in GitOps. And both in the community, more projects coming along, more people getting involved in the existing projects are the CDM flocks as the main GitOps-related projects in CNCF are mentioned. A lot of contributions and interests are coming toward these projects because of this only like recently and a lot of interest and inquiries we get at Red Hat, and I know that within the community it reflects the same level of interest. So what is next now for GitOps? With that in mind, that level of interest that exists, where are we going beyond that simple concept? So everything is declarative, you put stuff in Git repo, they are delivered and synced to a number of clusters and reconciled to bring those clusters to the state that you have, that's quite like the starting step really, but where does it go beyond that? So I have included Tape Town here as well, OpenShift Pipeline, OpenShift GitOps, our name of the product offerings at Red Hat, you can replace them in my talk with Tape Town and Argos CD based on Tape Town and Argos CD. And Tape Town and Argos CD is a CI core of CI CD solution that we see across many organizations being adopted and what they enable across all these organizations is for most configuration management, primarily the configuration management for both applications and the clusters, how you can declaratively roll out changes to these clusters, to this infrastructure that they have that relates to Kubernetes. And I do point out Kubernetes a lot here because like it came up on chat, GitOps does exist outside the Kubernetes sphere as well. However, being declarative is a requirement for being able to run GitOps processes, otherwise you will be shoehorning a lot of the principles that GitOps has. And Kubernetes is the platform that brings that to a lot of type of infrastructure that customers want and teams it up. So because of it, we very often talk about it within the context of Kubernetes, but it's absolutely not limited to that. Application delivery is another aspect, obviously. We heard a lot of stories today about that, how you have your application as a home charger, use customize and have a GitOps engine like Argo CD to deliver that across the cluster that is run with very granular control of what should happen across these clusters with deltas depending on the role of the cluster and so on. And infrastructure as code is really where all these GitOps principles come from. So any type of infrastructure that can be described as code, then Argo CD is able to apply those and enable those use cases for a GitOps practitioner team that adopts GitOps through Argo CD. But where does it go from there? What we're seeing is that a lot of other use cases, I mean, customers reach to this level of maturity, there are a lot of other use cases that becomes within site for these customers. And I have added a bunch of other products from specifically from Red Hat that I'm familiar with, like Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Management and Anestheville. But what I mean here is most of the capability that these products provide and any other product or project that have similar capability, they can fulfill the same role within the GitOps workflow. For example, fleet management is as teams and organizations have more and more clusters, it's not just about how I configure this cluster or how I make sure that the network policy that all this cluster having seen is also about how I can declaratively provision new clusters. I need 10 new clusters with this spec. How can I have that declared in a Git repo and provision those clusters from that Git repo? It's a use case that a combination of Argo CD with a fleet management solution or project at Red Hat that is ACM Advanced Cluster Management that does this can enable GitOps workflows for fleet management. When we look at edge cases that is related to IoT, telco and edge, then we have use cases that is like similar to fleet management, but that's really large scale because you have age devices that are really tiny, very small compute and they need to have the ability to bring themselves up to a certain baseline of configuration and workflows when they have connectivity. So that becomes within the reach of GitOps workflows combined with some of the tools that I mentioned. Supply and security is extremely hot topic this year. You will hear a lot about it across the various journals and conferences. It's about really bringing more and more aspects of provenance and security control and making sure what's being coming out of application delivery workflow. It is what it was supposed to do and there are evidence that it is not tampered. And CI and CD is really the heart of what enables supply and security, bringing integration integrating security tools such as advanced cluster security or any of the other security scanning tools or vulnerability scanning tools that are available within the community or commercial side into the CI, CD workflow inside of GitOps workflows specifically to enable GitOps for supply and security. MLOps is another aspect. It's not too different really for how GitOps is approached for a regular application but there is huge use cases. We see it's growing a lot of our customers for some of the MLOps offering that Redhead has. Infrastructure as code we talked about but another aspect that this is expanding to and we see we get questions a lot about and expanded on is policy as code and compliance as code. So the same way that configuration and infrastructure should be declared as code, we see a desire, a very strong desire from customers to be able to describe their policies, how this platform should look like. Not just from a configuration perspective but also from a prevention and remediation perspective. What is not about to be done on these platforms by the developers or by their project admins and to be able to describe those also declaratively in a syntax that is that can go into Git repos and deliver to those clusters, control and apply to those clusters through the GitOps workflow using RGC. So we see GitOps and RGCV or other GitOps like engines really an enabler at the core of a lot of other use cases that are coming in the site for an organization that start this journey and start with the GitOps workflow and get beyond those primary use cases that initially seen as the value of GitOps. So what is specifically next for OpenShift GitOps? I talked about a space I wanted to mention a little bit of what's next in OpenShift GitOps and Argo CD by extension. Like I mentioned, OpenShift GitOps is based on Argo CD. Argo CD is the core of it. We are heavily invested in the Argo CD community. All our engineers work within the Argo CD community and drive the use cases that we see in the enterprise within that community. Multitenancy and self-service is an important area for us. This is something that we hear from a lot of our customers that are really after providing internal platform for the application teams enabling application developers teams to through self-service mechanism be able to implement the GitOps workflow for delivering their application. This is something that you can see in different type of DevOps related reports that come out. What comes to my mind is the famous state of DevOps report from Puppet and I think it was last year in 2021 that was one of the aspects and one of the trends that they picked up as well. One of the ingredients of success in DevOps adoption was the platform approach within the organization. The platform approach is not something that you go by. We talk about OpenShift platform a lot at Red Hat. It's not the platform that you go purchase, but rather you build a platform that can expose the services that you allow application teams developers to consume in the organization in a self-service manner without having to open a ticket or talk to an admin. This is an extremely important aspect for adopting GitOps workflow as well. To have the ability of an application team to decide on their own provision the required infrastructure and be able to consume or adopt GitOps workflow for delivering the application. What happens right now with Argo CD is that this is essentially that platform owner giving an instance of Argo CD to the application teams. The consequence of that is that the platform team has to manage hundreds of instances of Argo CD control plane for for deaf teams. What we want to go toward is a multi-tenancy model that is much closer to Kubernetes and teams can share control plane for using GitOps workflow with a high degree of isolation between the teams without exposing any attack surface or any privileges that Argo CD shouldn't. We will be working a lot on that aspect and bringing that to what a lot of our customers are asking to be able to provide Argo CD and GitOps as a service to their deaf teams with much lower maintenance and operation overhead that they're experiencing today. Application dependencies in other aspects so as we see more and more teams are adopting GitOps they come in more and more complex use cases. We are really so from James and the great example of how the microservices was laid out with different hill charts and often in the microservices where when you want to deploy an application that is built of many applications many smaller services then ordering becomes an issue. You want the deployment to happen in a certain order to make sense for that application and this is something that the GitOps workflow needs to be aware of and be able to apply them. This is something that is already possible and highly used within Argo CD in order to control when you're looking at a Git repo in what order those resources or those manifests should be applied to the clusters that are being applied. Application dependency talks at one level higher than that how in which order different Git repos should be applied to the cluster to respect the dependency that those components might have between each other. Advanced hill use cases in another area hill is an important component of application packaging. A lot of Argo CD user base use hill for deploying their application. There are improvements within the GitOps workflow that will like to exist. Example of that for example is the separation of a hill chart from the values that should be applied to that chart before deployment to cluster to be able to have versioned and life-cycled separately in different Git repositories. There are other aspects of hill that we are looking into making that experience much better than it is today. Last but not least is progressive delivery that relates mostly to OpenShift GitOps already exists within the Argo community as Argo rollout. Progressive delivery points out enabling more advanced deployment scenarios that you perhaps when you want to roll out a deployment from a Git tree go to a cluster or to your fleet of clusters you want to perhaps only roll it up to five percent of your fleet and monitor a certain matrix as the success factor of this deployment. If that matrix is higher a certain value pointing out this was a good deployment application is working well we can roll it out to 20 percent of our fleet and expand it from there. If it wasn't a good one perhaps roll out to the previous revision of this Q3 pool so that we can get the previous version up. So enabling more advanced workflows within GitOps that's really the target of progressive delivery that we'll be looking at of OpenShift GitOps all of these areas as you might notice they're all related to more advanced scenarios when teams adopt GitOps so this is something that we expect that to get questioned and asked about more and more as we go throughout the year. And with that I will stop right there.


There we go. We're recording now. So the idea behind an affording is it's based on a birth that happened to me and you just run through it and talk about what you would do and what decisions you would make and we'll just go through it from there. And so first of all I'll just talk about us. So this is my practice. We work in rural New Zealand and we cover sort of semi-rural, rural and remote rural just outside Christchurch. We have in our area two primary units. So these are midwifery primary units. One of them is in is part of a little hospital. So there's no midwives there at all. There's a nurse there and when we birth there we have to have two midwives to go and the second primary unit has one midwife there as our backup and six beds. So they're very small units and about 30 minutes away we have a tertiary hospital. So it's the main hospital for the South Island of New Zealand. We work in pairs so we back each other up and I personally take a small case load of women every month. We all live and work locally. We offer 24-hour midwifery care and we provide antenatal, labour and birth and postnatal care and we're quite happy to birth where the woman wants to birth. Oh we've had someone else join us. Hello Melissa would you like to microphone to talk? Okay so this is my lovely lady. Her name was Claire. She was a healthy woman, she's 27. This was her first baby. She booked with me early and so she was put on folic acid and iodine in New Zealand. She had a negative blood group and a BMI of 34 and I think this was quite linked a little bit to her polycystic ovary syndrome. She was on metformin but she was under the GP for the metformin and she stopped that early in pregnancy. We do MSS1 in New Zealand so that's maternal serum screening. That was normal for Down syndrome, trisomy 13 and trisomy 18 and all her scans were normal. Her GTT was normal and her booking blood pressure was 108 over 68. So her pregnancy was unremarkable. She was really healthy throughout. She planned to birth in the hospital as her first baby. She wanted a normal birth with no pain relief and physiological third stage. So the idea for her was and in our tertiary hospital we have a primary room which I did which is another story but we were planning on providing her with planning a primary birth in a tertiary setting and then in our local unit if you have a normal birth you can't stay there postnatally because the hospital beds are for people who require tertiary care so they transfer back to the local primary units for primary postnatal care. At 36 weeks she was screened for preeclampsia because she did have a high blood pressure of 140 over 90 with some swelling but all the blood tests came back negative so likelihood was she was still working full-time at this point. She was a teacher. She spent a lot of her days on her feet. She had her last appointment with me at 38 weeks and everything was normal. A little bit of swelling but she was well. So the first decision point for Claire's care was she phoned me at 9 a.m. reporting mild period-like cramping. Her waters are broken at 8 30 so half an hour earlier and she was 38 plus 5. If this happened to you what would you do? Oh we've lost Melissa. Okay. So do you want me to talk? Yes I'd love you to talk. I talked to her about how long she's been having cramping pains and how she's coping with them. I'd ask her about the colour of the water and how much water there was. Had she been feeling the baby's movements? Had she tried any pain relief options if she felt she needed to even if that was something like a bath? How she was feeling? What she felt she needed at this point? Yep and that is pretty much what me and her did. So her waters were still clear and they were still trickling so she popped a pad in. She felt baby movements and she wanted to stay at home until the contractions increased. I was actually working at the unit that morning so I said well if you want to come in for an assessment later on you can. Obviously to call me if the labour began in Ernest. She felt well and she was just sitting on her Swiss ball watching movies with her partner. I know she was wonderful. And then I received a call from her partner James and the contractions had begun at 11.45. Now the story behind it is quite funny. He actually left to pop to go to McDonald's to pick them up some food and apparently as soon as he walked out the door she established into full blown labour and she was frantically trying to phone him to get him to come home while he was ordering Big Macs which was quite funny. So when he did get home and gave me a call the contractions were very strong. They were every two minutes and Claire couldn't walk and she felt like pushing. So what would you do? It depends how far she is from you or how like who can get there quicker. If you were close by you could say look I'll just come round or if they were you know you could meet them because I know she was planning to go to the hospital. It depends I guess on what they felt they could do and how close you were to each other or how close they were to the unit. She lived 10 minutes from the unit and 30 minutes from the hospital. So it sounds like it might be best for her say to come to the unit and assess her there and to see is she feeling like pushing because she is in the second stage or is it just you know she's got really a lot of pressure and there's more time. I think that's what I would suggest. See her anyway. Yeah and that is exactly what we did do. I told James to bring Claire to the unit and I was banking on her being a first-time mum basically and not having the baby in the car. Claire and James arrived at the unit and she was fully pushing on arrival. I did she had lots of clear liquid draining normal fetal heart rate and I did a very quick vaginal examination. There was no cervix but I did feel a bag of forewaters but I wasn't very happy with that vaginal examination and so 10 minutes later I asked her if I could do a proper one and it wasn't four waters I was feeling. It was testicles. I called in the one core member of staff at the unit to get her to confirm this presentation and so what would do you have a primary unit where you work? What do you do? It's a very different set up there by the time spent. It is isn't it? That's right well I thought it would be interesting if you had a few people here because then we could talk about what everybody would do in their areas. So there was just one other midwife there? Yep. Well with just one other midwife I guess if that baby is coming then you're gonna need to facilitate the breath there with both of you but I guess you could contact other backup. I don't know if you'd have like some sort of ambulance transfer available to the main unit in case of needing it, say if the baby was born needing resuscitation and needing that support and you obviously talk to Claire and James and discuss with them what this means. Yes we do have an ambulance transfer system but it is only for women when if we have one for a baby it's got to come as a special ambulance that comes from the hospital with a retrieval team so and that can take up to three hours for them to arrive because they've got to get the special ambulance, the transfer unit for the baby and they come with a NICU reg and a NICU nurse. So luckily yeah luckily we do yeah. I was just asking you you've got all the setup at your unit your app for a birth so you've got resuscitation equipment and that. Yes we do yes we do and so that's exactly what we did. We set up the resus and we prepped for PPH because obviously this is a rather rapid neighbour. We called an ambulance because at this point we were still hoping to possibly transfer her in and we also have telephones in the birth room so we called birthing suite we called NICU and we called in two extra midwives so we had two midwives for the women and two midwives prepped and ready for the baby. The baby was a trooper. Her fetal heart rate remained normal. He did pass the meconium but Claire she continued to push beautifully. We did hands and knees and James was just with her all the time. We told her exactly what was going on and we documented carefully. So then the ambulance arrived at 110 and would you transfer in or would you stay? It's a really tough decision because I guess it depends where the baby's at and like you know what stage is the baby at as she's pushing. At this point we were hips on view. Then I'd stay. Yeah you don't want to get an ambulance because the baby's just going to be born. I know and the other thing is in New Zealand the ambulances they don't have anything. Oh wow. They don't at this point when this happened they didn't I don't think they even carried oxytocin on them or PPHs. Yeah yeah they've just been brought in. Where are you with them? Yes yeah. So we stayed at the primary unit. We did keep the ambulance on hold though and they're brilliant. They stayed. Not just that as well as sometimes when there is an emergency it's all about people. So the fact that we had two extra people there who could give us a hand if it was required was you know really important for us. We had hips on view. Claire continued to push. She was beautiful. The two extra midwives arrived so they were brilliant. We had one on the phone to Nicu ordering the retrieval team and one on the phone to birthing suite to let them know what happened. All this time Claire was wonderful. We stayed hands off and the ramp was born at 124 and then we had the first leg, second leg almost immediately afterwards and she birthed the baby in one push essentially from umbilicus to head in one push which was wonderful. Very quick. We did have one minute of delay called clamping. I was extremely lucky the core member of staff that was with me. She was an extremely experienced home birth midwife so it was great to have her advice. Baby did have a fetal heart rate of 100 and he did grimace. So we did give him a heart and with apgas of two but after one minute we clamped and cut and got baby to the resuscitare. He had basically he just had a few inflation breaths and just a little bit of support breathing and he was breathing independently by 145 within 15 minutes of being born. He had pinked up beautifully and was doing really well. He had a normal newborn check with vitamine K because the parents had consented and by 215 he was skin to skin with mum. The Nicu transfer team arrived shortly afterwards and he did have lactates of 13.45. So do you do lactates? I think if we do then we call it something different. I'm trying to translate that in my head. So you have um fetal blood sampling? Yeah and we do the PHs and we do do lactates. Yeah we do. I haven't worked in a hospital in a little while so I'm not, it's not in my head. Yeah we do do PHs but we don't use them too much for clinical decisions but in the hospital they do a lot of decisions on lactates but basically if a baby's got a lactate I think it's above seven they usually go to a section because the baby's getting distressed. So the fact that this baby had lactates of 13.45 is really rather serious and then lactates can mean all sorts of things. So they transferred baby into Nicu for observation. Anyway with Claire she had a physiological third stage with an estimated blood loss of a hundred mils.  After the baby had left for Nicu she was up, dressed, showered, all her observations were normal and her and her partner jumped into the car and drove to the hospital and a little side note is when she walked into the hospital the midwives couldn't believe that she was the woman that just done a breech birth at a primary unit because she looked so well. There you go and the baby was in Nicu just for one day only for observation. I don't think they even gave him fluids or antibiotics which is quite surprising and he did have an extra day because he had extremely swollen testicles so they gave him some paracetamol and he also required a hip check at six weeks for breech and he apparently had a little bit of physio on his neck most likely because he was breech. Claire was absolutely fine. She had some anti-dein in the hospital because the baby had a positive blood group and her blood pressure did creep up after arrival in the hospital so she did end up staying in the hospital for four days. She struggled hugely with the breastfeeding and she soldiered on but she eventually went to formula and she just had normal postnatal cares afterwards. I know and there he is. I know but I quite like that first photo because you can really see the breech head. Very very flat. So this was him up in Nicu I think on his first day and the second photo is on his second day and that was him at I think it's about four months by the looks of it. There we go. Have you got any questions? No, it's such a good way of using a story and asking questions along the way is such a good tool for everyone. I think it's really good for students when you're learning. It's really helpful for those decision-making moments. I think so and it would have been lovely if we'd had some people from other countries here discussed because we've all got access to different services and like although we have an ambulance service here it really is just St John's. If we want a paramedic we have to stop and pick one up. I just think I wonder how that would be different to say in the UK. Yeah the ambulance service is quite different. There's usually a paramedic on board and you can let them know that's what you need and they'll send one. Yeah I think in our area I think we have one paramedic and we have to stop and pick him up. So it was lovely talking to you. So what are you presenting? I'm presenting session 20 and it's about caring for LGBT families. Oh lovely! That looks like a really good presentation. Yeah we'll see hopefully it'll go well. Oh I'll come to yours and I'll ask some questions on my microphone. Thank you. Awesome. Linda is there anything else that we would like to add? No I think Linda's gone. Awesome. Oh well thanks Sarah. That's okay there's a link at the top so you can take you straight back to the conference. Cool and I'll stop the recording now.


I want to welcome you guys to the State of Nebraska Webmasters. This is our annual meeting because it's the first time we've met in 2012. And today we're going to talk about the Web Domain Name Standard, which we just recently heard about, and now is the 30-day comment period. So we have a chance to express our ideas. We give them to the technical panel of the NITC to see if they are willing to make any changes. We can give enough body to what we want changed. So we have a couple guest speakers today. So I'm just going to give them, oh I'm sorry, Rick Becker and Dan Orr, right? And Gavin. And Gavin. So whichever one of you guys, and I don't even have to Well, we have up on the board, which I'm pretty sure Shannon can see out there. Not here. Anyway, can you scroll it down just a little bit? That's good right there. Okay, so at the moment this is in the 30-day comment period. And the comments up above it says the comments go to Rick. Correct. And would it be okay if I take some notes today and send it back out to the group? An individual member can submit comments if they want. If you as a Webmasters work group want to submit one joint comment or recommendation, that's fine as well. Okay, what my plan is is take some minutes today and kind of capitalize it into what we would like to see the technical panel consider. And then we'll watch the whole Webmasters meeting. And if you the Webmasters panelists, if you guys have any other suggestions or if I have a problem, you can certainly So, I kind of thought we would just kind of start at the top and we'll make our way down a little bit to see if we have comments as we go so it's not just hit and miss so I can take really good notes. So, if we start at standard 1.1, official aggressive government website is aggressive.gov. We're not arguing about that, correct? Good to go. Okay, the next one. I'm not going to read that because it's long. One of the things I like is the fact that it does say you can either do Nebraska.gov or you can do any.gov. Because here at the Library Commission we have both of those and both of those are registered. The name may also register to alternate domain. One comment. We have heard some feedback already, not formal, but just in conversations with folks that in the last sentence there where it begins resolving to the corresponding Nebraska.gov domain name may create problems for folks, in other words that would require an any.gov website to resolve to the full Nebraska.gov. I think that's certainly something worth discussing. I don't know that Nebraska.gov and any.gov both I think would be an argument that either of those should be fine without that resolving. So that's certainly something during the comment period you may want to consider recommending. I like because we have some that do like here at the Commission we do any.gov and we do Nebraska.gov. So some of both, but I hadn't thought about that. So we could put in my minutes I can say we would like you to take away the resolving and then just make it and the domain any.gov may be registered as an alternate domain to the corresponding. So we're just taking out the word resolve. Right. Anybody else have anything for that 1.2? Yes. Can we clarify what a clear level domain is? Good point. My understanding of domain naming. I should let the technical guys into this one. Nebraska.gov is the first level. The Nebraska or any is the second level. And then what precedes that is the third level domain. So revenue that Nebraska.gov revenues the third level domain and correct. Okay. So I'm going to clarify here at the Commission. The our website is nlc.nebraska.gov which is at third level domain. Correct. Because you said that any.gov is a second level. The.gov is the first level. And then either any or Nebraska is the second level. And then third level would be the agencies for application specific domain. Okay. So as it says, should be registered at least at third level domain in Nebraska.gov. So I'm sorry. You're going to have to give me just a touch more explanation. So the thing is, is as long as I get the commission we have and I'll see that Nebraska.gov registered. That's good to go. And that is our main website. Yep. So we're fine. Did that clarify her? Yes. Is that good enough? Yes. Okay. We're going to go back down to 1.3. All registered Nebraska.gov and any.gov domain shall adhere to all federal regulations, requirements and guidelines which I didn't look for. And we don't have a link to go to the specific guidelines. Is there something? There is a link to the, if you scroll down under reference. And then they have a policy section. And a lot of that is requirements that we as the Office of the CIO as registers of those domains have to follow. Some of them would be applied to you. For example, there's no advertising on.gov domain. So you can't have Best Western advertisements. Which travel and tourism, I believe, is a website that does use some advertising. So there's a legitimate reason for them not to be on a.gov domain. But we take those types of things into consideration. And what is the domain for the tourism that has the advertising on it? You said it's. It's visit Nebraska.gov right now. Okay. Okay. And that's Shannon who's on one. Shannon Peterson, that's, she represents tourism question. Got it. Okay. And Shannon knows how to talk to us if she wants to input anything. Okay. So is there anyone that has anything to say about that? 1.3. Is, this is just me. It's my comment. Do we need to say requirements and guidelines as indicated in 3.1 below? Or do we need to say, as you can see, I missed that. Did everybody else catch where the link was to the federal guidelines? So we don't need to say in reference to 3.1 below. Okay. Okay. And no changes to 1.3. Okay. 1.4. The main, other than Nebraska, I got a name that may be purchased but cannot serve content that we probably promoted. I'm sure this is probably the one we're going to chat about. So, and tourism is one of them that we need to bring up now. Okay. Let's go down to 1.5, which is just a second. Non-conforming domains in existence will be at the standard. That will be exempt until December 31st, 2014. Is there any reference to that date as in it's just in the future? It's in the future. Okay. Okay. Which is two years away. It also corresponds to gubernatorial change of office about that time. And one of the things is agencies have printed materials or letterhead or things like that that they would want to consume over the course of time. That's also a period where they'd be changing letterhead and stuff like that for a new governorship, too. So that isn't why that date was selected, but it happens to fall about that. So supposedly at the end of December 31st, 2014, tourism will have to change their URL. Well, before we go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. The NITC Standards of Guidelines Documents, there is a waiver policy in place that an agency, if for business reasons or technical reasons, you can't comply with any of the standards that the NITC has published, you can apply for a waiver and have the requirement waived by the technical panel of the NITC. So if there's a legitimate business necessity and tourism is a good example, they have advertising on their website.gov requirements don't allow advertising. So they can't be .gov and continue to do that business the way they're doing it. That would be a... I can't speak for the technical panel, but I would think they would do that favorably in terms of issuing a waiver. Okay. And there's nobody from Game and Parks. So, because the Game and Parks one is an outside, isn't it, .org? There's goes to... It just forwards to it. It really doesn't have any content. They publish Outdoor Nebraska.org, I believe it is. Okay. And if you go to that, it rolls over to Nebraska.gov. So, that would be okay with 1.4, no matter when. So as long as you're forwarding, then you don't have to have a waiver. Am I understanding that correctly? The publicly promoted there, that would change. It's come December 31st, 2013, unless they saw it in Outdoor. So, for example, we promote Nebraskacenterjapan.com, because this is our Japan office, Nebraska office in Japan, the Economic Development Office. Not sure what a .gov would look like after they've seen a .com and switching it. So, that is one concern that we would have, and I don't know if that would fall under anything for a waiver, but, I mean, that's just one thing that we would look at for considering that and all the costs that have been involved in developing that. And promoting it. And promoting that control. We promote a lot of sites, and that's one of them. And we're also opening, currently, Nebraskacenter China. So, I think like that. And generally, Economic Development has a large number of .coms and other .org and several others. And quite a bit of advertising that goes on, but a lot of long-term advertising. So, I think the waiver process is really the only answer we needed to sort of submit that stuff, in case by case. Our audience. Now, we have to chuck a little louder because I'm older. Sure. Yeah. In our audience, like tourism, isn't just Nebraska-based. We're talking businesses and people nationally and internationally. So, it's not just a Nebraska-focused site. I mean, almost everything we promote. I mean, there's some things that go to Nebraska communities and things like that. But almost everything else that we promote goes to businesses outside of the state and the country. So. And one of the big problems that we have is that we also have sites that are a private public partnership. So, we have businesses that partner with us to make a site for promotions or for the ongoing programs that we have. That's just something we're going to have to look at each case up, I guess. Are you telling me you're on the technical panel? I'm not on the technical panel. I'll be happy to be, but probably don't want to. How do we apply for a waiver? Yeah, very well. It's 1-103 in the NITC website standards and bad numbers. The same place where this document is. If you click on standards home. Standards and bad numbers. Yeah. 1-103 is the waiver policy. It tells you how you submit the waiver request, what information they need from you. The technical panel reviews those. They meet monthly, well, almost monthly. And they'll take it up. As soon as you submit it, they'll take it up at their next meeting. So it's not a drug out process. I think you provided that link in that email string last week. And when you would be notified of when your waiver is up so you can talk to the technical panel and bring all your gang and... More than ever. Okay. And we want to submit that prior to... I mean, we don't want to submit that as soon as possible so we can make sure we're approved or not. Yeah, you don't have to wait until the end of that because it's adopted if you want to start putting together your request to certainly process it. After adopted, then they can speak and start submitting the waiver. And just to be clear, it is something that they review. They take very seriously on standards guidelines, but if there's a legitimate business reason or technical reason, they're generally favorable to those types of requests. But it just can't be because we want it or we want it. That's the way we've always planned it. There's probably some other agencies that may not be here today that would have some legitimate reason to have an outside address. The historical society has an outside address. Don't they? Okay, so they would be... They would be the waiver. We talked about tourism. We talked about outdoor Nebraska. Is there anybody else here that specifically has some outdoor... Outdoor. Some outside addresses that are not Nebraska.gov or any.gov? Yeah, agriculture. We have two of them. We have a dot com and we have a dot org. And they're more for a promotion part of our department. And I'm sure we'll probably apply for waivers on both of those. I know the one was Gisborne Nude back in April for three years. And I think the other one we might have one or two years left on the renewal of that name. And that's either like GoDaddy or... Domain registries that you have in registry. Yeah, Nebraska.gov did one of those for us and Snitley Carr did the other one. I had a question related to complying... Sorry, I'm talking loud for the recording. As we go into the process of coming over to dot.gov, what does that process look like of competing for the name that we would get as a third level? As in, you know, a lot of people might want local dot Nebraska.gov or whatever it might be, advantage dot Nebraska.gov. Who is it that does that? It's never come up. Okay. Nobody's ever asked for the same name that another person has asked for. If you're having questions about that, you can call me and say, is this name available? If it is, can you reserve it for me? We have to do that. And again, I'm really surprised because we heard the commission is NLC and some people think, does that mean Nebraska liquor commission? Right. No. And then just the other day, somebody else came up with a different NLC abbreviation that I'd never heard of. There's a lot of them that are really close, but nobody's ever actually asked for the same name. Which is great. Is there any reason you would need to put into here where you ask or you just email the helpdesk at LCCIO? That's the best way, because that way it won't get... While you're asking for a considering domain name, there's one thing you might want to keep in account. Like, carbon health and human services has a lot of theirs as a fifth level domain, like server.dhhs.nabrasch. If you put them in, they have a DHHS subdomain. It's part of the subdomain of Nebraska. If you put all your names in the subdomain, we can allocate that subdomain to your organization. You can maintain it yourself. You can do ad changes and deletes. But if it's in the main Nebraska.gov section, then we can't delegate that to you, because you'd be able to change all the other names for everybody else. Does that make sense? And is that something that you would... So we're seeing a fourth level domain. Something that precedes your agency acronym, agency name, whatever it is. And if you've only got five or ten entries, it's not a big deal. But if you're a larger agency and you have a staff of people with some larger agencies, we have five people that have access to the DNS system in their organization.  They don't have to wait for us. They can do whatever they want. So... In the Health and Human Services, and I always get it wrong, because here at the commission, we have Nebraska access.ne.gov. For the Health and Human Service, they have access Nebraska. And is it.ne.gov? Okay, so... Some of them are in the main area just for naming convenience or... But some of them, some of them have several of those, are in their own sub-domain and they just manage all that. The state patrol does all theirs and corrections does all theirs. So if we get a waiver, the waiver is... There's no date on the waiver. Is that correct? That's either grant the waiver. They can reject it or they can make it conditional. A lot of times they do put a condition on it. They'll put an end date to the waiver. And then you can either reapply for the waiver or be reconsidered. They haven't done that on the summer course. More questions, more discussion, more... okay. Because there really isn't anything... Can you spread on this a little bit, please? Yeah, I've got a question. Okay, so back on 1.2, are you gonna post something out there as an alternative revision to that last sentence? No, I don't. At this point it's open for comments. Anybody can put comments on that. I'm just saying that that's a question or a change that I'm gonna suggest or discuss internally and then probably suggest that you go to the tech panel so the government council can vote. But... And then they look it over and then they'll read... Do we go to another period? At the end of the comment period, again, they can either recommend approval as directed regardless of what comments they receive. They can make changes to the document usually based on the comments or their own initiative. At that point, if they determined that it was a substantial change to the document, they'll repost it for 30 days. If they believe it's consistently responding to requests and wouldn't impact negatively others, then they'll go ahead and just recommend approval for that change. In other words, this resolve, I don't know that there would be anybody who would be against that change. So they may make that change and just recommend approval of the document. Are you just going to take our e-mail straighter back before or do you want me to have a claim or something on the comment? I can talk to you, Dr. So in taking up... So at this point in time, what we have talked about is only taking out the word resolving. Did I miss? And how does that make life easier? If we're resolving in the way it's written now, if you had an any.gov domain you could promote it, publish it, whatever. But when somebody typed that into the... typed that URL in, it would be forced... Under the standard, it would have to go to the Nebraska.gov domain. It could be automatically in the background, that word resolving says it would have to go to the corresponding Nebraska.gov. To take resolving out, you can promote either or they just want to be... that any.gov would be the ultimate. And if you take up resolving, too, does that mean that all of my web links on every page of my site won't break? Because then we just went to ASP not a couple of years ago, and our web stats went down by, like, three hundred and four thousand for two years before it recovered. I'd love these guys to respond to the technical, but my understanding is that the auto forward you do at the server level and it wouldn't break the links. But correct me if I'm wrong. Whether your links are absolute or relative. So you wouldn't have relative links, of course, so you could get maybe more freely. But it breaks all our SSL applications with the any.gov... And that's part of the consideration, that's why it's a major version. Not just, you know, the core for anybody with SSL-enabled application that's major if you're under the any.gov namespace. Right. So the one side for most of you people is you've got a website where you do content. But if you have application in that application systems already under .any.gov, and we have several of those, your impact becomes somewhat more major than just a standard website. So I know you folks are talking about exceptions for the first level, but if any of you have bought systems, web-based systems and got them under that domain or custom developed those systems you've got another major impact. We recognize that. And that's why we put the any.gov in here. The way this was envisioned is it's a mess and it's getting worse. Is a mess of the first level or the is a concern more at that first level, the .gov versus all the other .coms and .ords, not really whether it's in a debate between any and Braskin at the second level. That, there's several parts to it. The .gov people are less likely apt to mess with an outside than they are with the .com or .org. There's more serious consequences. So that's a built-in level of security. It's not much, but it's something. There's several factors driving this. One of the factors is where IPv6 is approaching us and IP addresses are going to go away and DNS is going to become one important thing it was with IPv4. Everything is going to be DNS, including SSL is probably going to go away in favor of a deep QM sort of system. That will be based on DNS. I'm drawing a blank here, but he's got the reason. No, I think the .gov is the primary change. That's why taking the word resolving out of that solves the problem we would have. I think any .gov is legitimate. In the near future the .gov they want all government organizations under that namespace because they're scanning everything for terrorists, hacking and all that stuff going on. They own that namespace and again within a couple years it's very possible the internet will not be the internet as we know it today it's going to be it's going to be national. They're going to start to break that up and the .gov namespace, the fed zone and they can scan everything going through that namespace. Did not address that in this document. The way this was envisioned is we're not going to fix this overnight. But going forward let's use the brasska.gov and then through the process of attrition we'll get rid of the rest of it but it's going to take a long time. So after 2014 then the ne.gov will it still work if somebody types in ncbdi.ne.gov? Oh yeah, I mean if you have a registry Yes, if we take the resolve. Correct Correct I'm not saying it's going to happen but it sounds pretty I'm going to switch to a different topic now same kind of thing but when we first started our state page it was www.state.nlc. www.state.nlc. www.state.nlc. www.state.nlc. www.state.nlc. www.state.nlc. Is that still going to forward to nlc.nlc.gov? Does that not mention up here at all? Is that after no? www.state.nlc. www.state.nlc. www.state.nlc. www.state.nlc. www.state.nlc. www.state.nlc. www.state.nlc. www.state.nlc. It is in a way because the U.S. is not Nebraska.gov, so I think she's talking about forwards. Because we have, I mean, we are a library commission, and we have URLs all over catalogs across the United States that say... Well, if you start using Nebraska.gov now, in 10 years they won't say that anymore. No, they won't, because these are Nebraska documents that go back to when we started doing Nebraska.gov. So we won't change those URLs in our catalogs. So you guys are not addressing that. And the other thing is, so if anybody typed in state.ne.us, they wouldn't get to the state page either. www.state.ne.us is what the state page originally was, right? Frankly, I had not. It does redirect to the rest of the country. It does now, but will I fill it in the future? Again, this is going to happen in two years. It's not going to happen in two years. Well, I understand. I'm just saying... We're just trying to get people going in the right, everybody kind of going in the same direction here. Yes, the ownership of state.ne.us, do you guys maintain that as well? Yeah. So if somebody tomorrow wanted to know what he's going to, but if somebody tomorrow wanted to add, you guys have control over that difference. I've got about two of those. Right, so we can keep that alive as a legacy for as long as it takes. I don't control it. So that's not a problem. Stop using it. Well, we have stopped using it, and we move to, and they'll see that in Nebraska.gov for all of our new stuff. But there are things that are in the catalog that are going to be there forever, because they're going to use it to change an 1842 entry. Until the feds mandate that all government organizations in the United States have to be under the Dock-gov name thing, and nationalize. Well, and when the feds say that, I don't have as much... I can't argue as much as I can here at the state level. There are less than. Going forward, let's just don't use state by name. Well, then I understand that. It's not going away. So I guess my question would be, is that something that could be added to this? Sure, it should probably be. Yeah, it could. State by name.usdgolegacy, that's the... And that's all I'm asking is the justice, okay? Yeah, that's certainly a comment on the website. Oh, I like that one. I was hoping it would just go away. I'm sorry, but my boss specifically said to ask about this, even though he's not here. It's all to my library catalogs. Okay, I'm done with my questions. Anybody else? Yes? In reviewing that, NITC charter, I'm seeing guidelines, but I'm not seeing force, and I'm not seeing penalty. The enforcement of NITC standards and guidelines is there's basically two elements. One, IT purchases in state government have to come through the office of the CIO. One of the reviews, our team, the reviews purchase request is do they comply with standards? The second is the state budget process. The budget office is well aware of the standards and guidelines that we propose. And when they review projects, budget requests, that's one of the issues that they raise as well. But we don't have any handcuffs. So that covers all of the guidelines, correct? All the standards and guidelines. Whether that's the one that says you need to have state request at the top, and you need to have a link back to the state within to the bottom. And a lot of times it's just communication and awareness. You know, does the board or NITC may not even know that. Yes, and so it's just that by the way you read that on your website, you need to put it on your website, that's what it usually works. So my question would be, when this becomes, the only reason I knew about this to begin with, I guess every agency has a person that is, I wouldn't want to say on the state government council, invited to the state government council. Anyone from the state government? So that they officially get information about it ahead of time. So there's one person from every state agency. There's 24 members. There's probably eight, we're on 18 agencies that are represented. Okay, so not every state agency has a member. Yes, the emails that talk about what the, what the government council is going to be doing, proposing that kind of thing. Fortunately, at the library commission, we have someone who is, we have two people that are on it, that get the emails. So we kind of know about things ahead of time. But the agencies don't know about things ahead of time. And they aren't there to go plead their case or stick their wavering or whatever. And two years down there all of a sudden they're, and I know they're you know, I would not just go away out of, you know. I'm sure they'll be some, outreach to agencies that are not in compliance that their main webpage results to a dot org or something like that. Okay. So I'm sure that'll, now we don't know about, I don't know about the, you know, if you have an agency, DVD comes to mind, has multiple polls, dot coms out there, dot business, that I wouldn't know about. They'd have to bring them forward for a wavering overall statement. And this discussion has been taken to the non-co-agency meeting. No, of course. Will it go? I don't, I don't participate in non-co-agency meetings.  You guys have, anybody, okay. Okay, now this may be inappropriate question. Oh, that's not right. I mean, that's fine. It's okay. I'm just calling you any comment. Is it feasible? Okay. I would have to say that I know that every agency has someone either reading, attending, whatever. Listening, Shannon, for what goes on in the Webmaster's email list, okay. But is it possible to send notices of the... See, I'm trying to decide to say government counsel the technical, the technical found, because not everything they talk about has to do with web users. Absolutely. And it's just occasionally something comes up that does have to do with web users. So, never mind. Okay. How about an RSS feed? You guys do anything at that time? They have posted meeting notices for technical security, government counsel, and when he's talking... And that's just as they're coming out, right? Yeah. It's not a full-time thing. Yeah. It's just when the date's set for a meeting, or if a date at the meeting gets canceled, it's posted. I signed up for that one. I didn't know if there were any other... Yeah. Thank you. So, the RSS feed would be on your NITC homepage? On the homepage? Yeah. Okay. I'm trying to think. I said... The hard finds? I'm trying to... Well, I don't... I've placed this URL into just about any reader. Right. Find it on there. But she didn't have a little RSS feed. Yeah. So, the RSS feed would be on your NITC homepage? On the homepage? Yeah. Okay. I'm trying to think. I said... The hard finds? I have a little RSS feed. You don't have to. Okay. No, I mean, I... I know where it is linked if you go to the standards and guidelines. And then if you click on draft documents for comment at the top, that there's a link to it right there. But pasting an NITC at the RASC, I think you should find it in any reader. If they only have one... If there's only one thing... If there's only one... If there's only one... If there's only one choice... Okay. This could be a really short meeting. 35 minutes and we're ready to split. Unless you can think of something else. This is our one for the year. Let's make it count. Talk about other stuff. I have no other stuff. I will make up some minutes and send it out. And I'll also advertise this when this broadcast was completed, which I'm sure will be really quick for other people to listen to. If you take it home, listen to it with your family. I know. Okay. Thank you, guys, thank you. Thanks. Thanks.