Hello, folks. We're going to get started here in a few minutes, just give a maybe three or four minutes to let folks join. This call is a continuation of the twice monthly calls, specifically a continuation of Monday's Talkal Music Group call. If you could add your name to the attendees list in the meeting notes, that's going to be great. Rather than having an open agenda, our main focus is on the white paper that's being written, and I'll paste that into the Zoom chat. Before we get started, I wanted to mention the joint Telecom Music Group CNTT sessions that are going to be happening at CubeCon in San Diego. There's two parts. One is on Monday, November 18th, and the next is Wednesday, the 20th. And there's a LFN Wiki page with some of the information about that, which I'm also posting. We're looking to get any agenda items that folks would like to talk about, and ideally volunteers for presenting on a topic, lightning talks, a couple of minutes, get up and get discussions going. And if you're up for talking, please add something. And if there's just something you'd really like to hear, please add that as well to the brainstorming items in that Wiki page. Share my screen, and maybe we can jump right into the white paper. It's very quiet out there. Can folks hear me? Yes, I can. Okay. Yeah, loud and clear. So for folks who are not familiar with this white paper, there's been several different efforts for adding content that could go towards a white paper, including a lot of effort on another white paper. The predecessor may be to this. And this is kind of a combination of all those different efforts. This is chapter one of what we're hoping will be this white paper on Cloud Native. Thank you for talking communications. And we're seeking feedback for all the different sections in general, but specifically there's a few areas where we're trying to make sure that it's on track to meet folks' needs, like the definitions, and ensuring that those are something that we can build on when we start looking at other initiatives, like implementing examples, specifications that'll come out of this, testing criteria, and other things. And so that's what we're looking at here. And there's a lot of comments in this document. I'm not going to go through all of those. But one of the particular areas that we're looking at is how to define what a Cloud Native network function is. And there's a lot of different definitions and ideas on where we could build from, including references to Etsy and other documents and standards and how to make those clear. And that's kind of what these are. I don't think there's any new definitions on here from where it was before. Gergay, Thomas, are y'all on the call? Let's see. Come here. Hey, Thomas. So Thomas is here. Hi, everyone. I think Gergay might be traveling, I think. I don't exactly know where he is. Yeah, I think you said he's going to join next Tuesday. So I guess the goal here is to get feedback and make sure that people's voices are heard. So does anyone have a particular area in the white paper that they'd like to focus on and discuss right now? I mean, it's just my preference. But I'd like to settle on a CNF definition. I think it's crucial that we use these terms so much that we agree on the definition that we can all agree around. I know that I have proposed earlier a definition and that is still there, I believe, as Alternative 5. But then I think the criticism towards that was that it contains direct reference to Etsy and maybe we want to come up with something on our own. I think it's something that is standalone. So if we still feel like that, then maybe for simplicity's sake, we should start looking at the different alternatives and maybe if we can't just pick our favorite, maybe we should start getting rid of some of these. I don't know, Taylor, do you have a suggestion on how to proceed? I think it would be crucial to have at least one alternative selected out of these many alternatives. And I know Tom has contributed at least one or two. I actually don't remember. Yeah, I kind of second that. This is probably the highest priority thing for me as well. In terms of the ones I contributed, they were more... So one of them, I think, one dot one, were essentially building on the original one that you created, Tamash, which was more or less the same end result, except I'd taken the wording from the Etsy document and expanded where required, rather than just referring to the Etsy document. I think there was some discussion in last... Earlier this week and took weekly meeting about some of the things I've put in quotes and what, for example, well-defined you know, who's defined it as well-defined? I think that's one of them. What is well enough for...? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Which I think then led to the discussion that, I think, alt three it was that Taylor created, which I think then got merged a little bit into alt one dot two, where it's a bit of a mixture of both. So whether you're an existing telco person with knowledge of Etsy coming to this, whether you're a cloud native application engineer who's new to telco coming to this, that there's descriptions in there that would help both parties. I like all of these fundamentally. I think there are bits and pieces which I'm not a big fan of. I think I know that there has been a lot of effort in previously in trying to figure out what is a VNFC in the cloud native context. I'd like to keep things simple and maybe by trying to do a mapping between VNFCs and microservices, we are a little bit moving out of the domain of defining the CNF and trying to do things at the same time. So for me, having a reference towards VNFCs does not necessarily help understanding that I don't think there is a consensus even in Etsy about what does that confirm to in a cloud native world. So without one dot two, if we were to remove the sentence that says the microservices are similar to VNFCs expanded, would that work better given that comment? I think then the question is the fact that the microservices are a little bit hanging in the air, is that a problem or not? If I think about the original cloud native definition by CNCF, I'm not sure if microservices are mentioned there but I think there are microservices mentioned as, for example, technologies. So I think I would be happier if we wouldn't try to sort out the mapping between VNFCs and microservices. I think we are in enough trouble with just trying to define the CNF and maybe loading it with other things is not the best strategy. Just a comment, do we need to use the word virtual interfunction or with software interfunction? Because virtual interfunctioning is a VNF and that might be pushing around. How is that in Etsy VNF? I'm just thinking out loud. At least virtualised network functions, people talk about software network functions, not so much I think. Network functions people talk about as well. So what were the best network functions? So Rabi, a bit of background. So the Alt 1.1 and 1.2 are essentially built upon so Taylor, are you presenting? If you could scroll down to Alt 5, Alt 5 is the original one from the first white paper which was, CNF is an implementation of VNF as defined by La, it is the CNCF cloud native definition and the feedback in Tug was that it needed to either create its own wording to avoid having the reference to the Etsy document or my alternatives 1.1 and 1.2 being built on was to call out the wording from that document instead and then Taylor's Alt 3 and Alt 4 were new wording and took that approach. So that's why the kind of implementation of a VNF is the wording that's been used in those Alt 1.1 and 1.2. So I think the one, if we're trying to avoid linking it with Etsy, I think Alt 3 and 4 are the ones that we should probably focus in on. So this is watching the Alt 3 and Alt 4 for kind of a compromise of trying to pull in specific definitions from the Etsy documentation and then combine them with the cloud native documentation or cloud native definition. So that's why it calls out exactly a component and the virtualized VNF span of VNF-C. One of the things that we keep going back and forth on is where is the grouping and where is the single service? Where does that lie and it looks like in the Etsy doc? The component is more of something that would map to the single service, whereas the grouping is actual network function. The main thing to point out between Alt 3 and Alt 4 is Alt 3 is pretty far away from what Etsy is going to call us a network function when you say cloud native network function. Alt 3 is saying the cloud native network function is the individual microservice. Is that right on this one? Are they both the same? No, they're not the same. They're not the same. That is the difference. So saying there the network function is a microservice, are you a pod? Is it Alt 4? We're saying a network function is a collection of microservices. Yes, so then that would be quite a bit different from what Etsy and I guess the VNF side of things would be. The mapping is different, so that would need to make sure that that's well understood. And then Alt 4 is kind of a compromise to move that more towards what's similar to what the Etsy definition of virtualized network functions are. Would it help to get agreement on what a network function is the scope of a network function first and not wanting to get into a whole other kind of consensus discussion. But if you know <IP_ADDRESS> a network function is described as the function of block with well-defined interfaces and behavior. So if we agree that that means that that behavior in those interfaces is well defined because they are governed by industry standard specifications, then if that's a kind of principle that we can agree on then it means that probably Alt 4 is valid but Alt 3 isn't because Alt 3 would require those industry standard specifications to define the network functions as very simple single service single protocol things. So Tom I think Alt 2 I have the trouble with Alt 2 because the current definition of Alt 2 is implying physical device. I mean I don't think when we talk about virtualization and writing things in the software you will have a function of block one single function of block with extended with well defined external interfaces. This is the previous word, the new word you do have multiple of software elements working together to fulfill a network function. And this is why I think if we use Alt 2 as as the basis it might not be might be at least aligned with moving to a software driven. Yeah I agree and then the thing that it seems to me talking about the physical or talking about the virtual abstraction layer that side it's good for analogy when defining the cloud native side and so that's where I I'm kind of saying oh I want to bring that language in as an analogy maybe it helps and then you can kind of borrow from Etsy and all that stuff so in that sense it seems like it might be okay. Otherwise saying defining it as something physical or whatever I think that then we have to it's going to require a lot more work. I think Alt 4 is at least better from here it seemed to me the closest one to the cloud definition. I'm kind of wanting to know the critique of saying that a virtualized network function component. Are we saying that it's that's too much of a stretch to say that that could be a microservice or that it always will be a microservice? Is that too strict of a mapping? Not at all it's just I think Etsy is doing their own mapping and definition on this and if I remember right that is not finalized yet so I think it would be wise to not try to redefine what Etsy is defining because we might end up with a different definition and then people will get confused all the time. When you're saying that they're working on the Etsy definition mapping are you saying within Etsy what a virtual network function component is and how that maps to a virtual network function? Or how a VNFC maps to a pod to be more precise? They're working on something with pod not okay. So is there a need to map to its VD definitions or is there a need to do that? I don't feel that we need to map here a VNFC to anything. Yeah I think we could do that once we have a you know a bomb proof definition for a CNF then I'm more than happy to look at that but first I think we should I mean it doesn't help if we can really the VNFC to something. Sorry Tom before you move on I think in its current I put that on a comment on the side I think network functions the functioner scope is usually specified by 3GP including the interfaces which are the primary interfaces for multi-center integration and as they are defined as of today they are huge for a microservice. So if I had to choose between three and the four I would definitely go for four I think three is would require changes you know to how 3GP defines these functional elements. So maybe we can start eliminating them one by one and see where do we end up. I agree I would eliminate three and keep maybe four and eliminate five which is something based on which you know Tom has already created something that is more conforming to how we would like to see this definition in this paper. I agree actually three and five. Am I still connected to the meeting? Yeah yeah. Okay so say what do you think and what does everyone think about eliminating three and five? I'm happy with that. Yeah for me it's quite yeah I'm fine with it I think I made three originally so I'm fine. We installed that in every server they deployed in GBC. Yeah if they would check the default agent. My friends there is a little bit of background now as if you're not speaking could you please press mute. Would folks add a plus one or an objection on these two comments that I added into the or you can maybe post in Zoom chat whatever works. So I pressed the wrong button I resolved the eliminated number five. Okay I'll put it back. Apologies. No worries. I think I would suggest eliminating OAPS two as well for similar reasons I think it's not it's not detailed enough on the cloud native aspects and simply just as Ravi and others have mentioned you know it kind of doesn't explain what cloud native is. I agree. So does that leave us with four? Or should we ignore one and one dot one and just focus on one dot two as a as the latest version of that particular. Can we maybe scroll up to one and one dot one and one dot two so that we see what the difference is. So for me OAPS one as the same issue as OAPS two in that it doesn't really describe the cloud native characteristics of the cloud native network function it still points to the high level cloud native definition and then there's a lot of words about pitch the efficiency. So I would vote to eliminate the same reasons as OAPS two. Yeah I could be that. I think this other alt one here this was the leftover from one that was someone accidentally deleted some and then so I'm just gonna suggest to remove that. It's in the history of someone wants to go back but this is was I think Lucy and I copied these back in based on what we had last time. All right so we have alt one dot one and alt one dot two and alt four. I'm gonna at least highlight something I think I was hearing that maybe we want to not even talk about virtual network function components because that's being defined and mapped and potentially you could say the same for the virtual network function. You could look at alt four dot one bang stand alone where we don't reference anything external. So going back to Tom's area point around the reason for moving alt one because it was not mentioning any of the cloud native principles and what that really says cloud native function is a cloud application. So it's just like translating the water with water. I just think there's not much in this definition that will make people were okay that's that's what the cloud native is. It's just saying cloud native function is a cloud application. The only thing I see is the microservices word. So I don't think it's enough to explain what is make cloud native different than other limitations. It makes sense. Yeah and I think this is this is the whole are you coming at it from an existing telco lens or an existing cloud native lens and I think for me one dot two is the best blend of the two so far. I'm gonna just I don't want to add more I'm gonna just remove it maybe I'll do it like this just to point out that I would say if you're going to do a change that a new one yeah well I'm not going to do a change other than formatting to point out that the next part is is referencing but not necessary. So I asked for what you're saying one dot two was supposed to mix um the alt four plus the alt one dot one I think that was the goal yeah all right so let's see I think we have enough on alt one suggesting removal of that one and so now we have alt one dot one alt one dot two and alt four and alt one dot one and alt one dot two can we eliminate one of them? What's the difference again I'm getting tired I can't do the diff in real time. So I think the main difference for me um that I think leads me towards alt one dot two is is the everything sentence rather than saying a cnf is an implementation of a vnf that has yeah yeah yeah it says a cnf is a cloud native application which is similar to a vnf that has been developed to use yeah yeah yeah okay I think I'm I'm I like the idea but in a definition when we say that something is something similar to something else I I saw sort of can we find another word instead of similar and then I would like it better. Based on the everything that we've been saying for not referencing external documents various reasons including them being a moving target uh would it can we try to create a definition that doesn't have anything with virtual network function or virtual network function components and see what that looks like based on one dot two. Yes. So just eliminate anything saying similar or any other word all together maybe we have to we have to don't have to make a connection to virtualized network function we can say it's a cloud native application skip the which is similar to virtualized network function that has been developed blah blah blah. Yeah I like that actually. I think we do need to so at the moment uh then then it goes on to say the mock service is a similar to vnfcs shouldn't we want it? Yeah I I didn't want that in the first place so I think it's quite tricky to try to map everything we write here to xc word because we will miss something we might cause confusion I think if we avoid that we it will be safer to do that. So so so someone can someone this tell me why is it a bad idea to talk about external references I I heard Taylor saying that because these external documents might change but I think etsy standards are pretty damn well version controlled so I think once we reference the right version and copy all over the word so one doesn't have to click on the link I don't see a practical problem with referencing etsy is there another problem with referencing etsy? So I think my personal I was I was going to say my personal opinion I don't think there's anything wrong with referencing etsy I think the mapping is is important to understand how there is less to etsy architecture but to be in the safe side if we focus into not worrying about this for now I'm just trying to define cloud native irrespective of etsy what is really cloud native from application perspective what feature does it have and later on a different exercise trying to see okay how that map to etsy and then we don't see why the definition need to be mapping this to etsy definitions I would suggest though that if we don't want to map it to etsy then alt4 is the answer we've already got a definition that doesn't map to etsy and I think alt1 and its and its variants are are a definition that does map to etsy and that would be the primary difference between the two can we bring alt4 in the top up teller if that's okay just they have them all next to each other to be fair I mean for me if I look at alt4 if we remove a cloud native function my to save as a similar to virtual network function component move that sentence and actually remove from a function similar to a virtual network function just keep the three lines in the top that would be a very ambiguous in definition but sometimes ambiguity is a good thing because that will remove the confusion this is one approach is make it very high level and make it just focus into what make cloud native by cloud native I think this is a starting point if we start digging deeper into mapping things into etsy and we will miss something and it will bring more misalignment I would say so I personally think if we just stick to yes the three lines you mentioned here and that's it yeah that's I think that would be my what actually the last one so I've just added four at one um yeah that was annoying but perhaps annoyingly but but I think it maybe it maybe clarifies clarifies what we mean by network functionality so so it's a cloud native application that implements a network function um which we may then choose to add a link to which is a bit we were talking about earlier about you know do we agree that a network function is something that is defined by an industry standard specification um I think we do yeah so I think if if if if people are happy with four at one then we can simply add another another sentence um to to that effect maybe that makes sense what is where is the definition for a network function um so just added it into four at one Taylor does that does that make sense no no it's not go go maybe the the questions about what are well-defined interfaces and stuff would behavior maybe silly question but if if we're saying that all of the interfaces and functionality has to be implemented in a cloud native way that's I think the main goal here is that all of the implementation from from the smallest component all the way up to the final network application need to follow this cloud native standards and principles yeah so as far as like interfaces so when in cloud native there's a heavy emphasis part of the definition of having a declarative API and so we keep playing around with adding that in and then taking it out not wanting to deal with that right now as far as the definition um but if we put in something that says interface and then we don't talk about the clarity of API then it's it's not the same I think it's not the same thing and an interface in the taco context is something where I have a standard where I sort of say this is the this is the protocol and and these are the valid you know messages that I accept on that interface okay so that direction or anything is because one I think it's important to differentiate between functional architecture and implementation architecture and you know network functions as defined by 3gpp with their interfaces are functional architecture apis and backward compatibility on apis and you know declarative apis that's implementation architecture so I think we should we should stick to either or it sounds more like what we're talking about up then as protocols which that's not something that we're going to change and say you can't run mpls over some network connection that's set up or whatever else you want to say um so the protocol and stuff isn't what we're talking about it's how to create the connectivity between say pods um containers multiple nodes all of those things which have to do with more of the setup configuration and communication of the services and less about the data that goes over those so once you have some type of network connectivity then the protocol you should follow standards because you're going to be doing integration with other systems and stuff that may be completely outside of the platform exactly so when we say that something is cloud native we are referring to its implementation and implementation architecture and then you can do the same cip protocol between two network functions independent of whether whether the implementation is cloud native or not yes so is that something we can bake into the language here so that that's communicated that we're talking about the the communication protocol that's established after you have that the architecture or whatever that is cloud native now you have the rest of the communication i think that was the confusion there when we just say interfaces because the pods will have interfaces so that that word is too generic services interfaces connectivity so we need something that's not talking about the architecture which would be cloud native but the data and communication that goes on after so if we say multi-vendor interfaces then i think people will understand that this is exactly about the three gpp defined standard interfaces and not you know how the pods talk to each other is that particular when you're saying that the multi-vendor interfaces and what standard is is there a definition out there that we can pull in that talks about those interfaces um i would have to look into that but quite possibly yes okay i think that could be good so one thing we're trying to do is um get that common knowledge of what's folks that are working on the platform side that their background and understanding is on the cloud native versus if you're telco in there since there's a lot of overlap and the words are used in different ways based on the context if we can expand those words and have the definitions in there then i'll i'll think the collaboration will be a lot easier i think the question is how much we want to bring that into this definition i think the only reason why we are bringing this in because we want to talk about network functions and the only way that we can define the network functions themselves is that they have these multi-vendor standard defined interfaces between them so i'd like to i'd like to hear what others think about going into this direction because it could work but it could potentially over complicate our definition i agree the interfaces as a loaded term i wonder whether it's you know simple as putting an eg you know to say s1 example and functionality eg s gateway for example yes and and exactly i'm not sure if it is uh it is the last story to say multi-vendor interfaces because those interfaces can be the interface between different network functions it doesn't need to be from different vendors functional interfaces maybe so if there's any ambiguity usually the rest of the document will explain that so i think personally i think it's okay for the definition to be very simplistic uh to the point and we all know that there's a definition for network function by it's nb there are interfaces that are functionalities defined by standards and a cloud native application is the way to create that functionality using multiple microservices and i think that's a generic definition generic enough to have a strong basis where the rest of the document will start looking at different aspects start looking at interfaces for the point and trying to define those in a better way so i think as definition in my view to be simple is okay as long as document complement the definition by explaining more and clarifying what that definition really means so i agree and there is another element that i'd like to draw in which sort of makes me like one dot three more after all and that is i'd like to have a cnf definition that i can use internally towards my organization to you know to beat up those who might try the game of hey i i put my application into containers and these are sort of microservices so i'm cloud native so when it comes to alternative one dot three there's a definition with describing what what you need to do what you need to adhere to to be able to be cloud native and it's much more than just referring to microservices yeah and i like it's you know it's more things that i can sort of point out that hey have you done this have you done that okay you have done all that then you can call yourself cloud native whereas with alternative four dot one the bar is much lower so okay this add then immutable infrastructure because of api uh and repeatable deployment process to the first the first line and that's become it right now all four are supposed to the phrase cloud native application they're supposed to build on the actual definition of what a cloud native application okay so so the cloud native definition is talking about cloud native applications cloud native application has it's there is a definition for that so if you defined a cloud native network function is a cloud native application then you must adhere to the principles and processes that are required for a cloud native application yeah but i mean if i just look at alternative four dot one it says a cloud native application is composed or of one or more microservices which is true and the cloud native application term implies much more if you know the definition if you don't know the definition then you might jump to the conclusion ah okay so to be cloud native you have to have microservices so i would prefer to write out what a cloud native application is as opposed to referring so if if we are now writing things out then we should we should really be doing that yeah it should be higher up in the doc already cloud native itself just i know i know but people will copy this chapter out and use that their own purposes so i would yeah prefer if the if then the definition would be either refer to something clearly or be as compact and as as unambiguous as possible so all i'm saying i like one dot three better from that perspective because it sort of lists the things that comes with cloud native i've just added them into four dot one um and and it feels it feels like four dot one and one dot three are becoming almost the same if you do that which which i i guess leans towards one dot three here's the point you're making that is one of the main differences between the two ideally and thomas if if folks are reading through the whole white paper they're going to build up to the point that they they understand what a cloud native application is i understand though if you're saying someone's copied they they they just grabbed one of these definitions whatever it is and they're passing that around and maybe they they say we're building a a network function right now and it is a c and f and all they followed was it's in a container and they lift and shift it over um so i understand that um one thing i would point out on the one dot three versus if you went through the whole paper this is really a subset so it's it's saying that has been developed to use immutable unstructure and all of these things i would i'd probably add some wording that says it includes these and maybe it follows all of the cloud native principles for building a cloud native application so that you're in this definition you would include some of it but maybe not all of it because it's many many paragraphs to define what a cloud native application is i'm fine with that approach so sorry for interfere uh i'm a little bit curious about what is the difference between the function and application because in in other words there is like some kind of definition about what is a function and what is application so the function by the function by itself is just a routine that the user does not perceive and the application is like a computer program that the that the end user perceives as a single entity so defining the function as application is a little bit like excuse the understanding yeah this is the uh this is the rub this is the problem the virtual network function isn't a single thing and that's why i want to just yeah and and also i just wanted to suggest because i really liked like some kind of very brief definition of what the itu is using regarding the network function so that the function is a network infrastructure whose external interfaces and functional behavior are very specified so it means that the cloud native function would be just the network function realized using the cloud native how to say preamble how how how it should be built so then we are escaping the definition of application because application can consist of the many network functions well um we are on the hour like to respect that um we we're going to have a follow-up call next Tuesday at um it's 4 a.m pacific time time is in here and there we go 12 utc 4 a.m pacific that sounds like we need to decide on is a cloud native network function a cloud native application and then how much of the definition for what cloud native is do we need in here and how much of the external definitions of a network function do we need our interfaces and functionality um do we have enough information with these ag examples or do we need to expand what we mean by interfaces versus uh the interfaces that are part of the infrastructure architecture even though i think we added a few alternatives we still cut down so these are at least built on we can probably do another round and cut out please um add comments into the doc and we do have a slack channel for those that don't know already on cncf slack join that and you can have the conversation there as well thanks everyone thank you everyone thank you cheerio bye good bye


In 10 years from now, I hope that we have addressed and managed to address and to tackle all the challenges that they have already mentioned. So I would like to see a much more resilient banking system, of course, where the provision of services is really more European, with more pan-European banks in a more consolidated system. So for me, that would be my wish. Of course, the question of the resilience of the system and whether the banks are prepared for potential economic downturns, it's also a wish for the future. I think that we as Europeans, we need to pursue having a full banking union. So the question of the eddies and, of course, to reduce the fragmented market, I think it will be a wish for the future. And finally, and this really I have learned from my new position in Banco de España, is that we supervisors need to be more transparent, be more linked and closer to the individuals in order to provide confidence to the market. So this is a challenge as well for the supervisors, but also for the banking industry. So if we really manage to convey to the individuals that having an integrated and consolidated supervision is good for society, I think we would have achieved and succeeded in having a better Europe.


Okay, everybody, we're back. This is Dave Vellante. I'm with Wikibon.org and I'm with my co-host Jeff Kelly. John Furrier's going to run a crowd chat, so check out the crowd chat.net and you'll see what John's up to. We're here live at the Vertica user event in Boston, Massachusetts. We're at the Western Hotel in the waterfront. It's been a great two days. A lot of practitioners, really a focus, has been on use cases, practitioners, applying technology to create business advantage. Earlier today, we heard George Kadifa layout, HP's vision for its software business and Haven. The big piece of that was really the large market opportunity and Jeff Kelly and I have talked extensively about our premise at Wikibon, which is that big data practitioners are going to be creating more value than the actual technology community and we're seeing what George Kadifa called 100X opportunity to create value and monetize data and that's really what it's all about. But underneath it all is a technology. Technology enables the people and processes to be built up to create that value and Shilpa Luwande is here. She's the Vice President of Software Engineering at Vertica. She also is responsible for customer support within HP Vertica and she is a long time Vertica employee. She was there from the beginning. Shilpa, welcome to theCUBE. It's great to see you. Thank you so much. Thanks for having me. Yeah, you're welcome. So take us back, you know? I mean, I remember the early days of Vertica. When I first met them it was probably like 2006, 2007. So you guys had been at it for a while but so you were early on the team. Yes, I started Vertica when we were, before the first line of code was written. We were three people. Myself and another person started on the same day and we didn't even have whiteboards in the rooms and we had three rooms, really, a three office. It's like a pre-start-up. Like a little garage type of a thing. Yeah, we were in a little, we were in this brick facility where everybody else was doctors' offices and kids running around and stuff like that. Before we knew our data center was so hard that the building couldn't take what we were subjecting it to. So we were kicked out. So take us back to the early days. What were you guys seeing? What excited you? Why did you join this tiny little idea? What got you there? What drew you in? Yeah, so I found them quite by accident, actually. And then I went and met Mike Stonebreaker. And Mike said to me that, well, I used to work at Oracle for a long time, eight years or so. And Mike said, you know what? I have no idea if this is going to work out, how it's going to work out, but at the least you would have built something really cool, a really cool piece of technology. You would have built a solution from ground up, a database for ground up. So as for somebody who had been a database engineer, worked at a very large database corporation, this was a really cool opportunity, just as an engineer. And it's amazing being here at the first Vertica user conference to see how far we've come and what all the cool stuff people are able to do with the technology we built. From a technology standpoint, I mean there's a couple of paths you can take as a starter. You can say, okay, I want to take an existing technology, I'm going to make it a little bit better and maybe a little bit faster and I'm going to go compete. You can say, I'm going to try to do something completely different and think out of the box. You see this a lot out of Israel, the innovation that comes out of Israel, you go, wow, how'd they think of that? So Vertica's more the latter, right? So talk about what's different fundamentally from what everybody else was doing at that time. Right, so fundamentally all the other existing database technology that was out there had been built for a different problem. So it had been built to solve OLTP problems and so when the problem domain changed to analytics and data warehousing and so on, what people started to do was they just retrofitted other things around their existing platforms to make that work and so you have materialized views and cubes and all these things that came about tried to improve performance for large scale analytics but really fundamentally they were dealing with an architecture designed for something else and so they didn't really have the freedom to really take tackle the hard problems there. So with Vertica what we chose to do was that we looked at what is the workload we're trying to address, what are the fundamental architectural changes that are needed and we also took into account the hardware innovations that was happening, right? So disks are getting bigger and all that but IO bandwidth is not growing at the same rate but CPUs on the other hand are getting faster and faster and more and more cores. So we wanted to shift the burden from the disk to the CPU and so a number of these things sort of lined up for us to create Vertica. That's what we fundamentally changed. Views compression, views column stores as well as an MPP scale out architecture. So all of these elements made us truly unique. So the profound sort of technical innovation was as you say shifting the burden to the CPU which the price was dropping, performance was going through the roof. Commodity hardware essentially. Okay. Being able to run on commodity hardware really take advantage of the enormous amount of compute capacity that you can get by scaling out.  What does that give you? Is that mainly a cost advantage? What kind of contrasts that with what you see some of your competitors doing? So it gives us a number of advantages. So first of all Vertica has this real flexibility of being able to be deployed on different configurations. So whether it's an appliance Vertica actually has a so smaller footprint of the software. It's only a 50, 70 megabyte software image. So you can actually run Vertica embedded inside appliances and things like that for applications. But you can also run it in the cloud and so on. So we have this enormous flexibility of deployment but the scale out architecture really allows us to scale limitlessly. So we have customers who are in the petabytes. We have many, many customers who are in petabytes. I would say that we probably run some of the largest analytics installations out there right now. And that fundamentally changes also your cost equation. When you are trying to grow and your data volumes are unpredictable, you're trying to give more and more users in your organization access to analytics. You want the ability to cheaply, incrementally scale that solution. And so having that fundamental architecture of a scale out architecture and commodity hardware-based architecture gives us those advantages. George talks about 100% of the data. You heard his keynote this morning. We're going to capture 100% accommodate, allow ISVs to accommodate 100% of their data or developers. What about the architecture and were you guys thinking about this at the time? Allows you to accommodate 100% of the data, the diversity of data. Was that by design? Was it just lucky? Talk about that a little bit. So certainly, Vertica by itself, by the fact that we built it from ground up, we've architecturally designed it to be very modular. So over time, we have been able to expand it from just being a very fast database to really a more comprehensive analytic platform. So we've over, I would say, starting from the release five onwards, we have started to put in APIs everywhere through the database platform. So we have now extensibility on types of analytics you can do. We have extensibility into sources that you can plug into Vertica to load the data and so on. And so that is where I believe that gives us the most, you know, the power to really be able to handle all the data over time. So it's a matter of building plugins, connectors, leveraging some of the other HP components like autonomy idle, ArcSight and things like that, as well as our extensibility, the ecosystem of partners. 700 connectors. Connectors and the ecosystem of partners you can build on that. So, you know, making the APIs be open as well as be performant, right? So it's fine to provide extensibility if, you know, the things that you write as plugins don't perform at the same level as software we would build. And it's not that useful, but we've taken great care to make sure that the APIs we put out really give you, you know, performance as close to possible for engine. When you set out the change, the sort of direction of the industry, which is really what you were doing, you always make trade, you have to make trade-offs. And, you know, you start going out and selling to early customers and they say, can I do this, can I do this? And they ask you questions in the context of the existing marketplace. And you have to be very disciplined and say, well, no, we purposefully don't do that. This is what we do. And we're, you're trying to be proactive and get ahead of where the market trend is. And sometimes you can be too early. Sometimes you can be too late. You guys happen to hit it very nicely. But what were some of those trade-offs that you guys made that you discussed that you purposefully said, okay, no, we're not going to do that. We're not going to get lured into that because that will sacrifice our future. Yeah, so early on we, you know, so anytime a customer would come to us and say, oh, we would like one database that does everything. Can we have one database standardized across the organization that does everything? So we said, no. If you want to do transaction processing, Vertica is not the thing for you. So we do not want it to be used in that fashion. And then there were other use cases like possibly serving platforms, right? Where people wanted to use a website and a database that's backing a website that millions of users are going to access. We didn't want to go against that as well. So there are a number of complementary technologies that over time we've worked with or our customers have used. Our real focus has been on analytics, right? Complex analytical workloads that really make it unique. Now, you said early on in 2005, you were observing from the hardware trends the obviously the price performance improvement of microprocessor based technology continues today. But there's another hardware trend that's emerging that I want to ask you about which is Flash. At the time Flash was, you knew it was coming but it was so expensive there was no way you were going to leverage it back then. But now 2013 and beyond, it looks like in many cases Flash is going to be less expensive than certain types of disk. How does that play into your thinking? Do you not need Flash? Is it something that you can leverage going forward? What are your thoughts on that as an architect? Yeah, so what we look at is we've built into Vertica of the flexibility of being able to use multiple types of storage.  So let's say you're the newest data, the newest 30 days of data, for example, could run on Flash and the rest could run in disk. You could run Vertica completely in memory if you wanted to by just giving it a lot of RAM. So our architecture is, for us, all of these storage types, we are fairly agnostic to them. Now, in terms of performance, you would, with a given amount of Flash, you could do a lot more with Vertica than you would need, than the amount of Flash you would need to say speed up a row store like Oracle. So we are looking at use cases right now. There are some use cases where we find Flash is useful but perhaps it's not as necessary as you might need it in other environments. So. So Shilpa, so we've heard a lot about Haven this morning here at the show. And obviously Vertica plays a huge role in the platform. Can you talk a little bit about the process of integrating all these different technologies that HP had, the big data assets really that they had in their hardware assets as well and integrating those into a kind of a seamless platform. From an architect's perspective, what were some of those challenges and just kind of walk us through how that process came about and how that's progressing? Yeah, so HP certainly has a number of unique assets and they are very complementary to what Vertica does. So ArcSight, for example, has a lot of machine data, connectors and so on. Autonomy has a lot of access to truly unstructured data like audio, video images and so on. So we are working on creating seamless connectivity between these so that through Vertica you could reach out to some of these other data sources and grab that data and then make it available for analysis through SQL. So we're looking at it in two ways. One is providing the Vertica user base, which is primarily a SQL oriented user base, giving them access to these other data sources, perhaps to enrich the other information that is already stored in Vertica. But we're also looking at it from, like let's say the autonomy user base for them to be able to augment their analysis with some of the data that is stored in Vertica. So whatever interface is natural to them. So it's a matter of really understanding what the different usage patterns are, what is natural to the user base and trying to make underneath the covers, plumbing the systems together to make it seamless. So walk us through a little bit of that kind of the plumbing underneath. What were some of the challenges really of doing that and bring those different types of technologies together to make them work seamlessly and allow really the end users to get the best of both Vertica autonomy and some of the other technologies? Yeah, I think the real challenge is that the systems are separate products. And so what is the real challenge is ensuring that there is a use case that truly benefits from having multiple products. So what we do not want to do is have one big monolithic sort of an offering where you have to take all of these pieces together. So we want to keep them as fairly separate products and have a loose integration but a more integrated user experience. So that's where we are going towards. So it's kind of a modular approach. A modular approach. So you can pick and choose the components that you need for your particular problem that you're trying to solve. So if you're trying to, for example, combine the structured data about your customers with audio records from their call center logs, you can use Vertica autonomy. If you're trying to combine Vertica with, as a let's say an extended analysis store to augment ArcSight security, same capabilities, then you just use those two components together. So having spoken to a lot of customers here this week, one of the things that we've heard a couple of times from, several times from customers is that they're very impressed with some early customers as well of Vertica with the kind of the technical chops, if you will, the engineers and the architects and really the technical team when they would come out on site and kind of help them set things up and kind of get things rolling. I think that's largely in part to your work, but as you expand and you're growing and you're part of HP, how does that influence kind of how you grow the team and kind of keep that focus on really expert technicians and engineers and how do you kind of keep that culture and that eye on the prize, if you will, of that technical expertise? Yeah, so we've always had a very high bar for hiring at Vertica and we continue to keep that. Vertica has really a great cashier right now in the technical community, so we are able to attract a lot of talent, so we continue to grow in that fashion. And culturally, I think our focus has always been to make customers successful, so we try and make it very easy for our developers to hear directly from customers and so on, like in this conference, you'll see a whole bunch of developers are here, for example, and that's what I think makes it possible. We try to still keep the close-knit feeling across the many organizations within Vertica, the engineering organization, the field organization, the support team, have them all communicating and talking still as we grow. That's what's going to keep us continuing to innovate, like we've always done. Very good, so one other thing, of course, we've heard a lot about is the need for, HP's got to reach out to the developer community to really build these applications, kind of the end at the end of Haven. There's quite a large ecosystem around Vertica right now, with a lot of partners here, we've had Tableau on and some others. Talk a little bit about, you mentioned kind of what the API is and making it open and accessible to partners. Maybe you could expand on that a little bit. What are some of the key areas that you need to do as an organization to kind of reach out to those partners from a technical perspective? Yeah, so I think we have a big focus on building a community around Vertica. So we've recently completely revamped our online community, trying to put out more and more technical content, but really trying to get our user base to contribute content there. We also have a GitHub repository for Vertica Extensions, where there's a whole bunch that we've contributed, looking for people to contribute. So really I think our focus is to expand the number of people who are contributing content and best practices and use cases and so on amongst each other, really have a larger conversation going. We also started down the effort of having formal certifications and things like that, that really when our customers are looking for Vertica professionals, there is a way for them to understand what the skill sets are and so on. So it's a part of growing the Vertica community, both informally and formally. So just generally as a technologist you look out, I mean the database world, before you started at Vertica, around that time even, let's say early 2000s, pretty boring market, right? You had Oracle had sort of done its thing, you had DB2 going along, you had SQL server, and then you had sort of the spate of innovators, like Vertica, come on, and then they got snapped up quickly because large companies like HP saw them and said, oh, we need this, that's good, this is disruptive. And now you're seeing all this other disruption with no SQL databases and open source databases. So as an observer of this industry, what comments and observations would you make about the innovations that are going on in the database and data management side of the business? So certainly I think we consider ourselves part of this whole ecosystem of open source data management and so on. We consider Hadoop, for example, as a really cool technology that is very complementary to Vertica. There is definitely some effort going, it's interesting that Mike Stonebreaker at one point wrote this very controversial article about how people who do MapReduce should learn a little about people from the database community, and there was a lot of hoopla about that for a while, but now you see that. Yeah, what does he know? Yeah, now you see that people are sort of recognizing sort of what he was intending to say there, it wasn't about one being bad and one being good, but people are trying to incorporate some of the learnings from 30 years of database research, and SQL is a good language, it's by itself not the bad thing, right? And so, and there's a number of existing skill sets out there that it leverages. So I think the no SQL community is sort of recognizing that it isn't about throwing the entire thing away, it is not the interface that's the problem, it's making the rest of the user experience work with that. So I see it's good that there's innovations going on in the open source community as well, about the no SQL community trying to get them to also have SQL interfaces to some of these products and so on, so that's a good thing. So by inference, that would suggest that the traditional sort of database architectures will evolve and as will the newer ones, they'll sort of come together and maybe reach some kind of equilibrium, but it seems like in listening to George, talking to him on theCUBE, that you're betting essentially HP strategy from the standpoint seems to be that all the growth, all the growth, but most of the growth is in this new area, this unstructured data, this diverse data, this machine data, any type of data, not so much the transaction processing. So number one, number two is the value created from that those initiatives will be far, far greater, 100x greater. So that would suggest there's some new players that might emerge in this space. HP, I'm sure you would want to be one of them. So what do you think? Do you think equilibrium, where the oligopoly just subsumes everything, guys like Oracle buy companies and act like they invented the new stuff, or do you actually feel that there will be some new players emerge, whether it's HP or somebody else that are dominant in this business? It's hard for me to predict the future, but I always feel like there's got to be a continuing spate of new players and innovation if only to keep us all on our toes. So I think that Varika is also doing some very cool stuff that about trying to make it easier for people, for example, to add unstructured and all kinds of data easily into the database. So sort of removing the barriers that people feel like, the reason why people had thought or felt like they had to invent no SQL because what databases couldn't do, right? So we are working towards making that process easier too. So it's going to be a nice competition, it's always good to have that, because that's what keeps us, keeps it fun and challenging. So let's talk about your role a little bit. How was your role kind of shifting or evolving as kind of Varika continues on this journey and is now part of HP as one of the original employees really had to help build this database? How was your role kind of evolving at the organization? So I continue to run the product engineering team, but I'm also responsible for the customer experience, so which is a great thing for me because I get to have the whole end-to-end responsibility. So I run the support services training and so on. And so it's a great way for us to completely close the loop in the sense of getting feedback from customers and incorporating that into the product and so on. So I really enjoyed that. And in terms of, I'm curious to understand a little bit more about how you mentor kind of some of the younger folks you might bring on. I mean, what are some of the things that you focus on when you bring on some new engineers, developers? What are some of the things, the knowledge you pass on to them or some of the best practices you try to instill in them? Yeah. So we have a very collaborative culture at Varika. We make it, so we have a lot of incredibly smart people, but they don't wear their brains on their sleeves or whatever you call them. You will see people are very humble, eager to share knowledge. So when a new person joins, we pair them up with a mentor, we make sure that there is somebody to hold their hand. But at the same time, we do expect our new hires to contribute right away. So we will give them stuff to do. They will, most of our new hires will end up writing features in the next release and so on. So it's a pretty inclusive as well as challenging environment. Excellent. All right, Shilpa Luande. Thank you very much for coming on theCUBE. It's always a pleasure seeing you and getting your deep perspectives on architecture and industry directions. Congratulations on all your success and we wish you the best in the future. Thank you. Thank you for having me. Keep it right there, everybody, and we'll be back. Jeff Kelly and I, we've got all kinds of stuff going on this afternoon. We're going to be running for quite some time. Actually, the conference will wind down, but we're going to have the likes of Kurt Monash on. If you don't know Kurt Monash, he's a real innovator in the quote-unquote analyst, blogging business, really knows his stuff. Vinny Mershandani, former Gartner analyst and current author will be here. So keep it right there. This is Dave Vellante with Jeff Kelly and John Furrier. We're live from the Vertica Conference in Boston. We'll be right back after this word.


What's up everybody, just here for jaspyskatespricks.com. We just sold out a 2013 Panini Select Baseball little mini box break Radham team's number 13 on our website and again, this is a chance to win five spots in our Baseball mixer So the way this works, we give you a random team for every spot to get one random team. We're gonna open up the box Distribute the hits out to the customers in that break and then of course At the end of the break we'll randomize customer names again in a separate dice roller only and customers in the top five One two three four five, but one spots in the out-of-the-park baseball mixer So let's do the break first randomized customer names and teams. Let's roll the dice and it's a three or one four times. Good luck one two three and four Four times Zach Donna Craig all right four times one two three and four Marlins down the Cleveland Indians The Zach Paul you have the Marlins Peter with the Cardinals Jack with the Rockies Gregor with the Cubs Brian Zellow with the White Sox Acer with the Rays Brian Zellow with the Nationals Gregor with the Astros Brian with the Giants Zach Paul you have the Padres Brian with the Tigers Jared with the Dodgers Gregor with the Mets Joe with the Angels Adam with the A's Zappa with the Red Sox Rick with the Reds Matthew with the Phillies Brian with the Pirates Jeremy the Rose Matthew with the Orioles Anthony with the Rangers Benjamin with the Yankees Chris with the Mariners Brian with the Bruce Gabriel Gabriel sorry with the Braves Rick with the Blue Jets Barry with the twins Kevin with the Diamondbacks and Craig with the Cleveland Indians So no one ever really trades in this guy, so I'm gonna just close the trade window really quick And then again, of course, we'll randomize customer names and see who wins spots in the mixer at the end right here as well So there you go And there's a select mini box and Joe named it a little Mike Trout in Fuego Dustin Pedroia Got a silver Chris Johnson and a autograph to 750 of Aaron Luke silver Jean Segura silver, and then we got Chris Perez for Cleveland Craig Yeah, I know Rivals are they yeah, so there you go guys some extra stuff here like these trout still so well All right, so there you go That was the quick mini box break And then of course Darce will hear customer names Let's roll it and it's a three and a five eight times over top five get a spot in the mixer eight times one two three four five six seven and eight Eight times the Chris W. And Brian Gregory Kevin and Zach Paul there you go Congratulations guys number top five After eight times Yeah, well, I'm sure we'll pose up another one of these soon guys jazby skates breaks calm


So it seems like Joe Biden's long history of inappropriately kissing and touching women has now caught up with him And I'm honestly surprised that we're all only talking about this now I think that a lot of people disregarded this story and really his behavior because he kind of chocks it up to look I'm just an an affectionate guy So you can't fault me for being too touchy-feely This is just the way that people in my generation are but I think that you've got to understand that Every person is different some people don't mind being touched others do others are very adamant that you respect their personal space I'm one of those people so when I see these photographs of Joe Biden I can tell that they are Uncomfortable in most instances now this conversation it all kind of came to a head And we all really started talking about this because the cut published an explosive piece by Lucy Flores on Friday Now Lucy Flores is a former Democratic Party nominee for lieutenant governor in the state of Nevada Now she wrote an article titled an awkward kiss Changed how I saw Joe Biden now She explains that when Joe Biden came out to give a stump speech for her when they were both backstage Waiting to speak she writes I felt him get closer to me from behind He leaned further in and inhaled my hair. I was mortified.   I was confused Now she also explained a little bit more about how she was feeling in an interview with Jake Tapron CNN Very unexpectedly and out of nowhere. I feel Joe Biden put his hands on my shoulders Get up very close to me from behind lean in smell my hair and then plant a slow kiss on the top of my head and That in and of itself might not sound like it's a very serious thing that in and of itself might sound like it was Innocent and well well-intentioned but in the context of it as a person that had absolutely no relationship with him afterwards As a candidate who was preparing to make my case for why I should be elected elected the second in command of that state To have the vice president of the United States Do that to me so unexpectedly and just kind of out of nowhere It was just shocking it was shocking because you don't expect that kind of intimate behavior you don't expect that kind of intimacy from Someone so powerful and someone who you just have no relationship whatsoever to to touch you and to feel you and to be So close to you in that way. So I frankly just didn't even know how to react. I was just shocked I I felt I felt powerless. I felt like I couldn't move. I I just didn't even know how to process it So after she released this op-ed and kind of talked about her feelings there Joe Biden's comms director Bill Russo put out a statement from Joe Biden where he essentially says look This was not my intentions and I pledge to listen He states in my many years on the campaign trail and in public life I have offered countless handshakes hugs expressions of affection support and comfort and not once never did I believe I acted Inappropriately if it is suggested I did so I will listen respectfully, but it was never my intention so this essentially catalyzed the conversation about Intentions even if it's the case that Joe Biden didn't intend to make these women feel uncomfortable Does it still matter that he did this should we still be looking at his actions and blaming him? Is he culpable and I would argue of course? It doesn't matter that your intentions were pure you have to understand that every single person is different Some people are absolutely adamant about the fact that you respect their boundaries Now they're not always going to explicitly tell you you're too close or you're making me feel uncomfortable But there are a lot of social cues They may be subtle but they're there that you have to be able to read and With the career as long as Joe Biden's the fact that he hasn't been able to pick up on some of these more subtle social cues That he's making people feel uncomfortable. It's odd to me and as a person in a position of power It's clear that people maybe felt uncomfortable, but they just didn't want to say anything because I mean this is Joe Biden He's been in public office for decades So why would you want to confront someone with power who's making you feel uncomfortable when that might ruffle feathers? I mean that's kind of what happened with Lucy Flores She's now being attacked by Democratic Party loyalists who are accusing her of just doing this and coming out now specifically to help Bernie Sanders because she was once a Sanders surrogate but now since Joe Biden is Contemplating another presidential run. They're saying, you know, you're only doing this at the behest of Bernie Which I think is just nonsense Now people on the left who are defending Lucy Flores are pointing out rightfully so that Joe Biden has a long History of inappropriately touching women. For example, there's this now infamous Photograph of him with Defense Secretary Ash Carter's wife where he has his hands on her shoulders He's whispering in her ear and a lot of people kind of point to this as the main example that He doesn't realize he's often crossing the line or maybe he does realize it and he doesn't care However, Ash Carter's wife Stephanie Carter actually decided to come to his defense Now that we're all talking about this and she published an article in Medium where she says the photograph was misleadingly extracted From what was a longer moment between close friends and that she didn't feel that his behavior was inappropriate So essentially she's telling everyone look stop sharing that photo stop trying to be a white knight for me back off I don't think that he did anything wrong there But then what happened next was a second woman came forward who was an aid to congressman Jim Himes and Says that she was also inappropriately touched by Joe Biden quote It wasn't sexual, but he did grab me by the head He put his hand around my neck and pulled me in to rub noses with me when he was pulling me in I thought he was going to kiss me on the mouth Sometimes he clearly crosses the line, but other times I guess that he's not crossing the line because they're saying that they're not Uncomfortable, but the point is that what he needs to do is understand how his actions will be perceived and he needs to take Responsibility however centrists are saying well look he's clearly not harming them and his intentions are pure So all you're trying to do is drum up hate ahead of what will be an inevitable 2020 campaign And in fact that's kind of what one Biden spokesperson said he forcefully condemned all of this Conversation that's taking place right now and he says that you know This is nothing more than a cottage industry of lies where Biden is actually the victim of a malicious smear campaign And here's what I say to that It doesn't matter that Joe Biden is an overly affectionate touchy-feely Person what matters is that you have to be an adult and acknowledge that your actions May make people feel uncomfortable and even if they don't explicitly say Joe you're making me uncomfortable You have to be able to recognize and be cognizant of the fact that maybe they're telling you I'll be it not verbally So my argument and I think a lot of people on the left are arguing Just mad up and admit that you were wrong and try to learn try to listen to them And he said that he did want to listen But it seems like his team is starting to kind of retreat and it seems like a lot on the center left are just dog piling on Lucy Flores But I mean I think that's absurd because again Creepy Joe Biden is a meme not because of a malicious smear campaign.  That's debatable and sure it's true that maybe his intentions are pure But what I'm contending is that that does not matter your intentions can be pure But you can still make people feel very uncomfortable And as someone who does not like anyone invading my personal space as someone who does not like to be touched physically by other people I can tell you I would feel uncomfortable if I were in their situation now I want to share a clip from the view where they talked about this because I think it kind of Encapsulates everything that's wrong with the discussion. We're all having about this particular issue But it would have been nice if she had turned him and say, you know what Jay? I don't really like this to please don't do this or not mr. Vice president I'm not really comfortable with that something because he's standing right there No, it's hard to say to somebody who's somebody touches you Appropriately, but it wasn't that's the point and you know, we all know Joe Biden. He's been here I remember when I met him in Florida before he was vice president and he was so friendly He's the close talker. Yes, he comes right up into your face and you're thinking. I hope my breath is good You know and I'm more important. I hope his is yeah, and you know, so he talks close He touches you that's what he's like and I feel it would be really unfortunate if we got rid of everybody Who was just an affectionate kind of person? Well, you know what those are nice people, too He's also been in public office for about 50 years of his life Yeah, I do wonder if she could have sent him a letter. Well, that's right. Like send him a personal note to say Hey, this happened a few years ago. Now I feel confident and telling you about it. I don't want to make this public I always wonder when these things come out. What is the motive for this person? Is it is it simply to? Let people know I was uncomfortable which you could have done in private Or is it because you maybe want someone else to win and you want him to have doubts about Actually announcing for presidency I've had concerns about the Me Too movement from the beginning about getting to this place where you can't have normal interactions with each other That is to say like this one wasn't comfortable and that's her place But are we gonna get to a place? We can't shake hands We can't hug each other because that to me was uncomfortable. I worry about that So I think that that conversation right there demonstrated exactly why Lucy Flores was right To write an article about this and not just send him a personal letter as one of them Suggested because people are ignorant and people need to be educated that we've got to understand that our actions have consequences even unintended consequences You might not feel like you're doing anything wrong, but that's not how it's perceived to some people So the best thing that you can do is understand how your actions affect others and Learn what may or may not be appropriate try to read the subtle social cues That he's obviously ignoring So here's what I didn't like about that conversation. First of all whoopee Goldberg. She essentially Shifted the responsibility away from Joe Biden and on to Lucy Flores. Well, it's your own fault Why didn't you say? Joe stop doing this. I don't like that. You're doing this except. That's not her job. Joe Biden is an adult He's the one who should acknowledge that if you're going to kiss someone on the head Yeah, they may take offense to that They may feel uncomfortable and then Joy Bayhardt trying to brush it off as you know Someone who's just naturally he he's affection and he's touchy-feely and he always talks close Okay, that may be how he genuinely is as a person. I've known many people like this But that doesn't make it okay That means if you're that touchy-feely and you know, there's a number of people who feel uncomfortable with that who feel Uncomfortable with you talking this close to their face Maybe back off and then the worst came from Abby Huntsman Her comment was just absurd to me. She says are we going to get to a place where we can't shake hands We can't hug each other because that to me was uncomfortable. I worry about that Look, he doesn't know these women. He's meeting them for the first time. So presumably Boundaries have never been established if he wants a hug He needs to fucking ask for one and if he doesn't ask which he should but if he doesn't he needs to pay attention to the social Cues and think about whether or not his actions will make women feel uncomfortable now clearly It's the case that with Stephanie Carter. They knew each other So she knew that that was in his nature and she was okay with it But with Lucy Flores, he didn't know her. He didn't know how she would react when he kissed her and Let's flip it. Let's say he did this to a man. He kissed a man on the head Would that not be absurd? Nobody is trying to say that Anyone who hugs another human being or shakes their hand is An inherently bad person. Nobody's saying that and they always try to build this straw man argument to make their opponents Irrational but all we're saying is that Joe Biden needs to acknowledge that He is making people feel Uncomfortable as someone who does not like to be touched I can see how uncomfortable they are feeling and I can't speak for them maybe that's not the case, but I know I would be uncomfortable and People are just different every person is different Some people would probably love that Joe Biden is touchy feely and affectionate But not everyone is the same so you have to pay attention to the power dynamic and you have to be cognizant of the fact that not every single person is Going to feel the way that you feel if you feel affectionate if you love hugs great Not all of us are the same way So what we're asking is for people to acknowledge that your actions may be perceived a different way than you think they're being perceived Joe Biden hugging and kissing on women is Perceived by a lot of people rightfully so as completely inappropriate And I don't know how you can look at this video for example of him playing with a girl's hair and not think that that's inappropriate Not think that that crosses the line So it's honestly baffling to me that there are people on the left Who are trying to attack Lucy Flores now when this has all been Happening before our very eyes, but now they're trying to tell you ignore your lying eyes Joe Biden isn't creepy. Well, yeah, it is creepy You may not think it's creepy, but it comes off as creepy rightfully so to a lot of people So all that we're asking for is accountability all that we're asking for in the midst of this conversation is for people to Acknowledge that their actions have consequences and they may make people feel uncomfortable, but I mean I Just again, I'm shocked that it took this long for us to have this conversation And I knew that it was going to be a matter of time before it caught up with Joe Biden and unfortunately for him It's happening now, but I mean sorry, but if you've been in public office this long That's not going to help your case as Abby Huntsman said he's been in public office for more than 50 years Well, then he should have learned by now that people don't like to be touched that way often times He should have learned by now when you're interacting with this many people Not all of them are going to walk welcome a hug with open arms. Other people will be creeped out by that So, um, you know, this is a really important story And I hope that he genuinely is introspective and tries to learn and think deeply about the way he made women feel because it's unacceptable This behavior is inappropriate.