Welcome to this public meeting for the consumer product safety commission today. We're considering a staff draft fiscal year 2023 operating plan. Before I begin, can I confirm all the conditions here? Mr. Feldman, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Trump, I'm here. Good morning. Morning, Mr. Well, I am here. Morning, everyone, so this operating plan lays out our plans for priorities projects over the fiscal year that began earlier this month. It's a tricky plan plan to write and I want to thank staff for all their work. Plan itself considers 2 scenarios versus scenario in which the agency operates all year long under continuing resolution does not receive any additional funds from Congress. Above that level in the 2nd scenario, in which we receive an approximately 40% increase in our appropriations for the president's budget request. My sincere hope is that we'll be funded at the president's budget level. There's so much safety work that can be done to improve our world. Nevertheless, I recognize the need for the commission to put forth a clear plan to guide the work of the agency at a lower level pending our final appropriations. The core of the plan where we put down firm deadlines for ourselves is at the continuing resolution level of just $139 million total. I'm pleased that staff has sent us an ambitious plan given the limited funding and I look forward to discussion today at finalizing our operating plans. We're going to start with any questions for the staff. We have several staff members present in the event. There are questions with us with us are Jason. The executive director James Baker. Our chief financial officer also in attendance and with springs director of office of communications. Austin select general counsel Alberta mills commission secretary. Each commissioner have 5 minutes for questions and after questions are complete. We'll consider any amendments. I personally don't have any questions turn Mr. Commissioner Feldman. If you have any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions. Commissioner Trump just have a thank you. We threw a lot of questions at staff over the last week. 2 weeks that we got quick answers and very thoughtful answers back and creative answers. So thank you for all of that and I'm left with no questions today. Thank you, Mr. Boyle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I certainly echo commissioner Trump is sentiments there. I have no questions either. Thank you, Mr. Hearing no further questions or no questions. Staff excuse and we'll begin consideration package that's before us. We're going to now entertain any amendments to the draft fiscal year 2023 operating plan. Go in order of seniority and recognize a sponsoring commissioner to introduce their amendment for up to 3 minutes. I like to start by recognize myself to offer managers amendment that incorporates amendments from various commissioners that I believe we have agreement on. And I want to thank my colleagues for collaborating pulling together this manager's package that includes 19 separate amendments originally proposed by commissioners Feldman, Trump, and Boyle. And I really want to let them talk about the details of taking together this package makes our ambitious operating plan even stronger and more aggressive. It will stretch our staff's resources to limit and perhaps a little bit beyond. I think it's healthy to be able to be out there and aggressive. So thanks to all the commissioners and I asked for a second on the amendment. Second, second hearing a second, I will now move to consideration of the amendment and have the other commissioners. I welcome them to speak upon the manager's amendment. So, turning to commissioner Feldman 1st. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased that we were able to work together so closely to compile a sizable managers amendment today. It includes a number of my priorities, including my amendment to focus the tension on closing out open recommendations. Much like the inspector general, the general account, a government accountability office is the conscious of the commission for Congress and commissioners. And most importantly, for American consumers, I was pleased to see a staff pose into the base text. 1 of my amendments from last year that required this for the inspector generals and recommendations of my amendment that's included in the managers would add the same requirement for recommendations. And I believe that this periodic reporting has improved compliance with our recommendations and keeping attention on on those recommendations. Frankly, it's led to results. It's important for us to ensure that these recommendations are implemented and if not, to have a reasonable explanation for why not. So, to that end, my amendment would add recommendations to what we're already doing for. And I think that's a good thing. The manager's package also includes my amendment to publicize seizures and enforcement activity because of amendments that I've introduced into previous operating plans. We've done a lot of work to grow our important inspection teams significantly and frankly, I think we can all agree that they're doing great work publicizing. Those efforts are going to go a long way to showing the American people that these results are occurring and frankly to demonstrate what we're doing on a day to day basis to keep them safe. Another of my amendments that's included is Feldman 4, which would further build out our compliance team when additional monies become available. And since I came to the commission, I've argued for increasing funding for our compliance team and frankly, we've been successful in growing it. This would add on that momentum. I think our compliance staff is at the forefront of that we do and we need to ensure that this team has the resources to investigate and where appropriate. To to to litigate cases bring changes and we can easily look to other independent agencies to learn that this happens all the time. And it's my hope, frankly, that CPSC follows suit in that regards pun intended. So, thank you. I think that this is a strong managers and I look forward to supporting it. Thank you, commissioner, commissioner Trump. Thank you. I echo that sentiment. I think it's incredible that we've reached consensus on so many pressing issues and it's a testament to the creative vision flowing from this commission right now. And these changes are going to move safety forward enumerably. I'd like to thank my fellow commissioners for accepting many of my amendments into this package of those. We've agreed to move forward on rule making for fire hazards and side by sides. We'll now finalize a rule on portable generator CO risk. It's time to end that avoidable CO poisoning risk. Now, we're significantly raising the bar on recall effectiveness rate. We're already doing great work there and we need to continue to raise the bar there. And we're also raising that bar on success and voluntary standards and making tangible safety improvements. The focus of our activity in that space and we will evaluate 100% of civil penalty cases for criminal referral to the department of justice. There's no bigger deterrent to bad acts than that threat of prison time. I also appreciate the commissioner Feldman amendments that are included to highlight enforcement activity and strengthen the enforcement staffing. And I appreciate commissioner boil the amendments that you're about to outline, but, but hitting a few of the points that I really appreciate from those. I really appreciate that you're going to be improving incident data collection from underserved communities. Working on the gender disparities and researching that an incident so that we can appropriately consider them in our policy making. That you're pushing us forward on PFAS and battery ingestion and that you're helping us rethink our communication strategies and improving our message delivery to underserved communities. This package of amendments takes a very strong operating plan and makes it even stronger. And I'm very proud to support. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner, commissioner boil. Thank you, Mr. Chair and I too, and please to vote in favor of the amendment and I'm grateful to my colleagues for supporting many of the ideas and projects which I advocated for and are included in this final amendment. I appreciate the care that staff took in preparing this draft. And I think the amendments make a strong document stronger. I think our priorities should be clear to the American public and understandable. And I in my view, the ideas embodied in this amendment do just that. I know commissioner Trump, thank you. I just highlighted a couple of the ideas that are included here, but I will repeat them. Hopefully, quickly, and to highlight some of the priorities that are reflected my priorities that are reflected in the amendment, the need for progress on nice modernization, along with the commission's commitment to equity work on older consumer safety hazards, particularly focusing on risks that carry a disparate impact with respect to gender and the inclusion of PFAS and chronic hazards as an agency. Priority in addition to those, the amendment before us reflects my priority that we engage with stakeholders on battery ingestion. This would build on the work on the NPR and final rule related to warning labels and packaging that has been directed by Congress. It also captures the importance of civil penalty work as an agency priority and it promotes efforts at safety equity through dialogues with underserved communities. Finally, it directs staff to take stock of agency communications, particularly in light of the impact of current of changes as a result of the state sleep with babies act or infant sleep rule and our CS rule, among others. Again, I think this is a robust amendment. I'm grateful to my colleagues, grateful to staff and I'm proud to support it. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Boyle and I think my colleagues have said it better than I can. I think they pointed out a number of the ways that the amendments will improve the operating plan. So, I thank them for their, their thoughts are input and I'm glad that everyone is able to get together to to move this management forward. Uh, there being no further questions or comments on this amendment, I'm going to ask for the votes on the amendment. So, Mr. Feldman, I vote yes, Mr. Trump, I vote yes, Mr. Boyle, yes, and I vote yes as well. Yes, for the noes are zero. The amendment from the chair is adopted now turning to other amendments going in order of seniority to Mr. Feldman. Do you have amendments? I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I would like to propose the call up of Feldman to regarding C and PPA enforcement called up and you can describe it great. So, this amendment, uh, COPF 2 would maintain enforcement of the child nicotine poisoning prevention act as an agency enforcement priority liquid nicotine as I think we all know is a highly toxic substance, especially when it's ingested or absorbed through the skin and it causes serious and even deadly consequences for children. This is a long standing priority, not only of the commission, but also of Congress. This is also an amendment that I've offered previously. So, it should be familiar to everybody that's paying attention. I've socialized this amendment with agency staff who have no objections and accordingly, I would welcome the support of my colleagues and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, commissioner. Is there a second for the amendment? Thank you that moving to questions and comments on the amendment. I recognize my cell first and commissioner Feldman. I thank you for this amendment. I understand and appreciate your focus on the enforcement of this law. You know, I understand the compliance with the law is high that there is a less need for the focus enforcement. I do see the value of continuing on being able to ensure that this being forced. So, I'm, we'll support this amendment before commissioner Trump. Did you have questions or comments? I do and thank you commissioner Feldman for the amendment. I know that this has been an important issue for you for quite some time. I've also worked extensively on nicotine hazards for, for me, mainly it's on the harms caused by children using them as intended, but it's it's certainly beyond question that nicotine is toxic and can be fatal when ingested as you pointed out. I had to think through this one a little bit more. I can't really look at this space without thinking about what what FDA has done and not done in this space and how that affects us. And that agency has really failed to protect America from cigarettes. It's it's prolonged in action there has allowed the nicotine epidemic to spring forth and allows it to continue. And I think part of FDA's timidity in this space is that it's avoided regulating big tobacco companies. Instead, it went after low hanging fruit with its E cigarette regulation, small manufacturers and vape shops and it largely put them out of business and it did that all while letting the big companies keep selling. I hate that approach, but I believe that one unintended consequence of FDA's timid approach is that it should have largely ended than the liquid nicotine and gestion risk. Because as I understand it, the packaging problems existed among the small manufacturers and vape shops that mix their own flavors and now only the big tobacco companies are still in business. Yes, they peddle poison, but they seem to securely package it and the only access to liquid nicotine issue that I'm aware of among the major manufacturers was with Jules several years ago. And though they were barred from reengineering their product without FDA approval, they illegally did that anyway and they engineered it to fix the leak. That said, those are my assumptions and there are very few industries as disdainful of safety as big tobacco. So, I don't have any reason to suspect or believe that they're going to continue to properly package the reliquid if they're left unchecked. And for that reason, I support this amendment, but I think I'd like an update from staff in the near future on what they're finding and their assessment of our continuing need in the space going forward, but, but I'm happy to support this and thank you. Mr. Chairman, may I respond normally we run through all 3 and then we come back to you to be able to respond to all of the comments. I'm happy to cede my time. I don't have a lot to say. So, if, if, uh, commissioner filming wishes to engage now, I don't have an objection to that. I appreciate that commissioner is, I think all of you recognize this is an issue that I do track closely and I've seen. Non-compliant liquid nicotine containers for sale within about a mile radius of here at Bethesda towers. So, I have not seen evidence that this is a problem that that's been solved. This is not something that that CPSC identified on its own Congress passed the bipartisan. CNPPA and frankly expects us to continue to enforce it and to the point about, you know, this issue being largely largely resolved through the hands of big tobacco. At the end of as of the end of last month, which coincides with the end of the fiscal year, which is why we're all meeting to vote on this plan. Poison control centers in the United States managed 4787 exposure cases involving cigarette devices and liquid nicotine ingestion in 2022 alone. So, given those numbers, I don't believe that this problem has been solved, not even close. And there's no reason that I see that to strike it as a CPSC enforcement priority. So, uh, uh, commissioner Trump guy, certainly welcome your support. Uh, I don't believe the issue solved and I'm glad that that that that this is something that that hopefully we can come to some consensus on to agree to maintain that focus with that. I'm happy to yield back and hear other questions. Yielding back to Commissioner Boil's time. I don't know commissioner wall. Did you have additional. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I fully support the amendment. I think it should we should enforce the statute. And so I don't have other comments other than to echo my colleagues. So, I will leave it there. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner this point. I would normally go back to you, commissioner Felman, but I don't know if you have any other comments that. I appreciate the consideration of my colleagues on this amendment hearing no other comments or questions going to move to a vote, go to a vote on the. Amendment commissioner Feldman yes. Commissioner Trump, yes, Mr. Boil. Yes. And I vote yes as well. There for yes, this amendment of. Feldman 2 is adopted commissioner Feldman. Did you have other amendments? I do have other amendments. I would like to now address Feldman 5 having to do with competition coordination. Please introduce them so this amendment is designed to protect American consumers into ensure that the safety regulations that we promulgate or the voluntary safety standards in which we participate. Don't unintentionally harm consumers by granting monopolies for years. We've had a requirement on the books that CPSC avoid anti competitive effects or restraints of trade. In standards development, not to mention a federal law that has existed for over a century that prohibits monopolies. So, this is something that we should protect against not only the voluntary standards arena. As it's as it's currently required, but also with with mandatory standards that we might consider from time to time. I expressed concerns previously about how CPSC is meeting our requirement to avoid anti competitive effects. This amendment Feldman 5 would require. Consultation with our sister agencies who specialize in antitrust to help us develop best practices to protect consumers. I would welcome the support of my colleagues and stand ready to answer any questions. Thank you missioners are a second for the motion for the amendment. Thank you having her second going to turn to comments and questions from the other commissioners. I recognize myself 1st for 5 minutes again. Thank you commissioner for bringing this issue to our attention, proposing the amendment to know this has been an issue that you have focused on. Here and about the consumer product safety standards are primarily focused and we primarily focus on the safety issues at hand, but under our rules, we must also consider some of the competition aspects of our actions. I believe that we should be driven by our mission to reduce unreasonable risks of injury and death by consumer products, but interagency coordination collaboration can help in our decision making process. So, with that, we'll export this amendment, get comments in and then take that into consideration as we're part of the rules, but obviously, I think in my mind, safety is 1st. Commissioner Trump, thank you as I as I look at it, I think our statute puts far too many burdens on us already that stand in the way of safety regulation. And I don't want to volunteer really add any extraneous steps. So, I'm a no on the amendment, Mr. Boil. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also will not be supporting this amendment. I think in our discussions with staff at the briefing and throughout the last several weeks, we've been talking a lot about scarce resources. I'm concerned that this amendment directs staff from across the directorates in the agency to devote precious time on non safety work. And while I understand the impetus for the amendment, and I appreciate commissioner Feldman's concern on this, I can't support it, particularly in light of scarce resources that we are talking about in terms of assigning safety work. So, I'm, I'm fortunately cannot support the amendment. Commissioner Feldman, did you have any final comments in response to my colleague commissioner Trump, I would say that this is not an extraneous requirement. It's a requirement that's currently in our CFR regulation requirements and it's designed to protect consumers and in response to commissioner Boil on the question of resources. Frankly, this is an amendment that would not require any significant agency resource. It merely requires consultation with federal government with the federal government's antitrust experts. Staff has reviewed this amendment and I've incorporated the suggestions. I have not heard any objections from staff about this being particularly burdensome or that it would stand in place of other important work that we are expected to do on behalf of consumers. And accordingly, I'm not aware of any of staff's concerns that this would impact agency work in any other areas. I have full confidence in our legal staff and our directorate of economics to engage in what would likely amount to a series of conversations over the course of a year with folks over at the federal trade commission and the department of justice. These are interagency conversations that happen regularly. So, I truly fail to see how this would be burdensome in any way, but I take your comments and I appreciate them. Thank you. You know, the comments this point I'm going to vote on the amendment. Commissioner Feldman, how do you vote? Yes. Mr. Trump, I believe I was a no. I vote no. Commissioner Boil. No. And I vote yes. Yes. There are two. The no's are two. The amendment from of Mr. Feldman that's fell in the five is not adopted. I do and we're getting towards the end of my list, not at the end of my list, but but we are making some progress. I would like to discuss Feldman 6 prohibiting the use of tick tock. Please introduce your amendment. Thank you. So this amendment would continue with some slight modifications to protect important CPSC data and the integrity of our systems. Tick tock represents a known incredible threat to security. There has been almost universal skepticism across the government as it relates to tick tock. And the Chinese owned parent company bite dance. I understand the desire to expand our social media presence in order to meet consumers where they are online. However, I do believe that allowing a hostile for an actor access to our precious systems would be a mistake at this time. Accordingly, I would welcome the support of my colleagues on this amendment. And as always, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, which was a second for the amendment. Second, the amendment, make sure boy as well. Having heard a second move to discussion questions with respect to the amendment. Recognize myself for 5 minutes of. Commissioner Trump, sorry, commissioner felt I, I appreciate you bringing this up. It's not an easy issue, as I said, our social media team has done an incredible job in getting our message out to audiences might not always want to listen to a federal regulatory agency. I want our team to stay on the cutting edge short form video should be part of the tools that the uses. And we really need to go to where consumers are to have our message heard and acted upon. That being said, I do recognize that there are real security concerns that have raised about this company. They're ongoing, so if he has investigations regarding tick tock and foreign ownership issues that you mentioned. So, we currently don't have a presence on tick tock and comfortable status quote while those investigations are being included. I do think what's the city's review is done. We should reexamine this issue. So, I will export the amendment day, but they can maybe be coming back up in our mid year. Commissioner Trump. Thank you, you know, it's tough with social media companies because I can't think of 1 with a clean record on data security or consumer abuses. So, if we were using those metrics, we would use none. But I do trust other expert groups in the federal government to access that to assess that risk. And I'm not sure where the experts that are capable of doing that. Chair on surrogate you reference some of those ongoing investigations. I'm happy to see what they say if we're restricted by executive order or anything else from certain uses of a social media company. And I don't think we need this additional restriction. If we're not prohibited from use because the administration is being certain use is safe. And we should use it. I mean, I believe in bringing the message to people where they are. And if we want to communicate with young people, that's where they are. So, I'm a no on this amendment. Thank you, Commissioner Boel. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to echo what Commissioner Trump just said about how important communication and education are to our mission of educating and protecting the public. And I certainly do think caution though, in this evolving communications world is is important, but I don't actually see the operating plan as the best place to evaluate these issues. I think these are tools that we should defer to staff and that under the direction of the chair. And so I see supervision of these issues as residing within the authority of the chair. And because the chair is for his amendment, I will follow suit and also, though, I'm open to revisiting these issues as he suggests. So I will be supporting the amendment. Thank you, Commissioner Boyle, Commissioner Feldman. Did you have any final thoughts? I do. CPSC already has a spotty history on IT security and maintaining data integrity. In fact, several of our recommendations on our most recent data breach remain unimplemented at this time. I think the last thing that we should do is move on to a platform that that stands to make us more vulnerable. Mr. Chairman, the path forward that you laid out about revisiting this in the future, if and when the foreign ownership issues become resolved and a presence on this particular platform gets the good housekeeping seal of approval from other powers that be within the government that, frankly, are more expert on this in terms of the national security and data integrity impact. In the risk that this particular platform poses. So, I appreciate the feedback of my colleagues and look forward to their support on this amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner at this point in time, we will vote on the amendment. Commissioner Feldman. I vote yes. Mr. Trunca. I vote no. Mr. Boyle, I vote yes. I vote yes. So 3 yeses 1 no, the amendment of Feldman. 6 is adopted to Feldman. Did you have other amendments? I have 1 final amendment, Mr. Chairman, and that would be Feldman 7 having to do with limitations on non mission critical expenses. Can you introduce it? I'm happy to I'm offering this amendment, which I also intend to withdraw, but this amendment is is is being offered. Out of a concern that I have about the expenditures that this agency is making on non essential conferences in trainings, given the current fiscal environment in which we find ourselves, given the constrained budget reality that we're all aware of. I think it's important now more than ever to pay close attention to how the agency is expending a taxpayer resources. American consumers rely on us to be judicious stewards of these resources. And while conferences and trainings have a place, we also need to be careful about how we're spending our limited budget and I'm aware and this is based on discussions that that we've had offline in in in preparation of of the amendments for the upland today that there is a current direct a directive that's in place that covers conference attendance. I did have the opportunity to review it. And in my view, it's a directive that is outdated and frankly doesn't provide the level of accountability. In scrutiny that I think the American consumers and American taxpayers deserve here. So, based on assurances that I've received from you, Mr. Chairman, that this directive is under review. I'm comfortable withdrawing the amendment today with the understanding that this is something that we're going to work to ensure responsible expenditures and accountability for these types of events and expenditures going forward, including in this fiscal year. So, with that, I'm happy to withdraw my amendment. And with that, I believe that exhaust the list of of Felden amendments to the fiscal year 2023 operating plan that we're considering today. So, I thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Feldman. I was regarding your last one. I think that commissions, the conferences engaging public is important part of the work that we do. We do have a directive with respect to that. I understand that you're reviewing it and happy to have a conversation about it going forward. And it looks like others have comments on that as well. Perhaps. I thought Commissioner Trump is right. I did just have one question on that. And, you know, I think it was a really prudent idea of the amendment. I appreciated that. I think we do need a little bit more information. And I was going to ask Mr. Jerry, if we could get that from staff, there were certain dollar thresholds that you had in the amendment. And my curiosity was, in the last year, how often did we go over those with conference expenses or the types of things that would be affected by it? And I think that would give us an idea of how to think through it going forward. So, is that something that we can pull together? I mean, I think the directives and the rules to what we're doing actually apply to all of us. So encourage everybody to review those and to make sure that everybody is following them and it's compliance consistent with what that. Sure, helps that. And if we want to do additional sort of diving into them, happy to have folks be able to provide that information. Having to have 3 of us speak, I don't know, has thoughts, but hearing none, I think, Mr. Feldman for his amendments and I will move to Commissioner Trump to see if you have amendments. And I'd like to discuss Trump 3 and Trump 3 a, and I think they go together if that's alright. So, a number of the amendments that I urged. Are designed to move us forward on robust mandatory safety standards where they're needed. One of the areas where it's right is gastos. Scientists, researchers, Congress and the American public have been calling on to take action to protect consumers. From a hidden hazard in their homes, toxic chemicals pouring out of their gas stoves, which appear to be tied to harms ranging from asthma to cognitive decline. And the science on this is robust and mounted nitrogen dioxide and find particulate matter from gas stoves are building up inside consumers homes. At levels even higher than the established rates domain. Out, outdoor and we're still the impacts appear to disproportionately harm the poorest communities. Thankfully, we know that there are alternatives to gas stoves, not only do new electric stoves appear to be safer. I understand they're also less expensive in my view. It's time for our agency to address the gas stove hazard now. I propose an amendment for us to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking this year so that we can get comments on a gas stove ban. Consider alternatives and then issue any appropriate rule that keeps Americans safe from this hazard. Yet in talking with my colleagues, I realized that support is currently lacking for an NPR at this time. And we can still move forward here though, perhaps just not as fast as I had hoped. So, while I had offered Trump amendment 3, I am withdrawing it and I'm offering Trump amendment 3 a as a substitute. Under Trump amendment 3 a, we will issue a request for information to gather all available research and data on the scope of the hazard. That'll put us on strong footing to move forward on an NPR if and when we get that information back later this fiscal year. So, I ask for your support on the amendment. Do you have a second for the amendment and I see a raise hands a second and thank you, commissioner. Well, hearing a second move to questions and consideration of the amendment questions and comments. I recognize myself for 5 minutes. Commissioner, this has been an issue that you've been very focused on and I appreciate that. I appreciate your. Recognition and bringing these really chronic hazards to the attention of the commission and pushing forward as you said, at this point in time, I don't feel that we're ready to go to an NPR because that would involve really establishing standards are and that we need more information. But we are hearing about the potential health risks from gas stoves for many stakeholders and while staff is engaged with those stakeholders on voluntary efforts to address indoor air quality from gas stoves. I see the value of a request for information that would seek input from the public regarding the hazards, potential solutions potentially how we can address this moving forward. So, I am happy to support your amendment that I turn to commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the amendment trunk of 3, but Mr. Chairman, as you stated, I do have deep concerns about pursuing this rulemaking at the time. Accordingly, I'm a no on on tronka 3. Are we also considering 3 a at this time? Yes, I believe that he can call he offer through 3 and then ask consideration of 3 a understood on 3 a. It's a bit of a different story and I do want to thank my colleague commissioner trump for for for this amendment trump 3 a a rulemaking at CPSC should be based on sound data and thorough analysis as we all like to say CPSC is or should be. We're not always a data driven agency. This is a request for information and it would solicit important feedback from stakeholders and for those reasons, I do vote yes. Thank you, commissioner commissioner boil. I want to thank my colleague commissioner trump for raising this issue repeatedly and with a strong voice. I fully support this approach. I think we have been daunted by our resource constraints when we're talking about chronic hazards. And while that is a reality, we still need to press forward on these issues and I fully support this amendment. Thank you commissioner commissioner trump. Did you have any final thoughts? No, thank y'all for your consideration hearing no further questions or comments on this amendment. I want to thank my fellow commissioners for engagement and pass for a vote commissioner Feldman. Yes, I'm clear as well. Yeah, we'll do a vote on on amendment 3 a. Yes, on 3 a commissioner trump go. That would have been nice if I could snuck 3 in there somehow by accident, but I also vote yes on 3 a. Mr boil, I vote yes. And I vote yes on 3 a the yeses are for the known zero the amendment. Uh, Trump got 3 a is adopted. Uh, sure Trump could you have additional amendment. Just 1 more I call up trump of 5. You introduce trump to 5.  Uh, that would probably help. Okay, so, so trump to 5 direct staff to monitor international consumer product safety and hazardous substance research and rule makings.  And because of those funding limitations, we need to take every opportunity we can to efficiently use our resources. And to the degree that our priorities align, I think we'd be smart to draw from consumer safety work done in other countries. Rather than starting from scratch in our analysis, you know, each time possible consumer safety hazard comes to light, we should have a finger on the pulse of similar analysis happening abroad. And so this amendment will help us I think stretch our shoestring budget a little bit further by seeing what others are doing around the world. Do I hear a 2nd 2nd? Thank you. I'm sure having heard a 2nd, we moved to consideration of this amendment and recognize myself for 5 minutes. Mr. Trump, I appreciate this amendment and I appreciate the thoughts behind it. I think that we can learn from our colleagues overseas as to what they're doing when it comes to product safety in many ways. We lead the world in product safety and cpse actually sets the standard that other people follow, but I am not so arrogant as to think that we can't learn from from those abroad as well. So, based on my understanding of this amendment and how it's done, doesn't necessarily mean that we are looking at all the every work that's being done across the world, which would be. Impossible, but it's really focused on coordinating with other federal agencies and international partners, something that we are. We are doing to some degree, but obviously this highlights it. So, if other countries have innovative steps for take consumers, we should learn from those and be aware of it. So, I have to support this amendment commissioner. Well, follow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you commissioner Trump for this amendment. I do appreciate it, but I also question whether this is the appropriate time to include this sort of coordination in our operating plan. As we've all noted today, CPSC is a resource constrained agency and frankly, I'm more interested in seeing America lead on safety rather than follow the suit of our foreign counterparts. As my colleague commissioner Trump noted during the discussion earlier today about my amendment to coordinate with US antitrust experts. Even he is concerned that this sort of coordination would divert important resources away from other priorities. If that's a concern on antitrust and anti competitiveness effects. I think the same principle applies here. Accordingly, I'm a no on trunk of 5. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do support this amendment. I frankly think it reflects work that is ongoing already by staff. I do think we monitor standards and and glean information from them. I will also go what the chair has said. I do think we are the safety leader. And when we do compare our standards to standards around the world, we surely come out on top in most cases. That said, anytime there's information we can use to improve our safety work and build on work that as I say, I believe staff is already doing. I think that's an important thing to do. So, I support this amendment. Sorry about that. Thank you, Commissioner Boyle. Commissioner Trump. Do you have any final thoughts? Sure, you know, and I definitely appreciate and agree with so much of what I heard there in so many ways. We are the world leader on safety issues. I think 1 area where we have an opportunity to learn significantly is European chemical regulation. And so, hopefully we keep a very watchful eye in that space. Thank you thank you hearing no further questions or comments. Um, I'm going to ask for the vote at this point in time. Commissioner Feldman now. Commissioner Trump, I vote yes. Commissioner Boyle, yes, and I vote yes. Yes. So 3, the nose or 1, uh, the amendments. Trump 5 is adopted. I'm sure Trump, did you have additional amendments? I do not. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Boyle have amendments. I do, I believe this is the last amendment of the day, but from my vantage point, it is certainly not the least. And I just, we'd like my amendment has several parts. I'd like to walk through the technical parts in the amendment and then more importantly, talk about why I'm offering this amendment and why it's. Such a high priority for me. So, just on the technical parts, my amendment focuses on the need for continued baby safety research. It clarifies the subjects of the rule makings. It authorizes staff to proceed to a final rule making in the case of infant pillows. And finally, the amendment adds an additional bullet to the priority list in order to reflect the importance of implementing congressional direction on battery ingestion. So, as I said, the briefing, when we were talking with staff about priorities, my top priority has been and will continue to be a focus on baby and child safety. And this amendment reflects that priority and commitment to protecting the most vulnerable. And on continued research on baby safety, especially in the area of infancy, that is just vitally important. We need to continue to do more work. So, let's be perfectly clear lives are at stake babies lives are at stake. And so, to the extent that additional funds are available as requested under the budget, I believe those funds should be used to further infant sleep research, including research on hazards associated with chin to chest scenarios, which we frequently see in cases of infant sleep related deaths. Indeed, just last July, when you American Academy of pediatrics updated safety, sleep recommendations, lead author, Dr. Rachel moon, emphasize the need for continued focus on safe sleep. She said, we've made great strides in learning what keeps infant sleep safe during sleep, but much work still needs to be done. Let me emphasize that much work needs to be done and we should be spending our dollars supporting that work. Now, let me turn to the part of my amendment related to infant pillows and nursing pillows. I mentioned of the briefing a couple of weeks ago that I was drafted the language. I thought it was a bit confusing and I the language that I've drafted here just clarifies that there are differences between infant pillows and nursing pillows. And that we will be addressing those 2 separate product categories and separate rule makings infant pillows and nursing pillows nursing pillows are currently unregulated. And I support the staff proposal to move forward with the NPR infant pillows. On the other hand, we're ban 2, 2, 2 decades ago and staff is proposing an NPR related to the scope of that ban fully support staff's proposal, which builds on the data analysis and technical review that was authorized in last year's operating. Plan, but I'm also seeking a change within the mandatory standards table to authorize staff to continue their work this year on a final rule following completion of an NPR. Now, my inclusion of a final year is meant to ensure that the work will not artificially stop in the 1st part of the rule making process. The NPR is completed with this direction to move to a final rule. Staff can continue to work seamlessly on this project as resources allow without having to halt as a result of an artificial framework. This approach makes the plan a living document that sets a framework for the projects that are expected to be accomplished, but also allows for organic change and flexibility by authorizing additional work if resources and circumstances allow. So, it's not unnecessarily slow rule making it is a paradigm shift in how we look at the operating plan. It will allow rule making to proceed at a faster place pace when possible. We've done it elsewhere in this document with respect to information disclosure and now in the approved amendment today related to portable generators. And indeed, it is consistent with congressional direction and reasons law that set the expectation that work of this nature would proceed in 1 fiscal year. I strongly believe we should adopt this approach with infant pillows today to protect our most vulnerable population. Let me repeat what I've already said, lives are at stake. Babies lives are at stake baby safety has long been 1 of the commission's top priorities and approving this amendment reaffirmed that priority. Indeed, I've lived this priority as a proud longtime member of the staff and as a commissioner, I intend to use my voice to press for continued progress and for the high expectations and can and should set when it comes to protecting the vulnerable among us. I asked for my colleague support. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Do I hear a 2nd? 2nd hearing a 2nd move to consideration of the amendment and recognize myself for 5 minutes. As you have said, you have been focused on infant safety and know that priority is reflected in many of the amendments that you offered and were included in the manager's package and I agree we need to continue to focus on infant safety. It is the largest areas of hazards for the commission with respect to the research side of things my understanding is that there is money in the plan for research that will continue. And if we get more money from Congress, I agree, we should be able to put more money into infant research and build upon what's already in the operating plan. I think that the concern that I have with the amendment is really about the direction to staff with respect to moving to a final rule on the. In the pillow's portion of it, part of the operating plan, we have so we have 2 new NPR is 1 of them. As you said, regarding in the pillows, the other 1 is regarding nursing pillows. That is important work that commission needs to put forward as quickly as possible. And I do think that even once you get those packages done. Staff should and will continue working on the next stages of those because, as you said, we're not done or done when we have a final rule out there. And honestly, we're not done then. Then we move into the enforcement phase as to making sure that those standards are being met and that there aren't harmful products on the marketplace. So I appreciate and I agree with the sentiment of the sport needs to continue and move on as quickly as possible. And that that being said, we are both limited in the constraints under what we can do with the current resources and what the staff believes we have the ability to to do in terms of moving from this point, a pre NPR stage to a final rule. And based on my conversations issuing an NPR and reaching a final rule on infant pillows is beyond what can be done this year. Staff has. Has made clear that given the analysis that needs to be done and the multiple demands are out there. It's going to take until the following year to complete the work and move to a final rule. I mean, in the end, we have to be bold. We have to, but we also need to be realistic about what they can be done. I want I too want this done quickly, but I also want to make sure it's unwell and it's going to survive any and all challenges to a final rule as well. But, yeah, I want to be clear. I expect staff to continue working on the proceeding even after the NPR has been issued by the commission. So that we can move forward as quickly as possible. So I sympathize and I agree with your sentiment that this is a living process that has to be done. It has to be done quickly. And if work progresses more quickly than anticipated work, we get the resources that we are asking from from Congress and we can and should reassess what can be done. But at this point in time, we need to set the setting expectations for this. The staff is being what's done through this document and not any expectations, but expectations that are based on. On what they can do and what I'm hearing is that it's not doable within this time frame. So, I have torn them out this, but I can't support the amendment at this point in time. Commissioner Belman, thank you. And I want to thank my colleague for this amendment. Mr chairman. I appreciate your comments and I agree for those reasons. I'm also in on boil too. Thank you. Commissioner Trump, thank you for introducing this amendment. Infant pillows are unsafe for sleep. They can kill infants we on this commission have read the incident reports only a firm flat surface. They say for infancy this agency, as you pointed out, determined a long while ago that pillow should be banned. And the agency issued the ban the pillows on the market at that time tended to be filled with a different material than they are today. We're currently considering whether to expand that ban to other pillows that have different filling. We've recently taken legal action to remove certain infant pillows that agency staff. Well, I just pose a substantial product hazard, but we owe certainty to parents and even industry. And that can come from rulemaking much of the work should already be done on this point and we should be able to move fast. Commissioner Boyle, I share your sense of urgency on this issue. I think you and I are in lockstep on infant safety. I don't believe we have time to waste. We should resolve this issue this year. And so I am a very strong. Yes, on this amendment. Commissioner Boyle comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to commissioner of Trump for that strong support. And just in response to you, Mr. Chair, I actually think we're in agreement because you said that if work progresses and change circumstances, which we all know can happen, we can reassess all this does is say that they're authorized to reassess and move forward as circumstances dictate. So, I actually think we are in agreement and I over my long time at the agency, things that look impossible today frequently turn out to be possible tomorrow. And while I know the car, the carillary is true where things that would possible turn out to be impossible. I'd like us to focus on the former and say that all this amendment does is authorized staff to proceed to a final rule of circumstances. Allow, it does not require it. It does not dictate it. It just says this is an urgent priority of the commission and that is why I am offering it. So, I appreciate the comments. I understand scarce resources and all this does is say that this is a priority and we should make it a priority if we can understanding that there are limitations and that if that happens, we will appreciate that from staff. But that at this point, we are saying what a priority of the commission is and that is to make sure that we look at something that's been on the books for 20 years and that the commission long has endorsed. So, I appreciate my colleagues and I look forward to the call of the vote. Thank you, Commissioner Boyle hearing no additional comments this point in time, vote. Commissioner Feldman. I vote no, Commissioner Trunca. Yes, I assure Boyle. Yes. I, unfortunately, I'm going to vote no on this one. I will willing to reassess in the mid year based on what's going on. But at this point in time, the yeses are to the nose or to in the motion to approve was amendments not adopted. Commissioner Boyle, did you have additional amendments? I do not. Hearing no additional amendments in a move to approve the staff draft fiscal year 2023 operating plan as amendment. Is there a second? Second, you can move to a vote. Commissioner Feldman. How do you vote? I vote no. Commissioner Trunca. I vote yes, Mr. Boyle. I vote yes. And I vote yes as well. Yeses of threes and those are 1, the motion to approve staff draft fiscal year 2023 operating plan as amended passes. We're now going to move, sorry, now I'm going to have up to 10 minutes for commissioner for any closing remarks. And I'm going to start. So, I want to 1st, thank everybody. Thank you for for the engagement discussions on what is. Extremely important, difficult process for setting forth our operating plan, their expectations for what the staff will do in the coming year. And I look forward to reassessing that based off of what Congress decides is our final level of preparations. And as we do often in our mid-year, but maybe we'll get our final appropriations faster and then we'll be able to do it quicker. But tomorrow is the 50th anniversary for CPSC. And I'd like to note that because it's extremely important and extremely important agency that I'm proud to be part of. We've made a tremendous amount of progress since Congress created our agency in 1972. And that's thanks, a great part. Thanks to the work of the agency that many hazards of threatened Americans back then don't exist today. And while our safety work has evolved, it's consistent product safety hazards have evolved, things remain the same. We continue to have a mighty vision with a small budget compared to what other federal agencies have. And it's because of the dedication, hard work of the staff that we're continuing to be able to make the world a safer place. Just this past year, we conducted more than 200 recalls, assessed more than $38 million in civil penalties when companies failed to comply with our safety laws. Roof more than 40,000 dangerous products from e-commerce sites and screen more than 40,000 harmful shipments coming in at our potentially harmful shipments coming in at our borders. Can we do more? Absolutely our fiscal year 2023 operating plan that we just approved shows that with additional resources, staff and funding, you could solve many more safety problems. Despite these limited resources, the need to make some very hard decisions, staff put forward an aggressive and ambitious plan. And through that, we're going to be engaging in 27 rulemaking activities, at least 86 voluntary standards activities, publishing 13 hazard classification reports, enforcing for new mandatory safety standards and moving forward. They're keep filing pilot project to minimize import safety work. So, I'm excited about our work plan for this fiscal year, past a number of amendments today that pushed a very aggressive plan even further into that end. I want to say consumers know that we're going to use every resource we have to move the ball forward on safety and department you with safety information you need to keep yourself and your loved ones safe. To CPSC's product safety community now that we want apartment with you to improve safety through efforts like voluntary standards and voluntary recalls and training, but when safety is not advanced, we will use our authorities and resources to move mandatory standards and recalls forward. And finally, the CPSC staff, I want you to know that we're proud of you and proud of your work and what you've accomplished so far. None of our safety work happens without you and yes, this this plan is ambitious, but together we can do it and prove safety in the lives for all Americans. So, I want to thank the staff for their hard work and putting this package together. I want to thank my fellow commissioners and their staffs for their amendments and the support of the plan. And I'm looking forward to continuing our safety work laying the foundation for the next 50 years of safer products. That to Mr. Feldman, do you have a statement? I do, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you in particular and also extend a warm word of thanks to my colleagues and to agency staff for everyone's hard work on this operating plan. This has been a highly collaborative effort with a lot of give and take. Not everyone got everything that they wanted in the final plan. But the final plan, as I understand it includes at least some of every commissioners priorities and that's a sign, frankly, of a well functioning agency and a welcome departure from how we've handled these operating plans in the past. Mr. Chairman, I think that is in large part due directly to your leadership and I want to thank you and I want to thank my colleagues. It's I was ultimately a no. On this plan for reasons that I've stated previously, I believe that we should have begun this process working within a framework that better reflects the current fiscal reality in which we find ourselves. Nevertheless, I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues and agency staff to implement this plan in the coming fiscal year. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner Trump. Thank you with the inclusion of our amendments. This operating plan now moves our agency farther and faster than ever in its mission to protect people from dangerous products. My driving purpose as a consumer safety advocate is to get hidden hazards out of American homes to do so. It's imperative that we devote as much time, energy and resources as possible to regulating chronic hazards. In adopting my amendment to start work on gas stove safety, CPSC will be at the forefront of addressing what appears to be a very serious safety hazard that has stayed hidden for a long time. I'm also heartened that we're taking on the fire safety of side by sides this year of all the products in our jurisdiction off road vehicles like side by sides and ATVs rank as number 1 in terms of injuries and deaths. There's an urgent need for our attention and for real progress, which we've achieved in this plan. I'm confident that we're going to prevent side by side from catching fire without warning and burning passengers through our staff's hard work on the challenges that lie ahead. And getting portable generator regulation to the finish line this year will be make a huge difference. We see so many unnecessary deaths from those products and heartbreaking situations and I like forward to a day when we don't have to warn people who are just hit by hurricanes or winter storms about the danger of running these machines to keep themselves warm or to keep lights on. The hardest part of developing and refining this operating plan was being forced to choose among so many priority projects. But that process brings into focus just how much critical work this agency is doing. Every single CPSC is employee is contributing to that work and every hour of your time matters. The amendment to recalibrate how we measure success with voluntary standards will work not only to celebrate staff successes there. But it will also train our focus on making the most productive use of staff's time. I'm also very happy that we'll be streamlining staff's consideration of criminal referrals for the most egregious corporate wrongdoing. Every time we decide to issue a civil penalty, we're also going to be assessing whether to make a criminal referral to the department of justice. I think we will see more criminal referrals for egregious corporate conduct than ever before. Making an example out of the worst offenders will send a strong message to corporate board rules. We will not tolerate recklessness when it comes to safety. If you put profits over people's lives, you will pay with your freedom. Maybe a CEO can write off a fine is the cost of doing business. Prison time changes that calculus. Lastly, it's not often in today's climate that you see the level of. Prosperity collaboration required to reach consensus on so many truly pressing consumer safety issues. But with the help of our hardworking staff and leadership of our chair and these commissioners, we reach an agreement that will squeeze every drop out of our limited resources and do right by American consumers. This is about to be a very good year for safety. Thank you. Commissioner. Commissioner. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. And of course, I too want to thank the staff for all of their hard work, not just in putting this document together, but in the professional and expert execution. I know we'll be underway and implement implementing the path we've set today in the operating plan. You know, I also want to thank my colleagues for working with me and my staff and developing amendments to the plan. I really appreciate your support and your thoughtful input. We'll have a longer written statement, but for now, I just want to highlight a few points. I believe the operating plan should reflect our priorities. And I think the amended document does reflect my priority to protect vulnerable populations. It also reflects my priorities with respect to chronic hazards. We must keep those front and center, even in the face of limited resources. And on that score, I'm particularly pleased that we'll be working to address PFAS and gas stoves. Finally, I want to emphasize my belief that we should approach the operating plan as a living document through which we authorized staff to proceed at an accelerated pace on projects and rule makings as circumstances and resources allow. As I said already, this would be a paradigm shift in how we approach the plan, but rulemaking in particular does not is not a static exercise that should be bound by artificial parameters of a fiscal year. I'm happy that we've begun to use that approach in this operating plan on information disclosure and portable generators. And I look forward to using such a flexible approach in the future so that we can respond more nimbly to circumstances and the as the availability availability of resources allows. And so, again, thank you to everyone involved in this process. I look forward to implementing this plan in the year ahead. Thank you. Mr. Thank you. Sure. Well, and thanks again to all the staff with our hard work and for the efforts of my fellow commissioners. This concludes today's decisional meeting of the consumer products safety commission.


More cross-team collaboration, higher job satisfaction among your employees, better code, sounds good, right? Today we'll learn how Delta has delivered these outcomes for their teams through the adoption of two approaches to collaboration, inner-sourcing and mob programming. In this talk, Delta engineers, Ankur and Lauren will show how and why they adopted inner-source and mob programming to deliver shared solutions across their organization. You'll hear about where the inspiration for these approaches came from, how they grew these initiatives over time, lessons learned along the way, and even how some of this work led to a contribution to Gillette. I am Ankur Marfathya. I have been at Delta Airlines for 17 years. Over the years, I have enjoyed various roles at Delta. I'm currently managing the DevSecOps experience team. My team helps set up development and DevSecOps standards for Delta, in line with our short-term and long-term vision by collaborating with various stakeholders. I regularly organize and facilitate enterprise-wide developer discussions on various topics. I also develop, facilitate, and conduct, both in-person and video-based corporate training on the latest tools and technologies. I like learning new things, as well as participating in innovation challenges. Of work, you can find me at various virtual, as well as in-person, meet-ups around Atlanta. Hello, my name is Lauren Kirby, and I am a DevSecOps engineer at Delta Airlines. I've been at Delta for about two and a half years. I'm a delivery automation leader, with more than 37 years experience in software development. Recently, I've been working on creating Tecton pipelines to support migration to OpenShift on AWS. The Tecton pipelines have benefited from knowledge I gained, working on the Jenkins Templating Engine inner-source project. These pipelines provide full functionality, including testing, code coverage, sonar scans, security scans, packaging, and deployment. We support Maven, Gradle, and very soon Node.js build types. I've also been a DevOps coach in the Delta Airlines Speed to Market Dojo, and the Delta Agile Coaching Office. I'm an experienced full-stack developer on many platforms and using a wide variety of languages and tools. Delta Airlines is the leading US global airline leader in products, services, innovation, and reliability, reliability, and customer experience. Powered by its people around the world, Delta continues to invest in its people, improving the air travel experience, and generating industry-leading shareholder returns. With an overall score of 860 out of 1,000, Delta was recognized as number one in customer satisfaction among airlines in North America by JD Power. Delta Airlines is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Our journey begins in pursuit of a good pipeline, so let's define it. A good pipeline should have various points of feedback that aid in continuous improvement. Feedback about simple things. Like, does the code compile correctly? Does the added code have any negative impact on existing code? Are the unit tests written for this purpose of good quality? What is the quality of the code itself in terms of industry standards? Are there any security vulnerabilities in the components? Are there any security vulnerabilities in the compiled code? In no particular order, of course. This feedback should be available at points where it is most important in terms of providing value. We have all heard about shifting left, security shifts left, quality shifts left, but how much left should it shift? When does it give us most value to execute each step and seek feedback? The answers differ from organization to organization, and sometimes from team to team within the same organization. There are a lot of tools listed here. To create a pipeline that encompasses all these is extremely difficult. Some may say the most difficult things about DevOps is the integration of tools into a pipeline. In fact, it is not uncommon in today's DevOps landscape to spend more time integrating new tools with existing tools than to learn its use. Too many questions and decisions before we build a pipeline. In August of 2019, my teammate Eranseri and I were invited to attend the DevOps world Jenkins world event organized by Cloudbees and the Jenkins open source community in San Francisco. We picked up an inner source idea based on an open source project by a company, Booz Allen Hamilton, known as the Jenkins templating engine. Developers would have to write a small configuration file and a pipeline would be automatically created for them. Not only that, this pipeline would be centrally controlled. So later, if a new stage needs to be introduced, it could be added with minimal developer action and executed on the next run. Imagine redoing hundreds of pipelines when you need to make a small change and you can understand why this idea was of great interest to us. We have a practice in DevOps COE after any conference that any one of us attends, we come back and discuss what are the new ideas that appeal to us and sort out ways in which we can benefit from it as a company. The JTE idea was no different. Inner source is the use of open source software development best practices and establishments of open source like culture within organizations. At any given time, at a large organization, there are various teams running into the same issues or similar issues. Various teams across the enterprise are working in silos to solve these issues individually and sometimes repeatedly on different projects. The goal of the inner source effort is to bring these individuals together around these issues so they can be solved at a common place and solutions can be collectively improved upon over time. The industry has realized various benefits of inner source. The openness of the project extends across many teams within the organization. Programmers share their work with a wide audience instead of just with a manager or team. Anyone in the team is free to view the code, comment on it, learn new skills by examining it, submit changes that they think will improve it or customize it to their needs. Each team can understand the code and the architecture of modules developed by other teams. New code repositories based on the project can be freely created so teams with unanticipated users of the code can adopt it. It is a great way to reuse code across the organization and make cross team collaboration relatively frictionless. These efforts are known to promote greater intellectual growth and job satisfaction. So how does an inner source project differ from a regular development project? First, continuous learning is a critical part of each development. It instills a culture of change to give employees the confidence to contribute code to other teams. The host organization allows others outside the team to play a major role in developing, testing, documenting and promoting the software, creating a level playing field for all contributors. Writing unit tests becomes a key programming task. Constant code reviews are part and parcel of life. The written comments exchanged among team members, although taking up some time, more than pay for themselves by helping new developers learn the system faster. The project involves the end users in relatively old-fashioned ways such as through alpha and beta releases. At Delta, we implemented inner source first by creating an enterprise inner source committee. The job of the committee was to seek out and approve projects appropriate for this program. Set and review standard operating procedures. Decide upon and award contribution initiatives. Make sure that the promotion system functions correctly in the inner source organization. Second, we created a group of trusted contributors for each onboarded project. Next, we identify and create a committee of maintainers who are responsible for driving the vision of each product. Could be the same group as the trusted contributors or a subgroup or completely different group. Their job is to promote the projects and encourage committers. Also maintaining a channel of communication with users of the product so that they can gather new requirements and track bugs. The idea of an automated way to create enterprise pipelines was appealing to all of us. We invited our entire DevOps team to our first mob programming session however only I and Ankur turned up. I had done some reading about JTE and Ankur had glanced at the documentation. It was fair to say we did not know much other than that we had a goal and a strong desire to achieve it. We spent about two hours in that session mobbing or rather pairing interrupted by my one-on-one with my manager. At the end of that session we were able to set up the Jenkins instance and we could build and unit test a sample application using Gradle. It may seem trivial but this was a significant first step. It was a success that left us confident in what we were doing and wanting to do more. What is mob programming you may ask? Mob programming is a variation on pair programming. In mob programming there is a driver and several navigators.  The role of the driver is to take what the navigators describe and enter it into the computer. The role of the navigators is to analyze a problem and give the driver instructions on what to input into the computer. At predetermined intervals the driver becomes a navigator and one of the navigators takes over as driver. We usually do this as a round robin. At first we used an ordinary kitchen timer to time the intervals. To quote a leading expert mob programming is all the great minds coming together in a room at one computer to solve a problem. For a thought to pass from one person's mind into the computer it must first pass through another person's hands.  I first learned about mob programming at the dojo consortium which is an annual conference of companies that have established internal dojos. I was impressed by the idea and eager to try it. We had a situation where in one of our classes only about 10% of the learners were completing the lab. We tried mobbing on the lab in small groups of four to five participants and went to 90% of the participants completing. Since that went well we tried it on another class with the same results. Those of you who facilitate adult learning know that having 90% of the participants complete the work is an excellent result. Why would we want to work this way? Well there are a number of reasons. Knowledge sharing, continuous code and design reviews, many perspectives on the work, we work on the right things, rapid feedback, better solutions, the flow of the work, higher quality, it's more fun, less stressful, and more engaging just to name a few. How can five people be productive, all working together on the same thing? Well we can think of productivity as the output we get from certain inputs. We can think of efficiency as doing things right and we can think of effectiveness as doing the right thing. When we're mobbing we don't make we don't mistake productivity for accomplishment. A better question we might ask would be how can we be effective if we separate the people who should be working together? Some of the things that make us less effective are communication problems, decision-making problems, technical debt, politics, meetings, mob programming addresses all of these. Over the next few weeks we recruited a few more contributors and they brought along a few more themselves. Soon we had Iran, Anthony, Rakesh, Krishna, Macau, Michael, Donald, Jason, Shailesh, myself, and Ankur meeting regularly to try and build this system. We were truly mobbing. As we started mobbing we realized a few things. This was a very creative and active way to work but a few issues started to surface. We started with one dedicated device that every driver used. This led to some awkwardness. Some of us were used to using Macs, some Windows, some of us used Atom, others used Eclipse or IntelliJ. In addition to being told what to type we ended up coaching the driver on how to navigate what felt like a foreign computer. There had to be a better way. We decided that everyone should use their own machine when it was their turn to drive. This made the drivers happier. It also meant that every driver had to take extra time to check in their code and the next driver would have to pull before starting. The minutes started adding up and our efficiencies started to drop. There was a better solution. This is when we decided to give GitLab's Web IDE a try. We managed our backlog in issues. Issues became merge requests. Merge requests became branches and branches we would open in the Web IDE so we could make quick changes. For our simple pipeline design applications this worked well. It worked very well with our GitFlow process that we had established. Committing the code between transitioning drivers was quick. Then came the pandemic and we found ourselves working remotely. Fortunately many of the things we had learned mobbing together each on our own computers translated nicely into remote working. We found that screen sharing and using the Web IDE worked well for small changes. For large changes we were able to use Microsoft Visual Studio Code with the live sharing feature. When we were in person we used the kitchen timer but working remotely we found that the timer provided by Pomodoro gives more visibility although we still use the kitchen timer as well. We also used Microsoft Teams meetings and screen sharing. Most team members were able to adapt and be productive working remotely. Some didn't like the remote mobbing and found it difficult to stay focused and present. Some key takeaways we learned were to minimize distractions like cell phones and other devices. Be disciplined in the use of the timer and changing drivers. Don't require everyone to drive. If there's one person who's significantly more knowledgeable about a particular topic ask them to drive last or not to drive and be sure to take regular breaks. We also learned the importance of setting a single clear objective for each mobbing session staying focused and having a brief retrospective or review at the end of each session. Every inner source effort requires a website one that can communicate well what the project is about attract new contributors as well as users. The original open source project used a framework known as PINX to convert Markdown to HTML. One of the advantages of using GitLab we have found is you can use Git pages to host a static website. There are various frameworks supported which will help you convert Markdown documentation to HTML. Unfortunately, PINX isn't one of them. So we decided to build one ourselves. As you can see we have started with a basic image installed a few system and Python packages moved out generated HTML code to public folder and published the website. To do this we studied how PINX would work offline and converted it into a pipeline process and implemented it with GitLab CI.yaml. And yes, we mobbed over this sub project as well and it was amazing how quickly it was built out. We now have a merge request pending with GitLab and hopefully it will get approved soon. Ever since that first project we have tried mobbing in a few different inner source efforts and currently we are actively using it for our daily sprint stories. We've added a few more tools to our repertoire based on the projects that we're working on. For simple changes Web IDE is still our go-to but for a bit more complicated development Visual Studio Code along with Live Share and Live Share Pomodoro are soon becoming favorites. We will be available after this session if you have any questions about our journey or if you want to know how you can start your own. Also, we have shared some helpful links on this slide. Thank you for your time and we hope that you have learned something new today. Don't be afraid to reach out to us. Thank you.


One of the problems that people's low vision and cognitive capability problems are is trying to read prescription bottles and a company called Scriptok from Envision, I'm sorry, the company's Envision America, the product is called Scriptok, aims to solve that problem. I am here with Amanda Tulson and she's going to tell us all about it. Yeah, so thanks for coming over to the booth, I love sharing this information. Scriptok is a free service that's provided by the pharmacy as an ADA accommodation, so anything. Meaning they have to do it? Well, it's, yes they do, but they don't have to do it well, but they are doing it well. That's right, and they don't have to do ours, there are other options on the market, but ours is pretty common in most of your chains, this is what you're going to find.  Okay, so Scriptok is available at lots of pharmacies throughout the United States, Walmart, Sam's Club, Kroger Brand, Albertsons, lots of them, so it's a free service, patient can get a reader in their home that reads all of the prescription information on the label or they can use a free smartphone app. So how does it read a label, how does that work? So the pharmacy puts on a special RFID label that has all of the text data stored in it. And that's actually on the bottom of the bottle, correct? That's correct, they place that label on the bottom of the bottle, or if it's a box or packaged like that they have a special hang tag so you know where it is to find it. Okay, so I've got one of these prescription bottles in my hand, it's got a little RFID tag on the bottom, and she's holding a device that's maybe four inches in diameter and I'm going to hold it somewhere on top. Just put it on the top, you just place it right there on the top of the device. There's three raised buttons at the bottom, we're going to press the center button. Patient, John J. Smith, medication, amoxicillin, 250 milliliters. So it's amoxicillin for John J. Smith. That's right and it would keep telling us how to take it, how many refills we have remaining, everything that's on the print label is going to be read out loud to the patient, including warnings. Oh, including warnings, yeah, that's the good one. Don't drink with that, I don't care what you say. So the RFID tag gets put on by the pharmacy and the device, the Scriptalk, is free to the consumer? Yes, exactly. So that's a weird business model for you, how does that work? So the pharmacy, it's just built in that the pharmacy buys software and hardware and labels from us and then we make sure that the patients are getting everything they need to access the labels that are being created. The pharmacy just fills out a form and says, hey John Smith's going to use us for Scriptalk. We have an entire patient care advocate staff that reaches out to the patient, goes over it, says hey do you want the app, do you want the device and then they get them set up with whichever one and we follow up with them on a regular basis to make sure everything's still working right for them. So this is helpful for a lot more than purely, completely blind people. Oh, absolutely, there's no visual acuity qualification for this, which means it does not matter why you need this service, you can get it. Whether it's a literacy, whether you have a cognitive need to listen to an auditory instruction, doesn't matter, you're eligible. So dyslexia, I'm just getting old and can't pay attention long enough. Absolutely, all of those are great reasons why you would need something like this. Wow, this is really, really interesting and free. Did she say free to us? The pharmacies cover the cost. Absolutely, free, free, free. That is fantastic. So where would people find Scriptalk? And that's without a T, by the way. So it's like prescription talk, script talk. Yep, so it's S-C-R-I-P and then T-A-L-K, all one word. You can actually call us at 1-800-890-1180 and we have an entire patient care staff that can help you or you can find us online at www.invision and that's E-N-V-I-S-I-O-N America dot com. Very good, well thank you very much. This is really cool, I've never heard of this before. This is fantastic. Great, thank you for coming by.


Good day, fellow investors. Over the past years, over emails, I really get high conviction comments about investing in Deutsche Bank. And even in the comments in the comment section here on YouTube, I often get comments, what do you think about Deutsche Bank? And after the current developments, I really want to give you my opinion on why I never invested in Deutsche Bank, why I never bothered about Deutsche Bank, because it's pretty simple. A investor should invest within his circle of competence. If Deutsche Bank, the global banking system, derivatives, is your circle of competence, then invest. If not, layback, as Buffett would say, I'm mostly paid to do nothing, and layback, wait for investments, for good investments, within your circle of competence to come to you, and then invest. Let me explain. If we just look at Deutsche Bank over the last decade or more, we see that it was a clear downward trend. And I think that people were looking at stock prices above 15, 2010, 11, stock prices above 100 in 2007, and then comparing to the current price 2018, 2017, 2016, all those times when I used to get those comments. And with high conviction, they were expecting all things will improve, things will get better, it's Deutsche, it's Deutsche. And unfortunately, I never heard from them anymore, but a lot of them invested, and they are now suffering heavy losses. And over the last week, I've certainly got another five emails. What do you think about Deutsche Bank? Should you invest? Now it's good time. You should look at financing banks, et cetera, because Deutsche is cheap. And then how to know whether something is within your circle of competence? Read the annual report. If we look at the annual report of Deutsche, yes, it has 448 pages of a banking report. So you start, you read it, and if you can clearly understand the risks and rewards of what the bank is doing, compare to the stock price, then you can know whether to invest in it or not. So let's take a look. On page 145 of the 2018 annual report, you have a description of the derivative business. So notional amounts of derivatives on basis of clearing channel and type of derivative. And if you look at all those derivatives, if you can understand them, then feel free to invest in them. If not, well, avoid this. And if you look at the sum of the derivatives at the bottom here, it's 43,449,514 million euros. So compare that to the market capitalization of 13.6 billion to translate the derivative amount is 43.4 trillion euros. 43.4 trillion versus 13.6 billion euros of market capitalization. If you can value that, you can invest in Deutsche. If not, when it comes to some investments, it's simply better to stay away. For me, it was pretty simple. A professional investor 20, 30 years of experience simply said it like this. Deutsche Bank usually gets the deals that are a bag of worms that none of the others, Goldman, JPMorgan, Citi, etc., want to touch. And then Deutsche comes in and takes those deals. And therefore, after things change in the environment, you get into trouble, which is exactly what has been going on with Deutsche. Just back to the risks. It's too much for me. When it comes to Deutsche, the risks are simply too high, too difficult to analyze and there is the risk of permanent capital loss. What's the 1% loss on the derivative portfolio? 1% of 43 trillion is 440 billion, thus 30 times the market capitalization. I have no idea what will happen, but my message is simple. If something is not within your circle of competence, don't invest in it. If you want to make it your circle of competence, I'm sure you can make money on DB, be it shorting, be it going up, be it going down. But it's a very difficult way to make money and I prefer as investors, as a retail investor, a more laid-back approach when we know to look at the business with better margins of safety, less risk, no derivatives, tailwinds, future tailwinds, no euro exposure, etc., etc., that give us more certainty to make money in the long run and, as Buffett would say, The first rule of an investment is don't lose. And the second rule of an investment is don't forget the first rule and that's all the rules there are. I mean that if you buy things for far below what they're worth and you buy a group of them, you basically don't lose money. So that's it. If you want to speculate on Deutsche Bank, be your guest. But don't ask me what do I think about Deutsche? Or here is my answer. What do I think about Deutsche and why I don't do anything about it? Thank you for watching. This might be the most important video that I have done in a while because investing is mostly about saying no, no, no, no, no, no. And only when something really meets your criteria then you take your hard-earned money and then you put it into that business, not the stock going up or down or looking cheap from a best historical perspective. To conclude, you should really leave DB to professional investors, hedge fund investors that understand the risk reward better, that approach it in a statistical way. So they have 10 banks like this, Greek banks, Hong Kong, Kyle Bass style of investments. And they have the legal power. They have the political connections. They have the long-term orientation. They have the capital to know how to invest and how to get out with minimal loss or low risk or even no risk and higher reward. They buy the derivatives. They hedge themselves and things like that. That 99.99% of us of the 41,000, 2,000 subscribers cannot do. So this is the message. Thank you for watching. Looking forward to your comments and I'll see you in the next video tomorrow.