conomic opportunity okay because these are all pretty much negative if we don't and this we've heard several people testify to the opportunities let's go on to section three which is the which is essentially a markup of the existing statue so I'll start off there's one question that I've heard come up on a couple of occasions which is the definition of greenhouse gas um and Luke I thought I would call you saying that uh that is defined in some parts of the statue during some titles but not others it is and when I came back I said uh probably good to have that across reference inserted because we wave structure now it's in a different chapter yeah so valid point yes and on that um who was it somebody said that that's defined in the Massachusetts statue well we have a state definition that's pretty good so I just cross reference that or repeat it here so it should be a defined term right do you know what that is off hand or I know the definition on top of my head well that's better back I'm sorry but okay next time I think we should use an existing state definition otherwise we'd be right in the state definition so would you would you do that start definition or would you repeat it in here I think either is fine let's let's we'll figure that out in the state definition section if at some point in the future it changes you would only want to change it in one place but unless one of the stakeholders says the current definition which I think we're all aware of is not the one yeah I would just cross reference or repeat that okay there was another um uh bit of input we had from an hour with regard to the ability for how uh the greenhouse the current greenhouse gas emissions inventory accounting works whether we would be able to include um some benefits that we get from regional uh partnerships within that accounting so changing how the accounting is currently done that was a question that came okay well that would have to be a new idea yeah that would have because it's not it's 478 577 it's it's not yeah it's not captioned 578 it is 582 so say that again what we're trying to capture um we actually want to particularly have the deputy secretary in the room so so in the provision for how we calculate for the record computer walk type of secretary agency networks in the way we currently calculate greenhouse gases there is there is uh an understanding for how we calculate electric power production that is based on the consumption based on what we're buying rather than our production in state because we are buying on a on a grid and we are part of a regional program where we're getting emissions reductions around the region so we want to make sure that we're capturing that we are getting those regional emissions reductions were we to have a nationwide cap and trade or something else for different programs and we were participating in getting credit for those reductions as as a part of the overall reductions across the country we would want to capture that again on sort of a demand basis are counting for that participation because that's the whole reason to participate in those sorts of things so that it's easier for everybody to get the most cost-effective reductions as a whole rather than those reductions having to occur in Vermont because that becomes much more complicated to measure and and and lessens the appropriateness of participating in those sorts of cost-effective regional and national programs okay so that see no it's no it you know if if we made changes here it would be in section 582 of of 10 vsa 582 is where that definition is it's not part of this bill right now if that would be section three right it'd be section three it'd be a different section of the bill yeah so we haven't dug into that at all but if you have any specific suggestions on that and we decided to dig into it that would be that would be helpful we will do our best to quickly fill up and I don't know where they go exactly but one was we've we've talked about resiliency and perhaps defining resiliency and not including in here not any kind of matrix for determining how we increase resiliency but the first place that I actually see it mentioned was at the top of page nine line one specifically the word resiliency yeah and I'm wondering if it wants to go in uh section three is that greenhouse gas requirements that's what we're measuring the goals but I wonder if we should introduce resiliency in this section goals so just to be clear it's a section it's on a section three yes so what that is is it is current law I'm looking at mandatory reductions yeah I'm looking at three C where we're talking about it's okay somewhere in line 17-19 we start talking about construction maintenance buildings services line 20 services and infrastructure I don't know I wish I had a more specific no I think that's clear as the idea and so I think this part of statute refers to state infrastructure as opposed to something more broadly uh-huh so that might be more confining than you want it to be that would be yes so I'm I'm just wondering if this is this maybe not three C but maybe three D a new D about uh can I ask a question yeah so uh oh wait of me no yes um so are you now I just want to see if I'm following you because I had a note also around the singular goal here right emissions reduction yeah are you saying to add a goal of increased resiliency yes okay so where I would take us on this just you know trying to keep this at a higher level is at the top of page 10 um one of the charges for the council is to identify means to accurately measure and one of um yeah uh you know one of those things that we have talked about earlier this week is how do you measure resiliency um it's section four three if we're just inventorying now I think we skip ahead of the whole the whole section about the of the council and the makeup so why don't we just inventory this as a question on defining resilience and measuring and I'll think more over the weekend about how I see it fitting in well yeah I think are we done with section three which were the requirements and the requirements okay so section four is the climate council and climate action plan and this goes on for a while but first question what would be the other alternative those are yeah so I I think other ideas that have come up would be you know is there a new position in government created um that you know specifically has uh authority over climate initiatives that's something that's come up I think another idea that has come up is uh that ANR is not the right chair of this council so that should be agency of administration you know suit mentor this morning talking about you know their first among equals um and we also heard testimony about ANR is the agency that has the technical expertise and also experience working with a number of these agencies on those issues so I think that is definitely something we're going to cross here those two and we also had some some suggestions about uh different uh representation on the on the uh on the council so and uh yes what about the ranking member of each uh of the legislative committees yeah that's a poison pill for me so yeah so I would say this is another broad area as to where the um kind of leadership of the council resides here and um you know whether or not there's a a new position does Massachusetts have a council or is there is through the EPA yeah so um Massachusetts has a different regulatory structure than Vermont does in that they have an agency that incorporates utility regulation conservation um transportation and um that's a conservation and environmental protection and there might be others but that is transportation is not included oh I thought it was agriculture is okay thank you so there's a lot in that their version of ANR very specifically utility I guess the other question I know that they also have a committee on global warming and climate change it's an actual oh committee just like this like that separate within time the exact branch no I don't hate so I just I don't know what their actual mission is just just something to ponder as far as what from a serious perspective would it make sense to just have somebody from each of the agencies in the executive branch like an assigned person from that agency so it's um inclusive representative of the all the aspects of state government um and more close knowledge of the inner workings of each of the agencies I think that's something we should discuss yeah so I mean we're flagging this as an area of competition yeah enough for us today but I mean wouldn't that be kind of the position if there was a czar that they're going to call in each expert in whatever agency to lay out I mean that's that's different than having some broad counsel with all these people on it okay I mean all right one agency is not represented in this list well so just as an aside and and I'm not suggesting this but I've heard this from other people and we've had some of this discussion today that um you know is there a place in the room for the state driver here who has you know planted it I think played a key role in moving the clean water um discussion along you know does she belong or do they belong on the council that was another thing that I had flagged and that I've heard um as it does as a deputy so yeah yeah well there yeah right now it's public safety yeah yeah that was meant that was what it was meant to get at but yes similar to um human services was really kind of meant as a euphemism for department health so clearly kind of council leadership and regional planning commissions were brought up yep national guard national guard yeah and the concept was also brought up that this shouldn't be 21 or 12 so who do you want to national guard so I'm going to keep moving here through what the council is charged with in terms of responsibilities uh something that I heard in our discussion earlier today was uh and actually earlier this week understanding actually this would potentially fall outside of the council but understanding what programs state government currently has um how much we spend on them and what the efficacy of those programs is um that was brought up earlier in the week because that's something that the council should take a look at it was also brought up earlier today that's information that the council should have on day one uh and that we should look outside the council to to provide that information I don't think that's I agree I don't think it's council's job to do that work it's council's job to have that information Mr. Chair if I may you don't you don't provide direction for somebody to do that yeah then you're hoping yeah that's going to occur before the council's this hope of strategy hope is not a strategy okay just not very effective so then we're really looking at this it would be outside of this section of the bill but I'm just flagging kind of the inventory you know question pretending it's a good I have I'm not sure in public infrastructure on page nine one twelve I'm not sure why I don't know if anybody else has a note they are around public infrastructure you know they're not okay I've added them myself I think you and I talked about this okay so that what this um kind of section says you know again the charge for the council is identifying analyzing and evaluating financing strategies to support this transition that you know what does that what does that relate to and one of the questions was financing public infrastructure which could be everything from you know more hardened transportation infrastructure to publicly uncharging stations or financing strategies for the private sector to accelerate the transition you know and I'm just making this up but you know the Vita funding to support I don't know the variety of the financing strategies so as you and I talked about that I don't know if we want or school and municipal building school and municipal buildings was was not that we thought about it where are you not by page number because we have page additions here found we're in the council section the council shall is be and then keep moving down under that there's a b and c or c thank you line 12 yeah oh financing strategies so okay if I can go up to section b line e I've circled analyzing each source or category of sources and I have a note that says be specific but I don't remember the details Jenny Rushlove had said that each source or category of sources invites speculation or something like that so she was suggesting marking out each source and just saying analyzing category categories or whatever categories of sources and what I had written in and parenthetically was industrial transportation buildings etc I don't know whether I think she said she suggested not listing them but but I'm not sure about that there are clearly defined categories as part of the inventory that might be helpful as a template for this right that says here are the sectors that we look at for sources of additions there's no reason why that should change as part of the evaluation of the council so should we just list list sectors of sources right presenting that as an option for you also I have prioritized equity but I think it means prioritizing areas where I'm not sure where it goes in this section that areas where they want to be we want to identify as needing the most resources where am I it's just no I have written down it goes in this section maybe goes on regard to the subcommittees there's a suggestion of okay there was a suggestion related to economic challenges that I think this is kind of related to the just transition subcommittee but having a specific subcommittee charge that relates to I don't have the exact words here but kind of economic challenges or economic harm that might result the second subcommittee yeah but it does talk about it maybe this needs to be more fleshed out not unfairly burdening a group or community that also may include an economic sector I'm flipping through the next place that I get to is the the climate action plan 592 it's on page 13 put off any other thoughts that people have just seeing back in subcommittees yep I know we received suggestions that or questions on whether there needed to be clarification on size or functioning but I don't think so I like it can be yeah so actually thank you for bringing that up because I got a related point um what I understand that I'm looking to uh ledge council and Luke you might not be the person but with what things we need to include in here when you're creating a council for example I think we need term limits and there's a question about staggering those term limits and you know to your point Robin you know what kind of power can we give here we've given the the uh the council the ability to create subcommittees and there's a flexibility there I'm presuming that's we don't have to get granular in terms of I remember right prohibit again into that depth but my understanding is what we do have to do is establish term limits or terms and that they should be staggered and that there should be an odd number of people on the councils those were parameters that I understand but you're saying these ideas you might want to pursue no these aren't I had to do these yeah this is what I understand that we when you create a council you told them you had to do what's that who told you you had to do it um my friends on the government operations committee really yeah uh but again I there might be somebody in your office that has expertise on I don't know if uh I don't know if the lawyer is that you sort of well if you like if you also like those ideas you can certainly do it yeah I don't know if you have to okay my number of people make sense if you're doing both because that's where that comes from yeah but you don't have to yeah but term limits I mean you know you could have people that are put on here and there on your 20 years when you turn looks like you can't have consecutive terms or you're there for five years remember a lot of these folks are executive branch they might be there for 12 months four years is how long they have that position but some are not true but were you thinking of length of term or term limits so I was thinking of both okay and again I don't want to solve this problem today I want to flag it I can check the question the question was on terms term limits um a number of people under council uh the question that I have is to how prescriptive we need to be is to the governance of the council and um my understanding is that you do not have to be prescriptive the governance of the council that they can create those you know rules of the road themselves but that's a question I have you agree yeah just thought I mean I do think there should be an odd number but with a group this large inevitably at probably 50 percent meetings someone's not going to be there of people anyway but uh so you could still have a tie vote on something getting back to the subcommittees I just found my notes about what Sumitra suggested this morning um around potentially another subcommittee and what I wrote down was and a subcommittee to identify areas of vulnerability and uh risk and assess strategies to reduce risk something like that yeah that was the maybe that's just transitions or maybe it's something else so again I would put a charge to members of this committee as to um and representative Spillia uh had worked a lot on the thoughts behind one of these subcommittees and what it should cover um two of the other subcommittees were left frankly fairly general to the extent we want to flesh out more information there and be more prescriptive if to the extent we want a jettison one or add one that's up to this committee and so uh if that's something you're interested in then we should go there but I'll again I'll leave it to the committee but I want to flag that yeah it's something that yeah um because I heard that from Sumitra I heard that from uh Mr Griskell who's here um with regard to you know specific economic harms that might result and that should be captured here so I'll leave it open as to the extent we want to be more prescriptive okay climate action plan section 592 I'll also say to be clear we're not closing any doors I'm doing this stuff today but I do want to capture things that are on people's minds so um if you know if we don't have anything written down we don't need to stare at the page but I do want to collect things that people do have that are from Tim I'm sorry I just stepped out on one of our testifiers for next week yeah on the rural resiliency I'm sorry the subcommittee yeah um there wasn't one oh this is probably too granular but there was um talking about uh adaptation the pressure that climate change but climate change and also climate change adaptation adaptation yeah the both are you putting that under the rural resiliency task force right but we're going to start to get adaptation well the title of the committee is rural resiliency and adaptations actually too it suggests an added risk reduction to that as well so in other words wind is going wind and rain are going to put pressure on rural areas all of the economic changes that are happening in the world to deal with climate change adaptation will also put pressure so and this is in B if anybody has anything on plan starting on page 13 so this ties in with the earlier when I was fighting resiliency so we mentioned that in the action plan on page 13 line 18 which I think so there the plan is to reduce emissions and build resiliency and I think that highlights the need to kind of define it or have it be a goal earlier for requiring the plan to address it let's think how to do that because the reason I say let's think how to do that is because the what is now the requirements section that's um is existing statute that specifically is about greenhouse gas emissions right so I'm not saying that we shouldn't do that I'm just saying let's think about where it belongs I don't want to focus no we're bringing it up here as to be included in the plan so seems like we should talk about her ahead of that yeah so maybe my question is on this section as well so when it talks about um so I'm in little b or you're in the plan section yeah um talking about including regulatory and legislative changes that's where my concern with this is what they have to put forth specific initiative programs and strategies including that but above and beyond that like I say if the legislature on their own jumped in with passing some legislation that would affect their plan and strategies how does that fit into it because the only go back every four years right right so let me just be clear on the question um because I think I heard this come up a couple times does uh this doesn't preclude legislation legislature can legislate anytime outside of this and may have heard you ask this question if we do things as a legislature that are outside of this plan that accomplish greenhouse gas emission reduction would it count towards accomplishing uh the requirements right how do they include it what's the process for them to include that in their strategies and you know initiatives specific initiatives because that is what it would be would be a specific initiative that the legislature passed it's outside of this it's outside of that isn't the objective is to reduce greenhouse gases gases and it's accomplished and we do something that helps to accomplish that and why wouldn't it count well it's a question of how you have how you count it right yeah I understand that it would count but I'm just saying how would it how would it fit into the plan would they then if it was something huge could apply or could they back off on another proposal enough to still meet the gore so again I just want to make sure I'm clear because you know with the pathway to address the question you have can the legislature step in and alter the plan is that the question well no again you know that the council how how are they going to consider uh you know we meet every year so we could conceivably every year put in a new proposal to limit carbon emissions right so they've already got a plan they've already established your plan they're going down the road you know all of a sudden we've thrown in these other things are you saying just let that go as well but not be included in any reductions that they have plans for that they've already considered in their ultimate ultimate plan I just don't I think somehow it's it's got to be interconnected but I don't I don't know how but I think it should be considered somehow yeah but I don't know I think I think what you're saying is that when you lay out a program or a plan to reduce emissions somehow part of that plan is developing metrics for determining reduced emissions so if there if the legislature comes up with a plan that isn't included in this in the council's plan that somehow worked or something or is it different anyway there might be another count accounting of greenhouse gas reductions that then isn't captured in this plan yeah it makes sense yeah I think so doesn't make sense to me because well I mean the sources of greenhouse gas gas emissions are not going to change so the measurements I want to be careful that we don't debate here I just want to flag and I think it's a really important question actually as to how we deal with that issue yeah you know the goal here the ultimate goal we're trying to get to is reduction in emissions and I don't who gets credit for that and I know that's not your question but well let me put it a different way then okay let's say the agency natural resources through rules throws out a particular proposal but we as legislators almost at the same time put out a bill that's in conflict with what the agencies are done and they're basically saying whoa wait a minute you know we've already we've already proposed it's already been proposed by the council in this way we're going down the road to rules you just pass a law that really is a little bit different tweaks it in a different way where do we stand I might be able to answer some of those questions if you want yeah another time so the emissions go down where I visualize the emissions go down so whatever the reason you went down recession depression you know you're meeting your targets that's what matters if there's a plan in the legislature passes a law that's outside that plan something different you would hope that each entity legislature be aware of what the council's doing the council look at what the legislature's doing to maybe modify their plan accordingly I don't know how you legislate that they do that but you'd hope to be aware of what's going on staying and modify the plan accordingly as your last question law of Trump's rules so they got a great idea of all the rules that A&R should do and the legislature steps in and passes a law that's different but usually laws are general rules are specific so you know that it's usually not either war but yes law is Trump rules so legislature goes ahead and does something by a law that would trump any rules that are being developed if they're in conflict that's the section saying perfect was that in was that the rules section oh no we haven't got it we're about to get there something that I flagged in the rules section was in A2 I had bracketed the term reasonable basis and wrote a question in the margin would it help the agency to lay out what constitutes a reasonable basis and and that was actually a question that was found I had doctor today with Jen's testimony and testimony perhaps there's a need to be even more explicit there which is the bottom of page 19 no agency or departments that's rule making a priority it's K Jen Duggan had indicated that there is perhaps a need to be more over yeah be more explicit that no one's rule making is I don't know that's pretty explicit that's pretty explicit I have a note on the very beginning of rules 16 and I think that's 593 and I believe that it relates to where it says consistent with the Vermont action oh yes and it was my notes as adhere to yes this was a genuine rush way of comment also about so I my scribble was shall adopt regulations as prescribed by the plan as opposed to what I had mentioned when Professor Rushla was testifying was some struggling with this in that being cautious about directing the regulatory body to do you know with precision what the plan says as opposed to staying within the bounds of the plan and again we can take away at what that word is the intention was to give some flexibility to operate within bounds and that was essentially that where that word was chosen another phrase that I wrote that was necessary to carry out necessary to accomplish I think we're trying to find a balance between Jen and Rushla trying to give legal precision and cover and maybe Mary Powell's just get a plan still to it yeah so well it's like that I've forgotten that so two things I'll flag in the cause of action section are in both A3 and in B3 and it's the same change in each that that when a court reaches for the remedy of requiring the secretary to to take prompt action or adopt or update rules that they be in accordance with the plan or in accordance with this this law which I can't remember what it was but being clear that the court can't prescribe action that is outside of what this you know what the plan or what the law calls for and what's that based on what is that supposed to address so for example in on page 21 line 16 what this section would then say is the court shall enter an order directing the secretary to adopt or update rules in accordance with this act so that the court couldn't take couldn't require action that might be outside of what we're calling for here that they are confined to things that are allowed under this that the court is not making policy so is that the concern that the judge's order is too specific and legislate for the bench or that they go off the you know they go far afield and come outside just yeah I think that's right so this was actually raised by Representative Sherman but that the that the court may ask for rulemaking that would in fact result in greenhouse gas emission reduction but is inconsistent with where we are in the and I get what I'm struggling with is whether it's where we are within the confines of this statute or whether it's someplace outside of the plan I don't know what you would think but it's basically the court exceeding authority either being too specific or to going too far afield yeah but I'm trying to figure out how to phrase it I'm going to let you struggle with that is that the evil you're trying to prevent yes judge legislate with the bench either being too specific or going too far afield my interpretation for my understanding of Heidi's concern was the too specific we don't want to judge saying we must adopt rules that say this as opposed to achieve this goal well again I'm trying to stay within the confines of what we're doing here you know that there's a lot of guidelines I think that we're giving here for rulemaking and for the writing of this plan and the concern here is that a judge would go outside of that right there's a scenario where the plan is not leading to the results do you wish according to our hasn't done it well in this section is that they haven't done enough they've actually they've adopted rules they've done it in a timely fashion and now we're in we're in part B of this section where what has been done has been insufficient and more needs to be done and what the judge may prescribe is not only more but more that's outside of the bounds of and here's where I'm struggling outside the bounds of the plan guys outside the bounds of the statute I don't know which it would be can I have a question? I have a question around whether so just thought of hypothetical the plan lays out a strategy that is insufficient yep and they end up with rules that were prescribed to it by ZIP plan yeah but we're held to account for not meeting the goals yeah what happens yeah so I'm going to draw on my deep well of legal knowledge here that what this section says is that the court finds that the rules adopted by the secretary are the substantial cause of failure so would that be something that would not allow the judge to hold the not the council the secretary um uh well if our if the plan occurs in our rulemaking authority follows from that plan yeah then I don't see how we would be a substantial cause of that failure if we were following the authority given to us that's my point so I don't see how the judge can find in favor of the plaintiff there but your authority is also to achieve reductions it's planned and it's achieved reductions the plan is a good now you're supposed to achieve those reductions but the plan it just said that if the plan doesn't happen then the responsibility to it oh so you're you're talking about where a plan is not adopted let's not go about the way the plan is insufficient the plan is not adopted as another follow-ups but yeah I mean it's not something and so so if the plan is made and the agency uh creates rules in accordance with what the plan is and then the reductions don't get done then it's um not the fault of the agency it will be that's does it not have a strategy to go back and revise the plan right I mean that might be a defense like we're trying really really hard yeah uh but they still got these chiefs of reductions so even as they they're following the plan and the plan is insufficient for some reason exponential economic growth more cars and road wasn't foreseen so the plant didn't foresee it they didn't foresee it you're still not meeting those reduction targets they still uh they're still going to be close of action against it going to achieve those reductions well so I I think this goes back to um how you presented how you took us through the in terms of kind of the steps at each which I think is important to keep in mind which is what's required at each step and you know for example at the rulemaking step there's requirements that you know kind of show your work that there's a demonstration that there's sufficiency in what's being done it's you know maybe it's naive to think then that when you get you know get this devolved to a point where we're in a cause of action and we have not met the targets um there is still a record that shows that the agency has done work they've shown their work and you know if it doesn't accomplish it I think where you get to then is is the judge saying the work you've done is insufficient it was a substantial cause of failure and you've got to go back and do more it's possible and that's really it's hard to predict because that's really the role of the judge to make that decision so but I think that's possible so I'm looking at 92 the the last paragraph of 4593 for maybe page 16 line 9 if the if the council fails to adopt the plan or update the plan yeah as required by this chapter then the secretary yeah is on the hook right yeah so the the ANR still has to has to make rules to meet the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals yeah regardless of the plan and this is kind of I characterize this as kind of the the the in-emergency brake glass yeah statue here with or partner statue which essentially says the council has an obligation but what if for whatever reason they can't come to an agreement right um you know they fail to get there um my presumption is that the council does not want that to happen the council has the power and ability to move forward here if they fail to do that and it's on ANR right right so that's when it comes back to Peter's comment about the substantial cause business and I noticed when you when you used the phrase you said the substantial cause not a substantial cause and I'm just wondering about whether the versus uh is important and of course the failure yeah any other things that flag in the cause of action section you know maybe in section six is where the um some of the highlights of terms and term limits or whatever section seven uh shoe we took testimony this morning as to whether or not uh in the state energy policy uh there should be provision here that draws the state energy policy kind of been compliant to what we're trying to do here that was on line 18 and it's also thanks the question of whether the resiliency should be added as part of the energy policy yes so those are things that I had um and I also you know we have a bunch of testimony um particularly in the last couple of days where folks have provided very specific suggestions um some of which were captured in this discussion some of which weren't any other thoughts thank you that was actually helpful for me just to go through so I really appreciate people taking extra power today thank you yeah where you talk to next week and this yeah schedule on chat


Hi everyone, Sean with jaspyscasebrakes.com here doing 2020 panini black hobby football one box break random team number two Where at the end of the break we're giving away 10 spots in NT first off the line 2019 break coming up next So for this break itself for pretty black All-card ship 32 spots everyone gets random team Pretty much straightforward We'll do a randomizer at the end of the break where we take all 32 dames and then top 10 We'll get that so for the break itself Here's the list of customers from Gus Down to Robert Runkel last spot mojo's with the asterisks next to him and the teams from the arizona cardinals down to the Washington football team Dice roll to combo or to randomize both lists and combo them up a three and a two five times fifth and final time from jacy down to Joseph falsetti five times for the teams and fifth and final time from the raiders down to the vikings Well, since it's a filler break, we're not going to go In depth, but we'll do some highlights. It's all on video now Uh, so let's see chiefs Clyde Edward Thaler, Robert Runkel last spot mojo eagles jalen hurts robert runkel dolphins tua Raymond de Jesus Bengals joe burrow john danine Chargers kim yang chances, justin herbert So let's sort this by team name and print and rip And then we'll do a new dice roll for the randomizer at the end where we're giving away 10 spots in the nta first offline Adam you can send us an email if you want, but I believe it's going to auction or something He's he's in contact, but you can use our support button He's a he's a happy man. That's for sure So here's our box And here's our final list Robert Runkel last spot mojo panthers packers chiefs giants Titans Yeah, you can use the support button on our main site And reach out and like I said, we can always pass on your information See if we can find something magical out of here Nice rookie quarterback auto Let's see They Patrick my home's green five out of ten, that's not bad Can't see chiefs robert runkel last spot mojo Uh adam if you go to our main site There's a support button in the bottom of the chat or in the bottom of the page Just click on that pat my home's five out of ten Jake from patch 47 out of 99 Buffaloville shawmatic You had a breakout game last week deandre swift acetate rookie auto 46 out of 50 Detroit lions shawmatic Oh, and I didn't even notice it's got a piece of the jersey behind there. It's got like the uh shadow box with the frame auto beer the relic behind there and rookie auto Jordan brooks 28 out of 50 for the Seattle Seahawks going to patrick murphy So that's the break itself Now let's give away those 10 spots in the nt first off the line break coming up next So here is the list of customers again from gus Down to robert runkel New dice roll and it's the top 10 names top 10 At the end So dice roll Six and one seven times Six seven right six and one seven So there's six one more time Good luck and congratulations From spots 11 down to 32. Thank you guys very much for getting in on this and hopefully I can do better for you next time Congratulations to Shannon Glover robert runkel Raymond de Jesus robert runkel robert runkel jayce ferrera Joseph falsetti robert runkel shawmatic and robert runkel You guys all got spots in the upcoming nt football 2019 first off the line coming up next That was 2020 panini black hobby football one box break random team number two I'm sean jaspyscasebreaks.com. Thanks for hanging out and we'll see you next time


Hey guys, Jeremy here, and have any of you guys seen the trailer for the Truth or Dare horror movie that Blumhouse is Producing that comes out later this year. It looks like garbage. It looks Terrible first off.  I think that whoever came up with the visual effect for this thought that the smile that Pennywise was doing all the Time and it was really good However, Bill Skazgard as they've shown with his face without the makeup on He really contorts his face to make that smile and even then it's just creepy because it's a normal smile This overly CGI'd overly pulled back doopey eyes Sort of face is Absolutely hysterical. It doesn't entice any sort of fear.  Somehow this film isn't coming out in January Which is interesting because that's usually where the garbage pit of movies go to release with the every year However, maybe this film was only just completed and if you want to really just watch the movie watch this trailer We see almost everyone who dies We see that at one point the film is gonna break its own logic and break the rules of the game where Originally just you would think okay.  It just looks Awful the cast looks terrible the whole premise of the movie is laughable and that Fucking face that face.  I'll see you guys next time


What I think it's amazing from the liver tissue is that you can actually cut up to 70% in it and the remaining 30% will regrow to the original volume Understanding how this process is being done is one of the main interests of my lab So if we understand the process well Then we will be able to understand what happens when things go wrong and then maybe identify Targets for helping people with either liver cancer or liver disease in general We can recapitulate the liver function ex vivo in a petri dish in what we call liver organoids We use this liver organoid model and try to understand questions on how this mechanism of regeneration is happening in humans One of my postdocs Laura, she came to me and said oh Mary I think we have a good model for liver cancer and then seeing that this technology could be transferred to also study disease and I could open avenues for Personalized medicine that was really very proud and very happy moment


Take coach. How's it going? Today we are going to do the best that we can do about lowering the barrier to entry for aquatics. Okay. And how do we do this? This is going to be a game changer for you as a coach because it'll set you apart. It may cost you a little bit. But if you raise your overall prices over the bulk amount and figure it out easily, this can make a huge difference for you because it costs so little, so little really in reality for you. But it puts the onus and the reduced amount of equipment needed on the parents, which is ginormous because all you have to do is compare it to any other sport and it's through the roof. So have you mentioned in your sales letters, in your communications, how little it takes in terms of equipment to start being an aquatics athlete, either a swimmer, water pool player, artistic swimmer, or a diver, what did in reality in aquatics do you really need? And as a coach, you are the provider for the majority of those things anyway. So let's just use swimming as an example, right? Okay, we're going to just talk about what you need for swimming and then compare it to maybe one of the other cheaper sports. And I'm not knocking soccer, but it's a cheap sport. It's great. It's awesome. So many people around the world, it's the most popular sport in the entire world. And there's a reason behind that because it takes so little just to get into in reality. In soccer, you need a ball. You don't even need shoes. Okay. And you need some sort of setup that signifies a goal. Okay. So you need a ball basically is all you need to play soccer. But in the United States, it's a little different. Okay, so let's talk about what you really need for swimming. Okay, you need a swimsuit. You cannot swim naked. Okay, you're probably going to need goggles depending if it's water polo, artistic swimming, you might not need goggles diving, you don't need goggles. Okay. And for girls that hair is going to get in the way and cause a problem, you probably should have a swim cap. Okay, if you I've coached girls before that don't want to wear a swim cap or even guys that have long hair, they just do it put in a bun and they put their water polo cap on or they put in a tight bun for diving, you don't need a cap. Artistic swimming, they team seem to put it designed in a bun so they don't necessarily need a swim cap, but it helps. It's easier to have a swim cap. Okay. So let's go down the pricing real quick. Person needs a swimsuit that can be as cheap as $15 to $20 girls can be $34 goggles can be $5 swim cap can be a dollar. So you're in the realm of like $40 to $50 to start. Okay. Now compare that to we'll use soccer. Okay. To start soccer, American soccer, right? Football. I woke up. You're going to probably need cleats because you want to be the best of the best and have cleats. You're going to want to have shorts, shirt, jersey, right? A jersey for your squad. All right. With cleats and you're going to have shin guards. Okay. And socks. So those are probably going to add up to more than the suit goggles and swim cap. And now I'm going to say something completely profound. Okay. You as a coach could do something magical that no one else is doing. You might be able to just provide them with caps. It's only the girls mostly and some guys along here. You might even be able to have a storage bin of goggles that everyone could just use for practice. That's what we're going to start using in our facility. We're going to buy 100 pairs of goggles at a discount bulk. Have them in a bin. The kids go over, grab the goggles, use them and then put them back. Simple. All right. You're going to lose a couple, whatever. But there's no complaints of I don't have goggles. My goggles don't fit. Whatever. They're all the same. All right. Or if the kids want to bring their own goggles, they bring your own goggles. Okay. It's fine. But you have the ability. Coach, you can reduce the barrier of entry for these kids. And then lo and behold, if you're really firing on all cylinders, you can even make it. You can give them a swimsuit. Whoa, barrier of entry just shrunk. The person just has to pay for the coaching. You provided so much value, provided a cap, goggles and suit.  Everyone's wearing the same stuff. Everyone's in the same group. Everyone's together as a unit. You are part of the group now because look at all the cool stuff that you got for free. Figure that out. How can you do that in your business? If you need help figuring out how to do that in the business, contact me, text me with the description and below email in the church description below. We are part of the group and coaching group of making money coaching sports. That is our job to help you make money coaching sports to get more kids for me. I want more kids swimming. I want more kids doing aquatic sports. My goal is for every single kid be playing sports or using of being able to swim so you have more access to coaching. More access for coaching aquatics, lower the barrier of entry, provide the low level equipment stuff easily for them and you'll see how many more kids will thrive in your program. Have a great day.


Let's welcome Wookie who is talking about infrastructure updates and whether we can change anything in less than two years. I hope so. Okay, can everyone hear me? Well, so thank you for all coming back after dinner and not just going to the pub. I'm impressed by your enthusiasm. So, yes, we have this interesting problem that it's quite hard to change things quickly in Debian. Now we all knew that. But I just wanted to talk a little bit about some experience I've had over the last few years trying to change a particular thing, which has not gone particularly well. I would have liked to think we could have done a bit better. So, I really do want to talk about the general problem here of the way our infrastructure works and how, if you miss a stable release, that can be a real problem. But I shall use this example of build profiles just because that's happened recently. And I think it illustrates the point, or at least some points. I'd very much like to discuss things rather than blither on for too long, so I'll try not to blither on for too long. So, just to clarify, in case anybody's not clear, all of our infrastructure basically runs on stable. There are a few exceptions to that for practical reasons. So, if it's not unstable, you can't use it in the infrastructure. So, now I've been standing up and talking about build profiles for some years now. Just in case anyone's not familiar, it's basically an addition to the build-depend syntax to be able to put angle brackets, profile, something, so that sometimes profiles do or don't apply because you set magic variables. And this lets us do arbitrarily complicated things. Primarily, in this case, makes bootstrapping easier is the original reason we started this, but we've generalized it rather and hope it will be useful for other things in future. So, because we've changed the build-depend syntax, tools that read that syntax have to understand it. At the very least, ignore it. So, that mostly means d-package, but it also means apt and it means s-build, and we actually found 11 other things that read build dependencies themselves rather than using the tool. That's possibly slide too many, but there you go. Some of them are quite obscure, like Haskell, we don't care about that. There's a list on the web page, which I did have, but I've just lost. So, just to give you some idea of the timeline here. So, 2010, there was a UDS, we had an argument about this problem, and Leak Minier wrote a spec for build-depend stage one and build-depend stage two, which was a very primitive version of this concept. I first talked about this at DEBCON for 11, which is now three years ago, and wrote some patches eventually, beginning of six months later. Those went in, which implemented, again, this fairly simple-minded version. And then there was a long argument about exactly how this would best be done and how what I'd done was a bit crappy, which was true. The d-package maintainers understand that because you added an extra field for every stage one, stage two, stage three, it made for a very bloated implementation in d-package. So, there was quite a long back-and-forth about, it should be used angle brackets, it should be used square brackets, and if we used angle brackets, that was the last character left. So, if we ever thought of something else crazy, we'd have run out of metacaractors to use. And this went round and round. And to be fair, I think that debate caused the final solution to be much better. It's much more general, it's generally a good thing. However, it did mean that whilst having that argument, we missed the wheezy release. So, it wasn't stable now, because we were still arguing about the syntax at the point where it could have been in the stable we now have. So, it didn't seem to be too much of a big deal at the time. So, eventually we get a better implementation in d-package that everybody's happy with. We rewrite all our patches again. So, by this time, basically, Johannes Schauer, my GSOC student of a couple of years ago, had more or less taken this project over and heated all the patching and generally fettling things, which is good because it meant it happened in a timely fashion, which it wouldn't have done if I was in charge. And so, yes, by the end of December, the end of 2013, we had new patches for most of those 15 packages, certainly all the important ones, and we sent them in. And then Helmut Gruner got involved and said, let's actually upload something to test this. For the very good reason that if we don't try it in the real archive, you won't know whether you have, in fact, found all the things you need to fix. And if any of those need to be fixed in stable, so that it actually works, you need to find out before the next stable release, otherwise you're screwed for another two years. So, he uploaded Doxygen, because that was one of his packages, and it needed a build dependency, a build profile adding to make it bootstrapable. And he got rejected, because Python apped somewhere in the archive software said, I don't know, I've done this. It's not right, throw it away. So, we found something that breaks, fair enough. I've supplied patches for that. Wait, we already had patches for that. But the problem was how do you get that into the archive? Now, by this stage, as I say, I wasn't really pushing this. Now, the point, unfortunately, Helmut and Johannes are neither of them are here, but we did have a sprint last week, so I talked to them about this. So, they were basically trying to make this happen. They're both smart people. I think Helmut's a DD, Johannes isn't yet, but only because the AM process is very slew. Now, they decided to mostly do this on IRC, or Helmut did primarily. I suspect that was a mistake. There's something in a process somewhere about, if you want to have a stable release update, you should file a bug about it. So, we didn't start by doing that, or they didn't start by doing that. They started by asking people, is it okay if we do this, and is it okay if we do this? Which is kind of informal and polite, and it's polite to ask people whether you do something before actually doing it, perhaps. But I don't think it actually helped their case, particularly. Anyway, so, they did try reasonably hard to get this done, so we had all the patches written.  And the point is that anything that gets used in the infrastructure needs to not explode when it sees some angle brackets, and just ignore them, and then we can upload stuff and test things. So, they tried putting something in easy proposed updates, but the stable release manager didn't fancy that much. And then we go, okay, well, maybe we could put it in backports. Backport the new version of dPackage, which has all this functionality in. And they went, no, that's how loads of new things as well, which we don't want. How about just a patch to do, just ignore angle brackets and not do any of the extra functionality. That's the basis for that. The original patches we were trying to get in were just to ignore angle brackets, not to implement the whole thing, because clearly that would be wrong in a stable thing. It was the least possible patch that would let this pass through was the idea. And so there's some rules about stable backports, and that didn't comply with those. All right, how about just stick these in quietly somewhere so they get used in the infrastructure in much the same way as the version of S-Build we use. It isn't actually the version of S-Build in stable. But I think people didn't like that much either. And then there was a bug file which basically said, so eventually it said, dear tech committee, can you help? What should we do? Which again, perhaps wasn't the smartest move, but there you go. So everyone involved was very helpful and polite and reasonably said, well, what we normally do is this, and this doesn't really comply, so now we don't really want to do that. But the problem was that we couldn't even upload something to experimental to try this, and it seems to me that we probably all have been able to do that. So does that mean that collectively, so each individual group, the stable release update people said, well, this isn't really a stable release update sort of thing, and the backports people said, well, this isn't really a backport sort of thing, and so on. And they all had a point, you know, it's easier for us to say, no, don't do that because, well, it is. Arguably correct, exactly. But the kind of collective result of all these individual groups going, it's not really something we want to take on the maintenance burden of, is that we couldn't do this for once. We still haven't done this. Now, as it happens, at the bootstrap sprint, we found a bit of a problem, so actually maybe we want to change it, so maybe this delays a good thing. But in general, it would have been nice to be able to try this a few months ago and go, yes, this all works, and we have all the pieces. Now, so one question is, in fact, was all that IRC chat the wrong way to go about this, and someone should have filed a bug at the beginning and had a much more public discussion? I think they probably should. If you read all the bug reports about this, the stable release update people said no, and they said, we didn't actually say no, we just said, I'm not sure about that, which isn't quite the same as no. Yes. So to some degree, that's perhaps just communication failure, but on the other hand, these two guys are smart people who know how the project works and did fairly sensible things. So if they didn't do the right things, then maybe it's hard to do the right thing. Arguably, you could say that, in fact, we don't want to introduce build profiles and the thing, and you do have to wait another two years, and that's just tough. I don't know. How much do we want this to be discussion? I almost finished. So, yeah. Can we improve on any of this process? So one of the things I hadn't appreciated four years ago was just how much it matters if you miss a stable release, there's something you need in. You really do have to wait quite a long time and I'm not sure, and maybe I'm just slow on the uptake and everyone else realized this years ago, I'm sure Steve has, but, yeah, you know, if I'd been more aware of that, I would have worried a lot more about the fact that we missed the wheezy opportunity to get this in. I really wasn't sufficiently on the ball. So all of these people write to go, well, there's a small risk this will break something, so we don't want to do it because, you know, the version of d-package that people are using in, say, a stable release update really does matter. So, you know, people are right to be quite conservative about that. Now, you know, Helmut when asked the tech committee kind of help, I don't know what to do. Some people think that that's really not a nice thing to do. So, Guillem, for example, hates the technical committee and went, well, no, that's... Yeah. Yeah, not to interrupt right before you finish, but it is worth noting that what he actually did was to informally engage tech committee members in an IRC conversation, which is really not the same thing as invoking the technical committee. Precisely. But it's still a noise, Guillem. Yeah. So, Bikesheds, obviously, PPAs is something that maybe we should be using more to enable this sort of have some software in use for the machinery, which, as he isn't in stable. We already do that, in fact, for several packages, and maybe we could do it for more when it's expedient. That's approximately what we do for the same kinds of things in Ubuntu, and it works fine. All you need is... So, I totally understand the need for admins to have the thing maintained somewhere. And, you know, that's not always necessarily something that you want to push to Debian users. There are kits where we want to be running something different, but you want to make sure that the thing you're running on important production systems is actually cared for by somebody. And having it be have, you know, the Debian DeepCutters team's name on it, and have them be able to push security updates, and that kind of thing, and have them be on the hook is, I think, sufficient for this kind of thing. Yes. So, that's the end of my slide. Let the people... I just need it closer to where the mic is... Exactly. Hi. So, from my perspective, the first thing that went wrong in this particular process, I was always of the opinion that Louik's original proposal, regardless of any lack of aesthetic desirability from Deep Package Upstream's point of view, it was the right thing to do because it would have gotten us where we needed to be. And so, I think it was... I think the original sin here was in letting GM derail it by going for the perfect solution, which necessarily meant it was going to take longer to implement. And I did voice this opinion at the time of that discussion. So, I think we could have gotten there a lot faster by being more pragmatic about it. That's true. But that was a decision that the people who were working on it needed to make, and I was not the person working on it, and so that's fine. You make whatever decision you wanted to. In the knock-on effects of that, yeah, as Colin says, if we picked one thing to overrule here, it would be the SRMs as most likely. I tend to agree with that. But we were in the situation which I viewed it as something which in the absence of any particular group being willing to stick their necks out and take on this work, there needed to be somebody in the project who did have the big picture view about what Debbie and as a project needed as opposed to what the individual teams needed, and that is supposed to be the technical committee's responsibility. So, I actually, I asked... I think it was... I don't remember if it was Helmut or Johannes at the moment, but I did ask somebody to assign that bug to the technical committee. Now, in the meantime, we discovered oh, maybe the conversation they had with the SRMs was not what they thought it was and maybe the SRMs wanted to review it, which is why the technical committee didn't act on that. The other aspect of it was that in the course of discussing it, it was pointed out that as a consequence of everybody now being a delegate on these teams, the technical committee doesn't have the authority to overrule them. And so we have a bug here that I don't think... I think it's an emergent bug that we don't actually have the authority and the technical committee to overrule delegates that don't have the authority to overrule matters like this. And I think that's something we should probably constitutionally fix because it is... We've used delegations a lot more than we used to and so this is... I think this is an unintended consequence and we should have a project-wide discussion about whether that should be fixed. Obviously, all things being equal, we should have an amicable discussion and consult people anyway, but sometimes an overrule might be needed and there should be somebody with the power to make those calls. We should have individual maintainers but the moment the team gets a delegation so that they're blessed by the DPL then suddenly you can't overrule them anymore. I certainly hadn't realized that. I guess a lot of other people haven't either. One thing that occurs to me is perhaps you were trying to solve the wrong problem. That could have quite possibly. Because if you think about it the way this would be managed in a sort of corporate environment, you're basically trying to test the tools that are used in infrastructure to make sure that you'd caught everything. So the solution to that would typically be set up in the infrastructure. To be fair, that's what we were told to do ultimately was go and set up your own copy of everything and test it there which, as you say, is a perfectly correct way of looking at it. The problem is it's really hard to set up our infrastructure because half of it's not packaged. But perhaps... That's actually not true. It's not particularly hard to set up that S build and all that. S build is not horrible. Mike, thanks. What's the way you think it gives me step by step? Yeah, I'll write one next year. But... Anyhow, this actually for their specific case here saying you can set up parallel infrastructure is ignoring half of the reason they want to do this. It's not about testing that it works in the archive. In fact, it wouldn't because the deep packages they want to upload will ignore those fields and the infrastructure will not in any way be improved to support these features. What they want is to be able to upload packages to unstable that support build profiles so that when unstable becomes stable, you can bootstrap it. That's what they want and parallel infrastructure doesn't solve that because they'll never be able to upload that stuff to unstable until a release has happened. There's things you've forgotten about is one thing and also as you say having maintainers be able to upload stuff which currently does nothing but is ignored but will be useful in the future. So the problem with doing that is that because you haven't set up the parallel infrastructure is that that code has effectively never been tested. And using our production infrastructure for testing new code is probably not the best idea. Isn't that what experimentals for in this case? No, because you're not testing infrastructure. Right, okay. Yeah. Okay. Well we need both. We need to have a for this kind of thing if you want to have a way to exercise the infrastructure without risking the integrity of FTP master what you need is a separate staging instance of FTP master that people can upload stuff to and that will be published. So we're kind of going down into the specifics around particularly build profiles and the talk is actually general. So one comment I kind of wanted to make on the general overall thing is that my experience having done large infrastructure at Stanford was that there are going to be things that you're going to want to customize or tweak or fiddle with that are not in Debian proper whenever you have large infrastructure. And I don't think that Debian's infrastructure itself is any different than any other enterprise environment running Debian in that there will be things that Debian's infrastructure itself will want to tweak. So apart from the problem of the code not being tested there's a trick we use at Stanford where we would have a private app archive not only just private to us but where each role of service had its own specialized distribution inside that app archive and you can upload packages targeted at stable-eldap and only theeldap servers would see those packages which it gives you a little bit of flexibility to expose packages with custom tweaks to only a particular part of your infrastructure without risking pulling them into other places where they may not be appropriate and I don't know Tolik can probably comment on what kind of mechanisms you have for doing those kinds of overrides already but we found that mechanism extremely useful at Stanford in unblocking little problems like this where you need to put a custom hack on a particular set of machines you still wanted the whole packaging infrastructure around that with upgrades and everything else but you didn't want to expose it to all the other systems. You said canonical does exactly the same thing. Okay. Yeah, and another case for the general problem is cloud images I'm at Google right now but it also applies to Amazon and every other cloud out there as well as private clouds like OpenStack it's not just the public clouds where everything is changing at a faster pace than the two-year cycle and maybe you want to integrate with the host environment get some bit of metadata or access some API and if we if we put a version of a tool into Debian assume no licensing issues, if we put a version of the tool into Debian before freeze then it's already halfway through its lifetime as of the release and then at some point we have to convince people to pull things in from back ports to keep things up to date and similarly some of the settings that are great defaults in a local workstation environment may not be suitable as a default for the cloud so there's a lot of settings and features that need to be added sometimes. So it seems like again we're focused very much on Debian's infrastructure here as one possibility for things that block us from making changes in less than two years but there's a related problem also about de-packaging where there's a certain class of in-archive changes that we can't make for a couple of years because first de-package and apt-in stable have to understand them so that you can upgrade. I'm wondering if solving both problems we might want to say well, our packaging infrastructure as awesome as it is that it can upgrade itself maybe we should pull the packaging infrastructure out make it a little bit special and say hey it can upgrade itself in a way that it does so first and then parses the rest of the packaging method metadata for unstable or next stable then we could upgrade whenever we feel like it. Certainly, as you say I think if sometimes you want to be able to upgrade de-package and apt-in first and we've basically done that by telling people to do it in the readme before I think I don't know if we have a mechanism obviously canonical does. So I mean there used to be a but it was years ago it was like potato era that we had a special archive that you were supposed to upgrade the tool chain from before upgrading the rest of the system lost the thought. So just in general with this kind of infrastructure problem we're talking about here this was actually in fact very narrowly prescribed where the only compatibility issues there would be between stable and unstable would only be in parsing of build dependencies which the average system doesn't need to do at run time and you could simply say very likely to be fairly harmless for that reason. Right and sure there would be compatibility issues and people might be trying to build stuff but then you could just tell them ah here's the stable release update, the stable updates package that you just pull in and you could do that but even that we've found has been difficult to do for a variety of reasons. I'll cede the floor to Colin now. Just going back to Josh's point the for a succession of Debian updates of various kinds we've had release notes that had a procedural system for performing the upgrade in various cases and that's obviously been as varied as the types of changes involved scaling up to anything like the libc transition of your or $8.12 and when we were thinking about this for Ubuntu upgrades we sort of had the idea of executable release notes, I don't know if Michael's in the audience but this turned into the release upgrade that we used in Ubuntu and the idea of that is that you have a blob that the upgrade fetches from the archive that knows how to upgrade to a particular target and that procedure may involve going and fetching a different set of packaging tools from somewhere else but rather than having to ignore bits of metadata you have all of this happen before you even look at the next set of index files at all and you have the opportunity to install whatever preparatory tools you like and I would love to see something like that in Debian as well, although it's a lot of work to maintain. So in particular if we have something like executable release notes there's no good reason that they need to be limited to a stable release only, we should have incremental steps much like database incremental upgrades or a similar where you say to do this upgrade you need to apply this thing outside of the packaging system and outside of any particular package and just run it and then you can proceed to read the packages file but apt would need to proceed to do that before it can go read packages.gz or similar so that if it needs to upgrade its parser to handle a new version it can. We could incrementally apply upgrading from stable to stable might involve 27 individual executable scripts and upgrades but that would mean for example we would never have a problem again like how do you upgrade from user doc to user share doc without a five-year plan. That definitely work. I guess I'd like to bring the discussion back to the earlier point about staging of infrastructure because regardless of what we might do with upgrade or scripts we still in some way have to solve that problem of how we get these changes in and obviously the right answer is that we should have a staging server but I would like to ask in general I guess I would view that as whoever is running the production service should kind of have a staging service where they can stage the stuff and it does dsa, does ftp master today have a way to do that? Should it really be the responsibility of every individual who wants to patch it to provide the staging infrastructure? Now obviously you should test your patches before submitting them but shouldn't there be a way to test the environment before being pushed into production anyway and shouldn't that be something that's handled centrally? I guess there's two things. As you say we could probably just better document the process of setting something up yourself so you know Tulliff says it's not actually that hard. He's probably right but you know it seems like a scary idea and in fact if it turns out it's not that difficult just telling people how to do that maybe it already is you know there's a page somewhere. That would help a lot if that was in fact straightforward. There's a second thing maybe we should run something ourselves anyway and then it's easy to try. You do get the kind of experimental problem that you've got 16 different experimental things in it so it might be a bit broken. Which is exactly why you wanted an integration branch before you pushed it out to production. Okay. Is that what you mean by a staging branch? We're using a staging implementation because we're putting software from development onto staging so staging is running the tip of all the different projects that it's actually managed into run and then we watched that for a week before it actually goes through to a production release. But the problem we're getting with that is yes it's fine for the developers who are interested in these kinds of problems to submit data to this staging instance but that isn't real data it isn't actually what's going through the production instance and you end up with corner cases you end up with failures and so a false assurance and therefore bugs in production that simply because the data you're putting through the staging instance isn't a mirror of the data that's going through the production instance so you would need to actually then make sure that in Debin's case it probably might actually be easy to do that because then you could just mirror incoming and making sure it's going through but it's just making sure that you think about that as well because if you're going to have a staging instance the data going through it has to be the same as the data that's going through the production instance otherwise you're going to invalid test. Okay although in this particular case you explicitly want to test some other things but I guess you could test those as well so yeah as you said it's pretty easy to test that in Debin's case you would mirror incoming or have the FTP uploader actually upload to two places to answer Steve's question about staging infrastructure we generally don't provide that unless people ask for it we do have quite a bit of free capacity so a full extra copy of FTP master is probably it's doable it would stretch a bit but doing kind of a reduced scope FTP master is absolutely not a problem I guess that's the question is how much resource does one need to set up something fairly realistic so the big problem with FTP master is really the size of the archive in terms of I'm not entirely sure how that big is nowadays but I'm guessing it's growing on a terabyte and so that's expensive in terms of actual disk space but nothing else so you don't necessarily need to do all the architectures a couple might suffice for tech purposes yeah exactly so you've given me an opportunity to be on the drum that I actually started beating on in New York which is that all of the questions about how we do this in Debian aside those people out there who are running Debian and want to include some local packages all run away from DAC screaming because no one has any idea how to set it up or how to run it and if someone could document how that stuff works you would solve problems for so many people outside of Debian I mean really you would be a hero to just explain how do you start from scratch and set up DAC and a build D network and there would be numerous enterprises that would love to have that how many people know that how to stop them being quite so busy go volunteer to do their jobs for like a couple of weeks it would be easier to find people to trust them if it was documented I discovered a build D's that again that's quite fiddly and not very well documented so I wrote a page which is slightly half fast of course and now we've got the old page and the new page which don't quite agree with each other and I was talking about doing for Debian ports and they were talking about doing for Debian and now of course you really want to merge those but yes so I did a bit of that I guess if I could be persuaded to actually try and set up a thing I'd write down what I did which would be useful but I still wouldn't necessarily understand it so smattering of random points here to your point about staging and the size of it in theory you could throw away all of the packages in the archive as you were setting it up because the only things you're actually testing are the infrastructure and you care about the packages files being valid and so forth and the actual contents of the archive you could process once and get rid of and that would be perfectly fine for a quick staging thing if space was a concern second we do have one member of the FTP master team here at DevConf this week Paul Taguiamonte so we should find him and talk to him about whether he wants well whether they want a staging set up and again to the point about ease or difficulty of setting up DAC there seem to be a variety of opinions here I think people who have done DAC setup need to understand that a README setup that tells you how to set up DAC is not the whole picture and it's not the quality of documentation that we're usually talking about when we're expecting random people to be able to bootstrap themselves into a thing unless there's a linear series of these are all the things you have to set up and as far as I'm aware we're not using DAC out of packages for the archive so the only thing that's being as basic as where do you find the right software you're supposed to be running is an issue and these are all things that if you expect people to be able to get their minds get a handle on this stuff there needs to be a clear set of steps that anybody can follow from start to end it may well be that most of the off-puttingness is just that it's not it's mysterious rather than that it's actually difficult well the I've operated DAC later tried to set it up from scratch so I mean I in theory know what to do I know the conceptual steps involved I still couldn't do it it's not that it's not merely a problem of lack of documentation at least as of mid last year as far as I can tell it was not possible to set up the database from scratch given the get branch the database schema did not exist outside production but what I was going to carry on to is that this is exactly the kind of problem that you solve by having a staging server which is not operated by the developers you must have your staging server be operated automatically in such a way that in order to get changes on to production you have to have the your schema changes in gets properly otherwise they can't happen and otherwise it's way too easy for this kind of thing to creep onto production just because of perfectly normal people doing what they need to do you mean the DAC developers? somebody else needs to so I guess I'm a little bit naive here but I was expecting that most of our infrastructure can be set up simply by running puppet on a two blank server somehow and magic happens and things work again so that if our hard drives break or Astrid crashes the building that runs the server we can get up running again in a day or so so maybe that's not true but if it were true that might solve the problem for people who want to contribute they can just run the same deployment scripts and maybe modify them to change host names and get this thing running the same way it's running on our systems and I've had quite a few instances where I wanted to change a little thing at some infrastructure in this case dead bugs but I couldn't test it and the amount of effort it takes me to find out how to set up an instance how to test it is just what's the benefit from this little but still useful change and if all our infrastructure were reproducible reproducible in a change route or in a docker instance these days I guess within one script or in one command I'm sure we get a lot of nice little patches for various knowing things I think you're quite right I want Wookie to a little bit before about the buildies that are not easy to set up I think one of the program is also related to puppet in Debian it's very great that everything is integrated in puppet you can set up a build them in less than one hour now but at the same time a user wanted to set up a buildie doesn't have puppets it doesn't get the


Here I am at the Cochlear Implant Centre in Bradford. It's been the final appointment here before I have the operation next month and to have the implant fitted. The assessment involves three parts. The patient sees the audiology team, they see the rehabilitation team and they see the consultants. The rehab team look at the patient's communication skills to manage their expectations of a cochlear implant as a consultant checks that they medically fit and organises and assesses the scans. The audiology team, so my role would be to do the patient history. We do some middle ear tests, look at the patient's hearing thresholds and then we assess their ability to understand speech. So we've finished the assessments and we're good to go. We've got a few weeks before we go ahead and do the operation. The incision is going to be behind your ear. It usually takes about two hours. So basically the plan will be to keep you in for one night and then all being well home in the afternoon. I need to mention a few complications, risks. Any major ear operation you go near the nerve that moves the face but it's a really rare risk. You can get a funny taste on your tongue. Depends on the position of this little nerve but that can occur. It usually settles down over a period of months and it's very rare is it a long term problem. Other complications are tinnitus. Now do you get tinnitus? Do you get noise in the ears? There's a general rule a cochlear implant can help that but we have a few patients occasionally see it where tinnitus can get worse but that's not common. Balance is another thing that we need to talk about because the organ and balance and the cochlear, the organ and hearing are all related so it isn't unusual for people to have some balance problems and be a bit unsteady after the operation. Again that's usually a temporary thing that settles down often within a few days or a week or so. I'm sorry about this long list of complications we have to go through but that's the way it is. The other thing to mention is that these are electronic devices. They're very reliable and well made however occasionally they can fail.  I think that's most of what I would say in terms of complications. After the operation you go home the following day and then we just leave things for a few weeks to settle down. Right this is a consent form. You need to sign. It's talking about putting in a right cochlear implant to give you access to sound. Those are the complications that I've mentioned to you. That's just saying you've been given lots of information from the team here. You need to sign there if you're happy to go ahead. So your general health's good. Basically that's it now and I'll see you 12, 12, 30 on the ward. So if there's any last minute questions. I can ask you then. You can ask me then. The plan would be to get you home. Bandage off the next morning. X-ray home the following afternoon. Any final questions? Does that all make sense? Good. I'll see you in a few weeks. I come in to have the operation in just over a month's time. And then I'm expecting, hoping that the cochlear implant will be switched on sometime in December, sometime before Christmas. Coming up to the operation now it's only a couple of days away. And for the first time I've started to feel a bit nervous about it. Not in a major sense but just for a long time it was happening in the future. And it was like oh great I'm having this operation. And now it's oh I'm having an operation on Thursday. You inevitably start to feel a little bit nervous about it. That's all. Are you wanting to... Roger Pan. Expectant and hopeful and nervous all at the same time. Are you receiving me? I am. I am. Good. Right. We're off. I'm looking forward to hearing my husband. In a natural way. Not a strained, you know, he repeats things three times, rephrases in some sort of way. I'm looking forward to chatting with more than one friend at once. That'll be good. I'm looking forward to looking forward to being me again. This past year being me has sort of trickled away. And I've become so dominated by not hearing things. And I've lost so much confidence as a result of that. I'm looking forward to getting back the person that I used to be. There wasn't that much hesitation in me. In fact, to be honest, I don't think there was any hesitation in me. It was if, okay, if that's it with hearing aids, then I'll go for an implant. So I was just so relieved this year when they said that I now met the threshold. I was eligible to have the implant and there was no hesitation at all. It was just, okay, this is, you know, an amazing opportunity. The plan is to insert a synchrony, a Flex28 Electrode. And we want to use an electrode that's very well-designed, soft. The other thing, of course, a Flex28 will, should be able to get a full cochlear coverage right through the middle turn of the cochlear. It's now one day afterwards. She had the surgery yesterday afternoon. She's already walking around and in her normal clothes. Well, what we'll do is we'll take this bandage off. That might feel a bit more comfortable. Just turn your head across. That looks fine. Good. A little bit of bruising, but there's no swelling or anything like that. So that's great. So we just leave that open now and let everything settle down. So the only thing now we need to do is get the x-ray. How long should it be before the pain and the nausea stops? A few days. A few days. The wound usually heals up pretty quick actually. Okay. And you know, you're doing well. You're only one day morning after an operation yesterday afternoon, I think you're looking all right. Do you want to see it? Yes, I would like to see it. I'm going slowly. Basically, I've just seen her now. And I'll tell the nurses she can go home now. So it's less than 24 hours after the surgery. She can go home and she needs to take it easy for a few days and recover in that respect. But she'll be going home very soon. That's all right. I'm very happy to thank you very much. Cheers. You can go home. And we'll see you soon, okay? Excellent.